Joseph Peterson reviews notable domain name sales at NameJet last month.
During September, NameJet closed 80 domain sales at or above $2,000 – down slightly from August’s spike of 95 but consistent with May (76), June (69), and July (82).
Continuing my experiment from last month’s article, I’ll be using a “compare & contrast” format to pair off domains according to price. Just maybe, that will shed some light on market value, branding or investment strategy. But mainly it’s an excuse to cram more domains into the discussion!
IDAI.com ($31,500) and/or NUS.com ($28,900) – Nowhere is the market’s bias toward short domains more clearly in evidence than among NameJet’s monthly top sellers. Out of 80 September sales, 43 domains were 7 characters or less; 28 were 5 characters or less; 12 were LLLL (excluding Task.co); 6 were LLL; and then there was 7L.net at $2,150. This preponderance of very short domains was even more striking last month. As for this exceptionally high 4-letter sale, I hazarded some (only half serious) guesses on possible end users in one of my weekly articles. Looks like they were all wrong, though, with the present owner @QQ.com.
QianWan.com ($22,603) and/or LiYou.com ($22,323) – For intrepid westerners, Chinese pinyin could be a gold mine. But few non-Chinese speakers can make discriminating judgments on value, which causes investment to be especially risky. There’s a world of difference (or a hemisphere?) between flipping $8k to $23k and the reverse. Whether or not we’re competent enough to join in fully, it’s very significant that the top 4 domain sales from NameJet this past month are due to buyers from the world’s now largest economy: China.
Souvenirs.com ($16,250) and/or IKT.com ($16,000) – Acronyms are too monotonous to comment upon individually; so it’s the domains with more individuality that typically make the cut in my articles. You can see what I mean with IKT.com. Easier to pay for than to sermonize about. But Souvenirs.com – that’s what memorability is made of! Plus it has its place within the lucrative tourism industry. I wonder how well suited souvenirs are for e-commerce, however. Most of the Mickey Mouse ears I’ve invested in were purchased on the Disneyland gift shop premises.
Honcho.com ($13,101) and/or DormRoom.com ($12,450) – I discussed the college brand name shortly after it sold. Honcho.com, on the other hand, flew under my radar. “Head Honcho”, “Big Cheese”, “Top Dog”, and “Big Kahuna” are all honorifics for my boss at DNW, Mr. Andrew Allemann.
TalkingBooks.com ($10,401) and/or GameFan.com ($9,099) – Where these industries are concerned, consumers tend to be dedicated. Book fans – word lovers that they are – end up talking. So TalkingBooks.com may mean a review site, forum, TV show, podcast, or amateur critic’s blog. Then again, we may be dealing with audio books – them talking at us rather than us about them behind their backs. Equally ambiguous / versatile, GameFan.com may apply either to video games or sports.
Savings.net ($7,500) and/or SmartShopper.com ($7,200) – In the past I’ve proposed a thumb rule: Good single-word .NETs are as valuable as very strong 2-word .COMs. That’s a crude, unscientific notion; but it’s a starting point for evaluation. And these 2 discount shopping domains seem to conform. Of course, Savings.net is less constrained in meaning than SmartShopper.com; and, although it could be used for coupons, it’s a stronger contender for financial planning.
StormShelters.com ($7,000) and/or SmartHome.net ($6,900) – Even after the internet of everything has invaded our refrigerators, sprinkler systems, and garage doors, big bad tornadoes will huff and puff and blow our smart homes down. Hopefully we’ll be camped out in our primitive storm shelters while our towns are leveled. Both of these domains are about home upgrade contracts. Both sold for $7k. One is a .NET. My own sense is that .NET is worth most when the subject is technology – especially the internet or localized networks. Of course, smart homes are smart because they’ve learned to network.
Migration.com ($6,500) and/or Screech.com ($5,799) – Some birds fly south in the winter. Some birds screech. Forget wildlife! Server migrations are where the money is at. Technicians in this field draw 6-figure salaries, and corporations as large as Microsoft are up to their belly buttons in server technology. So somebody got a good deal! With the other dictionary-word domain, I wonder. It’s onomatopoeia with a “fingernails on chalkboard” quality. Great for a a kids’ product, since kids love to screech. Not so great as the name of an investment bank.
