homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.189.108
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Professional Webmaster Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: LifeinAsia & httpwebwitch

Professional Webmaster Business Issues Forum

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >     
Selling your website for a decent multiple
webgeekent




msg:3470896
 10:30 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

It doesn't take that much digging to see that when selling a website the normal price that can be expected is anything from 0.5 to 3 times (but normally around 1-1.5 times) the site's annual profit.

This isn't so abnormal for the private sale of any kind of business, however when businesses are sold as "public" companies via any stock exchange the value of them is typically more than 10 times the businesses annual profit.

1.5 times to 10 times is a big step!

My own sites, generating their modest full time income, arn't worth selling privatley but if I was to go public with them via an IPO (Initail public Offering) and float on the stock market the amount of money involved is very, very tempting.

The catch 22 is that to "go public" the business on offer needs to have a certain minimum value, (this minimum value depends on the location of the IPO).

If you're google or youtube, no probs, but for the majority of us its not going to happen. That is, unless a whole bunch of us club together and merge to form a large enough virtural city to be worthy of going public.

Doing such a thing sounds easy enough but its not really. There a lot of details to consider but I thought I would throw this idea out there and see what you think?

 

Quadrille




msg:3470913
 11:40 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's not just about cash - it's about risk.

Yes, 'public' companies go for higher multiples of profit; but because they are public, they are to some extent 'tested', and the perceived risk may be lower.

'Going Public' is neither easy nor cheap, nor bound to be successful - it's not a magic bullet to increase your sale price.

At the end of the day, a site is worth what someone is willing to pay; and changing the structure is unlikely to change that, at least not overnight.

On 'clubbing together', that also has possible benefits - but the downsides show why it isn't happening all over:

1. How do you decide on the relative value of each site in the combine? You have the same 1.5 times earnings issue.

2. Suppose one site goes under - will the rest still give the owner his 'share' of the profits?

3. What's to say that three sites working together will be more successful than any one of the alone?

4. How far would you trust a total stranger: you value your own site at 10x profits. Would you really value his at more than 3x profits? Why?

It's all about *risk* - and 'clubbing together' hardly changes that at all.

webgeekent




msg:3471036
 10:18 am on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

1. How do you decide on the relative value of each site in the combine? You have the same 1.5 times earnings issue.

I valution model would need to be agreed upone by sellers. Some won't like it and they will drop out.

2. Suppose one site goes under - will the rest still give the owner his 'share' of the profits?

It is expected that most origianl site owner wont have shares...the point is to merge and sell, not just merge.

3. What's to say that three sites working together will be more successful than any one of the alone?

Nothing but the more site that are working together the more chance there will be opportunities to create a "sum is greater than the parts" sitution.

4. How far would you trust a total stranger: you value your own site at 10x profits. Would you really value his at more than 3x profits? Why?

Thats the point, different types of investors value business assest in different ways. It not what "I" or "you" would value a site at, its what stock market investor value it it...and the numbers there speak for themselves.

Quadrille




msg:3471047
 10:40 am on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Perhaps I rambled on too much and buried my main point.

Which is this:

The reason the 'public price tends to be a higher x-earnings, is a reduced risk as seen by buyers - your idea moves the risk to a different place, but does not remove it.

Once 'public', your site may or may not increase it's price, but to go that way will cost you (with or without partners) - and you then take the risk on your shoulders.

You can't add value to a site without, er, adding value.

webgeekent




msg:3471066
 11:51 am on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

I not sure what your saying but one thing is clear, going public will result in a massivley increased sales price for the sites involved. Whether there is growth after this point does however remain a debatable issue.

Quadrille




msg:3471102
 1:22 pm on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

going public will result in a massively increased sale price

That's a dangerous assumption; you cannot assume that the act of 'going public' will increase your price.

going public MAY result in a massively increased price. But then again it MAY bankrupt you.

The trick is to increase your value THEN go public. The reason you see higher prices in 'public' companies is that many lesser sites have taken advice and NOT gone public.

webgeekent




msg:3471390
 11:35 pm on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

ok, now that I can take as logical argument. So what reasons spring to mind that would result on most advisers saying "hey, going public is not for you"?

