you could reg a com, net and org, develop the org and net, then see how much traffic is lost
you'd have to look at high traffic .org and .net websites, then find traffic values for the .com that's "not" developed to compare.
you'd have to look at high traffic .org and .net websites, then find traffic values for the .com that's "not" developed to compare.
yes, this is what i'm looking for. i hoped maybe someone somewhere had done this type of study before. or if there was any way to estimate.
even if you found one or two, you'd still need to have a wide range of samples to compare.
otherwise any results you publish will be flawed.
for instance, a org website that gets 10k visitors a day and a .net that gets 100k visitors per day.
what is the loss factor for each? or if the one .org is non-profit and another is not, is there a difference is the loss factor?
there are too many scenerios
imo...
even if you found one or two, you'd still need to have a wide range of samples to compare...
what % of traffic lost to .com for other dev'd extensions
Interesting question and I look at it from a different perspective.
Lets say, with your assumption and my assumption, the dot com is NOT developed.
You reg another extension and develop that as a web site.
There is no LOST TRAFFIC to the .com because prior to you creating the website, the traffic you are receiving DID NOT EXIST! In other words, all the traffic you get to the dot net (if that is the one you built a site) - all that traffic is a net gain.
In fact, you may be stealing traffic from the dot com if it is a parked paged. That is why I say 100% of your traffic did not exist until you regged the name and built a site. That is also why many times I chuckle when I hear people talk about losing traffic to a dot com.
There is an estimated 45+ million regged domains that are nothing more than parked pages.
To me, any site built and any traffic received is a net gain and potentially taking traffic from a dot com IF that domain is parked.
Now, try to convince the almighty gurus that their .com is losing traffic and see the hissy-fit thrown and the ensuing arguments. They may claim that if it is traffic that did not exist then there is no lose. True, in a sense. But the traffic you receive now had to come from somewhere.
Tough to do UNLESS, you happen to own both domains and built sites and compare stats OR the .com owners share their statswhat is that factor? it would be nice to have it quantified.
There is the perception that the .com will steal traffic away. That may be true. But, still hard to quantify. If the .net is established and marketed properly then there is this sense that someone else has done your work for you. Still, pretty risky to pump a lot of money into a name with the perceived notion that you are going to steal traffic.if not then why is it a selling point for .coms to say that the .net is developed?
so yes, in the scenario i'm considering, i would own a .com, lets say xyzproduct.com. you are in the xyz business, and you go out and buy xyzproduct.net and build it out for your business. you spend a certain budget on marketing your business, maybe you put out ads in the local papers, maybe its just word of mouth, "go to xyzproduct.net for xyzproducts"
people often do make the argument that the average user still has .com ingrained in their head and when they use direct navigation they may be likely to enter .com instead of .net by force of habit. my question is, what is that factor? it would be nice to have it quantified.
yea i see your point. i'm mainly concerned with brick and mortar businesses. to play devils advocate here, why should they want the .com at all? .com is king right? well if its not about the traffic then what is it about? besides traffic where else is the value?
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators