In an article published by Businessweek.com today on domain names, they gave pretty some bad advice to business owners on a domain name strategies and their importance.
The article quotes several sources including a Michael Weiss, partner at Imagistic.com, “Being able to have santabarbaraloans.com would be great for your branding and name recognition, there’s no doubt about it,” he says. “But sbloans.com is not bad, and neither is sbmrtge.com.”
sbloans.com, well I think Small Business Loans not Santa Barbara Loans, so if your a mortgage company in Santa Barbara I don’t think your going to get many direct leads with that domain. (of course not to mention the domain name SbLoans.com has been registered since 2002).
Yeah that would work well in a radio ad or in any ad for that matter, I can just hear the ad now: just visit us at sbmortgage.com but just leave out the “o” the “a” and second “g”.
Next up in the article is “”Internet business expert David Ross, of Oak Park, Calif.”;
Who suggested that “you start by choosing the best name for your business without worrying too much about the domain name.”
Ross goes on to say
“You should also register the same name with a .biz extension.”
I mean .Biz is a possible alternative but why not mention .net or .org some ccTLD’s like .me, .tv .Co or many true ccTLD’s which might work depending on the location of the business.
Nor does the article even the possibility that a business owner should try to acquire a good domain that represents their business or industry.
This is the best BusinessWeek.com/Bloomberg could come up with on the subject of domain names?
bsnsswk.com is available and BusinessWeek should register it! They should then release BusinessWeek.com
On another note, that article is from 2007. If they could not find the perfect name back then, they would really be pissed now 😀
Sober up MHB…it’s sunday night…give us some NEW domain news!!!
David J Castello says
Boggles the mind.
LOL @ 2007 news.
Tier 1 Development says
I love that one of the experts suggested that they like a registrar because they accept checks. It seems only fitting considering that they’re suggesting names that no one would want. Why secure the name immediately since no one else is going to register it. Send a check in the mail, sure no worries.
How did BW muff this one so badly, who are these experts they’re getting this terrible advice from?
michael weiss says
Just an FYI – that article was published over 4 years ago…just sayin’….
Good news! Google is really recognizing the right of the dot tv extension as, “tv,” on a search with quotes!
For instance, “low sodium tv” turns up my lowsodium.tv, even though there is a robots text rebuffing all crawlers. Likewise, “low salt tv,” typed into search bar turns up, LowSalt.tv, even though it is only a login page. I thought, “mobile tech tv” showed mobiletech.tv in the search results because I optimized the page, for Mobile Tech tv . . .
What significance will that have for Chicago.pizza? or Pizza.chicago? One can only imagine . . .
this domain name stuff is crazy. we need someone to address the fact that the keys on my keyboard are all out of order just because they use to clang into each other in 1869. get with it people… things are happenin’.
They will reply to this blog post in 4 years :). Haves fun domaining til then 🙂
register pro says
I really dislike the abbreviations! .Com is still king, but advertising is heating up on alternative extensions and little known .pro is having an incredible xmas sale. I think the internet is about to change in a serious way…the race appears to be on.
Gene Downs GenericGene says
The “HAVE NOTS” like to destroy what they “HAVE NOT” cheers
Credit.AC insurance.io Insurance.AC (Virtually Free) says
Keyword .com’s are overrated and generally speaking, over priced.
Muscle Sprouts says
It may be four years later, but I’m glad it was pointed out.
That is just about the worst journalism I have ever seen. Thanks for reminding me to NEVER buy or read BusinessWeek.com ever again. The info. can’t be trusted.
It’s four years later and who knows how many companies were damaged permanently by this article from BusinessWeek.com.
What a suck – ass company to print such nonsensical, untrue trash.
Why don’t they say domains don’t even matter at all. That’s about the gist of it.
insurance.io Credit.AC Insurance.AC --- Virtually Free says
Nice article – from 4 years ago. The words still ring true; keyword rich .com’s are generally overrated and overpriced.
If the news is dated, so is the attitude of many in the mainstream.
There position on domains is still what it was back then.
When it comes to how a lot of businesses view domains, we have all heard the phrase “They just don’t get it”.
And, when that phrase is used, some people respond by saying that domainers are the ones that just don’t get it.
