Last week Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) came out and ripped the proposed .sucks new gtld. Senator Rockefeller said that .sucks was, “little more than a predatory shakedown scheme designed to force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits, and even individuals, to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”
I think that brands should just boycott the extension as a show of solidarity with the hopes that it puts a financial strain on the extension and that it won’t meet its financial goals.
Because let’s say Microsoft spends $25,000 under a worse case scenario, for Microsoft.sucks. If I have a problem with Microsoft I am not thwarted, I register MicrosoftReally.sucks for reg fee, if the site gets any traction or any publicity, others will follow and before you know it there is GoogleReally.sucks and WalmartReally.sucks etc…
Once the Really names are tapped out, other words will be used, so there is no defending an extension when there are almost an infinite number of choices.
Brands could seek to discredit the extension backing the Senator’s words and exposing it as extortion. Then they can turn their attention to .exposed and .fail.
Even with the best intentions from a conceptual standpoint, .Sucks imo should have never been approved, it just lends itself to being a shakedown. Companies don’t need another site to communicate with their customers, and even if we want to go down that route, why would you come at it from a place of negativity ? A company can register a .com or .org for $9 such as MicrosoftCustomerSupport.com, they don’t need .sucks.
Great article spot on mate.