-
Welcome to AcornDomains.co.uk, a friendly community for UK domain investors, developers and anyone interested in domain names.
Whether you're looking to buy or sell domains, learn more about the UK domain market, get feedback on your names, or simply chat with other domainers, you're in the right place. AcornDomains has been bringing together people from across the UK domain industry for many years, from complete beginners to experienced investors.
Have a look around, join the discussions and, if you haven't already, create a free account and introduce yourself.
Who said .UK is dead?
- Thread starter JMI
- Start date
C
CreativeMix
In a different league and the lack of love means there's some real bargains to be had by resellers AND end users.
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Posts
- 4,725
- Reaction score
- 249
I was never for the introduction of .uk but it's here now and we need to adapt to changing circumstances. It's been slow but there is a definite shift in sentiment. You can't say it's dead if it produces £xxx,xxx sales https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/recent-private-sale.172022/
- more end users are definitely using .uk and new sites like gbnews.uk are making an impact. Every gbnews broadcast has the gbnews.uk domain in the bottom right hand corner. Farage is now on there 4 nights a week now and his output (and other presenters like Neil Oliver) are starting to get significant views on youtube. I've seen .uk being used in ads on gbnews too.
On a personal level it has been slow - but there has been an uptick this year - not a great deal of money - but last sale was £1k for a three worder - to an end user I believe. So we've been raising our .uk prices to more realistic levels. I agree with CreativeMix - still a lot of bargains out there - if you've got the cash.
- more end users are definitely using .uk and new sites like gbnews.uk are making an impact. Every gbnews broadcast has the gbnews.uk domain in the bottom right hand corner. Farage is now on there 4 nights a week now and his output (and other presenters like Neil Oliver) are starting to get significant views on youtube. I've seen .uk being used in ads on gbnews too.
On a personal level it has been slow - but there has been an uptick this year - not a great deal of money - but last sale was £1k for a three worder - to an end user I believe. So we've been raising our .uk prices to more realistic levels. I agree with CreativeMix - still a lot of bargains out there - if you've got the cash.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 994
- Reaction score
- 838
I agree it is a very unwelcome tax on .co.uk domains. Effectively, if you want to protect a .co.uk you obtain, you're having to double up on cost.
Personally, I believe all .co.uk holders should have had the .uk provided to them permanently free, and I still think new registrations of .co.uk names - if the .uk is available - the two of them should be offered as a bundle and priced permanently as one domain. It isn't going to happen though.
There is no doubt that .uk increased annual costs for many people. It was a scheme by Nominet to try to generate a new wave of revenue. But as the new Chair Andy Green says, 'What do we do with all this money?'
For domainers I can see that .uk offered new opportunities, but for much of the general public, I'd say it involved confusion, hassle, and quite often extra cost. Was there a huge popular swell of demand for .uk? I'm not convinced there was. Do I like .uk domains? Actually yes, I do. For religious domains I collect, they work better than .co.uk (where the commercial implication jars a bit with the religious vibe). And yes, it meant I could get lots of domains where the .co.uk was gone long ago.
But should it have been used to try to pressure .co.uk registrants into doubling up their costs? I don't think so.
Personally, I believe all .co.uk holders should have had the .uk provided to them permanently free, and I still think new registrations of .co.uk names - if the .uk is available - the two of them should be offered as a bundle and priced permanently as one domain. It isn't going to happen though.
There is no doubt that .uk increased annual costs for many people. It was a scheme by Nominet to try to generate a new wave of revenue. But as the new Chair Andy Green says, 'What do we do with all this money?'
For domainers I can see that .uk offered new opportunities, but for much of the general public, I'd say it involved confusion, hassle, and quite often extra cost. Was there a huge popular swell of demand for .uk? I'm not convinced there was. Do I like .uk domains? Actually yes, I do. For religious domains I collect, they work better than .co.uk (where the commercial implication jars a bit with the religious vibe). And yes, it meant I could get lots of domains where the .co.uk was gone long ago.
But should it have been used to try to pressure .co.uk registrants into doubling up their costs? I don't think so.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 675
- Reaction score
- 558
It's not too late. We could be charged just for one (or a permanent 50% discount applied) when we own both.
This might have its challenges and would have a not-so-insignificant impact on Nominet's income, but it would make sense in my view
Nominet has kept arguing that uk domains are very cheap, but when you factor in the fact that you have to register two to protect it, then that price is not cheap at all and reaches .com value
More importantly, they chose to redirect owensgroup.co.uk to owensgroup.uk
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 994
- Reaction score
- 838
I agree with you Ciprian. There is no good reason why future sales could not be coupled, and charged as 50% each.
Sure it would have revenue impact for Nominet, but as the Chairman conceded, Nominet is awash with money.
And it begs that basic question:
Does Nominet exist as a public service for the public?
Or does the public's need for domain names exist for the sake of making Nominet money?
As you say, if a company (very reasonably) wants to protect their .co.uk (or the other way round) they are ending up effectively paying Nominet .com prices.
Sure it would have revenue impact for Nominet, but as the Chairman conceded, Nominet is awash with money.
And it begs that basic question:
Does Nominet exist as a public service for the public?
Or does the public's need for domain names exist for the sake of making Nominet money?
As you say, if a company (very reasonably) wants to protect their .co.uk (or the other way round) they are ending up effectively paying Nominet .com prices.
Just had a look at that domain and saw they were essentially moaning about Brexit in the first statement of aims, bad grammar and eluding to things without being specific. I won't be partaking in that.
Then I looked at who created it and here's their twitter profile:
Yeah, very non partisan . #FBPE(nis)
No propaganda peddling here folks.
Also if his personal website is anything to go by I wouldn't get too excited:
I hope that he paid for a license for the use of that design he used on his site, cause after all that's what his precious EU law would have him doing:
However, on the subject of .UK names, I like them and wish they would succeed, even if it's to the detriment of my modest .CO.UK collection.... but I just don't think it's going to happen
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,260
- Reaction score
- 520
This is what interested me: would amazon2.co.uk be acceptable, for example? And if not, why would something like gov2.uk be?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 675
- Reaction score
- 558
From a trademark perspective Amazon ≠ Amazon2 but whoever registered first would most likely be able to oppose the other registration if there is potential overlap in products/services offered.
Even more to the point, one could operate a business called Amazon on amazon.uk if that was available, as long as it didn't confuse customers and didn't offer the same kind of products or services (for example a dating service called Amazon would be perfectly acceptable)
Similar threads
