The .UK revolution

[LCHappy]

You're just making bad and invalid excuses for the reason why the .UK TLD has failed to gain virtually any traction and was a massive failure and always will be. The only success that came from it was Nominet creating a cash grab for themselves.

My .uk sales seem to contradict that

1) There has always been a gold standard for switching domains. 301'ing but ensuring you follow all best practices.

All 301's come with some drop until Google trusts the new name. I'm not sure anyone seriously thinks that Asda.co.uk 301'ing their .co.uk site to asda.fish would see the same rankings.

2) Google has stated for many years that they do not take domain extensions into account for ranking purposes. (With the exception that Country TLD's are useful for geotargeting)

I think you misunderstand what they said

 

[LCHappy]

All 301's do not come with some drop. I do them quite often and have never personally seen a drop in rankings.

So without any risk of a drop in rankings, major companies are staying on .co.uk when it is all as simple as a 301 redirect and go with a nicer shorter domain name?

In your opinion then, what is keeping them on .co.uk?

 

[LCHappy]

1) There is literally no benefit to moving over, apart from a shorter domain extension but a shorter domain extension holds no value itself. Just like .coms will never get taken over by .io domains.

But those two examples are different because both are second level. For a fair comparison it would need to be something like .com.io and just .io.

2) The main reason; The vast majority of domains used for UK audiences are either .com or .co.uk, so that's what people always refer to. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone always hears of a .com or .co.uk, so that's what they automatically type if looking for a website/domain of said name.

But the visitor would never know that the domain had moved to .uk if it was 301'd correctly. Even if they type in .co.uk, it will just redirect to .uk - most people won't notice that, then when they notice it they'll remember it. The brand would get a nicer shorter domain, with 100% no downside - if you are correct in that there is no short term hit on rankings for 301'ing a name. They get to have their cake and eat it.

 

[LCHappy]

I understand it's 'shorter' but that doesn't really hold any sort of worthwhile value.

But that's no value to you, the people I have sold to over the last 12 months have been big brands that have just started out. They are going with the .uk over .co.uk, one paid me £30k for .uk when it already had the .co.uk. The other major brand didn't even ask for the .co.uk, said they weren't bothered, just wanted the .uk. They weren't based in the UK so I doubt they understood that .co.uk was much larger.

I guess we will see how it goes with new start ups and what they choose to go with. My guess is that most new fresh startups will choose .uk, then it's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings.

 

[LCHappy]

Some possible downsides (for larger established .co.uk brands)...

• They already have .co.uk in their logo. For a small business this might be a small cost to amend and recirculate, for a large brand even a small tweak to a logo becomes an expensive update across collateral.
• They've already printed .co.uk on every instance of the domain name in use 'in the wild'. From printed materials to vehicle signage to billboards.
  
• They may find their CTR drops in the SERPs, because the .co.uk extension has been promoted by the brand since the inception of their website, and the general public are told to be cautious of domain extensions they don't (yet) recognise.

As you say, they could just 301 from the .co.uk to the .uk, but there's a possible downside to that too...

• 301'ing a huge website from .co.uk to .uk is another expense, sure a small site is simple enough. But if you've got a monster of a site with various URL structures etc then you're potentially adding to the cost and maybe even the load time. A brand like Amazon... there's going to need to be upsides to outweigh any time implication, no matter how small. There's also the server overheads for delaying the site load with a 301 for huge traffic sites.
• Very few of the biggest UK sites 301 their .uk's.

Clearly there are downsides, otherwise we would have seen far bigger sites switching to the .uk. After all they are out for every competitive advantage available to them. Switching to .uk sadly isn't a competitive advantage for sites already established on the .co.uk (in most cases, so far).

Right now it's still; Risk > Reward.

Just about every argument in this thread was raised in the debates for launching .uk, when it was first proposed. Sadly it fell on the tone deaf ears of the Board, who were more focused on printing money for bonuses and the like at that time. I think they could have found ways to give it a stronger start, but I'm sure there was less revenue in those ideas.

I think the shorter extension suits some startups and tech focused companies (like the web hosting examples referenced earlier in the thread).

Let me just say though that it was never my point that 301'ing a site was easy and without risk, that's what I'm arguing against. I'm a big believer in .uk, it will take over when successful new startups start to force others to move up to .uk, but would I swap (301) one of my successfully ranking sites to it now? Hell no.

There were better ways for Nominet to do it, but they wouldn't have made the money they did. I always believed that they cannibalised the .uk family without need.

But in short, .imo .uk is coming with new startups, at some point we will have to make choice whether to move or not.

 

[jasman]

Two other points worth mentioning:

In my opinion 2 letter .uk domains are better than 2 letter .co.uk domains because the whole point of having one is to have a really short domain and being able to ditch the .co characters makes it significantly shorter, ultra-short.

Also the debate over .co.uk vs .uk isn't just about whether people will switch over from one to the other. When the RoR domains were released there were some unbelievably good domain strings suddenly coming onto the market, the likes of which had not been seen since the 1990s when the .co.uk versions were snapped up. In many cases the .co.uk versions were owned by large companies or even public bodies, some in use as their primary domain. So unless you were willing and able to offer £millions to buy out the whole company the .co.uk was essentially off limits permanently (or at least until the company goes bust or changes its name).

