Back in April we were approached by DomainSponsor.com to do a test on their parking system. DomainSponsor.com said they had spent a lot of time and money on revamping their parking system, had all new people working for them and wanted to know how their new and improved system would stack up against Frank Schilling’s InternetTraffic.com
I agreed to do a test with about 19,000 domain names I had parked over at InternetTraffic.com (IT) with two conditions; one, they had to guarantee me the earnings of the domains by matching what they were earning at IT for the two month period and second, I would publish the results good or bad.
I was very honest with the DS folk, I thought they would lose their shirt on the guarantee as the last time I was with DS prior to InternetTraffic the portfolio did not perform well to say the least.
The test started May 1st and run until July 1.
Our revenue guarantee deal was $994 commission/day for 61 days.
Over that time, DomainSponsor (DS) earned $1,054 a day winning 67% of all domains that earned revenue during the test.
Of domains where minimal revenue was eliminated, DS won 8,207 domains by 10% or greater and lost 5,879 by 10% or greater.
The average % lift on names won by DS by more than 10% was 363%.
Finding that another parking provider even having the same upstream provider performed better on some domains is not a new concept.
We have a/b tested our domains for many years amongst the providers which performed better overall knowing that the worst return is leaving all domain names parked with one parking company.
We dropped DS from our testing a while ago but now having run the test we are going to be leaving the “winners” with them while moving the “losers” back to the platform they performed better with.
Here are the results:
|Description||Total Domains||Winners||Losers||% won|
|All domains with revenue||19790||13247||6543||67%|
|Winners/Losers by +-10% (minimal revenue removed)||14086||8207 (+10%)||5879 (-10%)||58%|