Mandate.com ($5,200) and/or iBud.com ($5,099) – Either someone has an authoritative commission to get things done, or else someone has a hot date with Steve. iBud.com plugs right in to to our Apple-spawned naming convention. “Bud” makes a great accessory. Purely as an acronym, this domain could justify its $5k price.
FeetFirst.com ($4,437) and/or LeonardoDaVinci.com ($4,331) – Leonardo’s got cachet, but his full name is too long for branding purposes. With Wikipedia already on top of the man’s historical contributions, I’m not sure what role this domain can play. Someone jumped into the auction feet first and overpaid. But if a pile of Mick Jagger’s letters are worth £187,250 at Sotheby’s, then why not 1.4% that much for Da Vinci’s name and legacy online?
ColoradoProperties.com ($4,132) and/or CounterAttack.com ($4,100) – A solid real estate name with one obvious, lucrative purpose? Or an edgy dictionary word, full of vim and vigor, ready to take on any challenge … as soon as someone points it in the right direction?
Openers.com ($3,956) and/or BeDirect.com ($3,600) – Looking for conversation openers? Be direct! (Unless that backfires.) Here we’re basically comparing an uncommon but familiar-sounding word to a common, affirmative, 2-word phrase – two different name styles that can each work very well.
Untouched.com ($3,600) and/or Snooping.com ($3,545) – What many people value in Nature is its pristine, untouched quality. Although this word is negatively defined (with an “un-“), it is more common than the root word “touched”; and it has a very positive meaning. Snooping, however, is a negative concept and a bit vague. I think more conservationists will take an interest in Untouched.com than identity protection services will in Snooping.com.
BeachBums.com ($3,385) and/or GreenGrowth.com ($3,225) – I wrote about BeachBums.com already in a weekly article. Like that domain, GreenGrowth.com is alliterative – “gr” + “gr”.With this brand name, I quite like the underlying symbol: In spring, new growth is green. And since investors are looking for green companies, domain investors are looking for “green” domains.
Spammers.com ($2,400) + Salary.net ($2,300) + Bright.org ($2,010) – After so many couples, let’s end with a ménage à trois. Here we have the veritable triumvirate of established gTLDs: .COM, .NET, .ORG. Moreover, all 3 specimens appear here as single dictionary words, in English, and at the same price level. In my opinion, each is a strong domain; and any of them could sell for more. So here’s a question for you domain investors out there: If you could pick only 1 of the 3, which? And why?
Adam says
One of the most widely known artists in history. Davinci.com would cost you 6-7 figs easy. 4k is not overpaying. Someone who is buying domains day in and out and selling them as well, might just know a little about what he’s doing. Sometimes I get unlucky sure but this won’t be the case. I find your opining on my new domain douchy at best. Stick to the facts
Robbie says
Davinci name is a no brainer, many of these artwork are held in private collections, put a site up where these collectors can post their art for sale on an anonymous level with certain verifications, take 1% of the sale for a lead, this is just a simple idea, $4k, representing a product that sells for millions.
I wouldn’t worry to much Adam, just a paid blogger.
Kassey says
Qian Wan may refer to the Chinese characters 千 (thousands ) 万 (tens of thousands), a very common phrase to describe “many”.
Li You may refer to 理由 (reason).
Joseph Peterson says
Interesting. Thanks, Kassey!
Joseph Peterson says
Adam and Robbie,
Both of you are conducting yourselves unprofessionally here.
@Adam,
“Stick to the facts.” The only facts are the domains themselves, the amounts paid, and the Whois record. That bare-bones data can be displayed in a list, and some bloggers do just that. But these articles of mine are mainly subjective commentary. Indeed, that’s the only reason I bother writing them.
Expressing opinions on market value isn’t “douchy”. It’s what 100% of domain investors do in private and in public every day. I’m frequently right, but I’m often mistaken too. And I’m happy to be proven wrong on any topic under the sun — especially when another domain investor (my colleague) makes a profitable sale.
I know you generally do well for yourself; so I’m surprised that you felt vulnerable enough to need to retaliate. Although I may express doubts about a domain’s price, I didn’t cast aspersions on your competence as a domain professional. In fact, I was being altogether neutral — not even looking up who the buyer might be.
A little less ego would be in order. We’re both “buying domains day in and out and selling them as well”. And that gives neither of us a title to omniscience. You’ve been doing this for years, Adam — long enough to be accustomed to disagreements on valuation with other domain investors. Differences of opinion can be aired politely and constructively.
