Major Business 2.0 Magazine Domain Article Now Online

[none]

Great question. I've often wondered the same. I'm grabbing my tin-foil hat for this one...

 

[Rubber Duck]

It would be nice, but people have their agendas.

It's ridiculous to see the biggest business article EVER about .COMs and domaining twisted into some bizarre and tortured justification for exactly what the article doesn't talk about --IDNs, alt TLDs, and CC TLDs.

For the record, the article is about the success of speculating in...[drum roll please]...

... .COM !!!

Yes, this marks the graduation of Dot Com from a speculative vehicle to respectable investment.

What it does mean, however, is that its days as a useful speculative vehicle are drawing to a close, as the prices now paid in the market will only afford the returns demanded by high risk investors/venture capitalists, rather the returns demanded by a true speculator.

Yes, this is dot coms story. To the speculator, it should be regarded as its epitaph.

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

 

[sasquatch]

The answer is simple. If they have bought in a drop Auction they can claim the prestige of having won a competitive battle and are not open to accusations of having paid more than the market price! Beside which many may not have heard of DNForums. They also do not have to deal with Transfers and Escrow which they may not understand.

I do share your frustration as I drop stuff that goes on to sell for good prices, but I have to admit, if I were to hang on to some of these they wouldn't sell for me in a hundred years! I stopped bidding at drop auctions several years ago as you end up paying 3 time what you can sell them for!

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

I'm not frustrated, just puzzled.

So what you are saying Dave it is all about their egos? While I don't underestimate the power of ego in the upper echelons of an ego-driven wild west vanity sub-"industry" like this one, I refuse to belive that's the only motive? I mean ego is one thing, but paying thosands for domains whic can be bought for xx or xxx here is just bad business at best or sheer and costly stupidity at worst. At the end of the day the bottom line should rule the ego in most instances, will it not?

 

[Rubber Duck]

I'm not frustrated, just puzzled.

So what you are saying Dave it is all about their egos? While I don't underestimate the power of ego in the upper echelons of an ego-driven wild west vanity sub-"industry" like this one, I refuse to belive that's the only motive? I mean ego is one thing, but paying thosands for domains whic can be bought for xx or xxx here is just bad business at best or sheer and costly stupidity at worst. At the end of the day the bottom line should rule the ego in most instances, will it not?

Look if Microsoft are not even prepared to talk to guys about selling domains and then drop something that subsequently fetches $160,000, it would seem Ego's have a lot to do with it!

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

 

[none]

Time = money. Catching is automatic, bidding is automatic, payment is automatic. Here you have to deal with people and people take time. Not worth the aggravation for them either.

They're running businesses. The hassle of dealing with short term negotiations is worth extending break-even by years?

I'm puzzled too, especially when this extended break-even is multiplied across hundreds (thousands?) of domains.

 

[sasquatch]

Time = money. Catching is automatic, bidding is automatic, payment is automatic. Here you have to deal with people and people take time. Not worth the aggravation for them either.

So you're saying being on autopilot is better solution for you even if it costed you many, many times over? After all who wants to be aggravated amongst the palm trees of your Caribbean retreat? Where is a creativiity in that? Not to mention the responsibility to your own pockets? If you were a public company, chances are this approach could be considered irresponsible corporate governance detrimental to the interests of your shareholders.

I am not saying they should buy all their names here, but certainly there are ocassionally some names here that would make great additions to their portfolios without making as much dent in their budgets. Yet, they never excercise that option, not even in rare instances. How crazy is that?

I belive this was another one of many benchmark "trends" that Ult himself started, and now it's like an unwritten rule amongst those that pretend to the throne and consider themselves great: NA, VA, BD... It looks like the latter crowd are nothing but copycat followers without a hint of self-generated thought. It's like an unspoken rite of passage if you want to be considered an "industry giant":

"Thou shall not buy names from commoners."

 

[JMJ]

"Thou shall not buy names from commoners."

LMAO... I think thats the funniest thing I've read in months.. But it is so true. The only industry I've ever been in where this sort of thing occurs.

 

[Rubber Duck]

LMAO... I think thats the funniest thing I've read in months.. But it is so true. The only industry I've ever been in where this sort of thing occurs.

I think that there is some truth in all this and an inevitable sort of logic. If they feed the pockets of other speculators, then that money will only be recycled to make them bid more for future investments. Perhaps they see buying for other speculators as being counterproductive.

Whilst you limited capital is tied up in domains that are potential valuable but unsold, then you are effectively out of the game!

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

 

[JMJ]

I think that there is some truth in all this and an inevitable sort of logic. If they feed the pockets of other speculators, then that money will only be recycled to make them bid more for future investments. Perhaps they see buying for other speculators as being counterproductive.

Whilst you limited capital is tied up in domains that are potential valuable but unsold, then you are effectively out of the game!

