Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
According to Kelly P. Conlin, the chief executive of NameMedia, the company’s business is best seen as an online property developer.
“What we’ve wanted to do, quietly, is amass the largest real estate position on the Internet, which we feel we have,” Mr. Conlin said.
[edited by: engine at 8:10 pm (utc) on May 30, 2007]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]
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.
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!
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.
[edited by: Webwork at 12:17 pm (utc) on May 31, 2007]
[edit reason] Charter [/edit]
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]
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]
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!
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.
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....
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.
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...
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]
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]
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.