CREDITCARDS.COM Domain Name Purchased for $2.75 Million

[Duke]

Duke: That's inconsistent with what you even wrote last year:

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/domainsales11_04_03.htm

"Second, there is a good deal of speculation that the buyer might junk the existing portal anyhow."


The site's value is from the domain alone. But, you're entitled to your opinion. If DNJournal is to have respect as a publication, though, it needs to have more balance and objectivity. The fact that both candy.com and men.com were mentioned shows who is your master.

What does junking the portal have to do with the value of other assets like the magazine?

If DNJournal is to have respect as a publication? What planet have you been living on? Who does USA Today, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. call when they need information, a publication they have no respect for? OK, that's a credible argument you have there. How about inside the industry? Do you want to take a poll in the forums as to who is respected more, DNJournal or you?

As for your last paragraph, I don't know how to answer something so ludicrous other than to say you are a complete idiot. That one sentence tells me all I need to know about your credibility and agenda. So, you are another one of the Schwartz bashers and you somehow want to drag me into your fight. Sorry, not interested. I guess you missed the letter to the editor about my "master" that has been on DNJournal for weeks: http://www.dnjournal.com/letters.htm . An odd thing to print about one's master, huh?

As long as I am at it, I might as well bring this up. I had always wondered what your problem was. In classic two-faced weasel style you would pretend to be cordial with your little smiley faces while going behind people's backs and ripping them - myself, Elequa and others. You think no one noticed but it has been discussed with people wondering just what your issue was. Now I know. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[GeorgeK]

Very classy, Duke. I'm glad I turned down your offer to write for your publication long ago.

Have I said 1 false thing? Namedropping doesn't equal facts. Stating something unsubstantiated like you just have further demonstrates my point, not yours.

 

[Duke]

Very classy, Duke. I'm glad I turned down your offer to write for your publication long ago.

Have I said 1 false thing? Namedropping doesn't equal facts. Stating something unsubstantiated like you just have further demonstrates my point, not yours.

Whatever you say partner. I'm willing to let anyone read this thread and come to their own conclusion as to how truthful you are. As far as inviting you to write, you are are correct - that was LONG ago, before I had any idea what kind of person you are. Now I know. Again thank you. I prefer that to being repeatedly stabbed in the back by a coward.

 

[GeorgeK]

You're precious, Duke. Any more namecalling?

 

[Duke]

You're precious, Duke. Any more namecalling?

No, I think I pretty well covered it there.

 

[shepherd2]

The fact that men.com and candy.com were mentioned is likely more because of the respect he has to someone rather then who's slave he is to someone.
George, take a step back my friend. You are creating enemies on left and right for no reason and Duke is right, he is not the first one.
You're definitely a very intellectual person but at times, even if you are right and logically put the facts on the table it really doesn't help the long term relationships with people. It is not smart to always be right.
And Duke, I'm with George here too.. name calling has no place here between professionals. I would Leave that for newbies and wannabies.
Just my two cents.

 

[Duke]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any name calling there Shepherd. I reviewed the words I chose and they convey exactly what I think of this individual. There are no swear words. No words a child shouldn't see. If I thought others were more appropriate I would use them but those carry the meaning I meant to communicate. I don't see anything dishonest or childish about that, but I appreciate that you took time to offer your opinion.

 

[URLCollection]

Nice job on the article Duke - More great exposure for our industry. Nice sale on this domain name. George - Relax - Duke has gone out of his way every day to build a publication to aid all of us in the domains industry. I know how hard he works to bring only the finest of coverage to a market that is by far not "mainstream" in any fashion. We all hear numbers on domain sales, PPC revenues and traffic that are all over the board. To legitimize these numbers and put them to print is an enormous job and my "hat is off" to Duke for doing just that. To bring up Schwartz just because he did an article on him is way out of line. That is like saying USA TODAY is in bed with Terrorists because they write 2.4 articles a day (on average) about terrorists worldwide. They are just covering the news and Duke is just reporting about a key player in our industry. I would suggest an apology George for your statements. Keep up the good work Duke - We appreciate ALL of your efforts. - Steve

 

[mole]

There are several things about this reported sale that bother me.

#1 - The "news" comes from a public relations wire service - anyone can have a press release disseminated by them by paying for it. It would be completely different if it were from Associated Press or Reuters.

#2 - The WhoIs record shows there has been no change since July 1, 2004 - if it has changed hands, the record does not show it.

#3 - The current own listed (CreditCards.com LP) is in Austin, Texas. The new "buyer" , another LP, also just happens to be in Austin, Texas. Quite a coincidence for one of the biggest sales of all time.

#4 - Could the report of a monster transaction just be a way to massively goose up traffic to the site which would obviously provide a great revenue boost?