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

I understand your point. But, the logic behind it doesn't make sense. Utilizing the power of many to reduce acquisition costs would be a much wiser investment than over spending anyday. Reduced acquisition costs leads to higher returns, higher returns leads to more money for acquisition. It's the way the economy evolves. Large corporations subcontract out work all the time what makes the domain industry any different?

As sasquatch said. If they were bought directly from the current owner they most likely would have paid much less considering they were going to drop thename in the first place. Now if those with all that cash bought from within on a regular basis then less names would expire and the need for auctions probably wouldn't even exist.

 

[sasquatch]

LMAO... I think thats the funniest thing I've read in months.. But it is so true. The only industry I've ever been in where this sort of thing occurs.

But it's true. Imagine going to Wall Street and telling the movers and shakers there that they could get whatever they are interested for much less than they do, and their response be: "Of **** off, we want to buy for more, rather than less!" :-D

The whole capitalist universe is about looking for innovative ways to cut the costs, to buy for less and sell for more - the whole concept of globalization rests on these simple cornerstones - but not these guys.

Hehe and they tell me there's no bubble, and that the "industry" is not full of shit?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Psychologist: What do you see in this first Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: And, in this last one?
Pathological domainer: IDNs

 

[none]

Exactly.

Very well put.

I think we're two small camps in the same big camp. I see the summary as:

- .COM is the biggest, baddest TLD, in the most lucrative and mature market (US). It's not going away... in fact, it's become a viable asset class with P/E at 10-15.
- IDNs in .COM and ccTLD popularity will be a function of e-commerce growth in their respective markets. P/Es are currently astronomical reflecting their risk/reward profile.

 

[actnow]

There are too many topics under this thread.

Sasq started another thread about buying at the forums.

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=121881

Every major corporation has reduced the number of vendors they deal with.
They know they will overpay for "product a" but that is a small price compared
to the savings from synergies.

I don't think the major players care who they are dealing with, as long as
they are PROFESSIONAL.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

I think we're two small camps in the same big camp. I see the summary as:

- .COM is the biggest, baddest TLD, in the most lucrative and mature market (US). It's not going away... in fact, it's become a viable asset class with P/E at 10-15.
- IDNs in .COM and ccTLD popularity will be a function of e-commerce growth in their respective markets. P/Es are currently astronomical reflecting their risk/reward profile.

IDNs are a long shot, at best. Never say never, but there are many hurdles for IDNs.

Still, IDNs have absolutely NOTHING to do with this article, which is about .COM. IDNs are completely off topic. It's like watching a Marilyn Monroe movie and saying "Gee, that Jennifer Lopez is wonderful!"

It is a total non sequitur.

 

[JMJ]

I don't think the major players care who they are dealing with, as long as
they are PROFESSIONAL.

Overpay me for my names and I'll wear a suit and tie while I sit behind my computer all day long... lol Hell I'll even get a secretary to answer the phone.

 

[Rubber Duck]

IDNs are a long shot, at best. Never say never, but there are many hurdles for IDNs.

Still, IDNs have absolutely NOTHING to do with this article, which is about .COM. IDNs are completely off topic. It's like watching a Marilyn Monroe movie and saying "Gee, that Jennifer Lopez is wonderful!"

It is a total non sequitur.

Actually, there are very few hurdles left and the biggest of all is getting Microsoft to launch a browser that supports them.

Best Regards
Dave Wrixon

 

[FormerDnForumer]

Hehe and they tell me there's no bubble, and that the "industry" is not full of shit?

This industry is absolutely full of shit, no doubt about it. This is not a business where "truth" has a home as long as people are making money. In that sense it's no different than most other businesses--it's just that in other businesses the watchdogs have long been established.

But there *is* a very real truth in the fact that real money is flowing through ppc pages, and this is very "real" to the advertisers connecting with customers, and by extention the people flooding into the market.

Whether the market holds, click fraud is held at bay, and the whole apparatus of ppc continues to draw people is another matter. Things will evolve--we'll see.

In all this backslapping and pathetic self congratulation going on over this article, it would be nice to remember the roots of this business, which are not exactly the most virtuous. Just a few years ago, and continuing today in many corners of the business, it was and is The Wild West.

Some of the guys out there trying to remake themselves and their businesses in the kleig lights of publicity make me laugh, given the speculative and squatting past very close in the rear-view mirror.

 

[mole]

Psychologist: What do you see in this first Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: What do you see in this Rorschach blob?
Pathological domainer: IDNs


Psychologist: And, in this last one?
Pathological domainer: IDNs

What happens if we replace this with ".COM'? Does this psychological theory of tunnel vision still apply?

IDNs in .COM and ccTLD popularity will be a function of e-commerce growth in their respective markets. P/Es are currently astronomical reflecting their risk/reward profile.

touche

 

[sasquatch]

What happens if we replace this with ".COM'? Does this psychological theory of tunnel vision still apply?

I believe this should answer your question perfectly:

whois.sc/TunnelVision.com

 

[Nova]

This just in: CNN picked up the story - http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/30/technology/domains_biz20_1205/index.htm?section=money_latest