.NZ - Growth Rates At Record Lows After Change

[snoopy]

The .nz registry has some good data and it is interesting to look at what has happened there.

https://dnc.org.nz/node/1010

If you look at the data and how things have gone since direct registration stated a couple of years ago the data is interesting, they had a spike when direct reges came in in 14-15 year of 15.0% (I have plugged the data into excel). This is total data for all NZ extensions.


However you can see in just one year the growth rate hit the lowest number they have ever seen 3.8%, and barely any better than following year with 3.9%, significantly lower than the years before the change.

In short New Zealand got a "one off" 80-90k sugar hit (i.e. most of that 15%) with their volume. The new tld didn't do anything for health of their namespace, the growth rate just kept on dropping.

In my view Australia is in a more vulnerable position, the growth rate is under 2%, I that is due to a higher level of speculation in Australia because EMD domains were so popular between 2002-2012 and also due to concern around the .au proposal.

 

[DomainNames]

But Melbourne IT( and their entities) told everyone via their YES ONLY VOTE email campaign the .UK and .NZ ne extensions where " remarkably successful" ? Was that material put out and that claim False and Misleading ? I think it was and should not have been allowed to be said by a auDA Board Member when not factual where it could and did sway votes for the proposed competing .au extension Melbourne IT ( and their entities) wants to push in.

NZ fact the .nz has failed and is not "remarkably successful" as claimed "Figure 3 shows the total number of domain names increased from 640,342 (at 1 April 2015) to 656,607 (at 31 March 2016) – a growth of 16,265, or 2.5 percent. The dip between February and March 2016 reflects the one-year anniversary of the end of the preferential registration and registration period - an important part of the registrations direct at the second level change. It appears that some registrants, having exercised their preferential registration rights, have subsequently let the shorter version of their name drop. "
https://www.dnc.org.nz/sites/default/files/2016-08/Domain Name Commission - Annual Report - .pdf

 

[Shane]

It appears that some registrants, having exercised their preferential registration rights, have subsequently let the shorter version of their name drop.

Absolutely.

I took up the direct option on a few of my NZ domains, but aside from the most important ones, they'll be being dropped in the near future.

 

[DomainNames]

Ausregistry auDA Board Member George Pongas promoted that adding another competing .au extension would help get another 3 million Australian domains registered....

The facts are when it was done in the UK and .NZ is failed... there WAS NOT THE DEMAND CLAIMED

What Ausregistry produced and promoted was probably for their potential investors and they probably also pushed that auDA could make more money also to the delight of some at auDA

https://www.ausregistry.com.au/product-innovation-will-produce-the-next-3-million-au-domains/

Was anyone at Ausregistry in line for any bonuses or financial benefits if another .au extension came/ comes in? Did they promote this on a public disclaimer in full? I did not see any such disclaimer of how much the benefit would be.... but some have mentioned it was known to auDA and the auDA Board?

 

[snoopy]

Ausregistry auDA Board Member George Pongas promoted that adding another competing .au extension would help get another 3 million Australian domains registered....

Yes it is going to be nothing like that. I would say under 500k.

 

[eBranding.com.au]

The .nz registry has some good data and it is interesting to look at what has happened there.

https://dnc.org.nz/node/1010

If you look at the data and how things have gone since direct registration stated a couple of years ago the data is interesting, they had a spike when direct reges came in in 14-15 year of 15.0% (I have plugged the data into excel). This is total data for all NZ extensions.

View attachment 410
However you can see in just one year the growth rate hit the lowest number they have ever seen 3.8%, and barely any better than following year with 3.9%, significantly lower than the years before the change.

In short New Zealand got a "one off" 80-90k sugar hit (i.e. most of that 15%) with their volume. The new tld didn't do anything for health of their namespace, the growth rate just kept on dropping.

In my view Australia is in a more vulnerable position, the growth rate is under 2%, I that is due to a higher level of speculation in Australia because EMD domains were so popular between 2002-2012 and also due to concern around the .au proposal.
View attachment 407

Thanks for sharing this analysis.

