6 ms·

> The company has simply decided it wants a quick revenue bump as these domains have likely hit their peak in value. This is a ridiculous observation given th

by leokun 13y ago

> The company has simply decided it wants a quick revenue bump as these domains have likely hit their peak in value. This is a ridiculous observation given that Yahoo has revenue in billions of USD, and no, selling domains for thousands of dollars will not be any kind of meaningful "quick revenue bump." Tech reporting at its finest right here.

brianbreslin 13y ago
The few that go for $1M might have some material impact.
smackfu 13y ago
OTOH, it is definitely the kind of tactic a division head uses to goose their numbers.
elob36 13y ago
Did you not read the last paragraph? > For a company that sees quarterly revenues of over a billion dollars, that’s not a big deal, but it definitely can’t hurt either. Reading comprehension at its finest right here.
- jimueller 13y ago
  The statement is presented as a fact in the article, yet as even the author admits it is probably not true. So I would agree it is amateur journalism.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    There's a world of difference between: "The company has simply decided..." and "The company has probably decided..."
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    Tying the sale of these domains to Yahoo's quarterly revenues -- even bringing them up in the same sentence -- is the wrong context in which to discuss them in the first place. Even if Yahoo raises a million dollars from this sale, it'll have no material impact on the bottom line. That said, there are other factors at play in a move like this: 1) PR value (it got the attention of the tech press, after all); 2) the sale of nonproductive assets for any sum greater than $0 isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even if it has no measurable effect on the quarterly results. If I own a broken appliance that I lack the time, financial interest, or skill to fix -- but I can sell it to someone who can make use of it for a few bucks -- I might as well sell it. It won't make a dent in my yearly income, but it'll be better than holding onto the useless (to me) asset.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by leokun 13y ago

brianbreslin 13y ago

The few that go for $1M might have some material impact.

smackfu 13y ago

OTOH, it is definitely the kind of tactic a division head uses to goose their numbers.

elob36 13y ago

Did you not read the last paragraph? > For a company that sees quarterly revenues of over a billion dollars, that’s not a big deal, but it definitely can’t hurt either. Reading comprehension at its finest right here.

jimueller 13y ago
The statement is presented as a fact in the article, yet as even the author admits it is probably not true. So I would agree it is amateur journalism.
- smackfu 13y ago
  There's a world of difference between: "The company has simply decided..." and "The company has probably decided..."
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  Tying the sale of these domains to Yahoo's quarterly revenues -- even bringing them up in the same sentence -- is the wrong context in which to discuss them in the first place. Even if Yahoo raises a million dollars from this sale, it'll have no material impact on the bottom line. That said, there are other factors at play in a move like this: 1) PR value (it got the attention of the tech press, after all); 2) the sale of nonproductive assets for any sum greater than $0 isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even if it has no measurable effect on the quarterly results. If I own a broken appliance that I lack the time, financial interest, or skill to fix -- but I can sell it to someone who can make use of it for a few bucks -- I might as well sell it. It won't make a dent in my yearly income, but it'll be better than holding onto the useless (to me) asset.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]