Many conventional business thinkers still refuse to believe that domain names are legitimate investments. And, with all investments, the goal is: Buy Low …Sell High.
As the argument about who gets it and who doesn’t continues, time marches on.
This year is breaking records in online shopping and ecommerce. And, it ain’t over, yet!
Some really don’t get it.
Some simply “refuse” to get it.
The time will come when this will change. The question is, “When”?
Michael H. Berkens says
BTW The story hit the new services again last night even though its old.
Lets just smoke some Medicinal Marijuana and OCCUPY BusinessWeek
No excuses for ‘journalist’ not doing their jobs, especially with all the resources that have at their ‘finger tips’.
But in my view…the part of the domain industry that has put on ‘domain conferences’ since at least 2007, have done an extremely poor job of promoting and including most anyone from ‘outside’ the domain name industry itself.
Think about it…
We will take the upcoming DomainFest.
Would not the ‘smart move’ have been for the last 4-5 years, to send out very nice “invitations” to the top 50+ tech & internet & financial ‘columnist’ & reporters from WSJ, Cnet, TechCrunch, Business Week, Bloomberg, Forbes etc…and give them FREE passes to attend the domain conference(s)?
Maybe, if this would have happen for the last 4-5 years, they would ‘get it’ and the positive & accurate publicity would have benefited all domainers & the industry as a whole.
Instead, every domain name conference(s) are for the most part…are attended by mainly the same people…year in a year out, with at 75+% of them already partly or heavily involved in the domain industry.
And for the most part the only real (always a great) in depth coverage of the events has been done by Mr. Ron Jackson of the DnJournal.
In the last 2-3 years, they are now covered very well by domain industry bloggers…which is a good thing.
But, not covered at all, by the outside mainstream publications in an accurate and positive light, which has gone on since the first domain name conference ever.
Not very hard to make a big point of ‘proactively’ engaging & including outside tech & internet & financial ‘columnist’ & ‘reporters’ etc…
The only “in depth”…outside news coverage of any domain name conference in the last 4-5 years, was last year…but it was on how ‘sick’ people got at the Playboy Mansion.
So, as long as domain conferences are only put on and sponsored by domain parking & domain registrars, with their own self interest in mind…nothing is going to move forward or evolve very fast at all.
BTW… The cost of Domainfest has gone from less than $500 in 2007 to over 1K this year, and has gone up ever year in between, in the worst economic downturn in this time frame in 25+ years…does not make a lot of sense to me.
From my limited experience of domain conferences, it seems to me:
30% Real Business & Content & Education.
35% Domain Auctions.
75+% Attendees: same people, all already partly or heavily involved in the domain industry.
Does not seem like a very good ratio’s to me, for the industry as a whole, to move forward very fast in any kind of effective and positive way.
Not every company is going to go out and spend $25,000 on an overpriced site. You can easily locate many gems without having to spend a fortune.
I agree with several of your domain sales. We see long tailed duds with low search value sell at ridiculous prices. No wonder why end-users fire back when a domainer attempts to sell a good domain name. People overprice their domains, and actually spark a sale from a desperate buyer willing to overspend.
BusinessWeek is not claiming to be an expert in domain names. I assure you one of your past buyers hasn’t even developed a domain they purchased from you due to spending too much. Therefore, their plan fell apart. However, the domain makes a nice placeholder for a WordPress error page.
You can brand many domains. Many websites are not ranked for their keywords, but they deliver good traffic based on content and pointed domains. Yahoo points their flicker.com at flickr.com (the brand they decided would be innovative). You have to understand your market to compete. What keywords are the most searched? Who is looking for what product and or service?
Business Week is trying to cover a story with so-called experts. Occupy Wall Street rejected buying Occupy.com fo4 $150K, instead purchasing OccupyWallStreet.net for $8,000. a nice profit for the seller for domain registered in September 2011. You know that Occupy.com is a super domain. However, it is not wise to invest $150K at a time in which the message is to help people survive.
@Overpriced – aka. “Frustrated”
You just offered similar “Frustration” on the thread documenting my recent $75K sale of Orangefield.com:
DNJournal has more details of my $75K sale of Orangefield.com – documenting how difficult it is getting your number when someone asks to buy a domain.
