[-REECE-]

Completely agree. With all the economic uncertainty at present, now might be a good time to brush up on Mandarin so you know what those Chinese endusers are looking for

Top tier has been doing quite well in comparison to the low end, as the percentiles I posted from February + November elucidate. A decrease? Yes, however it's a decrease which is much closer to being in line with the rest of the domain name industry. Before Snoop corrects me, yes, I'm well aware the LLLL.com market as a whole has underperformed versus the domain industry average.

If someone does choose to invest in LLLL.coms however, the Quad Premium or higher quality segment seems like a much safer place to do it -- their historical prices have been much more stable (both pre and post buyout) and renewal fees consist of a much smaller portion of their value.

Originally Posted by bmugford

If you think the market is going to keep getting worse, then you might want to consider selling even at a loss. It reminds of of someone who buys stock @ $30/share then refuses to sell @$15/share because they would take a loss. If you think that stock is going to keep going down then it is good to cut your losses. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/short-domain-discussion/358387-the-llll-com-sales-discussion-thread.html Long term the top tier LLLL.com are definitely going to be fine. I would not be in a rush to sell those type of domains now. However with the lower end of the market no one knows what will happen. Not all lower ends are created equal though. Even on the "lower end" you can find domains that are Chinese Premiums. Brad

[snoop]

Originally Posted by -REECE-

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 Top tier has been doing quite well in comparison to the low end, as the percentiles I posted from February + November elucidate. A decrease? Yes, however it's a decrease which is much closer to being in line with the rest of the domain name industry. Before Snoop corrects me, yes, I'm well aware the LLLL.com market as a whole has underperformed versus the domain industry average. If someone does choose to invest in LLLL.coms however, the Quad Premium or higher quality segment seems like a much safer place to do it -- their historical prices have been much more stable (both pre and post buyout) and renewal fees consist of a much smaller portion of their value.

I largely agree, it looks like the quad premiums have come back from around $400-$500 minimum in February to around $160 today (60%-70% loss). The stats you present of the very top percentile I would say would include lots of end-user sales (which are generally in the $hundreds/$thousands and haven't been hit as hard as liquid values). I suspect that is why the 90th percentile shows a much smaller decline than the others of 40%. Compare that to say 80th percentile for which shows a 73% decline (and all the others down are pretty similar). Of course the kicker with the lower percentiles is people have paid a reg fee on a low value name so real losses are more like 95%-100% in my view at the lowest end.

Personally I would have guessed the overall domain market is maybe down by 60%-70% or so though it is very hard to judge - that would be similar to the performance of the quad premiums. A couple of months ago I felt the top end keyword names were down 50% based on live auction data and I suspect it might be down 60%+ now.

[-REECE-]

Hi Snoop,

I base my percentiles on medians, instead of averages to filter out enduser sales. The 90th percentile in my example suggests that only 10% of LLLL.coms would sell for a higher figure. I don't actually average out what those 10% sell for, so as to avoid most enduser bias. On an average month where we see roughly 1000 sales, what I report as 90th percentile is what the 100th highest sale (900th lowest sale) goes for.

There is still some enduser bias, however it's much less than would be had by taking averages.

Originally Posted by snoop

I largely agree, it looks like the quad premiums have come back from around $400-$500 minimum in February to around $160 today (60%-70% loss). The stats you present of the very top percentile I would say would include lots of end-user sales (which are generally in the $hundreds/$thousands and haven't been hit as hard as liquid values). I suspect that is why the 90th percentile shows a much smaller decline than the others of 40%. Compare that to say 80th percentile for which shows a 73% decline (and all the others down are pretty similar). Of course the kicker with the lower percentiles is people have paid a reg fee on a low value name so real losses are more like 95%-100% in my view at the lowest end. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 Personally I would have guessed the overall domain market is maybe down by 60%-70% or so though it is very hard to judge - that would be similar to the performance of the quad premiums. A couple of months ago I felt the top end keyword names were down 50% based on live auction data and I suspect it might be down 60%+ now.

[tzsxc]

quad premiums minimums were at 300 - 350 in the crazy days. So the drop is only ~50%

[-REECE-]

At absolute peak, they actually neared $500. They were well over $400, that I do recall.

Originally Posted by tzsxc

quad premiums minimums were at 300 - 350 in the crazy days. So the drop is only ~50%

[gladdy]

fije.com
$800
Sedo (recent sales)

[tzsxc]

Originally Posted by -REECE-

At absolute peak, they actually neared $500. They were well over $400, that I do recall.

which month?

[-REECE-]

early March. Bad LLLL.coms peaked in February, however higher quality LLLL.coms actually peaked in March.

