| 3:16 pm on May 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It's amazing what you can do with $120 million in financing.
| 6:34 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Mr. Conlin said that the properties in his portfolio, which includes about 1.4 million Internet addresses that independent owners have placed on NameMedia’s network of sites, attracts about 60 million monthly visitors. NameMedia will choose which ads to place on those sites, and will collect some of the revenue. |
How many clicks/domain/month?
One? How much rev/click?
Annual reg fees: c. $6/dn x 1.4m = $8.4m
Not impressed. In fact, I had to check the article date to see if it was actually May 2000. Do we need any more domain pipe dreams?
What's more dense than registering 1,000 domains? Buying 1,000,000.
| 6:47 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|60,000,000/1,400,000=42.8571429 visits/domain/monthly |
80/20 or 90/10 rule in effect?
They have a rather large domain portfolio. One that provides a money stream that is extremely diversified. The article is quite interesting.
|Analysts suggest that NameMedia and its competitors could represent the next wave of Internet initial public offerings, while also providing a peek at a significant change in what people see when they stumble onto obscure Web properties. |
NameMedia has prime generic TLDs like Photography.com.
|Behind this suddenly active business category — which includes companies like iREIT in Houston, Marchex in Seattle, and Demand Media in Santa Monica, Calif. — is the recognition that not all Internet users turn to a search engine when they are confused about where to find something online. Rather, 5 percent to 10 percent of people will simply type in a name that sounds as if it might suit their needs. |
5-10 percent of people will type in a name, that's BIG, BIG BUSINESS!
| 9:05 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|An obscure Web address may have four or so visitors a month, and perhaps half will click on an ad. |
50% click through? cool!
Also 5%-10% of type in traffic is terrific. I'm sure this rate will increase dramatically as people get more and more comfortable landing on random sites with malware of "all kinds and colors".
I admit I reach about 5-10% of my daily sites by typing in the url: Webmasterworld and my Webmail account. But I'd never type in randon names - except to check if something's on that domain.
| 9:23 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
BuyDomains has continually sold off their good names, and purchased new ones that just aren't as good. They have to keep the machine rolling, and the smart buy-and-hold or buy-and-develop domainers cherry pick their best inventory. Their domain portfolio is on a steady decline dictated by their business model.
[edited by: Webwork at 12:17 pm (utc) on May 31, 2007]
[edit reason] Charter [/edit]
| 10:36 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Domains get traffic, whether they have ads on it or not. Prime domains like cellphones.com get a crap load of traffic. We operate a site for a client that is a State.com It gets roughly 200 unique visitors a day through their own volition (stats from when we first started and there was no site). Getting such traffic and *not* monetizing it would be tantamount to idiocy.
Do domainers push traffic to their domains? I'm sure some do. Do non-domainers push traffic to their sites? Damn straight. You don't think Google watches this very carefully?
When I use AdWords do I like my ads on domains - not really (I wouldn't mind it on good domains, but there is a lot of riffraff too unfortunately).
As for the # of domains - as long as they make more than regfee, they keep the domain. Its all automated.
[edited by: AhmedF at 10:38 pm (utc) on May 30, 2007]
[edited by: Webwork at 11:11 am (utc) on May 31, 2007]
[edit reason] Charter [/edit]
| 11:43 pm on May 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Be careful what you wish for as concerns domain parking. Those same domains will make traffic magnets whether they are parked or whether someone starts to develop them, even with the most minimal development.
It is likely that with a minimum of effort and investment those domains about which you complain could begin to replace your websites in the SERPs. Given the funds floating around for development "of better addresses" you might some day wish for the good old days, when all those domains were parked.
[edited by: Webwork at 11:48 pm (utc) on May 30, 2007]
| 12:30 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I really, really, really hate to say this....
Perhaps normal website owners would be better off if domain registration fees where considerably higher. High enough to stop people bulk buying 10,000+s domains without ever really intending to create a brand/website on it.
Granted there is the issue of having to buy misspellings / various domain extensions.
I wonder what registration fee it would take to discourage domain horders from buying up lots of domains.
I.e. calculate the average value of a type in domain, then set the registration/renewal fees to be somewhat greater than it.
Hopefully the fee would be small enough not to stop small businesses / hobby sites from registering their domains for their business / site, but large enough to make it unprofitable for domain horders for all but the top type in domains.
Obviously it would also help if the large ppc companies stopped allowing domain horders to plaster their pages with nothing but ppc ads, done in a way to trick users into clicking on them/doing a search and seeing only ppc ads.
Adjusting the fee could allow genuine businesses/websites the chance to get a semi-decent domain without paying through the nose. It would also not effect domain registers too much.
Obviously the downside would be normal businesses/websites having to pay a bit more for each domain - but domain costs are proportionately a very small business cost just now.
It would also make those buying domains for the first time think twice about registering lots of domains in the one go (e.g. as they are so cheap) - making them think a bit more about whether they actually intend to use each one.
Just a thought!
| 1:55 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree with TravelSite.
Or maybe another way would be to have some sort of system like property taxes.
PHONES.com appraises for $5,000,000
CHEAPCELLPHONESDIRECT.com appraises for $50
Then tax the registered owner of phones.com 10000x that of the other domain name as the annual registration fee. If you want to get a second opinion on the appraised value so be it. But paying registration fees or taxes or whatever equally on both domains is absurd.
If they can't afford the property then step aside and let someone else develop it who can.
And if you're sitting on a domain name and basically just squatting on it then you get it repossessed or imminent domain takes it away for the betterment of the web or whatever.
