Business.com and how (not) to build domain equity

A great domain is not enough but it's a nice place to start?

[Webwork]

First off, allow me to make it clear that this thread is about exploiting generic domain equity, not taking any domain - like Google or Yahoo - and making it work.

In the realm of robust, generic domain names Business.com had it all:

• The mother of all businss web addresses
  
• Access to V.C. money that went with "the bubble" of 1999
  
• Millions, if not tens of millions of dollars worth of "free website publicity" that went along with the reported sale of the domain name

And today? Business.com? A contender that is still having trouble contending?

Business.com stands for the proposition that it takes more than a great domain name and web address to make a great web enterprise. Still . . given a choice, it's nice to start off with a domain and web address like Business.com.

Where did Business.com go wrong?

Some great, generic word or industry phrase domains have made it, leveraging the utility of their web addresses:

• ForSaleByOwner.com
  
• Sex.com
  
• Ummm . . . so many great domains, so few examples of how a great domain bore a great website

Are there other examples of how a robust, generic domain web address was deployed to the advantage of a website now considered to be a national or global level success?

What, if anything, was it about how the great generic address was deployed that added to the success?

What makes for the successful marriage of a world-class generic domain name and an operational website?

I know . . I know . . It's more than the domain name that builds success . . but this IS the Domain Forum so we're taking a myopic approach. :0)

Taking a "domain as focal poiint" look at successful world class websites what are the best examples of how generic domain equity was spent / invested / built? What did the developer do right with that domain's domain capital?

If you are a domain owner these questions matter. You can either keep those domain parked or you can begin to prove the concept that you feel the domain supports. You can begin to add to your domain equity.

I know, from direct contact, that there are interested parties who, looking at your domain, are asking themselves the same questions. "It's a great domain but . . how . . what . .?"

My 2 cents: Think small. You, personally, cannot possibly deliver on the promise of a great domain. However, you can begin to deliver on that promise. In my view, that is exactly what other great domains that became great websites managed to do. They managed to deliver on some element of the promise of the domain.

So, I inviite your thoughts on great domains, great web addresses and the management of delivering on the great promise inherent in great web addresses.

Moderator's Note: This thread is NOT an invitation to start posting links, nor listing the URL's, of your favorite website UNLESS a) the domain name is one that is universally recognized as a national or global leader in a given field; and, b) you offer some in depth analysis concerning how the domain's capital was successfully maximized. Hotlinks are not allowed.

[Receptional]

The domain name (business.com) was not all it appears on the surface, perhaps. At the time, few people were considering "user intent". If you are looking for a type of business, would you search using the phrase "business"? or "plumber"? I think the latter. I can't imagine WHAT a person would be searching for if they typed "business" into a search engine.

"Sex" is a bit more clear cut...

By contrast - I don't know "forsalebyowner" (I am a Brit) but at least it is immediately obvious what the site offers - bith to surfers and to the buyers. And I haven't even been there. "Business", again, does not - in itself - make the busines proposition clear. For me it is a directory that has a link that I can buy. That's all. Does the site do anything else? I really don't know!

I am not saying ¦I could have predicted any of that, but in hindsight it seems that there is more to a domain name than just the name.

[edited by: Receptional at 4:12 pm (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]

[vite_rts]

Hi Webwork, thats for this great question, forced me to think hard, so from my view point,,,

a, Great domain name, the name is not a problem

b, That domain name may one day be associated with a more successfull effort.

c, If business.com belonged to "Mr/Mrs Average guy" and his/her family, it would probably be considered a great success, but the same is not true for a corporate with really stratospheric expectations-- i guess thats your point about starting small

d, Wrong product if a may dare say so. There are almost no barriers to entry into the directory market, and then there is Dmoz.org

So, if they would kindly make over the name to me, I would ,,,,,,

Okay, s' not gonna happen , but one can dream

[wmuser]

For me the best example of what should not be done with generic domain name when you buy is sex.com
They were fighting with guy who has stole it in 1995,got the name back and were doing nothing but a few ads,then they have sold the name again this year
There was so mcuh potential but they didnt used even 10% of it

[Kirby]

Business is such a general term that covers alot of ground without really telling you anything.

