There's something to be said about ".com" addresses...
When you place "pepsi.com" in a can , people know it's a web address. Now, if pepsi has its own TLD, how should they refer to their web site? Just "pepsi"? "www.pepsi"? "web: pepsi"?
I suspect they will reserve their TLD, and then continue to use "pepsi.com" as before, thus rendering these new TLDs useless at best, and noise at worst.
they didn't have problems with "go to our facebook page" so it shouldn't be a problem to promote "win a ticket to justin timberlake concert - go to our website - justin dot pepsi"
it's no worse than go to our website at justin dot pepsi dot com, but most people will still have a problem with it
if there's one thing i took away from my time doing front line support, it's that users don't enter URLs. if you tell them to find the address bar, they're lost. if you give them a URL to enter, they have no idea what to do regardless of whether the TLD is .com or .pepsi. people get to where they want to go by searching, whether they're searching google for a website or searching facebook for a page. the domain name system may have technical meaning, but for most users pepsi.com is just as obscure a code as 199.187.226.158
I agree. I can't believe how companies promotes facebook.com/brand instead of brand.com. It's perfectly fine to have a facebook brand page, but you should promote yours first!
Why? If you are sure you need a facebook presence, and not sure about your own site helping the brand, then you just push the facebook one. It's simpler. No confusion. One place to go to find out about the product.
When you place "pepsi.com" in a can , people know it's a web address. Now, if pepsi has its own TLD, how should they refer to their web site? Just "pepsi"? "www.pepsi"? "web: pepsi"?
I suspect they will reserve their TLD, and then continue to use "pepsi.com" as before, thus rendering these new TLDs useless at best, and noise at worst.