PopSci Author Points Out the Obvious Regarding Fresh TLDs

Tom Conlon understands what fresh TLDs are all regarding: nothing.

Popular Science author Tom Conlon published an article today regarding .eco specifically, but mostly regarding the challenges any fresh top level domain faces. The headline of his article is appropriately named “A Fresh Type of Domain Name, A Fresh Waste of Money”.

And for domain names not associated with a trademark, who really cares regarding anything except “.com”? Sure, a few sites like del.icio.us and last.fm have done OK without it, but more often than not, a site without “.com” on the end has to be repeated a few times ahead of a person understands it. You tack “.com” onto something in an ad, a movie trailer, or a box of cereal, and the public knows what to do with it — no need to muck things up with that ghastly-looking “http://”. And, though not necessarily true, I think there’s this general sense that whoever lays claim to the “.com” version of a domain is the legit owner and everything else is suspect or secondary. How else can you explain all of those cutesy Web 2.0 misspellings of words like “Flicker”? I always kind of figured a firm would rather misspell for the sake of a “.com” address than get stuck with the indignity of a “.biz” or “.info” URL

Conlon then gives examples of failing TLDs such as .travel and .museum. Since there’s little chance that typing in firm.travel or museumname.meseum will resolve, they have little value.

But his last sentence sums up my point regarding fresh TLDs well:

Website owners ought to simply employ one of the two URL naming conventions the public is by now conditioned to recognize: the backslash and subdomain. Why pay money for “yoursite.eco” when you’ve by now got “eco.yoursite.com” and “yoursite.com/eco” for free?

Following all, why ought to GE maintain two web sites, one for its firm and also GE.eco? That’s redundant, inefficient, and not so great for search rankings, either. It’s the same reason .mobi is being rendered pointless; no one wants to maintain two separate web sites.

But I’m beginning to think two or three fresh TLDs may be successful. Fresh TLD proponents point out that, by opening up the TLD landscape, someone can come up with an innovative fresh approach to using domain names. This may well happen, but I haven’t seen this fresh approach yet. So far people clamoring for fresh TLDs are just using the TLD as a descriptor, such as .eco and .nyc. That’s not innovative and it’s not necessary. If someone has a truly novel approach to domain names, I’d like to see it.