Quadrille




msg:3471419
 1:29 am on Oct 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Absolutely simple:

"The costs of going public, and the risks of going public are not justified at this time. The site is making x profit - but we do not so far have enough evidence to support our argument that it will continue to make a profit. Sell privately, or invest more over a longer period"

or similar.

Of the millions of web sites out there, how many do you think will survive a launch on a stock exchange - yet alone their first year?

Serious investors didn't get there by taking unquantifiable risks - and quantifying them will cost you an arm and a leg; and if you do it too soon, the company as well.

If you intend to pursue this, you need to learn a lot - and I mean a lot - about the stock markets.

That's my last on this one :)

webgeekent




msg:3471610
 8:44 am on Oct 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

"The costs of going public, and the risks of going public are not justified at this time. The site is making x profit - but we do not so far have enough evidence to support our argument that it will continue to make a profit. Sell privately, or invest more over a longer period"

or similar.

Of the millions of web sites out there, how many do you think will survive a launch on a stock exchange - yet alone their first year?

Serious investors didn't get there by taking unquantifiable risks - and quantifying them will cost you an arm and a leg; and if you do it too soon, the company as well.

Thats it?

These are basic due diligence issues. I was expecting something a little more technical.

Costs of going public and relativley negligable starting at around $60,000.

"Continue to make a profit" - "survive first year" - "unquantifiable risks". We are talking about established profitbale sites so these should be a given. Trading as a public co wont do much to effect these.

Quadrille




msg:3471619
 8:52 am on Oct 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

I could give you something much more technical if I knew the detail - but this is not a stock market forum, and it would not be appropriate.

Besides, there's no point looking at the detail until the principle is established.

And it seems I cannot persuade you that changing company status is NOT a quick way to a fast buck, so I really don't want to go there.

Good Luck ;)

graeme_p




msg:3473012
 6:50 pm on Oct 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are major differences that account for the gap in valuation.

1) Small businesses (web or not) usually require a significant expenditure of the owners time. This needs to be subtracted from profits before calculating a economically correct multiple.

Consider an extreme example. Suppose you can make £40,000 a year by taking a job, but instead you buy a website that makes an annual profit of £50,000 which requires you to work on it full time.You are only £10,000 a year better off for an investment of £50,000. so you have, in effect, paid a multiple of 10x.

Now lets assume that this is not a factor (the site requires very little work, or the seller has already hired staff to do the work), and go on to other reasons.

2) The buyers of listed companies are able to diversify their risk. Buyers of websites often have poorly diversified investments (i.e. lots of money in other websites). This has a significant effect on multiples (Google for capm).

3) There is a discount for lack of liquidity. This is a comparatively minor factor, probably knocking 30%+ off the price.

4) Lack of stability. The fact that someone is willing to sell a website at a multiple of 1x or 1.5x profits shows that they do not have any faith in its future earnings. Otherwise why would they not sell at such a low valuation: they would be better off keeping it.

5) Difficulty of carrying out analysis and due diligence. This ads and expense for the buyer. You can easily get hold of analysis of listed companies, regulators ensure they disclose information. With n unlisted company a buyer must do this themselves.

6) There is a risk that recent performance might be artificially boosted to tart the business up for sale. This is true for any small business, but is even more true for a website: suppose the seller has been buying PPC ads out of their own money to boost traffic?

7) When large businesses are taken over there is some strategic logic to it. Most small websites simply have no particular synergies with the buyer.

In addition I suspect the typical valuation is distorted by the fact that those with with low quality (i.e., not likely to last) earnings are most likely to sell. Those with better businesses are likely to hang on to them for much longer.

Looking at websites offered for sale in various palces, they do not look very promising. Try looking at highest priced sites at Sitepoint. They are mostly going for the low rating you talk about. Now take a look at their Alexa traffic charts (I know it can be badly wrong in individual cases, but it is good enough for this purpose), look at the revenue and traffic numbers given. They all look like they have peaked.

