This is page 2 of:

Walmart, Safeway, Amazon Share Same Domain Strategy: Mine, Mine, Mine

March 13th, 2013

What is clear is why there’s this explosion of TLDs. In a word: money. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which hatched the pick-your-own-TLD scheme, thought it might get a few hundred applications. Instead, it got 1,930 and has already collected $185,000 for each one. Not bad for a “product” that costs nothing for ICANN to produce (in fact, ICANN didn’t even have to dream up any of the names it sold).

Meanwhile, money has driven the rest of the process, too. Amazon and Google each spent more than $10 million on applications. In some cases, they’re clearly targeting each other: Amazon applied for .search and .play, while Google filed for .book and .shop. Another huge applicant calling itself Donuts Inc. has spent more than $50 million applying for more than 300 TLDs. It intends to sell domain names.

Is anyone actually going to get a return on that investment? Are Internet users—and, particularly, E-Commerce customers—actually going to go looking for .books or .tires sites? (Incidentally, Goodyear [NASDAQ:GT] and Bridgestone are each trying to take .tires private, while Donuts wants to sell .tires domains.)

Out of 246 million currently registered domain names, 105 million end in .com, 14.9 million end in .net and just under 105 million end in one of the 280 different country-based TLDs (including .co, which is actually the country TLD for Colombia). Consumers have been well trained to expect .com. Previous TLD expansions haven’t made a dent in .com’s dominance—the most successful is probably .biz, with a few million registrations.

How likely is it that .book—owned by Amazon or anyone else—will have an impact? Barnes & Noble (NYSE:BKS) owns both and, which both redirect to the chain’s own site. That doesn’t seem to have given B&N much of a monopoly.

Until now, the big concern for retailers has been that they would have to spend triple-digit sums to buy their domain names all over again as TLDs, or chase away domain-squatters in hundreds of new TLDs. In 2011, the National Retail Federation predicted that chains would have to fork over $250,000 per TLD, plus another $50,000 to $100,000 a year afterwards, just to nail down their brands. Fighting off challenges and cybersquatters could jack up that cost into the millions.

Today, that’s a little hard to believe, especially because so many E-Commerce players have declined to go near vanity TLDs. Kroger, Walgreens (NYSE:WAG), CVS (NYSE:CVS), Rite Aid (NYSE:RAD), Lowe’s (NYSE:LOW), Costco and even eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) couldn’t be bothered to pay again for their own names. On the other hand, JCPenney (NYSE:JCP) and Best Buy (NYSE:BBY) did. Maybe that’s the ultimate indicator of how good an idea vanity TLDs are.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.