Originally Posted by tzsxc

which month?

[tzsxc]

cgpt.com Whois information for $376.00 $59.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008
gbnh.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008
ptfd.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008
tdoo.com Whois information for $476.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 28-Mar-2008
kihy.com Whois information for $277.00 $59.00 Outbid! demcvsk 27-Mar-2008
pgmb.com Whois information for $384.00 $99.00 Outbid! ergo22by 27-Mar-2008
lfrp.com Whois information for $375.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 27-Mar-2008
nidm.com Whois information for $501.00 $59.00 Outbid! lebanon 26-Mar-2008
nofd.com Whois information for $451.00 $79.00 Outbid! erroneous 21-Mar-2008
rsmh.com Whois information for $500.00 $99.00 Outbid! erroneous 20-Mar-2008
ohbm.com Whois information for $500.00 $79.00 Outbid! currybeatle1 19-Mar-2008
rdah.com Whois information for $334.00 $59.00 Outbid! dnduke 18-Mar-2008
lndt.com Whois information for $328.00 $59.00 Outbid! xc06 13-Mar-2008
obnd.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 12-Mar-2008
midm.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 11-Mar-2008
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387
dmbg.com Whois information for $426.00 $59.00 Outbid! bbbbkarato 10-Mar-2008
hcfp.com Whois information for $308.00 $283.00 Outbid! carnevale 09-Mar-2008

****february****
lcnh.com Whois information for $300.00 $79.00 Outbid! carnevale 22-Feb-2008
stgl.com Whois information for $435.00 $79.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008
lcse.com Whois information for $384.00 $59.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008
rfsn.com Whois information for $433.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008
nfpe.com Whois information for $431.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008
pbeb.com Whois information for $437.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008

[-REECE-]

And I can post a list of 200 more sales over $400 in March which there were plenty of people buying ANY LLLL.com for at the time (first 2 weeks of March were highest).

Not really worth debating however -- the LLLL.com market has taken a royal dump and we can all admit to that.

Originally Posted by tzsxc

cgpt.com Whois information for $376.00 $59.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 gbnh.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 ptfd.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 tdoo.com Whois information for $476.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 28-Mar-2008 kihy.com Whois information for $277.00 $59.00 Outbid! demcvsk 27-Mar-2008 pgmb.com Whois information for $384.00 $99.00 Outbid! ergo22by 27-Mar-2008 lfrp.com Whois information for $375.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 27-Mar-2008 nidm.com Whois information for $501.00 $59.00 Outbid! lebanon 26-Mar-2008 nofd.com Whois information for $451.00 $79.00 Outbid! erroneous 21-Mar-2008 rsmh.com Whois information for $500.00 $99.00 Outbid! erroneous 20-Mar-2008 ohbm.com Whois information for $500.00 $79.00 Outbid! currybeatle1 19-Mar-2008 rdah.com Whois information for $334.00 $59.00 Outbid! dnduke 18-Mar-2008 lndt.com Whois information for $328.00 $59.00 Outbid! xc06 13-Mar-2008 obnd.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 12-Mar-2008 midm.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 11-Mar-2008 dmbg.com Whois information for $426.00 $59.00 Outbid! bbbbkarato 10-Mar-2008 hcfp.com Whois information for $308.00 $283.00 Outbid! carnevale 09-Mar-2008 ****february**** lcnh.com Whois information for $300.00 $79.00 Outbid! carnevale 22-Feb-2008 stgl.com Whois information for $435.00 $79.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008 lcse.com Whois information for $384.00 $59.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008 rfsn.com Whois information for $433.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008 nfpe.com Whois information for $431.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008 pbeb.com Whois information for $437.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008

[bmugford]

I bought some quads back at the "peak" for mid $300 or slightly lower.

So if we are going by the very low end sales to indicate the minimum, then the peak was never actually $500.

It might have been the average quad sale, but there were many selling under $400.

