4 ms·

Sex.com sells for $13m

24 points by ssclafani 16y ago

brc 16y ago
I was watching some documentary on TV about an online porn company, and they were talking about several billion page views. It was one of the youtube knockoffs. All served up, for free. The guy said it was the best way to advertise and the site made money, i'm assuming through affiliate links. I've no idea how you serve up billions of page views (presumably with heavy photo/video content) and still make money. The conversion rates must be high. The porn side of the internet is something people rarely talk about, but they must have some sharp developers working on some really tricky scaling problems.
- olegkikin 16y ago
  It's mostly static content, I assume. They probably just use a CDN. It's relatively easy to scale when you don't have dynamic stuff.
  - brc 16y ago
    They had their own server farm. The issue they had was that most 'mainstream' companies don't want to have anything to do with them.
dennisgorelik 16y ago
See also: http://www.quantcast.com/sex.com http://www.quantcast.com/sex.com
- pluies 16y ago
  Probably quite offtopic, but still funny/interesting/creepy (you pick) — on the right side of the site you linked: Audience Also Likes (...snip...) Kids PBS Kids 3.0x funbrain.com 2.9x
- stevenp 16y ago
  At first I was surprised that the traffic has tanked so much for sex.com, because I figured every teenager would enter it into the browser because it's so easy to think of. But when I went to Google (even with safe search off) and type "sex", all of the matches are for Sex and the City. My guess is that it's probably pretty hard to get much SEO traction for the word "sex".
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
lpolovets 16y ago
The domain has a fascinating history that is well-documented: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-com-Domain-Twelve-Brutal-Internets/dp/1905204663 http://www.amazon.com/Sex-com-Domain-Twelve-Brutal-Internets...
- danielrhodes 16y ago
  That domain really gets around :-P
- og1 16y ago
  The mixergy was also very interesting: http://mixergy.com/gary-kremen-interview/ http://mixergy.com/gary-kremen-interview/
jdp23 16y ago
well you know what they say ... sex sells.
Terretta 16y ago
We manage hosting for a number of complicated traffic sites, including this one... It's curious to see court processes reported in the news so fast.
amadiver 16y ago
I expected that number would be much higher.
wallflower 16y ago
Of all the ways to make money with a time machine, registering a handful of generic keyword domains would have been the easiest.
- Dramatize 16y ago
  I kept telling my parents back in '99 that they should buy domain names.
- eli 16y ago
  I thought about it, but man, they were like a hundred dollars back then. And, if I recall correctly, you had to fax a signed contract back to Network Solutions to complete the registration
yosho 16y ago
it's sad that even though the domain is worth so much, people simply still just put advertising on it. C'mon, give us a decent sex site at least. Just sayin.
- kls 16y ago
  Personally if I where to purchase it, I would make it a high end lifestyle magazine. In between the old GQ, Bazaar and Robb Report. The branding for that is phenomenal. Not worth 13 mil though.
vchien 16y ago
Insure.com – Sold for $16,000,000 in Oct 2009 to QuinStreet Fund.com – $9,999,950 – Sold in 2008 Porn.com - Sold for $9,000,000 sometime in 2007 Business.com – Sold for $7,500,000 in 1999 Diamonds.com – Sold for $7,500,000 Beer.com - Sold for $7,000,000 Casino.com – $5,500,000 – Sold to a private company in 2003 Slots.com – $5,500,000 – Moniker auction May 2010 Toys.com $5.1M sold to Toys R Us AsSeenOnTV.com – Sold for $5,100,000 in January of 2000 See more...updated May 14, 2010 http://www.fka200.com/2009/01/03/a-list-of-some-of-the-top-domain-name-sales-ever-most-expensive-domains/ http://www.fka200.com/2009/01/03/a-list-of-some-of-the-top-d...
- akira410 16y ago
  An old acquaintance of mine owns at.com. I can't help but wonder how much that would go for....
  - wmf 16y ago
    Can I reach him at at@at.com?
    - pak 16y ago
      It's certainly not a domain amenable to saying email addresses out loud. "At what dot com?"
- kls 16y ago
  Are these solely for the domain name or was their a business sold behind the name. I would image that they are just the name. We exited Orlando.com for close to the top numbers, but it was an established business, even though HRN/Hotels.com dismantled the business and only used some of the technology and the name. So for them it was technically a name/tech purchase. We purchased the name only for 2 Mil in 99 or 2000 I can't remember exactly.
flipbrad 16y ago
Does a domain name sale attach capital gains tax? because it really must be monstrous, if so. Can't imagine that many exemptions apply, and assuming the value at purchase was ~$10... or is it not that kind of asset?
alecco 16y ago
DNS was a terrible idea. So hierarchical and monopolistic. So full of flaws.
- jncraton 16y ago
  It's not a perfect solution, but it certainly beats passing around big hostfiles mapping hosts to addresses.
  - Asdfg 16y ago
    Hostfiles are probably better in the long term than government control of DNS servers. Censorship at the DNS level is one of the low-hanging fruit of dictatorships.
  - alecco 16y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. Why didn't they spend more time analyzing options and consequences like they did for IPv6?

24 points by ssclafani 16y ago

brc 16y ago

I was watching some documentary on TV about an online porn company, and they were talking about several billion page views. It was one of the youtube knockoffs. All served up, for free. The guy said it was the best way to advertise and the site made money, i'm assuming through affiliate links. I've no idea how you serve up billions of page views (presumably with heavy photo/video content) and still make money. The conversion rates must be high. The porn side of the internet is something people rarely talk about, but they must have some sharp developers working on some really tricky scaling problems.

olegkikin 16y ago
It's mostly static content, I assume. They probably just use a CDN. It's relatively easy to scale when you don't have dynamic stuff.
- brc 16y ago
  They had their own server farm. The issue they had was that most 'mainstream' companies don't want to have anything to do with them.

dennisgorelik 16y ago

See also: http://www.quantcast.com/sex.com http://www.quantcast.com/sex.com

pluies 16y ago
Probably quite offtopic, but still funny/interesting/creepy (you pick) — on the right side of the site you linked: Audience Also Likes (...snip...) Kids PBS Kids 3.0x funbrain.com 2.9x
stevenp 16y ago
At first I was surprised that the traffic has tanked so much for sex.com, because I figured every teenager would enter it into the browser because it's so easy to think of. But when I went to Google (even with safe search off) and type "sex", all of the matches are for Sex and the City. My guess is that it's probably pretty hard to get much SEO traction for the word "sex".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

lpolovets 16y ago

The domain has a fascinating history that is well-documented: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-com-Domain-Twelve-Brutal-Internets/dp/1905204663 http://www.amazon.com/Sex-com-Domain-Twelve-Brutal-Internets...

danielrhodes 16y ago
That domain really gets around :-P
og1 16y ago
The mixergy was also very interesting: http://mixergy.com/gary-kremen-interview/ http://mixergy.com/gary-kremen-interview/

jdp23 16y ago

well you know what they say ... sex sells.

Terretta 16y ago

We manage hosting for a number of complicated traffic sites, including this one... It's curious to see court processes reported in the news so fast.

amadiver 16y ago

I expected that number would be much higher.

wallflower 16y ago

Of all the ways to make money with a time machine, registering a handful of generic keyword domains would have been the easiest.

Dramatize 16y ago
I kept telling my parents back in '99 that they should buy domain names.
eli 16y ago
I thought about it, but man, they were like a hundred dollars back then. And, if I recall correctly, you had to fax a signed contract back to Network Solutions to complete the registration

yosho 16y ago

it's sad that even though the domain is worth so much, people simply still just put advertising on it. C'mon, give us a decent sex site at least. Just sayin.

kls 16y ago
Personally if I where to purchase it, I would make it a high end lifestyle magazine. In between the old GQ, Bazaar and Robb Report. The branding for that is phenomenal. Not worth 13 mil though.

vchien 16y ago

Insure.com – Sold for $16,000,000 in Oct 2009 to QuinStreet Fund.com – $9,999,950 – Sold in 2008 Porn.com - Sold for $9,000,000 sometime in 2007 Business.com – Sold for $7,500,000 in 1999 Diamonds.com – Sold for $7,500,000 Beer.com - Sold for $7,000,000 Casino.com – $5,500,000 – Sold to a private company in 2003 Slots.com – $5,500,000 – Moniker auction May 2010 Toys.com $5.1M sold to Toys R Us AsSeenOnTV.com – Sold for $5,100,000 in January of 2000 See more...updated May 14, 2010 http://www.fka200.com/2009/01/03/a-list-of-some-of-the-top-domain-name-sales-ever-most-expensive-domains/ http://www.fka200.com/2009/01/03/a-list-of-some-of-the-top-d...

akira410 16y ago
An old acquaintance of mine owns at.com. I can't help but wonder how much that would go for....
- wmf 16y ago
  Can I reach him at at@at.com?
  - pak 16y ago
    It's certainly not a domain amenable to saying email addresses out loud. "At what dot com?"
kls 16y ago
Are these solely for the domain name or was their a business sold behind the name. I would image that they are just the name. We exited Orlando.com for close to the top numbers, but it was an established business, even though HRN/Hotels.com dismantled the business and only used some of the technology and the name. So for them it was technically a name/tech purchase. We purchased the name only for 2 Mil in 99 or 2000 I can't remember exactly.

flipbrad 16y ago

Does a domain name sale attach capital gains tax? because it really must be monstrous, if so. Can't imagine that many exemptions apply, and assuming the value at purchase was ~$10... or is it not that kind of asset?

alecco 16y ago

DNS was a terrible idea. So hierarchical and monopolistic. So full of flaws.

jncraton 16y ago
It's not a perfect solution, but it certainly beats passing around big hostfiles mapping hosts to addresses.
- Asdfg 16y ago
  Hostfiles are probably better in the long term than government control of DNS servers. Censorship at the DNS level is one of the low-hanging fruit of dictatorships.
- alecco 16y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Why didn't they spend more time analyzing options and consequences like they did for IPv6?