TCI is working on relaunching its aftermarket business.
Thought Convergence, parent company of TrafficZ, is working on a formal launch of its domain name marketplace Aftermarket.com.
Thought Convergence started using the Aftermarket.com domain name this time two years ago. Since then it has used it primarily as a service for its own and third party event auctions. The company bought the domain name for $125,000 at a Moniker auction in 2008.
You’ll find very little information at Aftermarket.com about what the company’s plans for the site are, but you can submit your email address to be notified when the site launches. Will we see another full time marketplace with the likes of Sedo and Afternic?
aftermarket.com…hahahahaahahahahaha!!!!!!
I wouldn’t pay $500 for it, because that’s what it’s worth…and I have a feeling the owners know that…
Well, it’s estibot value is 128k
I wonder if my article and contact back in May.. sparked some interest in doing something with the domain/site again?
There is a quote from Jamal in my article that gives a pretty good clue to what they are Not going to do and what they may be doing.
http://www.dotweekly.com/what-happened-to-aftermarket-com
I’ve always expected it to be launched as full service marketplace, they have the easiest domain for that purpose. Dumb not to do that when they first got it.
If they keep it fairly simple and leverage their resources to really get the word out perhaps then they will compete with a marketplace like sedo in a few years. Either go the distance with the name and marketplace or just sit on it and sell it off down the road.
Hey Jaime,
Why not just type the quote here, instead of SPAMMING us with a link to your lame site?
Hey Porky,
Why don’t you give me a call and we can talk about it!
I would love to hear why you think I am “spamming” by adding a 100% relevant link to Andrew’s story from my “lame” site.
Hey Jamie,
You could have easily pasted the quote, but instead you are attempting to drive DNW’s traffic to your site.
Are you denying that you posted that link in hopes of driving traffic to your site? Well?
That’s what I thought. Lame. The admin here should have removed your post.
As I said Porky, you can always call and we can talk about it!
Andrew and I pass traffic back and forth often! I link to his articles from time to time and he does mine.
Spamming and providing a helpful link are two different stories. Was it my sole intent to “drive traffic” to my site by placing the link? No, I have enough traffic already. If people were interested in seeing the quote from Jamal at TCI, they could click the link. I wasn’t forcing anybody, just adding to the content.
Why would I want to post my exclusive content on DNW.. like I said, I was adding to Andrew’s story and providing a link to read a quote to those interested!
Jaime,
If Andrew links to your article, that’s great; however, you pasting your own article into Andrew’s blog is an entirely different matter.
Deny it all you want, but the fact is: You could have easily just pasted the quote from your article here, but YOU CHOSE to post a link to your blog. Why did you CHOOSE to do that? Lookin’ for a little extra traffic, maybe?
Lame.
Oh, now I get it:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/domainnamewire.com+dotweekly.com/
For the third time Porky, you can call me instead of filling up the comment section if your so concerned as to why I posted a relevant link to add to the story!
If you read what I wrote in comment 8, it would answer your question as to why I didn’t post the quote and used a link instead.
I feel like a broken record but I think it’s clear you are having a hard time understanding that the link wasn’t for the traffic. So your “fact’s” are incorrect.
Though “Porky” is a bit abrasive, he has a point. Placement of a quote would have been preferential to placing a link to one’s own blog; it’s just common courtesy.
Someone here is getting a bit “prissy”. This is funny to watch!
BTW, I’m with Porko on this one.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You could’ve just posted the quote, but you chose to post a link to your site. Make all the excuses you want, but deep down, you know the truth, as does anyone with a brain who reads this blog.
well I’m sorry I’ve subscribed to this post.. no valuable discussion on the post topic and my email alert has been going off nonstop for two hours. At least you can unsubscribe, that’s pretty cool 🙂
I have no reason to lie. My link wasn’t about “traffic”. It was about providing more to the story.
Look at it from my end. It took me sometime to get the interview from Jamal. After reading this article by Andrew, I thought readers would be interested in the quote / story I wrote.
Yes, I could have simply posted the quote and on the other end, I didn’t have to share at all.
I guess that is the way it goes sometimes when you are offering help.
Why should we look at it “from your end”. This isn’t your blog. End of story.
Lame.
Actually, this is one of the oldest blogger tricks in the book. You find articles from more prominent blogs that are somehow relevant to something you’ve written in the past on your own blog. Then, you insert a link in the comments section to your article.
It is spamming, just a trickier way of doing it.
And I too agree – LAME.
Jamie,
The fact that you continue to come back and state your case, over and over and over, tells me that Porky is likely right in his assessment as to your true motivation for placing that link here.
In the spirit unity, I’ll have to agree with numerous other posters – Lame. (I couldn’t resist;)
Porky,
This isn’t your blog either and Andrew has every right to remove my link, which he hasn’t.
My site is in no way a danger and the link story is relevant.
@Tim,
Wikipedia states, comment spam as:
“by repeatedly placing comments to various blog posts that provided nothing more than a link to the spammer’s commercial web site”
I think it is pretty clear I provided more than a “link”. Secondly, I asked a relevant question and I provided further content to the story via a link to those who had interest could visit. Just like Andrew posted the 6 links in his story.
I am very open to who I am (unlike you and Porky hiding behind a user name). So if I am the bad guy for providing a relevant link, that is your opinion but I do not agree with it. My intent was offering help and added content to the story, not traffic to my “lame” site.
The link is fine. Its highly relevant.
If Andrew agrees with you, he’ll probably leave a note in the comments section here saying he thinks you’re right…his silence on this issue will speak volumes to most of us.
Relevant? Ok, I guess.
Well written? Hmmm…
Porky,
I concur.
Jaime,
I was kidding with the last comment – you’re writing is fine, actually pretty good. I’m just a bit moody today.
Porky,
I concur…again:)