Might be some good food for thought – don’t be “Frustrated” – rather tell us who you are – I am the biggest student around !!!
ORM 101 says
.biz only. Wow. You would think .co would come next, but .biz? Or, as stated, if defensive reg., at least register all.
@Overpriced As I understand it, someone else ;liberated; occupy.com recently for a significant sum.
People who have to defend their sale are not that sure it is that good of a deal. Would you purchase a domain of a city near Denver (50,000+ pop) that is an aged 4 character dot com with the exact abbreviations, listed on Google Page #1 and etc? Probably not. These domains deserve a good sale. The Sedo auction recent produced good sales.
I believed in your minus.com sale; however, I don’t have to accept your Orangefield.com like most passive people do. I know a bad deal when I see it. IMHO, the company got shafted because they were so desperate. They were right to send a low offer. That is what the domain is worth. It is not worth no more than $15,000, which is on the high side.
I’m not frustrated. I took some great career sites that cost me a small investment and turned a nice profit in less than a year. I know how to buy and sell domains. Orangefield.com at $75,000? Really? I mean…really? What a joke.
@Overpriced – aka. “Frustrated”
As a domain investing “student” of 13+ years I listen to “teachers” like Rick Schwartz – namely in his words – “You cannot piss off the right buyer”.
So if Orangefield.com at $75K “is a joke”, as you say, then I laughed 75,000 times to the bank.
You have as much naive knowledge as the clueless BusinessWeek author with his tail between his legs – and where would someone read about all your “Overprices” accomplishments and credibility
Sorry Brian, but your domain sale was overrated. You want domainers to drink your punch.
I’m not convinced the domain is worth even $20K rather than the inflated $75K. Looks like you were the bully in shafting the buyer. Must be a nice feeling to get a victory.
I know enough about domains to assess a bad domain sale. Cancel out the Orangefield Trust buyer and your end-user pool is nonexistent.
Orangefield, Texas is a small city. Nobody there would pay your outrageous price. You knew the desperation in the buyer’s need to secure your dot com.
Reverse the roles; you probably would have thought the seller was crazy to counter with a price 25 times more. Known domainers have ended negotiations on siniliar pricing issues.
Easy to compare me to the BusinessWeek writers. However, your $75k sale is overrated. Only one buyer would have paid that amount for something that you would have refused to sell at any price lower than $75k.
You’re a bully that responded to another bully. Both parties appear as losers in this sale. Enjoy your $75k. Doesn’t impress me at all.
Michael H. Berkens says
“”Cancel out the Orangefield Trust buyer and your end-user pool is nonexistent.””
Sure cancel out the best and most likely buyer for any domain and you’re going to under price it.
If Mr. Schwartz would have held the domain the domain wouldn’t have sold for less than 6 figs, remember punchbowl.com?
Yes he also found the one and only company on earth that would have paid six figs for that domain, or actually they found him.
Branding is the topic here – the buyer of Orangefield.com did not do their proper due diligence when Branding their company in 2007 long after I had reserved the domain for geographic purposes in 2002.
Every time one of us loses a surname, geographic, common use or generic .com to UDRP – where at least $200K in legal fees under ACPA would reverse that opinion – its makes the rest of our .com’s that cannot be taken away by UDRP worth that much more – hence my $75K valuation – knowing at least 20K of that is earmarked to defend the next meritless UDRP claim – and Yes Michael – I am sure Rick would have doubled it to $150K – but may or may not have gotten it from the buyer for a year where 75 present value is worth more to me.
I guess this logic makes me a “bully” in the eyes of some, like the clueless “Overpriced” – who obviously has so much to hide – he cannot identify himself.
If you cancel the best buyer of a good domain, then you still have many buyers in line. It is obvious that Rick, Frank, and you can make these high sales even when there is a small buying base on some less than stellar domain names.
The reasoning behind setting valuation for Orangefield.com has no merits. It is not a $75,000 domain. It’s like selling AmericanCanyon.com for $50,000 (small California city with less than 20,000 pop) because the best and only buyer uses the name as their business entity. The buyer would gladly sell that domain at $50,000.
The trust company probably knew beforehand that making a much smaller offer was essentially the value of the domain, giving some room for negotiating up to maybe $15,000. This domain offer was countered at $75,000 due in part to fact that only buyer (Orangefield Trust) would eventually pay that high price.