If you can't afford it then start with cheapcellphonesdirect.com and get to work. And perhaps with enough sweat, blood and tears maybe some day you too can own phones.com.
It's the American way. :)
Anyone who thinks something like this won't happen eventually or they'll be able to sit on a million domain names for eternity is kidding themselves.
| 2:18 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Taxes? Raised fees?
In the past, I thought so too, but then you have to realize who would get those fees . . . ICANN? Do they really deserve the extra fees? If not ICANN, who?
| 2:56 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Give it to the world bank so they can feed the world.... or give it to Oprah I don't care :)
But while we're on the topic, some sort of "internet government" would be nice. To regulate the web, put in charge to keep porn/gambling/etc in check, shut down spammers, squaters, etc. It's time to clean up the web, enough of this BS already. They could use all "tax" revenue to give us all free worldwide highspeed wifi too!
I know I'm dreaming but....
| 2:57 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The flip side of that is if you've spent any money at all buying a decent domain in the past - you'd watch your investment go down the tubes as soon as these parked domains businesses unravel. Afterall - they drive up domain and are the backbone of the investment value of the best domains. I don't know about you guys but I don't want to loose $10k in domain names value.
| 3:21 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ugh these ideas of charging more is ridiculous. It hurts small time operators a lot more than large-operators. There are tons of domains that make $100 a year - not an issue.
And who gets the extra money? Verisign? (even though the cost per domain is $0.14 for them). ICANN? The guys who caved to Verisign because of a counter-suit? The US Government? Why should they get my money (I'm Canadian).
You can choose to gripe about it, or realize that is how it will be.
| 4:15 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The domain market is an open market where we all have had plenty of chances to buy domains for decades. It has taken some of these shops nearly as long to catch on and start hoarding names... there is nothing wrong with buying products (domains) that are for sale to the public... Even if only to hold them...
Personally I think it helps keep the competition down for the rest of us with real content sites... since it is getting harder and harder to start into the game with a good domain these days unless you are willing to shell out some bucks... either for a good name or for some good marketing on a new brandable name...
| 11:23 am on May 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Domain based business operations – aggregation, speculation, etc. - have existed since 1995. Domain traffic monetization is now a big business, supported by Google and Yahoo to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The marketplace has spoken. The good-vs-bad debate is a topic worthy of a footnote, not a thread title in 2007. Therefore, while I understand the divergent opinions about domaining and I respect people's right to their opinions as a matter of policy (see the Charter) we’re not going revisit the good-vs-bad issue ad nauseum, most notably since that debate has been productive of nothing for years. I am committed to moving the domain dialogue along a more proactive and business-actionable and educational path.
The business issue worthy of discussion, presented by the emergence of the domain traffic aggregators, is whether the domain traffic channel presents an opportunity for targeted advertising that your business should exploit.
In other words, if your business doesn't target the domain traffic channel and your competitor does will your business be at a competitive disadvantage?
For those who don't quite get this all you have to do is to observe how many businesses are already exploiting the channel - by design.
Books.com resolves to Barnes & Noble. Loans.com resolves to The Bank of America. Why? Bank of America spent millions to acquire - permanently and exclusively for themselves - the targeted traffic associated with Loans.com. Why? Because direct navigation traffic works. End of discussion.
The existence of a similar pool of domains - currently parked generic domains - offers businesses - you or you client's businesses in the industries related to those parked generic domains - a chance to profit from the targeted traffic. Stop whining about the situation and decide how to gain an advantage from it. Just like Barnes and Noble, Bank of America and a myriad of other large businesses.
Keep this in mind: The highest value of a traffic generating domain is found in the converted lead value of the traffic that domain generates for an enduser/consumer of the domain's traffic. The end of domain parking, if there is to be an end to the practice, will arise from the incresing aggregation of domain traffic in the hands of enduser-consumers of that traffic in their effort to monopoloize each domain's traffic by acquiring the domain. Right now everyone who is smart enough is at least sharing in any parked domain's traffic - by paying per click, along with their competitors - but at some point that will end when companies see the benefits of establishing their own domain traffic monopolies.
Domain parking will end as a result of companies doing what Bank of America has done with Loans.com: Monopolizing the traffic by acquiring the domain. Until then you are missing the boat by failing to find a way to gain targeted traffic from the parking system or by failing to acquire the traffic domains at today's prices.
[edited by: Webwork at 11:39 am (utc) on June 1, 2007]
| 12:11 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Domain names are big business . It is the big players whom are buying up the top back order services so we don't really have a chance for the dropped "Gems any more. Club D has gone, I got his today .
To SnapNames Customers:
I'm writing to inform you that SnapNames has agreed to be acquired by Oversee.net. Oversee, a company already familiar to many in the domain name industry
I wonder what they are up to?
[edited by: Interent_Yogi at 12:20 am (utc) on June 1, 2007]
| 2:51 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wonder what they are upto? Easy.
1. In the days that Snapnames acquires a domain and it is sold, 72 hours pass. Who do you think is going to monetize those days? (I wouldn't be surprised if that is extended to 5 days).
2. DomainSponsor is also one of the largest domain-portfolio owners. It now knows what is dropping, and in those three days it knows how much it can 'afford' to bid.
3. SnapNames is the '#1' place for buyers. Big-time buyers like Frank Schilling have all said they use SnapNames because there is no hassle. SnapNames has just opened up a marketplace where they act as a conduit for sales. The commission value is looking up-up
4. Just like OVT bought up relevant businesses before it sold out - I'm sure DS is also bulking up here.