.co.uk vs .uk

[bensd]

I am working on a new ecom website with a short product domain (4 letters), which will not be selling to anyone outside of the UK.

I own both extensions and I'm tempted to launch on the .uk version as it is cleaner and could become part of the brand (e.g. 'Product UK'). However, I'm nervous that the general public aren't as familiar with .co.uk as .uk and this might an adverse affect on trust/conversions.

I would be great to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

 

[Adam H]

I've just done similar for a small business for my wife, went with .uk. Personally I prefer the .uk for any new start up and I doubt id ever start a new site on a .co.uk again (but would still redirect the .co.uk ). As long as the .co.uk redirects to the .uk I don't see a problem and I certainly don't think there is trust issues.

Lets face it, with modern devices bearly showing a URL now days in browsers, it's getting to the point exposure is limiting and we... "in the know" and those of us 90's children whom grew with the internet, that probably only really notice anyway.

Unless what your selling is to a very specific demographic, I'd go with .uk all day long ( but ensure that I had full brand protection with the other important, available tlds ) in my humble opinion.

 

[lazarus]

All new sites I do is with .uk even if I own both.
I look at it in the long run.

 

[Aaron Clifford]

If you own both go with the .uk, people will mishear/misread you and go to the .co.uk anyway but looks nicer on PPC/CPA campaigns.

 

[dee]

go uk

Seeing more and more uk on adverts and sides of lorries

 

[markb]

My advice would to always go with the co.uk as it’s what everyone knows and expects. If you do opt to go with a .uk just make sure you own the .co.uk also and redirect to the co.uk otherwise you may lose a lot of traffic when you become more popular.

 

[WalkinDude]

This isn't scientific but the no. of domainers talking up .uk is growing and the keenness to acquire them is as well. So call it 65/35 in favour of .co.uk for the moment and that possibly describes very loosely where .uk is generally. Not in an exact sense but a growing sense.

So from that one might conclude it is going to have an impact. Given prices remain so keen it's a no brainer to me. In reality you can go with either but for serious long term projects it's .uk all day long for me as that's the rising curve.

 

[markb]

Domainers are only talking up .uk domains because they have caught lots of them and want to sell for a high price either to another domainer or to the co.uk owner. In reality, majority of business owners didn’t register and claim their .uk because they had no idea what it was.

I get lots of enquiries from people enquiring about co.uk domains I own, and not one person has enquired about .uk version of the domain or even asked if it is included.

I doubt .uk will ever really take off, and if it does it will be a long time in the future.

 

[webber]

First of all, it's all just opinion at this stage.
We can't know for sure so we just place our bets and keep our fingers crossed.

Similarly people have talked down the new gTLDs with every opportunity they had and now these are (at least some of them) clearly on the way up and on track for wider recognition within the general public.

It's the same with stocks – think of some newcomers like Tesla some years back – analysts were so vocal about how dramatically that company was going to fail. Well, some folks took that chance and now reap the rewards.

It might be the same with .uk or it might be the dramatic failure that some predict.
Either way, Nominet wins and I think that is the key thing – that's why it was introduced.

 

[LCHappy]

Similarly people have talked down the new gTLDs with every opportunity they had and now these are (at least some of them) clearly on the way up and on track for wider recognition within the general public.

.uk is different from other new TLD's for one massive important reason. The renewal price is always going to be relatively stable. In new TLD land, renewal prices can be priced specifically per domain name. The better site you build on that domain, the higher they will price your renewal, don't like it? Good, they still win, hand them the domain back as you leave and they now own it.

.uk will never be like that and that's why it can't be compared in my opinion.

 

[WalkinDude]

Domainers are only talking up .uk domains because they have caught lots of them and want to sell for a high price either to another domainer or to the co.uk owner. In reality, majority of business owners didn’t register and claim their .uk because they had no idea what it was.

I get lots of enquiries from people enquiring about co.uk domains I own, and not one person has enquired about .uk version of the domain or even asked if it is included.

I doubt .uk will ever really take off, and if it does it will be a long time in the future.

If Domainers are buying up .uk's it's because they think their value is going to go up. I rather doubt a domainer buys a .uk as part of some scheme to then 'talk it up' and add value to it as the idea on it's face wouldn't work.

Royal.co.uk is for sale yet it turns out The Royal Family are using .uk and I rather doubt the reason they didn't snap up the .co.uk which is openly for sale was due to potential cost.

You can tip the first domino from there. Rest is a question of time.

 

[markb]

If Domainers are buying up .uk's it's because they think their value is going to go up. I rather doubt a domainer buys a .uk as part of some scheme to then 'talk it up' and add value to it as the idea on it's face wouldn't work.

Royal.co.uk is for sale yet it turns out The Royal Family are using .uk and I rather doubt the reason they didn't snap up the .co.uk which is openly for sale was due to potential cost.

You can tip the first domino from there. Rest is a question of time.