With the sudden release of numerous top class category-killer domains, many of which the .co.uk versions were off limits anyway, it is no surprise that there was a scramble to buy up the best of the best of the .uk real estate in the aftermarket. Where the .co.uk domains are still owned by a large company unlikely to sell it, the .uk versions will continue to be valuable because the .co.uk is not an option so the .uk then becomes the best available domain if you want that category-killer string.

 

[LCHappy]

the .uk versions will continue to be valuable because the .co.uk is not an option so the .uk then becomes the best available domain if you want that category-killer string.

With that in mind, for those that do start up on .uk and becomes successful, I've never met anyone domaining yet claim that there is a chance the .uk owner would one day contemplate switching to the longer .co.uk

So the traffic is always going to be one way from here on in, that is why .uk will win one day and .co.uk will eventually become like .org.uk

 

[cloud]

The self fulfilling prophecy would have been that we believe .UK can be the most popular, so it happens. Not that .co.uk and .com were already popular and remained that way...

 

[Kaleido]

I heard SkyConnect.uk advertised on the radio yesterday.

 

[webber]

royal.uk should be important this year

 

[webber]

I just came across makeup.uk which fits very nicely with their other cctlds:
makeup.be
makeup.bg
makeup.ch
makeup.cz
makeup.es
makeup.fr
makeup.gr
makeup.hu
makeup.it
makeup.kz
makeup.lu
makeup.md
makeup.pl
makeup.ro
makeup.sk
They didn't bother with makeup.co.uk

 

[JMI]

There is a definite shift in sentiment.

 

[cloud]

There is a definite shift in sentiment.

Do you reckon?

 

[cloud]

I just came across makeup.uk which fits very nicely with their other cctlds:
makeup.be
makeup.bg
makeup.ch
makeup.cz
makeup.es
makeup.fr
makeup.gr
makeup.hu
makeup.it
makeup.kz
makeup.lu
makeup.md
makeup.pl
makeup.ro
makeup.sk
They didn't bother with makeup.co.uk

Nice. That's quite a collection.

 

[m4c]

Am keen to hear people’s feelings on this, now we’re a couple of years in - if you were launching a new project and want the domain name to be a big part of the brand identity, if you owned both versions of the domain, which would you lead with for the brand?

I think the .uk would sound and look better, but wouldn’t trust it if I didn’t own the .co.uk that I could just redirect… too much opportunity for mistaken type-in traffic, and / or having someone else capitalise on brand awareness…

what would you do?

 

[RB5]

Am keen to hear people’s feelings on this, now we’re a couple of years in - if you were launching a new project and want the domain name to be a big part of the brand identity, if you owned both versions of the domain, which would you lead with for the brand?

I think the .uk would sound and look better, but wouldn’t trust it if I didn’t own the .co.uk that I could just redirect… too much opportunity for mistaken type-in traffic, and / or having someone else capitalise on brand awareness…

what would you do?

I had this opportunity within the last year. Brand is called Mix, with both mix.co.uk and mix.uk owned.

I personally do not believe the .uk variant is anywhere as trusted as .co.uk by the general public.

 

[webber]

if you owned both versions of the domain, which would you lead with for the brand?

If you have both, it doesn't make a big difference which one you choose as your main domain if you redirect the other. Those that are confused by the whole .uk/.co.uk (and there are still plenty) will still find you.

Personally I think anyone choosing the .co.uk can probably live without the .uk for now, but anyone choosing the .uk should probably also secure the .co.uk to avoid lost traffic.

I noticed most of my .uk buyers are foreign nationals or from overseas and are therefore a lot more used to a cctld ending in just .uk (see my previous example). It's probably why I was so drawn to it too.

There is no right or wrong, I think. Most visitors don't type in a domain name. Most people search for google to get to google. Search engines (well, Google frankly) are the gateway to the internet. If a visitor remembers your domain name they will probably still search for it or type in first few letters expecting the autofill to do the rest.
What domain names still bring is authority and trust to new visitors. As someone pointed out earlier, I would feel a lot more confident giving my credit card to domain.uk than to domain123.xyz

Just my two cents, I'm far from an expert...

 

[twostepsbehind]

I think it depends on the business

gloucesterplumbers.co.uk > gloucesterplumbers.uk

property.uk > property.co.uk

 

[JMI]

Do you reckon?

I had this opportunity within the last year. Brand is called Mix, with both mix.co.uk and mix.uk owned.

I personally do not believe the .uk variant is anywhere as trusted as .co.uk by the general public.

I don't think the user would give a jot, the trust thing has been peddled by anti .UK naysayers for years and if you oppose? Well lest you be ready to be smited down like the foul beasts we are for daring to change our nameservers to point at dot UK. But.. we see plenty of people doing just fine using a .UK (like they said all the lights would go out if Brexit went ahead and here we all are).

If anyone can post a story about how a business ended up in ruins just because they used the dreaded .UK extension please do so because I haven't heard of any...

 

[cloud]

I don't think the user would give a jot, the trust thing has been peddled by anti .UK naysayers for years and if you oppose? Well lest you be ready to be smited down like the foul beasts we are for daring to change our nameservers to point at dot UK. But.. we see plenty of people doing just fine using a .UK (like they said all the lights would go out if Brexit went ahead and here we all are).

If anyone can post a story about how a business ended up in ruins just because they used the dreaded .UK extension please do so because I haven't heard of any...

yeah I don't really get the "trust" argument really. I understand them not knowing about the simpler .uk, but that's not trust