IPO filing discloses financial deals for expired domain names.
Demand Media’s S-1 filing last Friday revealed a bit about the company’s expired domain deals, although it doesn’t refer to its partners directly by name. NameJet has deals with Network Solutions (with whom it co-owns NameJet) and Tucows. It probably has deals with other companies as well.
Here’s one of the statements (dollars are in thousands):
On February 9, 2009, the Company entered into an agreement with an unrelated party to purchase $1,000 of website names and to manage certain expired website names owned and operated by the customer in exchange for a revenue share (the “Domain Name Asset Purchase Agreement”). The Domain Name Asset Purchase Agreement expires in August 2010 and is renewable upon mutual agreement for an additional twelve-month period. In conjunction with the Domain Asset Purchase Agreement and beginning in June 2009, the Company also committed to purchase at least $300 of expired website names every sixty-day period or a total of $1,800 over the thirty-month contractual period. The contract can be terminated by either the Company or the counter party within 30 days prior to the end of each annual renewal period. The aggregate value of expired website names purchased by the Company from inception through December 31, 2009 and during the six-month period ended June 30, 2010 was $1,184 and $622 (unaudited).
This “unrelated party” is Tucows. On February 9, 2009, Tucows announced an expired domain deal with NameJet. On February 20, 2010 Tucows reported a bulk sale of about 2,500 domain names for $1M and entered into an agreement to sell up to $1.8 million over the next 18 months.
The S-1 also refers to another agreement:
On February 14, 2008, the Company entered into a three-year contract with an existing customer to manage certain expired website names owned and operated by the customer, as amended (the “Amended Domain Agreement”). Under the Amended Domain Agreement: (i) the Company manages its customer’s revenues and sales of its website names in exchange for a revenue share; (ii) the Company committed to provide the customer with a minimum of $1,750 of revenues per year (the “Annual Guarantee”) for a total of $5,250 over the three year contractual period and (iii) in the event annual revenues generated under the Amended Domain Agreement are less than the Annual Guarantee (as defined), the Company is able to satisfy the difference through the purchase of the customer’s then existing website names (as defined). The Amended Domain Agreement can be terminated without penalty by either the Company or the customer within 60 days prior to the end of each annual renewal period.
Gross revenues generated through the sale and management of the customer’s website names revenues was $332 and $349 during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, respectively. The remaining Annual Guarantee for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 was satisfied through the purchase of website names for the Company’s own use in April 2009 and March 2010, respectively.
This second one is a bit more perplexing. NameJet was formed with a deal with Network Solutions back in 2007. But this doesn’t sound like a deal with Network Solutions. Any thoughts?
Kevin Murphy says
It barely sounds material. I wonder why they even disclosed it.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Kevin – probably because it’s an obligation to pay in the future.
Domains says
Does the S-1 discuss the Fabulous parternship as well?
Andrew Allemann says
@ domains – not that I can tell.
Andrew Douglas says
Not sure on the second one. I want to review the full disclosure statement as the one thing I wanted to see had to do with the fuzzy relationship they have with the “AcquireThisName” company that is obviously just a shell company for reselling demand’s domain portfolio (largely names they’ve caught themselves from what I can tell). There has been a lot of discussion over the years about this. While convoluted, I don’t think the section you pulled out has to do with it.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Andrew Douglas,
I don’t think so either, since AcquireThisName is listed as a subsidiary of Demand Media.
Michele says
That 2nd agreement could be with one of its hosted registrars ie. a registrar that is using eNom’s backend ..
Andrew Allemann says
@ Michele – that’s what I’m thinking. Maybe NameCheap?
Rick says
I think I will start a car parking service in New York where the maximum period you can park your car is 10 days. If you don’t come back and pay a new fee by the 11th day, I’m going to take your car and sell it. Tough luck for you. Surely if these domain registrars can get away with this with domain names, I can just do it with cars too.
bernard says
The most interesting in the SEC filling is the ad revenue and page view for their websites (eHow mainly).
It shows they spend more money to create content as they earn, and page views didn’t behave has you could hope : page views lovered in 2009 despite of more content…
Bobby says
The numbers are in thousands – so $1.8 mil over 30 months
ValueDrops.com says
yes, it seems like most drop catchers have deals with registrars these days.