It is not that listed companies sell for such higher companies, it is that higher quality earnings streams go for more than uncertain and declining ones.

webgeekent




msg:3473140
 9:12 pm on Oct 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Good stuff Graeme

I realise your point refered to the differences between private and public sales. I have some thoughts on these issues, some directly relate, some bring your issues over to the argument for the suggested "merge and sell" project.

Re 1)
Yes, with most small business the owners investment in time is a big factor. As such I have no doubt that a non web "merge and sell" would prove very difficult to get a decent multiple from.

However it is my experince and I assume the experince of most other website owners that the time to income ratio for running a website is far more favourable than most business types. It is with this assumption that I have considered this project. Not all will fit this though.

2) capm?

This aside, wouldn't investment in a business that ownes multiple sites across several sectors be considered decent diversification even though they are all websites?

3) When refering to liquidity are you talking about the cash on hand that a business might have or the ability for the business to liquify and generate it?

4) This is a multisided issue.

Yes, most sites being sold are crap and yes they are being sold for 1 to 1.5 times because they are crap. The problem is that this mulitple has become somewhat of a norm for selling a site so those with something of value to offer get stuck with this market trend, at the least, this trend of a low multiple is dragging down what could otherwise be argued as a "real value" or "theorectical value" of the site (no "its worth what someone will pay" comments neccersary)

5) agreed, however when "merging to sell" the share buyers will have the same comforts as they will when buying any other traded company.

6) Yes, always a concern. It will be down the administrators of such a merger to do adequate due diligence to satify potential investors that such practicies have not been employed. Its not easy but im sure there are experts out there who have the "know how"!

7) yes a takover with a particular stategy to it will have added value to the buyer but that does deminish the value to any other buyer of what the business is "as is"

"In addition I suspect the typical valuation is distorted by the fact that those with with low quality (i.e., not likely to last) earnings are most likely to sell. Those with better businesses are likely to hang on to them for much longer. "

Exactly as I have done, that is unless I can get a multiple my sites deserve. Its just a case of finding a way to get it and this proposition is one of them.

"They all look like they have peaked. "

Could be! If a site is well bedded in it maybe that their isn't much "youtube style" growth potential their. Three ways that this may change:-

i) fresh eyes on the site to increase its commercial efficacy
ii) more experinced eyes on the site to increase its commercial efficacy
iii) Possible cooperation between newly partnered sites (this is a lower level possibility as it would require a large number of site or a concentration of compatablae site)

A merger of site along with some of the creative talent that amde them commercial sucesses could satisfy atleast i) and ii)

The other issue is that although youtube type growth may not be realistic for all sites involved, there is still value in any business with a history of a stable income..atleast beyond the 1.5 times mark anyway.

[edited by: webgeekent at 9:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 9, 2007]

webgeekent




msg:3473141
 9:14 pm on Oct 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Apologies for my horrendous typing.....ahhh, just found the edit tool...a little better now.

jeffgroovy




msg:3473234
 11:05 pm on Oct 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here's a little spin on your idea. How about instead of bundling sites together for some type of expensive, difficult, high risk, IPO, you go for a bunch of sited bundled together (by contracts between website owners and probably some LLC they are all members of and not some kluged together interlinking scheme of course) and sell to a public or private entity by presenting the portfolio and it's historical income and traffic stats to a few different serious potential buyers. Then sell to the highest bidder.

I think it's a great idea if you could get beyond the mountainous nightmare that would occur when trying to value the sites within the portfolio so that the spoils could be divided proportionately to the contributing website owners.

graeme_p




msg:3473583
 8:39 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, I was mostly concentrating on analysing the difference in multiples.

1) Yes, if you stick to buying certain types of sites.

Also take into account the value of time reflects more than the amount of time. For example, it more expensive to hire the sort of people who can run a website, than the sort of people who can run a shop.

2) If you buy a variety of sites, yes.