How many people would flip the switch off when the offer and asking price are so far apart? Mostly everyone except for a few end-users that know the domain will cost them more. They’re afraid a seller will refuse to sell the domain. Desperation comes into play, and then they suck it up to pay the high price.
PunchBowl.com is a bad comparison to Orangefield.com. PunchBowl.com is a much better domain. There are multiple end-users willing to purchase that domain. Aside from great stats, the domain can be branded into a party site, implemented as a lead generator, and developed into a product site.
Orangefield.com is a small little city out in Texas. The keyword is lucky to have 1,000+ searches because there is some mention of the city. It is probably one of those small little cities you drive through on a cross country trip. Orangefield is like the city of Cumming, Ga. Orangefield.com wouldn’t get a bite at $50,000 in Texas, Even $25,000 would be overpriced. On a 10 scale, PunchBowl.com is a 10 compared to a 2 in Orangefield.com. Domain luck enabled this deal to be possible at $75,000. Buy a domain for GEO purposes, and overprice it at $75K. Almost agree to sell at $60K, but increase offer once there is a UDRP threat.
If a buyer from Texas made the small offer, would you have countered with $75,000? The discussion is that one end-user in the world would have paid $75,000 to acquire your domain. We’re supposed to believe the domain is good? You suggest I lack domain knowledge but I can keep this debate going on to support the overpriced domain sale with credible facts. We’re not discussing Cloud-related domain names with a vibrant market base. Orangefield is a small unknown city in Texas and one trust company out in Holland.
You still think your domain sale is good. A good domain has multiple buyers. Orangefield.com is not a good domain. Your former domain is a good domain sale for you. A good domainer can hand register a domain name with better stats and more brandability than Orangefield.com. Besides, the dot co, biz, info, me and us were all available to register for the cost of registration. Since the company operates in Europe, then the dot co could have served them better rather than overspend on the dot com.
You think you are a great teacher. I see domains far better being offered at 15% of your sale price. The end-user will criticize the seller and the value of the domain.. You purchase this domain based on GEO, but got lucky some company using Orangefield (5 years old) came along to pay your price.
When an offer pulls through at $3,000, you countered with $75,000. Do you actually believe that Orangefield.com is worth $75,000? Cancel out the best buyer and you have a domain with low valuation. Cancel out the PunchBowl.com buyer at 6 figures and there are many buyers in the mid 5 figure range. You want domainers to drink your punch.
Easy to compare me to these BusinessWeek people. However, I know far more and can support the facts. You raising your price from $60K to $75K after the company threatened you with a UDRP makes you a bully. IMHO, the company threatened you with a UDRP because they got offended that you wanted M Series prices for a used 3 Series. It’s like paying $7.50 for gas when others are selling it for $3.25. I agree with your Minus.com sale. No plus for Orangefield.com though.
Orangefield offered $3,000. You countered with $75,000. Who wouldn’t get pissed off? Since Orangefield knows they were being asked to pay multiple times the value due to using the company name, they wanted to take another strategy (IMO) to secure the domain. Karma works in mysterious ways. Get a free karma reading.
@Overpriced (and frustrated) –
“You think you are a great teacher. ”
I am not a teacher – I am a great student as stated.
“Do you actually believe that Orangefield.com is worth $75,000? ”
That valuation was based on a similar $75K sale of Esko.com I made a few years back – (Esko, Minnesota, USA).
Clearly you do not understand the free market and how to think outside the box.
I understand the free market. I agree with your Minus.com and Esko.com domain sales. Esko is short 4 characte dot com with other uses beyond the city. It can represent a shortener as well. However, I disagree with your Orangefield.com sale price of $75,000.
We can sell our domains for any price another will pay. But, what if you piss off the buyer to get what you think a domain is worth? Can we refuse to sell? Yes. What if someone really needs a domain and their plans hinged on that domain? They didn’t have the money to pay for a domain not worth that amount? I’m sure you complain when someone wants a fortune for a domain you think is worth far less.
Your overpriced domain sale demonstrates the power of you as a domainer and the loser in the end-user. End-users pay good money to acquire good domains. It makes sense to get a good domain. However, eliminate Orangefield Trust and you have no buyer in the world willing to pay you $20,000 rather than $75k. It makes sense to eliminate the only company that probably feels disgust in overpaying for their company name. Im sure they have the money to pay $75,000. Would you pay $200 for a steak dinner you can get for $20.
You may think the analogy is not good since you believe your domain name was rare. You refuse to sell to get what you think is worth $75,000. As mentioned before, I’m not trying to show any disrespect. That domain is not worth 33% of the sale amount. People congratulate you for selling a mediocre domain at $75,000. You got lucky. Nothing more. You bought a GEO name in 2002. Another company branded their company with the name. Orangefield is a small little desolate city. Only a company that believes they needed the domain would overpay for it.
Frustrated is all you have to describe me. You don’t experience rejections on far better domains, even ones that are from the 90s. It is because you are in a good financial position to make such domain sales that you overcharged for the domain. Most domainers need to sell in order to make a living. They can’t sit back and reject good offers unless they are greedy fools.
I only congratulate you for being a weasel in this domain sale. You claim you didn’t need to sell. You refusal to sell put the buyer in a bad position to overpay. In a reply back from a rejection, one business owner identified domainers as ——- scum. I suppose he is describing domainers like you. You would make this business owner proud.
Overpriced: You say in another thread that domainers think domains are all that is important in the world. But it sounds like that is actually what *you* think. Why do you need some specific domain so badly? What are you trying to do?
A domain name is just an alias for a number. That number is usually the number for a “server” that is listening for connections and subsequent commands. Some believe that computer “end-users” need to be “served” and that everything should be viewed as a “service”.
Are you providing a service?
If so, what is it?
Because if it’s so compelling to use, then why would an end user care what she has to type to access it?
Now for a little rant on paying for “domain names”.
If the service being offered is really that compelling, then the “end-user” might be willing to type a number, say, (123) 456-789 or perhaps 123.456.78.9, at least once (to store it for later use).
DNS and its central repository of “domain names” is a convenience not a necessity.
Whereas a repository of numbers is an absolute requirement.
Names are great. But networks cannot work with only names. That’s why we do not make mobile phone calls using names. We dial numbers.
Have you ever memorised a telephone number?
Yes, you have: your own number. If I ask you what your telephone number is, you will not say “Overpriced.com”.
And have you ever kept a record of some important telephone numbers? Yes, you have: your friends and family.
Maybe you do not know all of these numbers from memory, but you have them stored somewhere. You do not call Directory Assistance every time you want to call these numbers; you might put them on Speed Dial.
Commercial DNS run by ICANN is the equivalent Directory Assistance. You are looking up the same numbers, day after day.
Speed Dial is the HOSTS file, which predates DNS and ICANN.
End-user: “I like reading BusinessWeek. I think it’s a valuable news service. I think I will store it’s number.”
“Where shall I put it?”
In the HOSTS file, of course.
2-column HOSTS file:
Highly complex, isn’t it?
Now she can type “www.businessweek.com” and that news website will “magically” appear. Or she can click links that begin with http://www.businessweek.com and “like magic” they will work.
But does the name “businessweek.com” really matter that much? Or is it the number that matters more?
Consider this… let’s add a third column to the HOST file.
3-column HOSTS file:
188.8.131.52 http://www.businessweek.com news
Now the end user can type “news” in her browser and like some sort of magic, http://www.businessweek.com appears.
What if she wants to use another name? How about bweek?
3-column HOSTS file:
184.108.40.206 http://www.businessweek.com bweek
Now she types “bweek” and http://www.businessweek.com appears. Magic!
The cost: $0
“news” = $0
“bweek” = $0
So, how valuable are “domain names”?
Let’s cut the chase: Are we just playing games with search engines and confused end-users selecting wesbites by “domain name”?
To access a website, all the user has to know is the *number* (and if the website requires it, a “hostname”, like http://www.businessweek.com, which can be *any name the website chooses*, at zero cost).
So you see names are arbitrary and cost nothing.
However the number, 220.127.116.11, does have a cost, unless you are a large company or network services provider, in which case these numbers, millions of them, are given away for free.
Like I say Overpriced “Clearly you do not understand the free market and how to think outside the box.”
Are you, in fact, part of the OCCUPY movement ?