.co Why .CO will will not do well

[adinfinite]

well maybe the title of the thread is a little harsh. I dunno. But I had an experience recently where I was helping my gf to organize a fundraiser. She wanted a website set up but the name we wanted was taken in all good extensions except .co, &.tel. So i decided to go with .CO. To make an otherwise long story short, we had pamphlets and invitations made for the event. Then a series of things happened that made me really question the usefulness and value of .co domains:

1) The guy at the printing shop who was making the promo material called to ask " are you sure the website is coorect? It seems to be missing the letter m at the end" lol

2) When we finally got them printed and handed out to over 700 people we kept getting calls about whether or not the website address was correct. I had to keep telling people to "jut type it in, it works"

3) At the event we had a guess speaker who kept encouraging people to go to www.nameof charity.com ( instead of .co ) and donate. Lol

Now I must admit that it might not have been a good idea to put up a charity site on a .co. But I thought that since the actual charity has its own .org already and this entity and site was created for the sole purpose of raising money for the charity in a one off event, then it wouldnt be much of a problem.

I know we sent a lot of traffic to the .com because the 700 in attendance were told to "tell their friends and family" LOL.

I am thinking that only domainers and people close to the industry ( registrars etc) see value in .co. My experience is that the man on the street who constitutes the "traffic" we all crave is totally confused by it. It will take a lot to get regular everyday people to accept it. Probably way more than a superbowl commercial as Godaddy is planning.

I am not saying it doesnt have some value. But for those dreaming of a .co/.com parity situation I say dream on!

I know many people are gonna point to the fact that overstock bought and is currently using o.co. thats fine. I wonder how much type ins O.co gets that are not from domainers? lol. Besides they have O.com to back it up. LOL

 

[ctbon]

"co" could mean a lot of things, some might assume ".co" means company, I wouldn't assume everyone or even most think like that though.

I think this is THE major point of contention and I absolutely disagree with this. I think MOST people (esp. businesses) associate CO with company. It's the reason we are even discussing this. How well did .ws do? It doesn't make sense. Dot CO does make sense and all of you know it so stop pretending you are clueless.

The fact that that so many countries use .co.ll doesn't hurt either.

 

[Kate]

The fact that that so many countries use .co.ll doesn't hurt either.

Here are a few:
.co.uk
.co.nz
.co.za
.co.cr
...

Also:
.com.au
.com.tr
.com.cy
.com.gt
...
and many more

Now if you're asking local people which part of the domain they could do without, I'm pretty certain most would say get rid of the .co/.com part, because the rightmost part of the domain (aka ccTLD) identifies the country - this is where there is strong sense of self-indentification.

So they would have 2nd level domains like this:
.uk
.au (as for .au it's currently being discussed)
etc

Just in recent years quite a few countries have released 2nd level registrations.
The .co(m).tld extensions are fewer and fewer.

 

[emjohn]

I find it odd that people would argue that everyone knows what ".co" means. People don't know what this means, the vast majority have never heard of it before. Arguing "co" means company is more logical but the argument that the first entry in a dictionary for "co" is company doesn't hold water in my view,

Here is dictionary.com for example,



Merriam webster,



"co" could mean a lot of things, some might assume ".co" means company, I wouldn't assume everyone or even most think like that though.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------



I think this is very true. Far too much money put into "what might work out". Usually the argument is that it is like .com in 1994 but really the circumstances are entirely different. I think a lot of money will be lost in this extension just like all the other alts before it but only time will tell.

The same is true for lots of other areas of domaining, like trend names, 3d, 3g, hd, solar etc, very rarely does trying to predict the future work in domaining. Better off making money today.

I think that argument is somewhat specious. If you type in "co dictionary" into Google, the first entry is from "reference.com". The link is to the definition page for "company". If you type in just "co", you get first a link to the .co registry and then the Wikipedia entry for "company". Need I say more?

You will always find multiple entries in a dictionary. Very few would know that 'co" stands for "cash order" and few, outside of the US, would know co can stand for Colorado. "Company" is by far the most well known for the co abbreviation. I would say this is more fact than assumption.

 

[the_poet]

When someone, either from America or any other country, reads 'CocaCola.CO', I highly doubt his first thought of that 'CO' isn't 'company'. In fact I think that 'CO' for 'company' when written after a brand (especially big ones) is one of those words known worldwide.

 

[snoop]

I think that argument is somewhat specious. If you type in "co dictionary" into Google, the first entry is from "reference.com". The link is to the definition page for "company". If you type in just "co", you get first a link to the .co registry and then the Wikipedia entry for "company". Need I say more?

You will always find multiple entries in a dictionary. Very few would know that 'co" stands for "cash order" and few, outside of the US, would know co can stand for Colorado. "Company" is by far the most well known for the co abbreviation. I would say this is more fact than assumption.