Re CAPM: Google for it, preferably on Google UK because my site is close to the top! My point is that if the market is people in the website business, the beta relative to that market is high.

3) Sorry about the ambiguity. I meant that shares in listed companies are listed in the sense that there is a ready market in which you can buy them and sell them. as and when you want.
Not all listed companies are equal. You get higher returns by investing in small companies, because the shares are priced to reflect lower liquidity.
4) Agreed. There might be an opportunity here.
5) Not really. A company that consists of a large number of smaller businesses would be a nightmare to analyse properly. However most people will probably be content to look at the performance of the aggregated business and analyse that.
6) This and dealing with 5) are going to add to your costs.

If a site is well bedded in it maybe that their isn't much "youtube style" growth potential their. Three ways that this may change

I would say it is worse than lacking good growth potential. Many look like they might well decline.

I have toyed with a similar idea myself. What put me off are:

1) Lack of capital to cover the costs of buying sites, due diligence, and listing costs. (Incidentally, the number you quoted earlier seems VERY low, could you give me a source for that? Please sticky mail if it is a link you cannot put on here.)
2) Lack of apparent offers to sell the sort of sites that I would want to buy.
3) The likelihood that the quality website that (I think you agree) you would need to buy, are likely to be a lot more expensive than the 1-1.5x range the rubbish sells at.

If you could make this work, you would do everyone a favour, because it would improve the market for good small web businesses. I agree that they are currently under-valued: I would never sell my site for 1.5x: I might was well wait 18 months, collect the money, and still have the site.

webgeekent




msg:3473591
 9:07 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

The costs of going public are a Minimum of $60,000 and an "average" of 5-6% of funds raised. These figures are the official ones form the market in question. Im sorry but as this project may go forward I think it best to keep this one under my hat for the moment. I woldnt want to have that market flooded before I get there. UIts a credible one though with higher than average multiples generated because of the countries investment legislation.

If a collection of site could be put togther where all of the owners agree to a valuation model then I think that the capital needed to go public could be raised from the owners or from a vc.

Buying good site is going to be a problem neither is finding good ones. Like I said the reaosn owners of good sites dont sell is because of the low multiple. This project is not about buying and then seling the sites (though that would be much more profitable) its about bringing site owners together for a joint public offering.

"If you could make this work, you would do everyone a favour, because it would improve the market for good small web businesses. I agree that they are currently under-valued: I would never sell my site for 1.5x: I might was well wait 18 months, collect the money, and still have the site. "

Absolutely!

oddsod




msg:3473594
 9:27 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

webgeekent, nice idea but not a chance in hell.

And graeme_p makes some nice points some of which I'd like to comment on.

1. Subtracting owners' time: If this even needs to be mentioned you're dealing with amateurs with no clue about "gross" and "net". Don't bother consolidating their properties - it will be very frustrating and a complete waste of time.

2. The whole point with the integration idea is that the outcome is a single entity with a management team, not a collection of individual owners. You want a co-op you start a co-op. A co-op with individuals managing little bits - and possibly "skimming" money (would you sell me a text link, gov?) - is not something that's going to pass any due diligence.

3. People selling for 1.5 because they don't have faith: Not the case at all. People sell for all kinds of reasons from health problems, to having bigger projects to getting a top job somewhere. And when you sell even for genuine reasons the most you can generally expect is what the market is paying at open auction. What makes anyone much smarter than the collective market wisdom behind the market's valuation?

4. Re: Those with better businesses are more likely to hang on: If that were the case no company would ever come to market. It's the better ones that achieve successful floats and raise equity capital. And there are plenty of those. They come to market for funds to finance rapid growth, not because the owners are chickening out!

>>most sites being sold are crap and yes they are being sold for 1 to 1.5 times because they are crap
I've bought several at those multiples and they've proven to be anything but "crap". Learn to look in the right places, to do the right diligence and to negotiate properly.

>>this trend of a low multiple is dragging down what could otherwise be argued as a "real value" or "theorectical value" of the site
Then why don't you remortgage your house and go on a buying spree? Yes, like money, mouth and putting one where the other is. ;)

I'm tired of people claiming how low valuations are, how a multiple of 10x is a better valuation for a website, how they'd never sell their own sites for less than 10x but.... not having the b*lls to pick up the fantastic sites that are being sold everyday at anywhere from 1x to 3x. (Don't bother telling me that no fantastic sites ever come up for sale). Sell your house, sell your car, sell your ipod, put everything into sites if you're so confident you're a better valuer than everybody else in the market put together!

webgeekent, what you propose has been done numerous times with domains. Consolidation of domain portfolios, selling of domain portfolios, listing of companies with aggregated portfolios, all happens all the time. Some deals are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Because domains - particularly direct nav and other earning domains - are easy to appraise, don't require transfer of management skills, and lend themselves to bulk handling. Not so with sites. Even if they happen to all be ever-green content sites with passive income.

If you believe that sites are undervalued and have $60K to spend on Nomads, bankers, listing fees etc - I agree that even for one of the smaller exchanges that's a pretty low cost estimate - then I suggest you'd be better off sticking that $60K in buying sites at 1x. Reinvest your earnings and you could have a million in a little over four years. If you're 20 now by the time you're 40 you'll be worth more than Brin and Page put together.

webgeekent




msg:3473635
 10:37 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I would ofcourse be happy to buy sites at 1-3 times if they are good but my searchig so far has not resulted in anything other than low end crap which, as has been so rightly established, is being sold because of lack of faith in future earning.

oddsod




msg:3473647
 11:21 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>as has been so rightly established
Where?

Grandmas Cookies




msg:3473680
 12:15 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is a slippery slope! It is really difficult to find decent sites.

Quadrille




msg:3474004
 5:23 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

webgeekent spake thusly:

It doesn't take that much digging to see that when selling a website the normal price that can be expected is anything from 0.5 to 3 times (but normally around 1-1.5 times) the site's annual profit.

I would of course be happy to buy sites at 1-3 times if they are good but my searching so far has not resulted in anything other than low end crap.

Maybe the "normal price" that can be expected is anything from 0.5 to 3 times because they are "normally" - mostly, anyway - low end crap?

Looks to me like you've come around in a complete circle. As a seller, you can only get 0.5 to 3x; as a buyer you can't find a decent site at that multiple.

Perhaps your findings are telling you something about your sites, and confirming that the market is (a) not so wrong after all and (b) not so easy to manipulate as you seemed to think.

QED :)

oddsod




msg:3474031
 5:40 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Q, it is indeed a puzzler :)

Anyone who does not believe in the efficiency [en.wikipedia.org] of this market stands to make a killing. Or go bankrupt. As the owner of many sites I hope it's the former and you open everyone's eyes as to how web businesses should be valued.

graeme_p




msg:3474128
 7:40 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Perhaps your findings are telling you something about your sites, and confirming that the market is (a) not so wrong after all and (b) not so easy to manipulate as you seemed to think.

and
Anyone who does not believe in the efficiency of this market stands to make a killing.

His point is not that the market is not pricing most sites that do get traded correctly, his point is that there are sites that deserve a better price but which there is no liquid market in.

I do think there are sites that are worth more (would you really expect this site to be worth 1x if sold, for example?) than this, but they simply do not get sold as often.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the high quality sites cannot be bought easily. Looking through my bookmarks, browser history, and feed reader, I would say, that of the sites I like:

1) Some are already owned by listed companies.

2) Some are not for profit. They may be run by a non-profit, or an individual who has other aims. Good examples of the later are academics blogs they help their reputations, help sell their books, and are part of their educational work.

3) Some are part of businesses that operate both on and off-line. It would make no sense to just by the website. Even those that sell purely on-line have manufacturing and fulfilment operations that make them a lot more than a website.

4) Some of the content sites are owned and run by journalists, writers etc. These are worth a higher multiple, but many of them can get that multiple by a trade sale to a media company. Some of the smaller ones may not, but I doubt the owners would sell at a low multiple.

