TechCrunch article questions Snap’s rebate requirements.
Given the bad taste Michael Arrington’s has in his mouth from his time in the domain name industry, he’s laying down the heat on SnapNames and its bidding scandal. Today he wrote a second article about the scandal, saying that SnapNames’ request that customers sign a waiver to get their rebate is not right.
I understand where he’s coming from, but I also see why SnapNames is requesting this. When you are part of a class action you always agree that the rebate or other compensation you get as a result is your only settlement, and waive rights to sue. Granted, this isn’t a class action and all we have is SnapNames’ story. So you might want to think about what happens if more issues come to light after you’ve signed the agreement.
I also want to clarify a couple things that Arrington discusses in his article.
1. The deletion of account history doesn’t seem to be related to the scandal. A number of people have reported that their account history at SnapNames prior to 2007 has been deleted. This is true, but old account data was archived long before this scandal. Given the events of the past week, I do think SnapNames should re-enable it. I’ve sent them a note asking for their position on it. [Update: I missed this post on DNN, which links to a forum post in which SnapNames does say it will bring back the entire account history. As I suspected, only showing two years worth of data is not a recent change. According to the post, Snap has only showed two years worth of data for the past four years.]
2. SnapNames did disclose the exact amount of revenue it gained from the nefarious bidding.
In today’s article, Arrington wrote:
SnapNames said only about 5% of total auctions were affected, but this is misleading. The top domains make up a substantial proportion of total revenue. So that 5% could easily have accounted for, say, much more than 50% of revenue. SnapNames was careful not to disclose the total dollar amounts involved, or even what percentage of overall auction revenue was affected.
In fact, they did release the actual amount of revenue, stating “The incremental revenue from the bidding represented approximately one percent of SnapNames auction revenues since 2005.”
Rob Sequin says
I want to see my bid history before I decide to go “deal or no deal”.
What about the domains that Halvarez beat me on? I want those domains. I’ll pay the highest bid over the underbidder but why should I be denied a domain that he won. Screw that. He’s out. He should be writing the checks and should be forced to give ALL the domains back. Can’t they be considered “stolen” property or at least acquired under fraud, something like that?
What if he sold them or monetized them where I could have done the same? The rebate offers no compensation for that scenario.
Wait till the Order History is posted. That’s when people will see the many domains they lost to Halvarez and THAT’S when the anger will start.
Andrew Allemann says
Rob – I suspect it will be fewer domains than you think, or at least a much lower dollar amount.
anonymous says
i totally agree on that rob. but, thats not even the extent of it too. after seeing halvarez bid up domain names, even ones not considered premium, many of us gave up on snapnames as a venue for buying domains when at the time it was the ONLY real option because we knew he would miraculously show up in our auctions. he made us quit. that is what gets me more than anything.
Nic says
“I understand where he’s coming from, but I also see why SnapNames is requesting this.”
So do we all, but that is beside the point. Arrington is on the money on this issue. (Unlike last week.)
“When you are part of a class action you always agree that the rebate or other compensation you get as a result is your only settlement, and waive rights to sue.”
A release is appropriate in negotiated settlement. That’s not what this is, or should be. Snapnames are saying they will only agree to correct their wrong if I give them something in return. Hello? Just correct the mistake, then we can talk.
Plus, the offer does not include all it should.
For example, what about situations where people were the immediate under-bidder (second only to Halvarez) in an auction? What recompense is being offered for that? For example the capital loss (of the domain name that people do not own but would do if Halvarez was not a bidder) and, also, the corresponding ad revenue that domainers would have earned if they had owned the domain.
SnapNames are handing the issue professionally, the founding staffers are all terrific people that everyone likes, we understand their tactics, everyone empathises with how they were wronged by one man, but I for one do not think they should be “commended” for how this is being handled.
Rob Sequin says
I’m curious to see if Snap releases Brady’s win rate and the list of domains he won.
Did he sell his wins to one person or company?
Another shoe to drop?
So, the rebate offer is only half the story.
When the show all bidding history back to 2004, you should start a thread so people can post all the domains they lost to Halvarez THEN we’ll see what the offer is from Snap.
Rob Sequin says
Since anyone who bought a domain from Brady (assuming someone must have bought one), they would know that the domain they were buying was in a drop AND was owned by Brady.
Hmmm.
Now we’re talking conspiracy.
You can’t tell me that no one ever bought a domain from Brady.
Acro says
I started the campaign on forums and through my blog for Oversee/Snapnames to re-instate the auction history. It seems that under the uproar caused by this “glitch” they are working on it. Hopefully all data will be there, vs. part of it. To fully trust Oversee – buyer of Snapnames – one needs to see 101% transparency from them.
Andrew Allemann says
Acro – they’re working on it, according to the forum post.
Andrew Allemann says
acro – the data is now available back to 2004.
Unasi says
I don’t mind the waiver but I mind those Rust consulting morons are able to work only via snailmail – WTF ? In 2009 they are asking paper which is no proof instead of just login into affected account and confirm there which is 100% proof it was done by the account owner. Rust consulting = another corporate morons.
Matt says
Andrew, can I ask you a question? Why are you always wrong? We must be two completely different people or something.
Andrew Allemann says
Matt, what am I wrong about this time?