Maximise Your Domain Earnings with SitePlug's Site Direct Solution!

[SitePlug]

Calling all domain owners, investors, and parking companies: Unlock the true potential of your domains and achieve up to 3X higher payouts by harnessing high-intent traffic.

With average RPMs of $247, our Site Direct solution sets a new benchmark in domain monetization—no risk, just results.

Ready to turn your domains into high-performing assets? Let’s connect and show you how https://hubs.li/Q0320mck0

#SiteDirect #DomainMonetization #HigherPayouts #Domainers

 

[jberryhill]

It's amazing how Siteplug overlooks the obvious opportunity here.

Since they know which brands are supposedly buying this traffic, there is nothing to prevent Siteplug from simply setting up another entity to register brand typo domains, run the traffic through Siteplug, and keep all of the revenue.

But they are so generous that they've decided to give away money.

 

[Helmuts]

It's amazing how Siteplug overlooks the obvious opportunity here.

Since they know which brands are supposedly buying this traffic, there is nothing to prevent Siteplug from simply setting up another entity to register brand typo domains, run the traffic through Siteplug, and keep all of the revenue.

But they are so generous that they've decided to give away money.

Good morning John,

Starting registering mistypos would eventually bite back. .. people talk, and you, lawyers, are the first ones who know who plays clean and who doesn't .. I like the clean route siteplug has taken - clean and simple > connecting brands and domain investors.

.. people talk

Happy New Year!!

 

[SitePlug]

It's amazing how Siteplug overlooks the obvious opportunity here.

Since they know which brands are supposedly buying this traffic, there is nothing to prevent Siteplug from simply setting up another entity to register brand typo domains, run the traffic through Siteplug, and keep all of the revenue.

But they are so generous that they've decided to give away money.

It’s quite straightforward: a matter of "conflict of interest."

It’s similar to asking a parking company why they don’t register domains when they have a Google Feed. As a solution provider, SitePlug is committed to addressing a longstanding issue that has existed since the inception of domain names.

This is a complex problem that, unfortunately, has no definitive resolution. While UDRPs may provide some recourse, they come with associated fees and no guarantee of success—we’ve seen countless examples of this in practice.

 

[Helmuts]

It’s quite straightforward: a matter of "conflict of interest."

It’s similar to asking a parking company why they don’t register domains when they have a Google Feed. As a solution provider, SitePlug is committed to addressing a longstanding issue that has existed since the inception of domain names.

This is a complex problem that, unfortunately, has no definitive resolution. While UDRPs may provide some recourse, they come with associated fees and no guarantee of success—we’ve seen countless examples of this in practice.

 

[jberryhill]

It’s quite straightforward: a matter of "conflict of interest."

Ah, yes, heaven forbid that a company in the business of incentivizing registration of trademark typos engage in a conflict of interest.

It’s similar to asking a parking company why they don’t register domains when they have a Google Feed.

Most of them do. Why do you believe they don't? I have worked with most of the major parking companies and I don't know of any which don't register domains and monetize them through their own feed.

Frank Schilling's Uniregistry having been a notable example, with an in-house portfolio of over 300,000 names. That portfolio was bought by GoDaddy, and of course they monetize their own domain names along with those of their customers.

Clearly, you are not familiar with how any of the domain parking companies operate. In over two decades in this industry, I've never heard of a single one that did not have an in-house domain portfolio.

I don't see how it is a "conflict of interest" in the least. You claim to have relationships with trademark owners who are willing to pay for typo domain traffic through you. Are you really suggesting they care about who the domain registrants are? If the value is in obtaining the typo traffic, why should they care whether they are paying third parties through you, or whether they are paying you directly.

The obvious question in there being - Do the trademark owners know who the domain registrants are, in your system? Yes or no. And, if no, then it is pretty obvious that it would not matter to them who the domain registrants are, since your system avoids this alleged "conflict of interest" on the "Trust me, bro" principle.

But, no, I don't see the conflict. If your clients are looking to buy typo traffic which they would otherwise lose, and if there are unregistered domain names with a significant amount of that traffic, then you would be doing them a favor by capturing that traffic and delivering it to them. I don't see why it matters who is the registrant of those domain names, so explain to me why they care who are the domain registrants? Why does that make a difference if what they are after is the traffic? You would be doing them a favor by capturing more of what they are looking to buy.