5) Some are too dependant on particular individuals skills to be sellable. They are not really standalone businesses, more outlets for a talented person: again a lot of blogs fall into this category. So do online cartoons.

By the time you eliminate all these, the subset of quality sites that can actually be bought at a low multiple is quite small, and they are hard to find.

graeme_p




msg:3474136
 7:53 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Noticed this after posting the last one: anyway it makes more sense separately.

Even if they happen to all be ever-green content sites with passive income.

Why? Surely that is one category, that, given due diligence, is easy to manage and requires little time to manage.

Reinvest your earnings and you could have a million in a little over four years. If you're 20 now by the time you're 40 you'll be worth more than Brin and Page put together.

The same could be said of you!

If you can find good sites at 1x, then an year after you purchase a site you will have the site AND one years profits, doubling your money.

Starting with $60,000, in four years you will have $960,000.

oddsod




msg:3474167
 8:35 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Starting with $60,000, in four years you will have $960,000.

I started four years ago ;)

Jane_Doe




msg:3474241
 9:42 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

the subset of quality sites that can actually be bought at a low multiple is quite small, and they are hard to find.

I think buying sites is a skill that can be acquired with practice. Some of the basics of how investors get good deals on real estate in distressed markets can be applied to sites. Only with sites it is a little higher risk, higher reward because overnight your sites could get banned, wiping out your total investment, or in a single year might be able to get a pretty good return on your investment.

[edited by: Jane_Doe at 9:51 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2007]

webgeekent




msg:3474878
 2:09 pm on Oct 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

Following recent posts I think that the following is a reasonable summary of where the posters have collectively fallen.

For the purposes of definition please understand "good site" to mean one which checks all/most of the buyerís boxes.

These are broad statements and it is accepted their will be some exceptions.

1) "Most" sites found for sale are low end.
2) The owners know this and keep the multiple low to gain the sale.
3) Some sites are good and are worth a higher multiple
4) The fact that most sites are sold at a low multiple has a effect (for various reasons) of keeping the multiple of even good sites very low relative to their "theoretical" value.
5) Because of this low multiple being applied to even good sites most owners of good sites don't consider selling.
6) Good sites are actually not so common. Because of this and the fact that they get pushed back under the carpet when seeing what multiple they can get very little is know regards their potential to sell for a decent price.

My personal summary:-

7) Collectively going public will give owners of good sites a way to cash in on their business assets that does not otherwise exist.

8) Collectively going public will provide buyers and sellers of good sites with comforts that are not easily accessible through private sales at what is a relatively low cost.

I am not suprised in the interest in this thread and thank you all for your contributions.

The more I think about this idea the more it makes sense to see just how much interest there is out there among owners in participating in a "merge and sell". Its all a bit of a mute point if im way off base on my own.

As such can the moderator(s) let me know if it's ok to add a url to a site with an "interest registration form"?

[edited by: webgeekent at 2:43 pm (utc) on Oct. 11, 2007]

Quadrille




msg:3474897
 2:23 pm on Oct 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

As such can the moderator(s) let me know if it's ok to add a url to a site with an "interet registration form"?

I'm not a mod, but I know that it's not OK - it breaks the TOS

oddsod




msg:3475041
 4:23 pm on Oct 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

The fact that most sites are sold at a low multiple has a effect (for various reasons) of keeping the multiple of even good sites very low relative to their "theoretical" value.

Most list their sites at auction and let the market decide the price. Some sites sell for only 2-3 months' income (maybe they fall in that category you call "crap"). Others sell for 12-18 months' income. Yet others go for 60x and more. This "theoretical" value of yours is pie in sky.

where the posters have collectively fallen

Allow me to pick myself up and say: You won't need an interest registration form if you've already had a flood of PMs.

I can see this thread veering towards getting deleted.

webgeekent




msg:3475077
 4:46 pm on Oct 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have followed ebay's website autions on and of for about a year, the worthwhile choices there seeme ot be few and far between. Maybe there is another auction site that has a better listing?

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Professional Webmaster Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved