|
This
page looks at domain name auctions and sales, supplementing
the discussion in the broader Domain Names & DNS profile.
It covers -
The
following page covers -
- mapping
prices - what's the 'standard' price
- Australia
and New Zealand - no names bubble down under?
- derivatives
- licensing names, name futures and other name games
introduction
As we noted in that profile, domain registration - strictly
speaking - involves a licence (leasing use of an address
in cyberspace) rather than unrestricted and perpetual
ownership. In practice it's common to speak of domain
name ownership and domain name sales. In the dot-com gTLD
and some ccTLDS (particularly those, such as dot-tv and
dot-am, marketed as a competitor to dot-com) the registration
regime permits ready transfer of domain names, whether
direct between two parties or via an intermediary.
That 'secondary market' or 'after market' involves large
numbers of registrations and considerable expenditure.
the domain names bubble
Three features of the 1990s dot-com boom were -
wholesale
registration of dot-com and other domain names, often
on a very large scale (eg involving up to one hundred
thousand names) for resale to individual consumers and
other registrants. That registration was often automated.
Retailing of those 'preregistered' names encompassed
both online auctions such as GreatDomains,
Sedo
and Afternic.com
and sale at a direct price. Some wholesalers also acquired
names that had previously been registered by other entities.
small and large-scale acquisition of names on a speculative
basis, ie in the expectation that the holder of a name
would make a profit - generally of several hundred or
thousand per cent - by transferring the name to an individual/organisation
for active use or for speculation.
uncritical reporting in the mass and specialist media
about prices received for transferred names and a lack
of analysis about values and market trends. Unsubstantiated
accounts of "million dollar names", unique
opportunities and substantial profits in the "domain
name gold rush" were not uncommon.
That
activity was underpinned by - and in turn drove growth
of - businesses that specialised in determining the supposed
intrinsic/market value of domain names, in creating new
names claimed to have a particular intrinsic value and
in further commoditising names as an 'intangible' through
for example name-based securities.
It reflected phenomena in past booms
- examined in works such as Peter Garber's Famous First
Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias (Cambridge:
MIT Press 00), and Charles Kindleberger's classic Manias,
Panics & Crashes: A History of Financial Crashes (New
York: Wiley 93) - where markets were poorly informed and
prices for the commodity (tulip bulbs, shares in France's
Mississippi Company, 1840s UK railway shares, 1870s US
railroad bonds) were uncoupled from any credible prospect
of return from investment in tangible property or services.
As Anthony Perkins & Michael Perkins commented in their
prescient The Internet Bubble (New York: HarperCollins
99) at the height of the boom some domain name holders
or valuation services asserted that particular names had
an intrinsic value of several million dollars, independent
of any investment in development of a site, establishment
of e-commerce fulfilment infrastructure or other tangibles.
Why bother to engage in the messy, difficult and often
profitless business of e-commerce when you could make
money quickly and simply by playing the name game? No
pain, little risk.
One vendor for example advertised
that
Domain
name speculation is probably the very best way to make
money on the Internet and probably one of the least
known! It is also easy, fun, takes a very low investment
and has a huge profit potential. Businesses and webmasters
are always looking for high quality, marketable domain
names and will pay you big bucks if you have the name
they want. Many people are making a good living buying
and selling domain names. And you can too.
Another
claimed that
Here
you can grab a million dollar domain name for $35 or
less, and then you can turn around and sell it for hundreds
or thousands of dollars
Lee Hodgson, self-styled DomainGuru,
more soberly commented
The
truth is that domain speculators are the backbone of
the domain name industry. They are people like you and
me - webmasters, site developers, students, investors,
doctors, musicians, consultants and journalists. They
are also small businesses and large corporations. Early
in the year 2000 it came to light that the multi-national
company Procter & Gamble had been busy buying several
hundred valuable one word generic domain names and had
decided to put them up for sale. If it's good enough
for Fortune 500 companies I really don't see why it's
not good enough for the rest of us.
One
US 'investor' gained notoriety (and apparently quite a
few dollars) through large-scale registration of names
that were likely to infringe corporate trademarks and
then advising the owners of those marks that it was cheaper
to acquire the names from him than for them to resort
to legal action. Such hostage-taking has now been crimped
by punitive provisions in the AntiCybersquatting Protection
Act.
sales
The extent to which individuals and enterprises made money
by playing the game is unclear. There are no comprehensive
independent studies of prices and profits.
Most media coverage has centred on prices at which particular
gTLDs and ccTLDs
are reported to have changed hands. They include -
| domain
name |
reported
price tag (US$m) |
domain
name |
reported
price tag (US$m) |
| business.com |
7.5
|
websites.com |
0.9 |
| loans.com |
3.0
|
eflowers.com |
1.0
|
| forsalebyowner.com |
0.8
|
autos.com |
2.2
|
| whitehousecrisis.com |
1.0
|
asseenontv.com |
5.1
|
| drugs.com |
0.8 |
vote.com |
0.4 |
| wine.com |
2.9 |
wines.com |
3.0 |
| sky.com |
1.0 |
express.com |
2.0 |
| jobs.com |
0.8 |
computer.com |
0.6 |
| altavista.com |
3.8 |
korea.com
|
5.0
|
| 1stbandwidth.com |
0.8 |
art.com |
0.4 |
| marketingtoday.com |
1.5 |
biz.com |
0.6 |
| rock.com |
1.0 |
fly.com |
1.5 |
| mortgage.com |
1.8 |
themortgage.com |
0.5 |
| blackjack.com |
0.5 |
cinema.com |
0.7 |
| feedback.com |
1.2 |
if.com |
1.0 |
| university.com |
0.5 |
wisdom.com |
0.4 |
| cyberworks.net |
1.2 |
bingo.com |
0.2 |
| coupons.com |
2.2 |
feedback.com |
2.0 |
| beauty.cc |
0.8 |
engineering.org |
0.2 |
offers: it's worth what I ask for it?
Much coverage also concerned prices sought by vendors,
either directly or as an indicative figure on auction
sites.
One example was the announcement that the america.com
name - just the name - was available for US$30 million.
As of January 2003 it's on offer for US$15 million, somewhat
less than the US$1 billion sought for usdemocrats.com
at that time and presumably more realistically priced
than adiamondgeezer.com (US$2 million), homejobtrade.com
(US$5.36 million), fruitcakes.com (US$10 million) or foxyfriends.com
(US$100 million).
Another was the report that the operator of the sex.com
domain had been offered US$48 million for the name, consistent
with problematical claims
that the address received 25 million visits per day and
that the site - effectively a portal - generated annual
revenue of at least US$95 million. The UK Financial
Times more hard-headedly dismissed
as a stunt claims that the sex.com operator had received
an offer of US$85 million. The registrant of Cool.com
was supposedly offered US$60 million. Winding up of eToys.com
supposedly involved sale of the domain name for US$3.35
million; in fact that figure related to all of the unsuccessful
etailer's intellectual property.
Other figures include
| domain
name |
sought
(US$m) |
| afterhourstrading.com |
0.40
|
| deposit.com |
1.50 |
| eautos.com |
0.10 |
| airline.com |
0.50 |
| ecommerce.com |
4.00 |
| celebrity.com |
1.00 |
| foreplay.com |
0.25 |
| attorney.com |
1.00 |
| in.com |
10.0 |
| stocks.com |
7.50 |
| broad.com |
6.00 |
| sportinggoods.com |
1.00 |
| human.com |
0.60 |
| pay.com |
0.50 |
| supply.com |
7.50 |
and
a mere US$8 million for hell.com.
next page
(mapping)
|