10 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
10 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

What do you think about .co domain names?

by hapkidoman
8 replies
I have a website where I am trying to brand it with a unique name (I'll use puppymania.com as an example - let's say we sell dog clothes).

Now, I like my domain name and company name and already have a logo, etc. for it. Again, i'm trying to create a brand.

But, would it be better to get the puppyclothes.co domain name (exact keyword match - .com domain name is already taken as is .org, .net, etc.) instead? I feel that this would help me rank better but I would have to change my logo. And, in the future, what if I want to sell more than just dog clothes?

Third option: Would it be weird to have my domain name be puppyclothes.co but then have a Puppymania logo, Puppymania facebook fan page, etc.? Would that confuse customers or make it look suspicious?

Also, this is not an affiliate site. This is a business that sells a physical product.

Any thoughts?
#.co #branding #domain #names
  • Profile picture of the author AntiGuru
    Most of the registrations under .co are defensive or speculative. Very few people are actually developing under .co, having the exact match under .co won't improve your rankings. The content of the site and the anchor text linking to it are more important.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2845129].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Supernatural_fan
      I disagree; actually I have read that besides the resemblance with the notorious .com, the .co domain is widely recognized. Just keep in mind how many sites, for example from UK, are using it and other such terminologies. Even Twitter used it at the beginning, so I think you can develop under .co. After all, what better options are there?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2845280].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AntiGuru
        Originally Posted by Supernatural_fan View Post

        I disagree; actually I have read that besides the resemblance with the notorious .com, the .co domain is widely recognized. Just keep in mind how many sites, for example from UK, are using it and other such terminologies. Even Twitter used it at the beginning, so I think you can develop under .co. After all, what better options are there?
        There are exceptions that prove the rule (t.co and o.co), which in both cases are merely nifty URL redirectors. Beyond that, the activity in the space is driven primarily by typo-squatting and defensive registrations.

        I can see your point about the resemblance to .UK (since it's .co.uk over there), that may make for a niche usage: .UK guys trying to shorten their URL, but then again on the other side of the coin, that's a another typo-squat there too. All the entrenched .co.uk sites will need to defend against the typo of those omitting the ".uk" part.

        Try this thought experiment: if the ISO code for Columbia happened to be .CI instead of .CO, would it have taken off the way it did? No way.

        Try entering .CO in myriad web forms and millions of them probably still throw errors on them.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2845866].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulie888
          Originally Posted by AntiGuru View Post

          There are exceptions that prove the rule (t.co and o.co), which in both cases are merely nifty URL redirectors. Beyond that, the activity in the space is driven primarily by typo-squatting and defensive registrations.

          I can see your point about the resemblance to .UK (since it's .co.uk over there), that may make for a niche usage: .UK guys trying to shorten their URL, but then again on the other side of the coin, that's a another typo-squat there too. All the entrenched .co.uk sites will need to defend against the typo of those omitting the ".uk" part.

          Try this thought experiment: if the ISO code for Columbia happened to be .CI instead of .CO, would it have taken off the way it did? No way.

          Try entering .CO in myriad web forms and millions of them probably still throw errors on them.
          I totally agree about the speculative nature of .co domains. Besides not exactly being inexpensive, there's really no way to predict how this TLD will be received by internet users in the future.

          I'd advise trying to shoot for the .net or .org TLDs of your desired domain name, if still available. If they are, I'd advise to forget about the .co altogether.
          Signature
          >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2846126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sachine
    Never seen any .co site ranking in google... I had trouble getting my .info domain ranked. but its possible for keywords with absolutely less competition.
    Signature
    Fat burners | Clear Skin Max | ZsaZsa Luxe | Is SenukeX Good?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2846466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Firstrate
    Yeah not sure about their ranking but I really like the ending - it's very simple, clean and catchy.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2846517].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BenSalez
    Lets say I am targeting "widget"

    Would you prefer widget.co or widgetinfo.com

    Any input or theories?

    Ben
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2846630].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hapkidoman
      Thanks for all the feedback guys. I've seen one site rank that had a .co domain name and it seemed to be doing well. For my exact keyword, all of the .info, .com, .org, .net, etc. are already taken; however, I think I will just stick to my brand name and focus on creating strong backlinks that revolve around my keyword.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2848323].message }}

Trending Topics