The internet has come a long way since the advent of the .com domain. One question I get asked frequently is "which TLDs are commercially viable?" These are your .coms, .nets, .bizs. This article is a summary of the advice I give all my clients with respect to new TLDs that are introduced.
The regulatory body, ICANN, which controls TLDs (top-level-domain) names, since the beginning has opened up the establishment of new TLDs to various investment groups. Investment groups are the #1 factor to take into account when considering one of the following domain names and the actual domain name is the #2 factor.
When you're tracing the chain of custody you have to think from back to front. That's because the investment groups who partner with ICANN to launch a new TLD decide the bundle of privileges, policies and rights associated with that TLD and ICANN signs off it it. Unbeknownst to most people, the "type" of market each domain name attracts has a huge impact on the destiny of each newborn TLD, almost as much as the investment group that started it.
We have now entered the age of theoretically unlimited TLD's for you to buy. You will probably recognize most of the one's I list here although I don't consider all of them great domains if you take your brand seriously. There are plenty here I won't even bother to list, let alone cite my reasons.
.com's remains the preeminant tld, and the domain name of choice among commercially viable enterprises. If you can still snag the one you want, do so without hesitation. If the .com you require is for sale, even for obscene sums, by it's current owner, it "can" be a worthwhile investment to purchase it.
I'll be the first to admit that when .net first came out, they were widely considered to be a second-rate domain name. While .com's represented enterprises with an international profile, .net's represented the fringe of those who could not compete in commerce but needed to be online anyways.
Not so much anymore. This is proven by the fact that most commercially-viable .com's have subsequently registered their relative .net's, .org's and frequent misspellings. More on that later in this article. Naturally, the .net versions of a domain name almost universally resolve to the .com, but that doesn't speak any more to the junk-ability of the .net but to the triumphant and all-presumptive presence of the .com.
At any rate, I have purchased dozens of .net's throughout my life. As an internet marketer I will say that they have always been on equal footing with a .com in terms of search engine optimization (seo) and "nearly" almost on par with .com's in terms of memorability and marketability. From a commercial standpoint these will always be my second choice.
It wasn't always the case but, nowadays, I would rate .org's at a slightly higher level than .net, but not quite the same caliber as a .com. A .org feels like home for any enterprise for whom profiteering is not the primary motive. Non-profits, associations, certification bodies and social businesses are all prime accompaniments to a .org presence.
The next best thing to a .com or a .org is a .co.uk–if you live in the United Kingdom. You must have an address in the UK to purchase, however plenty of people simply make one up.
.info had a lot of potential, but was abused by PPC (pay-per-click) marketers to the point where the domain name became ancillary to the method in which it was employed and lost all commercial viability. I don't think there's any digging out of this hole for .infos. It might be redeemed someday but I wouldn't allocate any of your precious marketing budget towards this TLD, unless it's to deny your brand to competing firms or pick up a domain on the cheap for some equally reprobate purposes.
What a laugh when this first came out. .Biz almost seemed like throwback to .info's while skirting the razor's edge of commercial viability. They're widely recognized as the "poor man's .net".
Another laugh, with one exceptional quality. .US enjoys usage by a ton of commercially viable enterprises but their branding is decidedly misplaced by using the .us tld. Only supremely patriotic firms and businesses who already own the requisite .com, .net and .org domain names own a .us. Don't purchase this one unless you mean to secure it away from competitors.
This is one TLD that I'm excited about. It bears close resemblance to .com but isn't. It also bears close resemblance to .co.uk but isn't geographically based. I predict that .co will become a close-second to .com's within a few years. The one major drawback to this domain name, right now, is that, since most people are accustomed to .com's, they might inadvertently think that .co is a misspelling on your print collateral. Fortunately this mistake will be constrained to people who aren't internet-savvy, mainly people who don't have much exposure to the internet on the daily and senior citizens.