@Robbie,
I’m surprised by you, Robbie. All comers are welcome to agree with Adam’s valuation of LeonardoDaVinci.com; and if I’m outvoted by other domain investors, I will be the first to admit that I don’t know everything. Undoubtedly, Adam put more thought into his $4k purchase than I did as a non-bidder writing a sentence or two about it. That should be understood by everybody. I express opinions on market valuation partly to provoke discussion in the comments.
But discussion is one thing, and insults are another. I’m not offended that you call me “just a paid blogger” because the shoe fits about as well as if you’d called me “just an amateur opera singer”. I’ve never been a blogger for hire.
But on behalf of Raymond Hackney, who IS “a paid blogger” and a very knowledgeable one, I am offended.
What’s disappointing, Robbie, is the intention to insult a colleague simply because he has expressed a viewpoint on domain market value. Whether you like it or not, I am your colleague. And among professionals — which, sadly, isn’t how many domainers can be characterized — politeness and mutual respect count for something.
Adam says
You’ve written zero articles with the keyword overpaid before this one. Maybe you’ve used other words to describe the “jumping in feet first” of other domain purchases. I’d comment if I saw it on any other name before. I’ve skimmed your posts previously but I didn’t really find them to be “subjective commentary” .
The facts I’d like to see in “aftermarket sales reports” (which I believe these to be) are domains and their sale prices. I’m ok with sprinkling in who bought them and maybe a speculation of sorts on why. That is good blog fodder. I don’t find the opinion part on whether it was a good or bad buy necessary or professional. . . .if we’re going to talk about being a professional.
You say you didn’t look up who owned the domain. So, what if the buyer was the Leonardo Davinci Museum, a foundation . . . someone writing a book on the man, an art dealer, etc . Is it worth $4k then ?
You did cast a shadow of doubt upon my domain value and I think you should consider that fact when opining in the future. I don’t value your opinion on this matter but you are in control of a venue with distribution that will now allow anyone searching for this name in the future to get an idea of value from an unsolicited and supposedly professional source. Would you like me to write some “constructive” and “polite” posts about your domain purchases for the benefit of your future sales ?
“Differences of opinion can be aired politely and constructively.” All domain values are opinions. Is it constructive or polite to say I overpaid and jumped in feet first ? Would you stand up in a crowd on a microphone at an auction after a name sold and tell everyone in the room that the buyer overpaid? I find this post similar , so I didn’t find your difference of opinion on my domain value to be polite or constructive.
Feel free to disagree with me. Andrew and I have had talks in person about domain values on names I’ve bought. We disagreed. In private. Had he written a blog post about it. I would have handled it in my same “unprofessional” way.
And yes, I have often had a feeling someone “overpaid” for a name. However, I will not write a blog post about it. I will not even comment about it. I will maybe discuss it with a colleague privately but I will always wonder to myself what do they know that I don’t. I will wish them the best of luck in their endeavors. I will rejoice that the industry values on domains are going up . I will also pray for they day I’m proven wrong on my silly opinion and the name sells again for triple or more of what they bought it for.
You admit not putting thought in to your sentence or two. Maybe, you should try that in the future ? Provoking discussion ? Are you paid by the comment ? If there’s one thing this industry needs less of it’s discussions on opinions of values of domains. We’d have a lot of rich domainers if they all acted on their opinions with their wallets.
I’m done provoking discussion here myself and hope maybe some day I can better communicate my disdain for bloggers commenting on people overpaying for domains. It just happened to be one of mine but I’ve discussed this before. The last person I talked to about this was Chef Patrick. Go figure . Happy to discus via email or offline if you’d like but not going to carry it on here any further than this.
Joseph Peterson says
@Adam,
I write about the domain market. Anybody who writes about any market must discuss value and pricing.
Try telling a stock market analyst to avoid expressing opinions on company valuation or speculating about future price movements!
Apparently you’re comfortable with me acting as a stenographer, merely putting numbers and domains next to each other in a list and saying nothing about them. Or perhaps you’d allow me to go a bit farther — to run errands for you and bring you information on who bought or sold. But God forbid I analyze the data in front of me or utter an opinion!
If you were less obsessed with your own domain, Adam, you would notice that I point out undervalued domains and raise an eyebrow at potentially overvalued domains in virtually every article I’ve written for DNW.