The .uk actually makes sense for ‘Royal’, because it’s not a company. Surely in this instance the .uk was owned by the .co.uk holder ?, so the royal family would have chosen to purchase that over the .co.uk

 

[LCHappy]

Royal.uk was registered 2013, so it was one of those unfortunate .co.uk's that couldn't upgrade. Basically, they lost out.

 

[WalkinDude]

The .uk actually makes sense for ‘Royal’, because it’s not a company. Surely in this instance the .uk was owned by the .co.uk holder ?, so the royal family would have chosen to purchase that over the .co.uk

This is the exact point.
.co.uk = commercial, united kingdom. [a business, going concern]

.uk= anything I wish it to be united kingdom
= infosite, charity, business, blog, e-commerce, an endless list. it's everything under one roof. if you have .uk you don't need the other suffixes to denote nonprofit status or whathaveyou.

So .uk is going to be very attractive for startups who may not have an initial commercial intention. May just want to start up a following and take it from there unknown to them where they will end up but confident that wherever that is .uk covers it.

 

[markb]

This is the exact point.
.co.uk = commercial, united kingdom. [a business, going concern]

.uk= anything I wish it to be united kingdom
= infosite, charity, business, blog, e-commerce, an endless list. it's everything under one roof. if you have .uk you don't need the other suffixes to denote nonprofit status or whathaveyou.

So .uk is going to be very attractive for startups who may not have an initial commercial intention. May just want to start up a following and take it from there unknown to them where they will end up but confident that wherever that is .uk covers it.

I agree with this, but I wouldn’t create a commercial website on a .uk if the corresponding .co.uk was owned or in use by another company. The .uk is only really useful if you also own the co.uk. Therefore it was wasn’t really a good idea of nominet releasing these domains as it just causes confusion and legal issues.

 

[lazarus]

I agree with this, but I wouldn’t create a commercial website on a .uk if the corresponding .co.uk was owned or in use by another company.

Not if you, as a business or developer consider the .uk to be the better option of the two.
After all, can you name a tld that is second to its secondary level?
It will take time 10, 15 or 20 years to reach parity but I think the top level domain will be the preferred extension in the end.

Only until now will we get the real data coming though on its progress and I can only see it going one way from here.

 

[Ben Thomas]

I am working on a new ecom website with a short product domain (4 letters), which will not be selling to anyone outside of the UK.

I own both extensions and I'm tempted to launch on the .uk version as it is cleaner and could become part of the brand (e.g. 'Product UK'). However, I'm nervous that the general public aren't as familiar with .co.uk as .uk and this might an adverse affect on trust/conversions.

I would be great to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

I wouldn't be nervous. .uk is far superior, in my opinion. It's top level, just like .com. Whereas .co.uk, though familiar, is second-level. If you're asking me, I'd go for the .uk and wouldn't think too much of it. People, in my experience, don't give too much of a shit about your domain extension. Though, as I always say – there are exceptions. Certainly stuff that is know for spam, such as .XYZ and shite like that.

I will add further. That I am currently building the Brightwork brand on a .uk. A recruitment firm owns the .co.uk and that doesn't phase me in the slightest. Further still, acquiring social media URL's has been quite nice. Especially on Facebook & Instagram which has allowed us to get (example) https://facebook.com/brightwork.uk – which is our website URL.

 

[Ben Thomas]

@impact do you have anything else to add, or just wanted to have a paddy and leave a disagree rating?

 

[Ben Thomas]

Is there anything in particular you feel that makes it far superior?

No-one has really wanted or used them in the last 6 years, so I find it hard to see why that would change now.

In my opinion, because it's now a free-for-all, some life has been injected into it. I also personally feel that .uk is much nicer than .co.uk. It's shorter and sounds better to say out loud, it's easier to ready and remember. Of course, this is just my opinion and it is subjective.

 

[Adam H]

As a domainer, unless it's a large known brand, I always see a .uk domain and think "They couldn't afford the .co.uk" and everything that comes along with that.

I think that say's it all, as a domainer, someone in the know and someone who's probably had more knowledge and interaction of domains over the years than Joe blogs, it's engrained that it's the "norm" more so than most, and its hard to look past that which was helped by giving sole rights to .co.uk owners as it give a lack of urgency to change. ( which i don't disagree with, it just prolonged uptake ).

Everyone felt the same way about .co.uk's in my opinion, the poor mans .com! The .com was the "internet" and still is for much of the older generations who are not internet savvy.

I think we are at a shift, where the young....dont really care. My age between say 35 - 45 are the ones who typically have .co.uk in their blood, but still there has been a big shift to .uk preferrance from many of us. Anyone after that group again, unless in the industry or have a vested interest..........don't really care unless they've been advised otherwise.

.uk's are not the future, they are the present and they are already marking their ground and I guess, it pains me to say it but Nominet have probably done a good job in getting it out and marketing it in a backwards kind of way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big avocate for brand protection and retaining both UK tld's, I dont think that should change and I personally wouldnt lunch a serious business without having both....but still, it's my opinion and there will be many different ones