.photography or .photos

<p>Hello! I'm really interested in the thought process behind a URL. We're so programmed to use .com, .net, .org, etc. With GoDaddy releasing domains such as .photography, it really opens up a window of change in terms of domain names for photography businesses and galleries. </p>

<p >Are any of you considering purchasing a .photography or .photos URL for your business? <br /><br />Have you recently purchased one? <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>[[GoDaddy releasing domains such as .photography]]</p>

<p>GoDaddy had nothing to do with the release of new gTLD's. The organization, ICANN, is responsible. GoDaddy will simply sell you the temporary access to use one. </p>

<p>You have to think about the world at large and the way potential customers will think. We are all so conditioned after approximately 20 years of thinking "dot com," that I'm not sure about the value of a dot-anything URL.</p>

<p>Hmmm, .com is prevelant and v. short...and most people prefer something short (me thinks). I went with mine (also .com) for that reason.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I think Les is right. How about something like .jpg, or even .tiff?</p>

<p>The most important consideration in any business domain name is how Google will consider it. For example, if I was a photographer in Phoenix I would be much better off with phoenixphotographyguy.com than with JoeSmithphotography.com. </p>

<p>It remains to be seen how Google will consider the .whatever names. I always heard that .com gets the most weight. I could be completely wrong on this. </p>

<p>Search engine optimization is the biggest consideration in any website. I believe I could make very good case for asserting that economically one would be better off with mediocre content and good SEO than the opposite.</p>

<p>You could check the SEO forums and see what they are saying. I really don't know the answer but I suspect a good SEO person could tell you how to get the most bang for your buck. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We're so programmed to use .com, .net, .org, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're only that because they are the original and oldest top level domain names, mixed with the US quirk that the .us TLD never caught on. The rest of the world has always already been used to the country-specific TLDs as well (in fact, people look at me confused because I use a hotmail.com address instead of a hotmail.it like the rest of this country).<br>

In the end, SEO and properly targetted social media exposure is far more important at the moment. For what I see, less and less people actually type in an URL. And certainly, if you expect people to type your domain name, very long URL names (and .photography is a bit overly long) do not work half as well. People find you via Google (Bing maybe), or Facebook. Make sure you turn up there. Else, a bog standard www.companyname.com - keeping it as short and simple as possible. I am not sure whether .com domains are rated higher by Google, but inside the mind of people, they seem to be; followed by the country TLDs (.de, .ru,.ca etc.). Even .net/org etc. do not have the same mental weight.<br>

So, these new TLDs, I do not see a lot of added value in them for businesses. More fun-to-have for amateurs, or as additional domain names to the already existing main one.</p>

<p>Rob - thanks for clarifying. <br><br>

It would be useful to do some research regarding SEO - very good point. <br /><br />I know there was a lot of buzz in February and lots of interest, particularly for photographers. Any other feedback or thoughts - let me know! If you have recently purchased a .photography or .photos URL (or plan to) and don't want to post here (and wouldn't mind chatting about it with me), drop me a line csthilaire@namemedia.com. I'd like to write an article about this. </p>

<p>I should add that it seems like it might have some strong value in terms of branding.</p>