Domain business might become its own company.

Demand Media, parent company of eNom and Name.com, is considering splitting its business in two.

The move would see its domain assets and online media business separated. The domain business would have annual revenues of $150 million+ with gross margins around 20%, and the media business would be $250 million+ with 30%+ margins.

Michael Blend will be working on the process of spinning out the domain business.

While the domain business is certainly heading down a different path than the media business, this move could create some complications.

The way Demand Media has reported its earnings in the past has been somewhat convoluted. Many domain industry watchers believe the company has been able to use the registrar revenue as a bedrock as the rest of the company caught up on the revenue side. Of course, not that the media business is large this isn’t as big of an issue.

Others have speculated that a big part of the content revenue the company has reported has been from domain parking, and it will be interesting to see this when split out in greater detail.

Additionally, Demand Media has argued that its domain business is key for collecting data used in its media business.

Another online media and advertising company, Marchex, is in the process of spinning out its domain business as well.

Two domain registrars have fun with each other on Twitter.

One thing Name.com does better than most (all?) domain name registrars is have a good social media presence.

It has the right mix between humor, special offers, and support.

Name.com also likes to take jabs at Go Daddy, like this parody Super Bowl commercial.

So I found this Twitter conversation between @namedotcom and @godaddy rather humorous. (Note: this conversation is from before the Super Bowl.)

I hope that Name.com keeps its social media approach now that it has been acquired by eNom/DemandMedia.

Name.com the latest domain name registrar to be snapped up.

Domain name registrar consolidations continues as Demand Media, parent company of eNom, has acquired Name.com.

The Denver based domain name registrar is known for its good social media presence and humorous videos featuring its employees. It frequently positions itself as an alternative to Go Daddy whenever Go Daddy runs into technical problems or controversy.

Name.com has also had its fair share of controversy and DDoS attacks, which have brought some of its services down on more than one occasion.

Verisign registry reports show that Name.com had over 775,000 .com domain names registered as of the end of August 2012, the most recent month in which reports are available. eNom has 13.5 million across all top level domains.

Demand Media cites two key reasons for the acquisition.

First, it will give it added distribution for new top level domains.

Second, it will give Demand Media a “retail” domain registration presence. Its eNom platform is a reseller registrar.

No purchase price was disclosed and the company hasn’t filed any SEC documents that include financials for the deal.

I believe Name.com was still closely held, in which case I hope this deal was done by December 31 to save the owner(s) on taxes. I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of other closely held U.S. domain registrars inked deals before midnight on New Years Eve.

Name.com vs. NameCheap. It’s on!

Here’s an interesting duel going on between two domain registrars that have mastered social media: Name.com and NameCheap.com.

NameCheap.com is asking people to retweet a message about 98 cent domain registrations. If 30,000 retweet it by July 16, then NameCheap will provide a special 24 hour sale where you can get a .com, .net, or .org domain name for $.98.

Since you have to follow NameCheap in order to get the special sale price, this should push NameCheap over the 100,000 Twitter follower milestone. (It has 96,361 as I write this.)

So what is the somewhat-similarly-named Name.com to do?

First, encourageg people to retweet its competitor’s message.

Second, tell people they should transfer their sale priced domain name to Name.com after the 60 day registration lock ends.

It’s an interesting move. Name.com is telling/reminding people (including its customers) about a low cost competitor, but also doing its best to steal a bit of business back.

Panelist finds it odd that Name.com makes domain registrant responsible for its own “coming soon” pages.

UDRP panelist Warwick A. Rothnie has called a clause in Name.com’s registration agreement related to parked pages an “extraordinary arrangement”.

The clause basically says that Name.com will put up ads on your recently registered domain name but that the registrant is responsible for making sure the ads don’t violate third party intellectual property rights.

In what might be thought an extraordinary arrangement, the clause purports to impose on the registrant an obligation to ensure that any such advertising does not violate any third party intellectual or other proprietary rights.

Although Rothnie finds this clause extraordinary, he says ultimately the agreement a domain registrant makes with its registrar is what it is:

Be that as it may, the appropriateness of that arrangement is a matter between the Registrar and the Respondent. It is plain, however, that the terms of the Domain Name Registration Agreement gave the Respondent power to choose whether or not to use the Registrar’s Parked Domain Service. Moreover, it is clear from the record in this case that the Respondent was able to ensure that advertising of the Complainant’s competitors ceased upon receipt of the Complainant’s demands.

In these circumstances, it is plain that the Respondent was in a position in which he could control whether or not “pay-per-click” link advertising appeared on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved and the content of that advertising. Accordingly, the Panel is not prepared to find that the Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case raised by the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy.

Most panelists don’t understand the difference between a domain registrar parked page and a parked page the registrant creates, and this is something that needs to be addressed. At least one UDRP panelist has used common sense when it comes to this distinction.

Fortunately, Rothnie did find in favor of the respondent in this case over IMD.comtv.