| 6:53 pm on Feb 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would go with dot net. Assuming of course, that there was no alternative dot com.
| 7:00 pm on Feb 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I originally suggested they use the singular version of their name, since that .com isn't taken, but they wanted to stick with the plural, since that's how they're known (in the offline world).
They were willing to pay the current people with the good .com name, and offered $50, but got a response back that it was $500, nothing less. As the site's just getting squatted on, I thought maybe we would have a leg to stand on, but did some searching and found this squatter has won a number of lawsuits against them for squatting on sites, mostly because it wasn't "malicious" use of the name? Sound about right to you guys?
| 7:37 pm on Feb 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, I believe that in order to be guilty of squatting, you have to have the malicious intent to either extort money or damage reputation.
$500 is actually fairly cheap. Most professional domain sellers want $2000 or 3000. In general, I'd pick .net over .org if it's a business. But .com wins hands-down.
| 12:31 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|it was $500, nothing less. |
Compared to the price of the development of a website, $500 for the domain name is peanuts. You should cough up (or strongly advise your client to do so). Even if the current owner is clearly cybersquatting, $500 is cheaper than suing them.
Whatever alternative extension you choose, you will get a significant proportion of users who will try the .com version. If it is parked and they've seen your site before, they'll think the company has gone bust. Worse, the .com domain could be used in the future to sell competing products, or redirected to a competitors website, or used for an adult site.
$500? Cheap at twice the price. Don't settle for an alternative.
| 12:45 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I strongly agree with Encyclo on this one.
Hold your nose, pay their price and get control of the name.
This is NOT a place to skimp.
| 3:12 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Add one more in agreement. I would love to have got a couple of .com domains for clients last year for $500 - instead of several times that....
Cheap at twice the price. Maybe they can write off the diff between $13.50 (a quasi-normal rate for a domain name) and what they're having to pay - they should check with their accountant. (One of my clients got to write off the diff, the other one didn't - I have NO IDEA what the rationale was, but it can't hurt to ask.)
| 4:48 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wow, there's a lot of strong, unified feeling about this one.
They're only paying $6 per domain now. I'm not sure they'll even make $500 from having the site, period, so I'm hesitant to encourage them to shell out for something they won't get a cash return on.
Any idea how that write off works? Suppose it's just part of regular deductions?
The squatter's site is one of those mock search engines, it pulls up lots of related links based on the domain name, so yes, it would really pull traffic away and confuse visitors.
I also tried suggesting they use a shorter version of their name, with out the last word that could be singular or plural. Less typing, anyways, and it's available.
Ok, I'm going to meet with them tomorrow and go over their options. They've got to make a choice soon so they can get their advertising printed. We'll see how it goes. Thanks :)
| 2:42 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In addition to paying up for the plural .com, your client should also take the singular .com. For less than $10 to get an unregistered domain, it's foolish not to register it. Just redirect it to the main site.
| 6:33 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Native. I'm sure I can convince them of that! :)
I didn't manage to convince them to spend the $500 for the plural one! They feel that is too much given their circumstances.
If there was a way to sub-let the domain, I'll bet they could afford that. :D ;)
I've advised them to use the .net version, and make sure the .net part stands out in their print advertising. I'll see to it we get the singluar version, then maybe at the end of the year check our logs and see which domain the traffic is coming from... that should help convince them, if the other domain is still available at that price.
Thanks again everybody! :)
| 7:39 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'll see to it we get the singluar version, then maybe at the end of the year check our logs and see which domain the traffic is coming from... that should help convince them, if the other domain is still available at that price. |
If you do any promotion at all the .com will start to have natural type in traffic from your hard work. In which case, the price will likely go up.
Is the ccTLD still available?
| 8:26 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Any chance you have the pockets to scrounge the $500 yourself? You might as well make the money off the residual traffic in the mean time instead of the squatter.
Of course I would recommend that you notify the client of your intentions ahead of time. Let them know you are buying it and that whenever they are ready to secure the good .com you will sell it to them for the $500 plus interest compounding at 10%. Even put it in a contract. It will very likely be much cheaper than what the squatter will ask once their "cheap" domain takes off.
| 3:54 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wow, I didn't consider the price going up as random traffic goes up. Dang!
Um, do you mean the .cc version of the domain? Is it really that common/useful?
At the moment, I'm really not in a postition to buy it, either. Just made a much bigger purchase of something else :)
Anyone have any ideas for alternatives?
If they were going to have more traffic overall, I'd suggest they sell banner ads and text ads for a year or two to recoup some of their costs. But, they are so small, and so locally-based... who would want to? Maybe I'm answering my own questions... maybe local, related businesses. Any one have experience with local advertising?
Humm. Off to search for info...
| 1:47 am on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Another thing that your client may want to consider is a lease of the plural .com version with an option to buy. That will help your client manage their cash flow while they are in a growth phase and allow them to own the domain outright when business improves. Ask the owner of the .com if that is something they would consider.
Secure the plural .net regardless of the response from the plural .com owner, so that your client can execute a backup plan if things go sour.
| 3:11 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For $500 they could own and be using the domain in a matter of days. Now the .com will hang over their heads and they will only regret passing on the name.
But if they are not investing $500 to have the best domain extension, I would not expect them to spend too much with you.
If they are going to spend anymore than $2000 on the development, they should be buying it.
Also, if they don't take your advice now, they probably won't listen much to your opinion when you are designing their site. Tell them you are not interested to design anything besides a .com and see how fast they come up with the cash.
| 4:56 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Tell them you are not interested to design anything besides a .com |
I wouldn't say that. There are lots of .net sites that do just fine. Search engine placement is generally more important than the domain name, especially for a small site. It's just that .com would be ideal.