7 ms·

I'd much prefer to find ways to use that $50K that contribute to the economies that my industry supports and relies upon. I'd rather burn $50K paying on-staff

by crikli 14y ago

I'd much prefer to find ways to use that $50K that contribute to the economies that my industry supports and relies upon. I'd rather burn $50K paying on-staff marketing or agencies to work around a sub-optimal domain name. I'd rather buy my staff new MBPs (or I would have before this soldered-in RAM bull). Hell, I'd rather support my local liquor store and buy a few cases of Great Divide and several dozen wings every Friday and invite everyone over for a free gutbombing. Bottom line, I'm not willing to use my funds to perpetuate a business model that relies on a flavor of extortion.

ohashi 14y ago
That's very noble. But if that 50k domain name would beat the returns on all the other ways you are talking about deploying your capital, it only makes sense to buy it.
- crikli 14y ago
  Yes, if. It's not a matter of nobility, it's a matter of putting my money in the areas where the a) the ROI is highest with b) the highest probability of realizing that ROI. My experience has demonstrated that forecasting the ROI on a domain name is...well, I don't want to say impossible, but the projections are difficult to compose and they've not proven to be realistic. Now, I may just suck at projecting the annualized value of a domain name, in which case the problem is my level of suckage.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    That's an odd response given the way you initially phrased it. It wasn't an economic comparison for your company directly (arguably it was indirect support for supporting industries). You talk about burning cash (which I would read as not spending efficiently at a minimum) and buying liquor. You've rephrased your disagreement now that domains aren't ROI oriented. Is your objection really objective or emotional?
    - crikli 14y ago
      Yeah, sorry for the confusing terminology and context switching. I did not do a great job of communicating what the voices in my head were telling me. I frequently talk about business in terms of flying an airplane. So I meant "burning cash" as I would mean "burning fuel" in the pursuit of getting from point A to point B. Didn't mean it in the context of getting a pile of it and lighting it on fire. I was joking about the beer and wings bit.
      - ohashi 14y ago
        Appreciate the clarification. In my honest opinion, there are very few domains that would really qualify as 50k names. I think the average sale is around 2k-2.5k according to the data I've seen. What would you say at that price?
        crikli 14y ago
        Wouldn't do it. I'm just not willing to be a part of the squatter economy. That goes for domain names I hold as well. I've sold several and have never charged more than what I have in them. This is an extreme position, I realize this.
untog 14y ago
Devil's advocate: how is this different from real estate? You can always get a domain name of some sort- it just might not be in a desirable TLD (neighbourhood). If you want a desirable address, you have to pay more.
- crikli 14y ago
  It's different from real estate because domains are not like real estate, although squatters like to use comparisons to real estate as apologia. A developed property in SF/NY isn't like a domain name, because at some point someone invested capital to build, much as someone must invest capital to build a website that resides at a given domain name. A completely undeveloped property in the middle of SF/NY has no intrinsic value: it's value based upon what's around it (e.g., the massive developments we call a city). If we must have a real estate comparison to a domain name, it would be this: an island, made only of sand, out in the middle of an unending ocean full of other islands made only of sand, so geographically separated as to be completely isolated from each other. One, this ocean does not exist on earth, and if it did, the real estate business would not be built around the buying and selling of these islands of sand for the purposes of development. This feels a bit like a straw man, I know, but I'm trying to illustrate just how untenable the comparison between squatting and real estate truly is.
- pbz 14y ago
  How's it different? For once there's more friction in buying land. There's more paperwork involved, there are zoning rules, and so on. More importantly you can't buy a piece of land for $10 and sell it for $50K a few years down the road. And just because there are similarities it doesn't make it right. In some countries you cannot own land at all, would you use that as an argument?
  - untog 14y ago
    All those points just seem to be issues of scale, though. IS the principle any different? More importantly you can't buy a piece of land for $10 and sell it for $50K a few years down the road. You absolutely can. Perhaps "a few years" needs to be redefined to a decade or more, but land speculation is absolutely possible and done a lot.

by crikli 14y ago

ohashi 14y ago

That's very noble. But if that 50k domain name would beat the returns on all the other ways you are talking about deploying your capital, it only makes sense to buy it.

crikli 14y ago
Yes, if. It's not a matter of nobility, it's a matter of putting my money in the areas where the a) the ROI is highest with b) the highest probability of realizing that ROI. My experience has demonstrated that forecasting the ROI on a domain name is...well, I don't want to say impossible, but the projections are difficult to compose and they've not proven to be realistic. Now, I may just suck at projecting the annualized value of a domain name, in which case the problem is my level of suckage.
- ohashi 14y ago
  That's an odd response given the way you initially phrased it. It wasn't an economic comparison for your company directly (arguably it was indirect support for supporting industries). You talk about burning cash (which I would read as not spending efficiently at a minimum) and buying liquor. You've rephrased your disagreement now that domains aren't ROI oriented. Is your objection really objective or emotional?
  - crikli 14y ago
    Yeah, sorry for the confusing terminology and context switching. I did not do a great job of communicating what the voices in my head were telling me. I frequently talk about business in terms of flying an airplane. So I meant "burning cash" as I would mean "burning fuel" in the pursuit of getting from point A to point B. Didn't mean it in the context of getting a pile of it and lighting it on fire. I was joking about the beer and wings bit.
    - ohashi 14y ago
      Appreciate the clarification. In my honest opinion, there are very few domains that would really qualify as 50k names. I think the average sale is around 2k-2.5k according to the data I've seen. What would you say at that price?
      - crikli 14y ago
        Wouldn't do it. I'm just not willing to be a part of the squatter economy. That goes for domain names I hold as well. I've sold several and have never charged more than what I have in them. This is an extreme position, I realize this.

untog 14y ago

Devil's advocate: how is this different from real estate? You can always get a domain name of some sort- it just might not be in a desirable TLD (neighbourhood). If you want a desirable address, you have to pay more.

crikli 14y ago
It's different from real estate because domains are not like real estate, although squatters like to use comparisons to real estate as apologia. A developed property in SF/NY isn't like a domain name, because at some point someone invested capital to build, much as someone must invest capital to build a website that resides at a given domain name. A completely undeveloped property in the middle of SF/NY has no intrinsic value: it's value based upon what's around it (e.g., the massive developments we call a city). If we must have a real estate comparison to a domain name, it would be this: an island, made only of sand, out in the middle of an unending ocean full of other islands made only of sand, so geographically separated as to be completely isolated from each other. One, this ocean does not exist on earth, and if it did, the real estate business would not be built around the buying and selling of these islands of sand for the purposes of development. This feels a bit like a straw man, I know, but I'm trying to illustrate just how untenable the comparison between squatting and real estate truly is.
pbz 14y ago
How's it different? For once there's more friction in buying land. There's more paperwork involved, there are zoning rules, and so on. More importantly you can't buy a piece of land for $10 and sell it for $50K a few years down the road. And just because there are similarities it doesn't make it right. In some countries you cannot own land at all, would you use that as an argument?
- untog 14y ago
  All those points just seem to be issues of scale, though. IS the principle any different? More importantly you can't buy a piece of land for $10 and sell it for $50K a few years down the road. You absolutely can. Perhaps "a few years" needs to be redefined to a decade or more, but land speculation is absolutely possible and done a lot.