Twitter Founder: Five Reasons Domains Are Getting Less Important

[Vision]

I think a TRAFFIC invite should be sent to Twitter Founder, Evan Williams...

http://bit.ly/mPhlkN

 

[katherine]

Love this:

Del.icio.us was a pioneer of the domain hack and had lots of geek cred (though Yahoo, wisely, ponied up for the real deal, cuz that this was hard to type)

It could have been written in 2000 or 1996, just because people use search engines doesn't mean domain names are no longer relevant.
Yet he should know a thing or two about branding.

 

[DomainsInc]

Why a professional company would prefer to have so many traffic leaks that sites like facebook and twitter have is beyond me. Sure, its a venue but its not a presence.

 

[Jilo]

'The non-perfect .com is also acceptable these days' - so, if Twitter had stuck with their original twttr.com then they would be as successful? Don't think so. Some domain hacks are great, intuitive uses of tlds (such as bit.ly, about.me etc.), but you can't beat a good generic .com, as Yahoo found with delicious.com.

 

[BostonDomainer]

Simply put- The .COM is the real McCoy and that's not going to change anytime soon!

 

[Poker]

Why a professional company would prefer to have so many traffic leaks that sites like facebook and twitter have is beyond me. Sure, its a venue but its not a presence.

The old model of trying to keep traffic captive is now exactly that, an old model. If you give visitors enough reasons to return to your site they will and they'll return often, many of them making it a new part of their daily activity. A return to the Internets' original intent...the democratization of the Web.

 

[Gerry]

The old model of trying to keep traffic captive is now exactly that, an old model. If you give visitors enough reasons to return to your site they will and they'll return often, many of them making it a new part of their daily activity. A return to the Internets' original intent...the democratization of the Web.

But if you substitute in the icon vs the type in, the icon will win every time.

A one touch image vs. pounding the url on your keyboard (or even having to remember the url).

Look at your smart phone or you tablet pc. Other than knowing the icons showing, does anyone really know (or care) what the URL really is?

 

[hugegrowth]

He is talking about the 'perfect' domain not being necessary, and a lot of his points are old - they cut into domain use a bit but don't replace domains, otherwise they already would have. Getting the perfect domain isn't really a choice a lot of the time, most perfect domains are either being used already or have high prices that many can't afford, so you are forced to a lesser domain. I don't know what cred he has to speak on domains anyway, social network sites sure, but his company is an example of one that went after and acquired the perfect domain for themselves.

 

[chipmeade]

He does have a point. the online universe is moving more to a link/click platform rather than a type-in one. I do believe he is overly discounting users awareness of the domain name. We also have to remember that the internet address is what makes each site unique. An established TLD provides and established credibility. Any time you build an online brand outside of the .com, you have to do a lot more heaving lifting with branding and communication to ensure the distinction sinks in with the audience. If done correctly it can be successful and yes, wildly so, but not every online enterprise has the resources or needs to put forth that kind of effort when a more traditional tld will work, many times, even better.

 

[Onward]

He is right that it is "not crucial for success" if you are a first mover - or have a totally original idea that has not been created. If you are wanting to break in to a known niche and compete (99.9999% of the people)...the best domain name is critical.

 

[urlurl]

i believe the right name is crucial for branding, the shorter and easier to remember the better.

 

[Raider]

"The last reason getting the perfect .com is less important than it used to be is simply because others have proven you can succeed without it."

Sure you can succeed without it, but once you succeed your going to want that perfect.com that's robbing your company of traffic and $$$, And when that time comes, get ready to pay dearly for it.

 

[urlurl]

you cant pin success on one or the other, it is a combination of;

the right name
the right content
at the right time
+

 

[BostonDomainer]

"The last reason getting the perfect .com is less important than it used to be is simply because others have proven you can succeed without it."

Sure you can succeed without it, but once you succeed your going to want that perfect.com that's robbing your company of traffic and $$$, And when that time comes, get ready to pay dearly for it.

Youtube.com comes to mind. Slightly different situation but well relevant. They lose almost 900,000 uniques a month to uTube.com. What could you do with that traffic. It's all about the right .com(s) You better have some dollars for branding if you decide to bypass the .com imo you might want to higher a new marketing excec or brands manager. No one NEEDS anything in life. BUT, when the number don't light- why stop running with them?

 

[urlurl]

when i google utube - the first result is youtube + it also asks "did you mean youtube"

 

[BostonDomainer]

when i google utube - the first result is youtube + it also asks "did you mean youtube"

That's great... but they still get almost 900,000 uniques a month and your point just proves that majority is type-in traffic

 

[urlurl]

900,000 doesnt mean anything if you cant make any money from it. for example i type utube...oops wrong site. i then go to youtube. i didnt click any thing, didnt buy anything, didnt sign up for anything so utube makes zero bucks from and next time i wont make the same mistake.

doesn't mean youtube wont get the same 900k viewers after they realised they typed in the wrong address either.

 

[DomainsInc]

The old model of trying to keep traffic captive is now exactly that, an old model. If you give visitors enough reasons to return to your site they will and they'll return often, many of them making it a new part of their daily activity. A return to the Internets' original intent...the democratization of the Web.

I made the mistake of not reading the article before posting. I assumed it was about how some companies are basing their internet presence on places like twitter and facebook only. I think the idea of people doing everything they do online on one site is something that will never happen or last long.

After reading the article, I can agree to an extent but the main problem that remains is that someone else is going to have your perfect .com which regardless if it has a big impact or not on sales, will be something many people will notice.