| 12:36 am on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|So fast forward ten years....Is there any value in holding the domain strawberriescancer.com or cancerstrawberries.com today and hanging on to it over the next ten years? |
The real question is whether or not in ten years you will be banging you head against the table for not spending the $70 for a domain that could have fetch tousands of dollars. Or, had a great domain you could have developed.
For medical I would also register the .org
| 3:49 am on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If they called them "zines" instead of "blogs" I'd be a few dollars richer today. :P
You place your (somewhat educated) bets and take your chances.
Call me in 10 years and we can commiserate . . or not. ;)
| 3:53 am on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
So I guess I have a more basic question. Most of my sites right now now have rather meaningless domain names but they rank well anyway. The sites with domain names that are meaningless names rank just as well as the few that are keyword rich.
So why are multiple keyword rich domains so valuable? Do people really type in keyword1keyword2.com randomly in address bars just to see what comes up? Or do buyers just like keyword rich domains?
| 4:03 am on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
High/Very high exact keyword phrase search volume + high commercial value of search phrase (high converted lead value) + exact match domain + favorable long term search trends + .Com => The Sweet Spot. You get a consistent stream of high value traffic without regard to search engine love. Keyword rich domains that fail to meet the above criteria are domains full of the empty promises of pitchmen.
The "other benefits" - memorability, billboard-ability, radio/media "friendliness", clarity of website purpose, reduced branding costs, etc. - tend to lend to the value of keyword domains that meet the above criteria.
When it comes to direct navigation traffic it's still a .Com world. With the rarest of exception the only .Orgs I've sought are 1 word industry defining domains. They are also traffic magnets. Most exact match .Orgs that are hawked in domain forums are utter junk when it comes to built-in traffic. Still, they have or have had their role to play in SEO.
I know no one needs a "well-built domain" to rank, but with the right domain(s) and a bit (less) work you can bank enough traffic to fret less about whether a search engine will still love you tomorrow.
| 4:21 am on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I guess I'll take the plunge and buy a few domains based on some study results I think will become more well known over time.
|Call me in 10 years and we can commiserate . . or not. ;) |
I guess the worst, as rocker noted, I will be out $70 per domain, less in after tax dollars since it is a tax deductible expense, and best case make a nice return on my investment.
So I'm in and I'll make that call in ten years, Webwork.
| 2:15 pm on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|You get a consistent stream of high value traffic without regard to search engine love. |
I feel it's important to point out here that this seems to be a very US-oriented phenomenon or typing keywords + .com into the url.
I have no proof of this other than the many Chinese in China, the Indians in India and certainly the Brits do not, or I haven't found anyone yet that admits to doing this!
Who first did this or has recommended that this is the way it should be done? The domain industry?
That's not to say your $7.00 investment (who pays $70?) is not worth it, I'll come to the party as well...if I'm invited:-)
| 2:34 pm on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I was refering to 10 years of registration fees at $7 per year.
| 3:21 pm on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 6:51 pm on Jan 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Just be careful with medical terms. Something called substance X in research papers may well be branded later on and that becomes the popular search term. Generic names are also created later in the discovery process. Natural substances are a better bet but even there branding is common. I suggest taking a popular substance currently and look back at its history to see how it has evolved and how you might best have bet on the right terms back when it was not that well known. The history lesson will not guarantee you will get it right but it can give you some insights.
Another thing to think about: if tomatoes were found to be good for cancer and later the active ingredient was found to be lycopene, would tomatoescancer.com be a good bet or something else?
| 12:08 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Another thing to think about: if tomatoes were found to be good for cancer and later the active ingredient was found to be lycopene, would tomatoescancer.com be a good bet or something else? |
That is part of the issue. There are so many variations of terms I'm interested in. I think I'll just maybe take a gamble with $1 - $2K worth of domains for some of the best bets of the variations.
| 6:27 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Good luck with your investment. Another way to think about it is similar to patent application approachs ( I know Webwork will appreciate this). Usually you take a dart board approach with broad claims down to specific claims. So in terms of domain names, think of broader coverage names and more specific names. Broader names may give you some value even if your highly targeted names do not pan out.
| 6:46 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You might want to keep an eye on [USPTO.gov...] for trademark registrations. The USPTO can sometimes go a bit too far in allowing generic phrases/words to fall within TM protection but you always have the option of challenging the grant of TM. You might take a bit of preemptive action by starting to build a site from the git-go.
| 7:21 am on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Okay, thanks for the tips. Now I just have to think about what names to buy.
| 5:51 am on Jan 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Don't agree at all about only 1 word org's receiving typeins. I have a lot of multi-word org's which get very nice direct navigation traffic.
Regarding typeins alleged to be a US culture and not used much elsewhere. Please keep in mind many people typein keyword1keyword2.com keyword1keyword2keyword3.org (especially health-disease related org's) into the search box in both the US and other nations too.
That scenario does not count as a typein in the stats (technically it's a search) but in my book it is as good as typing it into the browser.
| 2:29 pm on Jan 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Regarding typeins alleged to be a US culture and not used much elsewhere. |
This week I have been asking many people this precise question and I have not found one person who admits to doing this. Are all the people I talk to tech savvy? Nope, all different ages, male and female, and many looked very puzzled at the very suggestion of it.
I'm not getting into an argument about it, merely pointing out that although typeins obviously do exist I am not so convinced it is as prevalent as some domaining companies would like everyone to believe.