No doubt this is an extremely valuable name. I just have to wonder under the circumstances if a real change of ownership occurred.

They knew you would question it, duke, so they sent MSBC to butter you up :evil: Scam I say, scam.

 

[mole]

To bring up Schwartz just because he did an article on him is way out of line.

hmm, funny how they misquoted Duke by promoting candy.com instead of what he actually referred.

"The Bubble Mist Makers" - coming to your nearest bookstore in Autumm.

 

[Duke]

They knew you would question it, duke, so they sent MSBC to butter you up :evil: Scam I say, scam.

I certainly did question it Mole, but my questions were answered to my satisfaction. Some heavyweights were involved in this deal and the amount of revenue that domain is producing justifies the cost in my opinion. I will never take reports of sales like this at face value without looking deeper. Certainly elaborate scams have taken place in this business (and all others) and those usually come to light. There is always a slim chance that could happen here, but I don't believe it will.

 

[mole]

There is always a slim chance that could happen here, but I don't believe it will.

Ok, duke.

 

[Duke]

Ok, duke.

One thing I think I noted earlier, but I'll reiterate just to make clear regarding points 2 & 3 on the 4-point list above. On #2 the WhoIs update was this month - I had mistakenly read it as a year earlier. So on #3, the WhoIs had already been updated to the new owners in Austin. It wasn't a case of both the previous owner and the new owner being from Austin as I previously thought when I believed the WhoIs data was from last year. Also, I don't think the previous owner would allow the new owners to say he received $2.75 million if he didn't get that. Would you want to be on record as owing the IRS the taxes on that amount if you hadn't really received it?

 

[David G]

....To bring up Schwartz just because he did an article on him is way out of line......Steve

Agree, that is a ridiculous reason to seemingly attack Duke, who is the industries most respected and leading publicist, advocate and reporter.

A reason even the mention of Schwartz causes such hostility is he arouses such deep, bitter and hateful reactions in general from many domainers who have zero respect for Schwartz (beyond his great portfolio and traffic accomplishments)

I started to go into detail on Domain King's actions over the yrs in this paragraph but decided to delete it and not post it in the interest of not inflaming the situation.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

I like Duke. And I like George K. They are both good guys.

Duke produces DN Journal, THE leading publication for our industry. Sure, he is overly smitten with the ALT TLDs, but that is OK.

George K. is one of the top domainers I know. His portfolio includes some of the best domains I have ever seen. Sure, he has a sore spot regarding the Domain King, but so do alot of other people.

That's all I have to say.

Oh, except for saying I think Domain King is a pain in the ass, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[dtobias]

If the sale is of more than just the domain name alone -- if it also includes Web site content, or intellectual property such as trademarks or copyrights, or an established business and its other assets (including customer lists), etc. -- then it is a very subjective matter to try to come up with a number that the domain name itself is worth.

 

[GeorgeK]

Hey Shep:

"Schwartz believes that “making statements like that makes me an unpopular guy among every infringer, cyber squatter, hijacker and every other wrong doer. There is a small but vocal group that never misses an opportunity to say something nasty or make some crap up about me. So when you hear the attacks, look a little deeper and you usually find a motive.”

Which one of those am I and RealNames in?

 

[hiOsilver]

I would just like to say that I really appreciate Duke's dilligence and integrity in getting the facts of domain sales out on the table. It really is a benefit to the whole domain industry. Everyone, even Duke, has some preconceived notions and biases. However, he really makes a great effort and succeeds in presenting the facts. His sales page is the #1 most reliable source of price info in our business. That he approaches reports of large sales with initial skepticism is entirely appropriate.

I have learned more valuable domain information from Duke and his publication than from any other source except DNForum. His in-depth stories on many of the major players in the domain industry give everyone great insight not available anywhere else. Many thanks, Duke.

 

[David G]

I would just like to say that I really appreciate Duke's dilligence and integrity in getting the facts of domain sales out on the table. It really is a benefit to the whole domain industry. Everyone, even Duke, has some preconceived notions and biases. However, he really makes a great effort and succeeds in presenting the facts. His sales page is the #1 most reliable source of price info in our business. That he approaches reports of large sales with initial skepticism is entirely appropriate.

I have learned more valuable domain information from Duke and his publication than from any other source except DNForum. His in-depth stories on many of the major players in the domain industry give everyone great insight not available anywhere else. Many thanks, Duke.

DITTO.

 

[GeorgeK]

From:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=56969&page=2&pp=15&highlight=casino.com

" I obviously knew the casino.com sale was bigger than the men.com sale"

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/domainsales11_04_03.htm

" One of the largest sales in history tops the past week's list of reported domain sales."

I'll let history judge me. As Shepherd implies, I'd rather be right, than popular.