If you had to start on .uk or .co.uk, which would you choose?

[addz123]

Imagine you HAD to start a business on EITHER .co.uk or .uk, but couldn't own them both, which would you choose?

For me, I don't think .uk replacing .co.uk is a foregone conclusion even if it's released. For example, .com.mx is still by far the most used extension in Mexico even though .mx was released 4 years ago. .mx still has less than 50% as many registrations as .com.mx.

I'd assume that given the brand-awareness and marketing that .co.uk has had over .uk over the years, it would take at least 4-5 years for .uk to overtake .co.uk. After all, why would someone want to spend thousands developing a site on .uk when an older, more popular site already exists on .co.uk, and is by no guarantee going to replace it.

For the everyday business, this probably means .co.uk is a smarter investment for the foreseeable future, as any business that wants to seriously invest and build upon a .uk will probably want to acquire the .co.uk anyway, rather then the other way around.

Also makes me wonder if a .org.uk website would actually want to upgrade to .uk if it doesn't own the .co.uk.

 

[cc976a]

I wouldn't yet. Not enough info out there, and not enough evidence highlighting whether .uk or .co.uk becomes the preference - or whether both are recognised (e.g. .co.uk and .com)

Different if I was setting up a small aff site, but for a startup I'd either wait or go for a .com (or buy a .co.uk that would give me the rights to the .uk)

 

[Retired_Member38]

Same as above - I wouldn't build a 'real' site unless I had the security of owning both.

I think .uk is nicer looking/shorter/better... if I had the pair I think I'd use the .uk. If I didn't have the pair I'd be looking at a totally different domain, or a .com

 

[ian]

As a business owner, I have both the .com and .co.uk, but use the .co.uk as the business is UK based. Assuming I have first refusal of the .uk domain, I'll take it and probably adopt it as the primary domain.

 

[Stephen]

UK market

Same as above - I wouldn't build a 'real' site unless I had the security of owning both.

I think .uk is nicer looking/shorter/better... if I had the pair I think I'd use the .uk. If I didn't have the pair I'd be looking at a totally different domain, or a .com

Agree except I would not use .com instead, as I think of UK market still for most of my projects and I fell that ending in .uk helps with that objective.

Although if get the .com as well, would do so.

Also would consider buying the right UK domain rather than a FTR (free to register) depending on the project.

 

[websaway]

This is a good question and raises the issue of why Nominet chose this critical time to virtually stagnate the uk business namespace.
It is incompetence at the highest level.

 

[markb]

why on earth would anyone choose .uk, when .co.uk is the main business extension in the uk that has been used for years and is trusted by millions of businesses ? the only reason I can think of is that some companies that have been penalised by google with their .co.uk domain may opt for the .uk instead.

I've been thinking about nominets main reason for introducing the .uk extension, which is to compete with the new gltd's. The new gltd's are actually bringing something new to the domain market, whereas nominet are just trying to resell something they have already sold and which will bring nothing new! Just defensive registrations. I can't understand how they can use that as their main reason.

 

[Edwin]

I've been thinking about nominets main reason for introducing the .uk extension, which is to compete with the new gltd's. The new gltd's are actually bringing something new to the domain market, whereas nominet are just trying to resell something they have already sold and which will bring nothing new! Just defensive registrations. I can't understand how they can use that as their main reason.

You're right. It's illogical - but they're pressing on regardless.

(The problem is there's nobody to present the "case" to i.e. nobody is standing in judgement over Nominet, waiting to evaluate the logic of their plans for the UK namespace - so the fact that what you said is 100% true doesn't necessarily make any difference to the outcome)

 

[Retired_Member38]

why on earth would anyone choose .uk, when .co.uk is the main business extension in the uk that has been used for years and is trusted by millions of businesses ?

Why not? Its shorter/better looking. And as long as you own the pair and one redirects you don't have to worry about people typing the wrong one. Though that take us back to the issue that the release was utterly pointless in the first place...

 

[Stephen]

.uk seen as a potential upgrade?

Why not? Its shorter/better looking. And as long as you own the pair and one redirects you don't have to worry about people typing the wrong one. Though that take us back to the issue that the release was utterly pointless in the first place...

I agree .uk is better looking and I think would eventually take over as the preferred business extension in the UK over .co.uk.

If .uk seen as a potential upgrade to the prime tld then the owner of the current prime .co.uk should automatically get the right to the .uk, whether they choose to use it straight away or after 5 years or never it should be the choice of the domain owner.

As pointed out if you don't own the .co.uk and .uk pair you are in to long term serious traffic, confusion and security issues.