Stephen, it's right that the article will be read by many investors from outside the domain industry. But wouldn't you agree that the article is rather negative? It portraits domaining as a get-rich-quick scheme and talks in length about how one can make millions of dollars from typos. The CNBC On The Money clip is even more negative for the domain industry, talking about nothing but typosquatting.
Yes, you have a good point, but you know the old adage "say what you want about me, but spell my name right."
Even though the article and the CNBC piece like to take subtle jabs at domainers, you can see their human frailties through the mist of their tears, caused by an overwhelming emotion called "jealousy". The point really is this:
The value of domains is unmistakenable, and any marketing director wishing to enhance the value of their company's online presence should understand by now and pursue domain purchases, or quit their job. From the viewpoint of being a writer for an Madison Ave Ad agency, I've said this for years to any company or person not "getting it" about domains:
There is NO other advertising or marketing medium, dollar for dollar, that can beat and OUTLAST an investment in a good keyword domain name that has traffic, and generically represents the company's product or service. Ad agencies will spend their client's money by the millions in TV, magazine, newspaper, radio advertising, and marketing events and gimmickry, and the company's investment fades after the ads and commercials disappear. The company again pays their ad agency millions to come up with ANOTHER ad campaign, hopefully with some sticky power for branding "Where's the Beef?" (does everyone still remember this was a popular Wendy's commercial?) But nailing that perfect branding slogan that the consumer will remember after they've turned the page in their Newsweek magazine is rare and extremely expensive.
Compare that with spending $2 million for a domain that brings in a million or more visitors to their website the first year, then spending $10 to renew the domain for the next year for the same or better returns, and the next year and on and on. The domain continues to bring in dividends as long as typein traffic exists. What other advertising or marketing effort or medium can compete with a good domain name based on PRICE and LONGEVITY of ROI? There aren't any.
If the news agencies are reporting snidely about this power and ability for domainers to make money by just being smart enough to understand what kinds of domains to buy, it's not because they hate domainers, it's because they wish they "got it" 10 years ago, too. :yes:
But ultimately, this type of coverage is geared towards projecting the incredulous fact that a huge amount of the business community still "don't get it" about domains. There's more discussion about the "common thinking" by marketing directors today, but I'll talk about that later. To a domainer who wants to sell their domains to the "end user", a marketing director (or VP of BD) is their most important contact for high end sales.
I'm surprised by all the positive comments this article is getting.
If you ask me, I don't think Kevin Ham is a great poster boy for the domain industry.
He's an admitted domain taster, .cm squatter and typosquatter. Not that this is really anything wrong with any of those but it does get into the sleazy side of the business.
And, this makes the cover of the magazine.
NOT a great day in domain history if you ask me.
The point is that the business industry wants to make money, and sees opportunities to do anything LEGAL to accomplish their success. Offshore bank accounts by major corporations attempting to bypass paying taxes isn't nice, either, but tens of thousands of companies do it. Healthcare ripoffs are common, even your cellphone company is ripping you off for a few nickels every month. These are all reported stories on business.
Kevin Ham did something that put him where none of us are sitting, and he didn't do it by doing anything illegal, just crafty and smart. I know I sure couldn't have thought of the things he's figured out. Good or bad, the overlying strength of the article is "DOMAINS ARE VALUABLE!"
And that's a good thing for us.
But I share your concern about domainer's image, and I'm on record for that. So I created a topic session at the DRT 2007 in August that addresses this very issue, how to present a reputable image for the domain industry. Audience feedback and suggestions, live surveys to find some good answers to that question. I think your point is a very important one and something all of the domain industry has to consider as we move forward into the future.