3 ms·

If the milk marketing budget is truly 100 million a year (a cursory check shows it's likely closer to 200 million now) as he mentions, 10 million doesn't seem v

If the milk marketing budget is truly 100 million a year (a cursory check shows it's likely closer to 200 million now) as he mentions, 10 million doesn't seem very high at all. So they've had a 100 million per year marketing budget for at least 10 years. Let's say they spent 1% per year towards the domain... The opportunity cost for not having something as obvious and useful as milk.com seems significant. To me it seems like they've already made a mistake by not paying up despite having the means, and now they've dug their foot in. They've spent hundreds of millions on billboards, yet they can't even put "milk.com" on their billboards next to "got milk". Imo but 5% less billboards for a few years and buy the domain...

Mistletoe 1y ago
Idk it seems like everyone knows about milk at this point, is milk.com vital? We buy our books at Amazon.com not books.com. And you wouldn’t even buy milk at milk.com it would just be info about milk.
- Fade_Dance 1y ago
  I agree it sort of seems like a waste of money, but this is what they are doing year after year - spending money to promote milk. May as well stretch to have milk.com at that point if you plan on spending 100 mil a year for the foreseeable future on promotion. Then again, they've already blown through the entire old-school .com age without getting the domain, maybe they are better off just riding it out until web addresses are entirely irrelevant rather than just mostly irrelevant.
gdbsjjdn 1y ago
The value isn't to the milk cartel, it's to alternative milk producers. Imagine an ad for a new oat milk with "milk.com" as the domain. It's got a ton of media value.
- enlyth 1y ago
  In some countries you're not allowed to call them milk, for example, in the UK a judge ruled that they must be called something like "oat drink" instead.
  - whatsupdog 1y ago
    Which actually makes sense. If it's not coming from a mammal's mammary glands, it's not milk! Calling it milk IS deceptive marketing.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    they'd not be calling their product milk, it would just be the name of their domain. you don't buy amazons at amazon.com
curiousObject 1y ago
It’s affected by how Google currently ranks the plain domain name in a search. It used to be higher than it is now, but it still has got a lot of weight

Mistletoe 1y ago

Idk it seems like everyone knows about milk at this point, is milk.com vital? We buy our books at Amazon.com not books.com. And you wouldn’t even buy milk at milk.com it would just be info about milk.

Fade_Dance 1y ago
I agree it sort of seems like a waste of money, but this is what they are doing year after year - spending money to promote milk. May as well stretch to have milk.com at that point if you plan on spending 100 mil a year for the foreseeable future on promotion. Then again, they've already blown through the entire old-school .com age without getting the domain, maybe they are better off just riding it out until web addresses are entirely irrelevant rather than just mostly irrelevant.

gdbsjjdn 1y ago

The value isn't to the milk cartel, it's to alternative milk producers. Imagine an ad for a new oat milk with "milk.com" as the domain. It's got a ton of media value.

enlyth 1y ago
In some countries you're not allowed to call them milk, for example, in the UK a judge ruled that they must be called something like "oat drink" instead.
- whatsupdog 1y ago
  Which actually makes sense. If it's not coming from a mammal's mammary glands, it's not milk! Calling it milk IS deceptive marketing.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  they'd not be calling their product milk, it would just be the name of their domain. you don't buy amazons at amazon.com

curiousObject 1y ago

It’s affected by how Google currently ranks the plain domain name in a search. It used to be higher than it is now, but it still has got a lot of weight