In my opinion, the introduction of direct registrations in developed markets - with well established ccTLD extensions already in place - has not been successful. To say the least.

I think NZ and the UK are perfect examples of this; and your analysis of the NZ namespace certainly backs that up.

There has only been what I would call 'success' (in terms of adoption rates for the direct registration option) in developing markets, where ccTLD use was still in the early stages when direct registrations were introduced.

India is a perfect example of this. In that market, .in is now the favoured option (over .co.in); and that’s clearly reflected in the registration figures and aftermarket sales.

 

[snoopy]

There has only been what I would call 'success' (in terms of adoption rates for the direct registration option) in developing markets, where ccTLD use was still in the early stages when direct registrations were introduced.

Agree, those were introduced very early in as you say undeveloped markets, very similar situation for .cn. A big problem in those markets though is a third of popular sites use the older versions and then a whole lot of local sites use .com instead (another third), they don't have any consistency at all.

http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/IN
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/CN

This is why .com.au has been so successful by comparison, business has one clear extension option, they don't have to think about what to choose.

 

[Scott.L]

The .nz registry has some good data and it is interesting to look at what has happened there.

https://dnc.org.nz/node/1010

If you look at the data and how things have gone since direct registration stated a couple of years ago the data is interesting, they had a spike when direct reges came in in 14-15 year of 15.0% (I have plugged the data into excel). This is total data for all NZ extensions.

View attachment 410
However you can see in just one year the growth rate hit the lowest number they have ever seen 3.8%, and barely any better than following year with 3.9%, significantly lower than the years before the change.

In short New Zealand got a "one off" 80-90k sugar hit (i.e. most of that 15%) with their volume. The new tld didn't do anything for health of their namespace, the growth rate just kept on dropping.

In my view Australia is in a more vulnerable position, the growth rate is under 2%, I that is due to a higher level of speculation in Australia because EMD domains were so popular between 2002-2012 and also due to concern around the .au proposal.
View attachment 407

Yes.
Growth rates for “creates” [new registrations] are at arbitrage with current “keyword” availability.

“Creates” declined because that is normal. Retention rate of those “creates” are held whilst the market filters out the keyword combinations that are useless. By virtue of this churn, quality domains increase in value and higher query rates occur. The market is slowly becoming informed in how to negotiate direct with domain owners. The chart indicates this begun toward the end of 2015.

you see in the chart – a typical “crossing” occurred in 2011 between “creates” and “retention” this is normal – the possible keyword combinations relevent to our local market has achieve equivelence. Retention at 3 million is the saturation level of our market – it has matured according to the localised market need. Sure, there are thousands of names that haven’t yet been registered but local market demand for those is zero. [3%]

auDA knows that this decline in “creates” is normal. But, they are using it to influence the public into a false interpretation of the data. It is obvious to me, an agenda of implementing .au is nothing short of an IPO capital raising for itself and registries whilst diminishing the aftermarket from acquiring higher valuations -

.

 

[Scott.L]

Oh - Im sorry I posted this in the wrong thread. I'm speaking of .com.au not .nz either way the same rules work.

 

[snoopy]

By virtue of this churn, quality domains increase in value and higher query rates occur. The market is slowly becoming informed in how to negotiate direct with domain owners. The chart indicates this begun toward the end of 2015.

you see in the chart – a typical “crossing” occurred in 2011 between “creates” and “retention” this is normal – the possible keyword combinations relevent to our local market has achieve equivelence. Retention at 3 million is the saturation level of our market – it has matured according to the localised market need. Sure, there are thousands of names that haven’t yet been registered but local market demand for those is zero. [3%]

auDA knows that this decline in “creates” is normal. But, they are using it to influence the public into a false interpretation of the data. It is obvious to me, an agenda of implementing .au is nothing short of an IPO capital raising for itself and registries whilst diminishing the aftermarket from acquiring higher valuations -

.

I agree that it is "normal" to some extent, I don't think it means that "quality domains increase in value", I just don't see it in the sales results at the moment. To me it feels like the market has stalled.

