Anyone up for sharing their opinion on something?
I'm helping out on a new project where they are trying to build a brand with an audience that is not too dissimilar to the readership here (possibly not as old and jaded as us, but there are similarities none the less). The .com of the brand name is predictably taken (by an a company in an unrelated industry). Favourite options are .net, .tech or .digital
Some stakeholders have suggested that .net sounds "old skool" or "spammy" .
Others that .tech or .digital "sound desperate" "are gimmicky" or "don't look like domain names if you see them out of context"
any thoughts?
somewebtech.net
somewebtech.digital
somewebtech.tech
.net because it is shorter
Quote from: Travoli on June 12, 2017, 02:35:35 PM
.net because it is shorter
That is what I said. That is when the "old school" and "spammy" comments came out and I'm wondering if that was about .net domains or me !
Option D I suppose would be change the name and go .com
What's wrong with being old school? There's no school like the old school... ;)
I don't particularly see .net as being spammy but given the choice I'd find a different name and go with .com if it was possible.
>Option D I suppose would be change the name and go .com
That one.
D.
Option D
Otherwise .net
In tech circles *everything* seems to be on .io domains now. That's where all the cool kids are. Though some of the coolest kids, like github, redirect to the .com
If you can't go for D, can you go for E?
.io is unfortunately taken. That was my thought too. We've tried to make contact about a sale as it seems to just be getting used for someones personal mail etc. No response though
>spammy
.tech and .digital look more spammy than .net.
I vote option D also.
D
I have to agree with D, for non-business .org can work too.
Have you ruled out .co.uk ?
Another D vote
I'd stay away from the new TLDs. Too many short-term thinking opportunistic players at the core there & the longer you build on any of them the easier it is for them to do a massive price hike. The nice thing about .com, .net, .org & proper ccTLDs is not only the pre-existing user base & awareness of the extensions, but also a far lower likelihood of a gigantic price spike because so many businesses are already on them.
Worth noting that some of the same professional domainers who increased prices of the new TLDs by thousands of percent overnight were also complainants about a decade ago, outraged at the idea of Verisign getting something like 5% price hikes every other year.
D
Nothing says low-rent like not being able to afford a .com.
io is for startups who then buy the .com as soon as they have the cash. Wonder why :-)
Quote from: ukgimp on June 14, 2017, 02:41:52 PM
io is for startups who then buy the .com as soon as they have the cash. Wonder why :-)
Lower upfront costs & de-risk the investment.
Show growth / market fit / build narrative thereof, then only spend on marketing after investors have invested at a higher valuation on the perception of lower risk of failure.
Thanks all
The project is currently on .co.uk but there is concern that this is putting off international customers (1. Too parochial 2. "Brand UK" isn't exactly exuding competence at the moment 3. Lower visibility as Google assumes .co.uk are mainly for UK audience). .Com is owned by a established mid-sized player in another sector. There is not expectation that the .com will become available.
Changing the brand would undo too much past work, but tweaking it to get the .com (ie, add a word) has been discussed. Those discussions haven't got far, but they have happened. The .net is available secondary market for a few grand, so probably worth picking up even just for brand protection.
OK, clearer question for the Americans: If you were looking for a service, which would put you off least: .co.uk or .net ?
As an American, I would look at the website. If the site stated that they had experience working for both American and British, International clients and things like spelling would conform to American norms I would have no problems with a .co.uk suffix. I've done this when looking for forums on several subjects, if they indicate the are UK only I don't join, but if they are UK but accept Americans I might stick around.
I used to hire a Canadian web designer, she was quite capable of using American spelling and her grammar and punctuation were impeccable. She did have a .com but there were really only three extensions back then. Likewise, I hosted a site with a U.K. host. Best hosting service I ever had.
But that is me. I do think there is the risk of getting shunted off into the UK only serps on G with a co.uk.
Where do you anticipate most of this site's referrals coming from, search engines or social WOM, or adverts? .co.uk might only be a hitch for people coming blindly from SE's.
> If you were looking for a service, which would put you off least: .co.uk or .net
.net
>> If you were looking for a service, which would put you off least: .co.uk or .net
>.net
Same. ...but it's still low-rent.
also would prefer .net to .co.uk ... though if both were reasonably priced as the webmaster I might buy both names to have the .net site for the US & global market, and then maybe develop the .co.uk later if the UK market looks of sufficient size & scope to justify developing it.