Aside from a directory, how can you really monetize it any better?

Now ask this question about about any "great" domain.

It used to be that the great domains were instantly recognizable for what they were - cars, loans, pets, etc., but few of those have been able to monetize to the point of original expectations.

The place to start is not with the domain, but the niche (see myspace, flickr, etc).

[gpmgroup]

Great domains set high expectations for delivery. A lot of good names are owned by individuals and small companies.

To get a good name to work optimally you need to complete so many tasks.

An idea that works with the name is the easy bit. - But for delivery you need a signifcant investment in hardware/software/design/image/logistics/customer service/products or service - in effect a real world business.

[glengara]

*.. it's nice to start off with a domain and web address like Business.com.*

I'm no "domainer", but aren't generics way past their "best before" date?

Apart from Business.com, I can't remember the last time I saw one...

[Compworld]

I think one of the big failures of business.com was that it was doomed from the beginning. How much did the earthlink founder pay for it? 7 million 12 million? Some where between those numbers. Other ones have failed also, Mail.com's ownership changed three times and is still not profitable. Auction.com is no where near the popularity of eBay. There are others, but www.com never really took off. iWon did well and was sold twice. Now is part of IAC. I do not know of one major generic site that is still by themselves or successful w/o any outside help. Heck, even the evil G needed VC to get going. MSN has lost millions, yet Gates still supports the Internet division. Search.com, news.com, download.com etc. are all owned and opperated by C¦Net and the founder, Hasley Minor has not been with C¦Net for years (he now runs a VC firm no less). Shopping.com was originally owned by Compaq, then was acquired by Dealtime, which acquired epinions, which was then acquired by eBay.

Since the beginning of the commercial Internet, you not only needed a domain, but money behind it. It is just a shame what some of those hundreds of companies did with all of that money. If some of them would have just kept their feet on the ground and actually ran a business, I am sure a lot of them would still be around today.

[vincevincevince]

Business.com should have aimed to be the next Financial Times. Since you asked what they did wrong...

[John Carpenter]

Content is the king. If your site URL is spread by word of mouth and/or has a good position in SERPS, it doesn't really matter if the domain name is a no-hyphen generic one-word something .com. However, don't make* the domain name too long or too hard to remember. Word of mouth spreading is much faster if people are able to recall the domain name and write it fast in a forum post, etc.

* Yes, we can make a domain name (not just select one from the English dictionary).

[edited by: John_Carpenter at 12:43 pm (utc) on Aug. 19, 2006]

[Kirby]

Business.com should have aimed to be the next Financial Times.

Absolutely! The problem is that is quite a lofty goal and most dont aim that high or want to work that hard.

[John Carpenter]

Business.com should have aimed to be the next Financial Times.

It's never too late.

[Compworld]

Buy.com is profitable and successful.

[vincevincevince]

Buy.com had to Buy.com other established brands and redirect their traffic, as I remember.

[Compworld]

Maybe, but they are still run by the same guy. Yet they are still losing money. They pulled their IPO last year.

[vite_rts]

Are you guys saying that buy.com is successfull or that they're losing money,,,

your posts indicate both

[trader]

The current usage is extremely poor considering the cost of the domain. I have seen many low cost sites owned by average domainers which look similar to that one, if not better.

Business.com could have been much more successful as a business news media publication instead of simply a directory and business search engine, which directories are far too common.

They could even publish an in-print business magazine using the name in addition to a news media website.

With such a powerful name they may have been the main player in business news.

[whoisgregg]

Are you guys saying that buy.com is successfull or that they're losing money,,,

Considering the CEO/Owner is personally begging people in TV ads to please, please try buy.com instead of using amazon, I'd say they're in trouble. My impression only.

Back to the original topic, I think building a business on a generic domain name is equal to having your logo be bold black helvetica type against a yellow background. (How generic toilet paper used to be sold, at least where my mom shopped when I grew up.)

People don't want to wear a "Jeans Brand" pair of jeans or a "Watch Brand" watch. It just doesn't fit with what works for consumers.