Agree though that the .au market had matured, some seem to not be able to quite take in that this is the "new normal" and hope for 10%+ growth like when the internet was expanding rapidly and domainers were investing heavily. Those days are now long gone. If they can get get .au through then they will get one more year of that growth, then it will be into a 1% growth rate or lower.

I personally think the growth rate will go negative within 5 years, regardless of what happens with .au.

 

[chris]

Interesting stats @snoopy

 

[snoopy]

Cheers Chris,

Just one other thing of note, the 2014 growth rate is a crucial number in my view, it was 4.5% and the first year of very low growth. Why did it slow so much in that year? Two possible explanations,

- .co.nz growth rate was slowing rapidly simply due to overall factors unrelated to the new extension

or

- the .nz proposal/upcoming new release was the cause of the slow down in that year

As you can see between 2007-2013 things were chugging along fine in terms of growth. This is obviously quite different to the Australian situation where growth has been slowing for 10 years.

 

[Scott.L]

Cheers Chris,

Just one other thing of note, the 2014 growth rate is a crucial number in my view, it was 4.5% and the first year of very low growth. Why did it slow so much in that year? Two possible explanations,

- .co.nz growth rate was slowing rapidly simply due to overall factors unrelated to the new extension

or

- the .nz proposal/upcoming new release was the cause of the slow down in that year

As you can see between 2007-2013 things were chugging along fine in terms of growth. This is obviously quite different to the Australian situation where growth has been slowing for 10 years.

.nz is already in negative territory whilst the co.nz is bouncing back - it is interesting to read .nz one year anniversary registrants let their .nz name drop.

The dip between February and March 2016 reflects the one-year anniversary of the end of the preferential registration and registration period - an important part of the registrations direct at the second level change. It appears that some registrants, having exercised their preferential registration rights, have subsequently let the shorter version of their name drop.


https://www.dnc.org.nz

looking at the weekly sales chart for .co.nz you can see the indicision - Im surprised soft drink sold for only $100.00USD
bedandbreakfast.co.nz 5,800 USD 2016-07-03
businessforsale.co.nz 8,425 USD 2015-02-18
softdrink.co.nz 100 USD 2015-10-18



data - namebio.com


.

 

[snoopy]

.nz is already in negative territory whilst the co.nz is bouncing back - it is interesting to read .nz one year anniversary registrants let their .nz name drop.

Cheers Scott, can you post the data on it if you have.

 

[Scott.L]

Cheers Scott, can you post the data on it if you have.

stats can be found @ https://www.dnc.org.nz/resource-library/statistics/90

 

[snoopy]

stats can be found @ https://www.dnc.org.nz/resource-library/statistics/90

I can't see much in the way of declines though apart from maybe in one month?

 

[Scott.L]

not allot of data for .nz I'm simply refering to Fig 1 in the report p.4 looks like it declined into negative territory:
https://www.dnc.org.nz/sites/default/files/2016-08/Domain Name Commission - Annual Report - .pdf

Stats based on monthly reporting;




its interesting that .uk registrations took a dive due to criminal activity reported in Nov 2016;
8,000 .UK DOMAINS SUSPENDED AS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INDUSTRY KEEP .UK SAFE
https://www.nominet.uk/8000-uk-domains-suspended-law-enforcement-industry-collaborate-keep-uk-safe/

8,000 domains and yet over 200,000 domains dropped? I dunno the full story but the chart took a hit.

 

[snoopy]

btw: the big volume change for .nz in March was because of the cutoff date for registration of reserved names being 30th March 2017. New registration numbers in April slumped back down again to the prior low levels (around 2400 per month).

 

[snoopy]

Update, another full quarter of data is now out,

Quarterly growth was 0.968% (i.e. slightly less than 1%).

This is looking like another year of growth around 3.8% and a far cry from then 10% rate it was achieving before the direct registration proposal was approved by the DNC in 2013.

https://dnc.org.nz/node/1523

Here is the original announcement of Direct Registration approval in New Zealand,

https://www.dnc.org.nz/story/new-le...mes-provide-more-choice-online-new-zealanders

Worth looking at the date of that announcement (Oct 2013) and comparing it to the growth rate change in the table in the first post,