Why not just admit your original comment (below) was wrong?

OK Mr. Default....now you're just making stuff up. Look in every dictionary and you will find the abbreviation "co" and the first entry is almost always "company". This has been so for hundreds of years, like it or not.

What dictionaries lists "company" as the first definition for "co", can you even list one let alone it being "almost always" that way (which is what your claim was).

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

When someone, either from America or any other country, reads 'CocaCola.CO', I highly doubt his first thought of that 'CO' isn't 'company'. In fact I think that 'CO' for 'company' when written after a brand (especially big ones) is one of those words known worldwide.

I think there is probably a few readings for that,

cocacola.company
cocacola.corporation
cocacola.typo-of-com
colacola.what-is-that-extension
cocacola.colombia

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

I think this is THE major point of contention and I absolutely disagree with this. I think MOST people (esp. businesses) associate CO with company. It's the reason we are even discussing this. How well did .ws do? It doesn't make sense. Dot CO does make sense and all of you know it so stop pretending you are clueless.

Lots of extensions have made more sense than .ws (which was marketed as web site and world site), .tv, .info, .us, .mobi, doesn't mean they have done well because they may sound better than .ws. None of them have gone anywhere beyond niche markets really because they are just alternates, not mainstream.

The question in my view is, why would people use .co, the fact that it can be rebranded as "company" isn't enough I think. You could argue .com could mean company, but nobody cares about that. There needs to be a really compelling reason, like everyone else using it. I would compare it to trying to get people to use a different type of power point plug or trying to convince them that the international language should be something other than English. People generally won't do something unusual unless there is a really good reason for it.

 

[the_poet]

I think there is probably a few readings for that,

cocacola.company
cocacola.corporation
cocacola.typo-of-com
colacola.what-is-that-extension
cocacola.colombia

The company is known worldwide as 'The Coca Cola Company'. The last one is really a stretch...

 

[DU]

The company is known worldwide as 'The Coca Cola Company'. The last one is really a stretch...

Funny because that's the only one that's actually correct

Use IBM or Dell or Sony instead and what do you get. Just curious.

 

[ZOX]

Why do you guys INSIST on being the "Devil's Advocates" anti .CO???

 

[DU]

Why do you guys INSIST on being the "Devil's Advocates" anti .CO???

One could ask why some INSIST on being so pro.CO????

I'm personally not anti or pro .co. It has done well for some people already; however, there needs to be some balance in the discussion. That's where the Anti co company - and most of it is actually quite reserved - it's not filled with the hyperbole as the pro.CO stance imho

Unfortunately, people want it to be like tossing a coin - it simply doesn't land on the side, it's always heads or tails. Pro or Anti can't be both!

My point is simply that it's too early to tell and I'm confused by the arguments that are presented.

Spanish words are "GREAT" because it works with the .co (Colombia)
Business words are "GREAT" because .CO means company.

Pick one - it can't be both. At the end of the day it doesn't matter - you can't force people to form an association without MILLIONS in advertising and I don't see the .CO registry doing that any time soon since the main landrush/auctions have made a tidy profit and I doubt a big enough budget exists.

Some people will win and make $$$ Some people will lose $$$ and some will break even. It's not the gold rush of the early .com days like some want to believe.

Personally I believe that the association of .co is stronger with Colombia than any of the other alternatives.

CO is not as universal as people believe. It's not IBM Company, or Sony Company. It's Inc. In some countries its NV, some SA.

Let the sales speak for themselves - they're quite random XX,XXX to XX. Some people have done really well so there's no point denying that there have been great sales. .co has piqued much interest because it's done better than many had expected. But there are also people seeing zero traffic, zero interest. This can't be ignored.

The vast majority of the 600,000 registrations (which has slowed) is domainer investment. The absolute truth is that a third tier dot com is worth far more than a second tier dot co - and this is clear from just looking around. If the second tier names don't take off you're an extension running to standstill imho.

But it's all opinion. I'm very much pro .TV which has a much LONGER history of issues and my arguments pro that extension probably read to you like your arguments for .CO. I'm also pro-US which puts me squarely on the crazy train... but I don't care what people say Maybe .co'ers shouldn't either

It's a funny ole world.

 

[ZOX]

One could ask why some INSIST on being so pro.CO????

I'm personally not anti or pro .co. It has done well for some people already; however, there needs to be some balance in the discussion. That's where the Anti co company - and most of it is actually quite reserved - it's not filled with the hyperbole as the pro.CO stance imho

Unfortunately, people want it to be like tossing a coin - it simply doesn't land on the side, it's always heads or tails. Pro or Anti can't be both!

My point is simply that it's too early to tell and I'm confused by the arguments that are presented.

Spanish words are "GREAT" because it works with the .co (Colombia)
Business words are "GREAT" because .CO means company.

Pick one - it can't be both. At the end of the day it doesn't matter - you can't force people to form an association without MILLIONS in advertising and I don't see the .CO registry doing that any time soon since the main landrush/auctions have made a tidy profit and I doubt a big enough budget exists.

Some people will win and make $$$ Some people will lose $$$ and some will break even. It's not the gold rush of the early .com days like some want to believe.

Personally I believe that the association of .co is stronger with Colombia than any of the other alternatives.

CO is not as universal as people believe. It's not IBM Company, or Sony Company. It's Inc. In some countries its NV, some SA.

Let the sales speak for themselves - they're quite random XX,XXX to XX. Some people have done really well so there's no point denying that there have been great sales. .co has piqued much interest because it's done better than many had expected. But there are also people seeing zero traffic, zero interest. This can't be ignored.

The vast majority of the 600,000 registrations (which has slowed) is domainer investment. The absolute truth is that a third tier dot com is worth far more than a second tier dot co - and this is clear from just looking around. If the second tier names don't take off you're an extension running to standstill imho.

But it's all opinion. I'm very much pro .TV which has a much LONGER history of issues and my arguments pro that extension probably read to you like your arguments for .CO. I'm also pro-US which puts me squarely on the crazy train... but I don't care what people say Maybe .co'ers shouldn't either

It's a funny ole world.

At least you have a sense of humor...don't ever be 100% sure of anything!

 

[nameflake]

I guess it doesn't help that the speaker botched up. I guess you need reiterate... "that's correct, .CO, not dot com" cause most people in the us are just unaware of the amount of extensions that are available and probably never ventured to them. Add the fact that .co is relatively new, so you got some major whammies when marketing through that route. It's just too close to com that it's understandable people would think it was a typo. If it was ".ws" or something vastly different than com or net, etc... there probably wouldn't be that big of an issue.
Don't take this experience as a deterrent, just take it as a learning tool to make it a little more clearer for people to "get" next time.

 

[snoop]

The company is known worldwide as 'The Coca Cola Company'. The last one is really a stretch...

I don't think the last one is a stretch, the company uses cocacola.com.co in the Colombian market so people from the country and surrounding countries who are familiar with .com.co likely have a good chance of thinking it is a local site.

That said I think the other examples are more likely examples of people not thinking it means "company" which is why I listed cocacola.colombia last.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

Don't take this experience as a deterrent, just take it as a learning tool to make it a little more clearer for people to "get" next time.

The same kind of thing happens with all alt extension, though in .co it might be a bigger issue because it is confusingly similar to .com. Often after about a year and after giving out the web address over the phone people realise these are major issues when email constantly goes missing because people don't understand the web address or wrote it down wrong. I don't think spelling out the address or emphasizing that it isn't .com over the phone is really the answer. If you have to say "that's correct, .CO, not dot com" surely that presents an obvious problem with a very simple solution.

 

[the_poet]

Funny because that's the only one that's actually correct

Use IBM or Dell or Sony instead and what do you get. Just curious.

'CO' after a brand is like 'Bros' after a surname, it gets easily recognized. And even if CO was interpreted as 'Corporation' (the second possible meaning for 'CO' after a brand), it would be still business-related, so the problem doesn't really exist.

Maybe while someone doesn't know the TLD, might also think that could be a typo, but it's just a temporarily thing. I tried this with my father: he needed to send an url via sms, so I suggested using no_url_shorteners url shortener. He thought it could be a typo, but didn't go to .com, so he asked me. After a couple of days, he happened to need the service again and found pretty normal to type in 'CO'.

 

[carob]

Another True Believer debate about a domain extension, what fun.

Pro:

.co will do well because I want it to and have bet on it. I believe in it. Domain prices always go up, never down, and domainers do not create price bubbles.

Con

.co will do badly because I have not bought it and I hate losing money but I love seeing others lose money. The confusion with .com is too big a disadvantage. Not universally known.


I'd say as a graphic it works well but in speech less well. In search should work as well as any other domain. As a second choice to .com possibly a good one depending on your needs - any second choice will lose traffic to the com.


Are any facts known yet about actual usage?

 

[emjohn]

Why not just admit your original comment (below) was wrong?



What dictionaries lists "company" as the first definition for "co", can you even list one let alone it being "almost always" that way (which is what your claim was).

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------



I think there is probably a few readings for that,

cocacola.company
cocacola.corporation
cocacola.typo-of-com
colacola.what-is-that-extension
cocacola.colombia

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------



Lots of extensions have made more sense than .ws (which was marketed as web site and world site), .tv, .info, .us, .mobi, doesn't mean they have done well because they may sound better than .ws. None of them have gone anywhere beyond niche markets really because they are just alternates, not mainstream.

The question in my view is, why would people use .co, the fact that it can be rebranded as "company" isn't enough I think. You could argue .com could mean company, but nobody cares about that. There needs to be a really compelling reason, like everyone else using it. I would compare it to trying to get people to use a different type of power point plug or trying to convince them that the international language should be something other than English. People generally won't do something unusual unless there is a really good reason for it.

You can angle it any way you like. You can go looking to find whatever cockamamie dictionary you want to prove your point. Colloquially speaking, people know "co" as "company" more than anything else. End of story. The greatest teller of all is when you type ".co" into the google search bar. Try it, you might like it.

I think you are REALLY stretching it there with your extensions example. It's nice that you read the dictionary, but most people don't. co to most is company. Nothing more to say. You can pull out 100 definitions for "co" ferom multiple sources. In this business, it's only the most pervasive one that counts.

Actually, it really wouldn't be so hard to make an argument that Mandarin or Spanish should be the lingua franca...:hehe:

 

[snicksnack]

simple question: would you build your business on a .CO if you are not targeting locals ?

I wouldn't!

 

[emjohn]

I don't think the last one is a stretch, the company uses cocacola.com.co in the Colombian market so people from the country and surrounding countries who are familiar with .com.co likely have a good chance of thinking it is a local site.

That said I think the other examples are more likely examples of people not thinking it means "company" which is why I listed cocacola.colombia last.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------



The same kind of thing happens with all alt extension, though in .co it might be a bigger issue because it is confusingly similar to .com. Often after about a year and after giving out the web address over the phone people realise these are major issues when email constantly goes missing because people don't understand the web address or wrote it down wrong. I don't think spelling out the address or emphasizing that it isn't .com over the phone is really the answer. If you have to say "that's correct, .CO, not dot com" surely that presents an obvious problem with a very simple solution.

That's opening a can of worms when you say that .co is confusingly similar to .com. co existed long before com as a business abbreviation. Look for .com to pay back 25 years worth of internet royalties to Colombia and Colorado for using
it's "trademark" and having established ".com" in "bad faith"....Hmmmmm....Rigggggghhhhht.....LOL

 

[Kate]

co to most is company.

Sure, in many countries it would rather be:
sa sro ehf sprl sarl bv bvba inc plc ltd ag gmbh
........
.......
......
......
.....
....
...

By the way, Saudi Arabia is now allowing second level registrations (.sa) That is good news for all the sociétés anonymes in French speaking countries - imagine when the ownership restrictions are lifted

 

[bmugford]

Spanish words are "GREAT" because it works with the .co (Colombia)
Business words are "GREAT" because .CO means company.

Pick one - it can't be both.

Why can't .CO can be everything to everyone? In fact .CO is so amazing in will probably bring peace to the middle east, and solve world hunger as well

Brad

 

[hawkeye]

Why can't .CO can be everything to everyone? In fact .CO is so amazing in will probably bring peace to the middle east, and solve world hunger as well

Brad

Good point. How could we overlook that .co also stands for 'co-exist'!??! Wow, what an all around 'it could mean anything that one wants it to mean' extension!!

 

[DU]

I'm tempted to setup:

http://cantwealljustgetalongand.co/exist.html

 

[dotker]

Theres only one .com n its taken.

 

[ctbon]

:zzz:............

 

[nameflake]

I don't think the last one is a stretch, the company uses cocacola.com.co in the Colombian market so people from the country and surrounding countries who are familiar with .com.co likely have a good chance of thinking it is a local site.

That said I think the other examples are more likely examples of people not thinking it means "company" which is why I listed cocacola.colombia last.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------



The same kind of thing happens with all alt extension, though in .co it might be a bigger issue because it is confusingly similar to .com. Often after about a year and after giving out the web address over the phone people realise these are major issues when email constantly goes missing because people don't understand the web address or wrote it down wrong. I don't think spelling out the address or emphasizing that it isn't .com over the phone is really the answer. If you have to say "that's correct, .CO, not dot com" surely that presents an obvious problem with a very simple solution.

Yes the same thing CAN happen, but when you see a dot ws or dot tv... people will not assume it's a dot com or a typo.. there's just no similarity. I think they will eventually "get" the picture when you add a www in front of the address. It's very common now to see dot us or dot tv on commercials so people understand that there are some other extensions out there, but dot co is just too close to dot com for offline marketing unless there becomes a bigger awareness in 10-20 years.
I think the solution is to build a business with more than one extension. The .co can mainly be used to grab dot com misspelled traffic and you can work the seo aspect but you may need a different variation for offline marketing. I was trying to stay hopeful for those suffering because of the ignorance out there regarding this. But that's just how I see it.

 

[ZOX]

Why can't .CO can be everything to everyone? In fact .CO is so amazing in will probably bring peace to the middle east, and solve world hunger as well

Brad

No, I think you have that mixed up with .COM IDNs Brad! :P