For the longest time Demand Media had the exclusive right to sell premium domains. Now you can buy these names from Name.com and others.
Just now in a conversation with an individual high up in the registry I learned that Demand Media was relieved of their contract. Premium names were dropped right in the middle of the land rush in March and for any recent buyers who buy outside of eNom, premium renewal rates and rules no longer apply, but some of the names still carry a one-time premium upfront.
Take a look at Name.com and type in low.TV. You see a cost for $1200 the first year and regular rates thereafter. Compared to when it was a premium name at DemandMedia/Enom.
Before March Low.TV was $4500 PER YEAR! Anther great example after the Land Rush in March 20102 the land rush, Sedo sold Business.TV at auction (which had been with Demand Media/eNom for $500K a YEAR and sat and sat from 5/07 to 3/10 unsold) Portalis.com in Germany where as in all of Europe dotTV is much more accepted. Whereas Demand Media/eNom lost their exclusive right to sell dotTV premiums, the domain went to auction with no reserve at Sedo and sold for $100,999 with renewals of only $50 or under. Portalis is an end-user with development behind them. They also bought other dotTVs.
Developing...
2 comments:
With respect, this 'developing story' is 5 Months old and most of the domain world know all about it.
Premium renewals were scrapped in favour of upfront fee's & then regular renewals after that.
All this happened around March 18 & due to this 1000's of domains sold & a whole host of new buyers entered .tv after being previously put off by premium pricing.
Not exactly sure what you mean by saying "Names are Dropping like Flies" when in reality only a few 100 .tv's drop daily and everything of quality is being picked up even with upfront payments of $xxx - $x,xxx on many.
Maybe i'm missing something & your developing story & Demand Media sources will provide some news that all .tv owners dont know already, i'll keep an eye out.
I am often amazed by just how mfeel the need to any bloggers talk about flaws in the .tv extension without doing research to actually understand the situation, hope this is not another case where blogger doesnt research his own sources enough to understand that the big story is actually just old news made to look sensational. IMHO
Regards
Ronnie those timelines are c lear in the story. The article is in response to the 2-day old filing of an s-1 document and in answer to questions I got on a comment thread on Mike Berken's blog asking for details on why dotTV was not promoted in the S-1.
Nobody is putting down your precious little extension. In fact we think it's good that dotTV is more affordable now.
If you are happy with the revenue that you are generating and the renewals you pay, that's all that matters.
Post a Comment