Although you feel victimized, nobody singled you out. Your domain seemed interesting; and I expressed an ambivalent opinion about it, even allowing for the possibility that domains like this might be worth (strictly as a vanity purchase) as much as Mick Jagger’s £187,250 letters. Why didn’t you fixate on that? Or did your attention wander between sentence 1 and sentence 2?
Tedious as it is to respond to all your rhetorical questions, I’ll play along:
“Is it constructive or polite to say I overpaid and jumped in feet first ?”
Yes. It’s both constructive and polite. It’s constructive because it invites domain investors (including you) to consider whether they might be overpaying for domains. And it’s constructive if it leads to a real conversation about the domain’s potential. As for politeness, well, there’s no way to discuss the market without discussing specimens.
If you ever find yourself writing articles on 100 or 1000 domain sales at a time, you are 100% welcome to judge them according to your personal estimate of their market value. If one of those domains happens to be one of my own $4k purchases and you write unfavorably about it, then I will be OK with Adam Strong’s exercise of free speech. Maybe I’ll explain my competing valuation, or maybe I’ll admit that I got carried away in a bidding war. Are you the only domainer who has never paid too much?
“Would you like me to write some ‘constructive’ and ‘polite’ posts about your domain purchases for the benefit of your future sales ?”
That sounds like a veiled threat. Will you be singling me out for revenge? Keep in mind, Adam, your domain was just one among many. It turned up naturally in a long list of public sales. I nearly included some other domain, but I like Da Vinci and thought he’d add some flavor after so many monotonous LLL’s.
I also wanted to make a point about the untapped collector market for trophy domain purchases. Hence the Sotheby’s reference. That notion went over your head, apparently. Pity! You might have responded positively based on that and drawn a connection to Heritage Auctions and the collector market. Really, I gave you a soft pitch to do so. But instead you tripped over your own ego in a headlong rush to express your “disdain for bloggers”.
“Would you stand up in a crowd on a microphone at an auction after a name sold and tell everyone in the room that the buyer overpaid?”
Domain investors commonly express opinions on the value of domains showcased in prominent auctions BEFORE the auctions are even halfway finished. This happens on public blogs. That has included auctions containing my domains. It’s no big deal. Sticks and stones …
Every single day, TLDs are judged (often negatively) in public on domain blogs. Just today, for instance, a domainer declared that .NET is “dying a slow death”. In a sense, that devalues others’ .NET investments. Should that person be condemned? By your logic, domain investors should refrain from expressing opinions even on a TLD’s value. After all, any utterance about value (or the lack thereof) presumably affects the sales prospects of somebody’s domain.
“You admit not putting thought in to your sentence or two. Maybe, you should try that in the future ?”
No. I put thought into every sentence I write. Sometimes I change my mind. At this point, I have re-evaluated my original statements; and I would like to amend them to read … exactly as written.
Adam, the world and this article aren’t about you. If you really believe that I wield such power to damage your sales prospects, then why shine such a spotlight — for a week straight, no less! — on my expression of doubt? You must have very little faith in the domain you bought or the intelligence of your prospective buyers. If LeonardoDaVinci.com is worth more, then it’s worth more; and a Leonardo Da Vinci museum would realize its worth.
You know what a professional would have done, Adam? He would have refrained from personal attacks. You could have taken 60 seconds to explain the domain’s value and the price paid. I’m easy to convince when a rational case is laid out. That would have been constructive and polite, although I see that’s not your style.
“If there’s one thing this industry needs less of it’s discussions on opinions of values of domains.”
I could not disagree more. If the domain industry is ever to emerge from its endless adolescence, then we need more analysis, more discussion, more constructive disagreement, and (eventually) more consensus about value … and less emphasis on salesmanship. Every day, I see new domainers making bad purchase decisions — infinitely worse, obviously, than your purchase here of a good domain. And most domain industry veterans conspire to bamboozle the new arrivals. I prefer a climate of public discussion so that people can learn from each other by engaging.
Public sales are the only data we have. Data deserves to be analyzed.
Adam, I understand that you’re sensitive about your public purchases being discussed in public. However, nobody singled you out. Your purchase was just a dot in a data set.
If you prefer private discussions with your domain industry buddies, then you’re welcome to have private discussions. In this case, you’ve insisted on a public argument. In any case, I’m sorry to say that your personal habits of what is discussed when and where and by whom are not the standard for public discourse. Nor do you have the right to impose your preferences on the public.
This attempt of yours to bully a market commentator into silence about the market is not the mark of a professional.