Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Was Daimler the reason for RideScout’s $80k domain name purchase?

    1. BY - Sep 03, 2014
    2. Domain Sales
    3. 5 Comments

    A subsidiary of Daimler has acquired RideScout, a company that just paid 60,000 euros for a domain name.

    RidescoutLast week I wrote about how RideScout, a company that helps map out the best transportation options for a route, purchased the domain name RideScout.com for 60,000 euros ($80,000 USD) at Sedo.

    The company has been using the longer domain RideScoutApp.com for its web address.

    The timing and price tag make a lot of sense with news out today: A subsidiary of German car giant Daimler has acquired RideScout.

    Daimler has a subsidiary called moovel that operates the car2go car sharing service. car2go is similar to ZipCar.

    The acquisition makes senses, as car sharing can fit nicely in RideScout’s service. It also sheds light on why a small startup like RideScout would suddenly plunk down a lot of cash for a better domain name.

5 Comments
  • I see no difference between refusing a $10k offer for this and cybersquatting.

  • @sheltem,

    So in your view, there is some price point that divides moral sellers from immoral sellers? Can you enlighten us on how to calculate that dividing line? Is it always $10k? Or is it sometimes $1k or $15k or $200? If a seller is ever confused about his moral responsibility to accept the buyer’s latest offer, will you be available to judge?

    RideScout.com was first registered in 2007. RideScoutApp.com not until 2012. Why would the latter domain oblige the owner of the former to sell his property AT ALL? Let alone at some specific price that makes someone else happy?

  • Moral sellers ask less than or equal to Estibot, immoral sellers ask for more.

    But seriously, odds of the domain ever being worth more than $10k to anyone else are below 1% unless there’s something in the name I’m missing.

    In a market functioning with any remote degree of efficiency, a $10k offer would therefore not be declined.

    Would the seller have paid $10k for the name if he didn’t already own it? I doubt he’d have paid $1k, which says it all really.

    • Joseph Peterson says:

      September 6, 2014 at 5:23 am

      I’ll assume making Estibot the arbiter of not just domain appraisals but of morality is meant as a joke.

      Point #1:
      “odds of the domain ever being worth more than $10k to anyone else are below 1% unless there’s something in the name I’m missing.”

      It’s quite common for a domain to be worth much more to its buyer than to others who might buy some day but haven’t. That discrepancy is no argument against the price arranged between the former owner and new owner. Those are the 2 people who matter in the transaction. And they have agreed on the price. The old owner preferred to decline amounts below X, while the new owner was interested enough to pay X or more. Their valuations converge in a deal. If the seller’s asking price was too high (and maybe it was), then the buyer was foolish to pay it. But if the buyer wasn’t a fool, then the domain must have been worth the purchase price.

      Point #2:

      “Would the seller have paid $10k for the name if he didn’t already own it? I doubt he’d have paid $1k, which says it all really.”

      Nope. Completely irrelevent. Suppose I pay $5,000 for a domain that I want to own. Years later, I’m approached by someone offering me $800,000 for this domain. By your reasoning, I would be morally obliged to sell my property for $800k simply because I would not have chosen (or been able to afford) to spend $800,000 on the domain I already own. A seller can ask a price he would himself have ben unable to pay. He’s under zero obligation to let go of something he bought, and he can ask for whatever he wants as a precondition for giving it up. Buyers are free to move along without purchasing.

Leave a Reply