SitePlug is committed to addressing a longstanding issue that has existed since the inception of domain names.

Yes, so was Protected Parking, which claimed to offer the same business model, and has since gone out of business:

Protected Parking Monetizes "Risky" Domain Names

Protected Parking is a domain name parking service that helps monetize trademark domain names. Marlon Phillips explained how the company operates.

domaininvesting.com

 

[jberryhill]

While UDRPs may provide some recourse, they come with associated fees and no guarantee of success

Yes, UDRPs come with fees. The overall success rate for UDRPs is around 93%. While I'm good at counseling domain registrants when it is worth fighting, and have a pretty good defense record, you are clearly unfamiliar with UDRP outcomes overall.

But you are touting an average RPM of $247. You don't seem familiar with the economics of the UDRP.

The filing fee for a UDRP at the Czech Arbitration Court is 800 euro. If one looks at the ordinary run of UDRP cases, one finds that the UDRP tends to be dominated by certain trademark owners who file a lot of them in bulk. They have template complaints for parked domains which require relatively little customization for each batch of names they go after.

Your "average" RPM is more than the cost of filing a routine UDRP complaint, but your clients are willing to pay MORE than that on an annual recurring basis. It is remarkable they are that dumb.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, bu tthat "average RPM" is as-paid to the domain registrant AFTER your cut. So the TM owners are paying signficantly more than $247 RPM per domain.

On top of that, I believe that in your presentation at Namescon a few years back, you were asked why trademark owners do not simply use this system in order to develop a list of names earning the most traffic, and go after them in UDRP's. Again, maybe my memory is faulty and you can correct me, I believe you said that the domain names aren't identified to the trademark owners. So, ultimately, there is nothing which prevents them from going after these domain names anyway, in order to avoid paying an "average" annual amount which exceeds the cost of doing bulk UDRPs.

 

[jberryhill]

Here's the actual data from UDRP.tools for 2024:

Total UDRP decisions 8238:



Total complaints denied 353:




That's a UDRP complaint win rate of 95.7% for 2024.

As a "guarantee of success", I would wager that 95.7% is a higher confidence rate than that of getting $247 RPM on any domain name at Siteplug.

So, again, if a routine bulk UDRP filer, as many TM owners tend to be, has a choice between spending $2500 on a UDRP complaint with an expected success rate of 95.7% and paying for traffic through your system, the choice is obvious.

And, the rate is the same for the first five domain names in the UDRP complaint. One would guess that a domain registrant who is earning $xxx on a trademark typo is probably not dumb enough to have only that one domain name. So, there is an even better economy of scale available than the back of the envelope calculation above.

This business model didn't make sense when "Protected Parking" was doing it, and it doesn't add up in this package either.

 

[jberryhill]

people talk, and you, lawyers, are the first ones who know who plays clean and who doesn't

If the suggestion there is that lawyers share confidential information about their clients, I'm not sure how accurate a characterization that is.

One of the reasons why I have a lot of clients in this industry is precisely because I safeguard the confidential information of my clients.

There would be no way to determine whether someone connected with Siteplug also runs some unrelated company that monetizes names through Siteplug and, quite frankly, I can't see anything that would be wrong with it anyway. If the point is that they have clients who will buy trademark typo traffic that would otherwise go elsewhere, then they'd be providing a value-added service by finding unregistered typo domains with significant traffic. The business is already predicated on taking a cut of the traffic revenue from typo domains, so I don't see the problem.

As noted above, parking companies DO have their own in-house domain portfolios. So, I'm not sure where the notion came from that they don't, or that it is some sort of conflict of interest that they do.

 

[Helmuts]

If the suggestion there is that lawyers share confidential information about their clients, I'm not sure how accurate a characterization that is.

Quite opposite, John A lawyer is the keeper of all secrets.. trusted like a priest in a church .. of course, on top of all the professional legal and advisory services provided.

Have a great Friday! Helmuts

p.s. btw - super cool interview with Ten with Jen