@4u - You bring up some great points. Do you think the same rules apply for content sites? I would imagine the extension becomes less important when you're focusing on organic traffic through targeted articles.
I'm kind of stuck with the .net since all the other extensions are being used for unrelated business sites (the keyword is also a last name). Problem is their business is built around the domain so they wouldn't sell at a realistic price.
@Onward - Do you honestly think Apple would be worth a penny less if their URL was OverpricedComputers4U.org? Using Fotunre 500 companies as an example is like comparing a lemonade stand to IHOP; the business models are completely different.
"Do you think the same rules apply for content sites? I would imagine the extension becomes less important when you're focusing on organic traffic through targeted articles."
Well, yes, the content will bring in some traffic but you still run the risk of leakage to the .com or ccTLD (if UK, Germany, etc) by having the .net .
Not mentioned yet, but there is also the 'slight' but measurable issue of business trust. The fact is that people feel more wary about businesses with a TLD that they are not as familiar with. Its just plain common sense and human nature.
A person, everything else being equal - on average - will click on rtyrtyryt.com before rtyrtyryt.biz, or rtyrytryt.net as the .com and major ccTLDs have an inherent level of trust and integrity built in. As it happens, Ii think the only exception to this rule is .org in specific uses.
"I'm kind of stuck with the .net since all the other extensions are being used for unrelated business sites (the keyword is also a last name). Problem is their business is built around the domain so they wouldn't sell at a realistic price."
No worries, as I mentioned, although this is down the list on preferables, when there is no other choice, well, there is no other choice and there is little wrong, per se, with the .net anyway - indeed in some sectors it still might be highly regarded.
"Do you honestly think Apple would be worth a penny less if their URL was OverpricedComputers4U.org? Using Fotunre 500 companies as an example is like comparing a lemonade stand to IHOP; the business models are completely different."
Not aimed at me but YES I do.. I think it would. They wouldn't be as large now for all the above reasons. A lot of their critical mass would have been helped by the millions of people going online to see a nice short catchy domain like apple.com to check out their latest products. I do think a hideous URL would have damaged their ongoing business development. Their short memorable domain, now, is part of their overall branding strategy.
They spend significant money on hitting cybersquatters and also buying up their own product and service related .coms so they definately understand the importance and power of the right domain and TLD.