Brad

Originally Posted by tzsxc

cgpt.com Whois information for $376.00 $59.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 gbnh.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 ptfd.com Whois information for $376.00 $79.00 Outbid! ucl 30-Mar-2008 tdoo.com Whois information for $476.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 28-Mar-2008 kihy.com Whois information for $277.00 $59.00 Outbid! demcvsk 27-Mar-2008 pgmb.com Whois information for $384.00 $99.00 Outbid! ergo22by 27-Mar-2008 lfrp.com Whois information for $375.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 27-Mar-2008 nidm.com Whois information for $501.00 $59.00 Outbid! lebanon 26-Mar-2008 nofd.com Whois information for $451.00 $79.00 Outbid! erroneous 21-Mar-2008 rsmh.com Whois information for $500.00 $99.00 Outbid! erroneous 20-Mar-2008 ohbm.com Whois information for $500.00 $79.00 Outbid! currybeatle1 19-Mar-2008 rdah.com Whois information for $334.00 $59.00 Outbid! dnduke 18-Mar-2008 lndt.com Whois information for $328.00 $59.00 Outbid! xc06 13-Mar-2008 obnd.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 12-Mar-2008 ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 midm.com Whois information for $475.00 $79.00 Outbid! dnduke 11-Mar-2008 dmbg.com Whois information for $426.00 $59.00 Outbid! bbbbkarato 10-Mar-2008 hcfp.com Whois information for $308.00 $283.00 Outbid! carnevale 09-Mar-2008 ****february**** lcnh.com Whois information for $300.00 $79.00 Outbid! carnevale 22-Feb-2008 stgl.com Whois information for $435.00 $79.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008 lcse.com Whois information for $384.00 $59.00 Outbid! ergo22by 20-Feb-2008 rfsn.com Whois information for $433.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008 nfpe.com Whois information for $431.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008 pbeb.com Whois information for $437.00 $59.00 Outbid! goodkarma42 17-Feb-2008

[tzsxc]

sure..but we're talking about minimums and not averages? I mind a little when using minimum sales for alot of these arguments but then ignoring it for quads?

[bmugford]

This is the problem. In general I think the average where you cut out the highest and lowest fringe sales is the best indicator.

However some people (Snoop) in this thread like to use the lowest of sales as their baseline.

If we are using averages then Quads were probably $500. If we are using minimum then it is under $400.

Brad

Originally Posted by tzsxc

sure..but we're talking about minimums and not averages?

[-REECE-]

According to your list, there are only 2 sales under $400 within the first couple weeks of March -- those would be classified as outliers granted they're 30%+ lower than all other sales. I saw people trying to buy quads @ $400 and getting no takers at the time -- the real minimum was definitely $400.

I never consider a domain to be worth what it sold for -- always consider it to be worth what it could have sold for. None of that BS about "ideal conditions", merely what the domain could have sold for if properly listed and taking into account that sometimes for inexplicable reasons domains sell for markedly less than if they were listed on the exact same venue in the exact same way the very next day. These 2 outlier quad sales under $400 are examples of that I'm afraid.

You can't really tell a great deal about any market by only analyzing a handful of sales.

90th percentile is always what I used to evaluate the high quality market and it does a much better job than either minimums or averages. It's what I posted above and tells the real story of how much the market has fallen. Averages are too easy to sugarcoat if someone has a hidden agenda -- too easy to consider certain numbers outliers one way or the other. Percentiles consider ALL data and leave no possibility of subjective interpretation or bias.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

Originally Posted by tzsxc

sure..but we're talking about minimums and not averages?

[tzsxc]

Originally Posted by bmugford

This is the problem. In general I think the average where you cut out the highest and lowest fringe sales is the best indicator. However some people (Snoop) in this thread like to use the lowest of sales as their baseline. If we are using averages than Quads were probably $500. If we are using minimum then it is under $400. Brad

so is the $2 minimum or average?

reece, i'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just confused, the prices used here are minimums or averages? I remember there was a big fuss about whether a low sale on ebay was actually a sale.

i agree that outliers need to be removed but also there needs to be a smoothing function like for stocks...60 day or 90 moving average. The peak was so short that it really was a blip IMO. I just don't like ppl manipulating the data to further their point.

[bmugford]

I agree with your points below. It is hard to compare sales when they happen on different venues at different times.

If you have an auction ending @ 2AM on Sunday morning on eBay then of course it will under perform. That type of auction should be removed as an outlier since it wasn't properly listed.

The venue needs to be taken into account. The most accurate way would be to compare Apples to Apples.

I would like to see the average on NJ for Quads @ peak vs the average now.
I think that would be a pretty non biased comparison just looking at raw data.

Brad

Originally Posted by -REECE-

None of that BS about "ideal conditions", merely what the domain could have sold for if properly listed and taking into account that sometimes for inexplicable reasons domains sell for markedly less than if they were listed on the exact same venue in the exact same way the very next day. These 2 outlier quad sales under $400 are examples of that I'm afraid. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 You can't really tell a great deal about any market by only analyzing a handful of sales.

[-REECE-]

I see the minimum at $4 myself, Snoop sees it around $2-$3 he's said. Put them together and we have a minimum of around $3.25

The minimum is obviously below $5 as we see TDNAM firesales not being bought.

Minimum is a word we would have to define before arriving at a consensus on. I see minimum as the price at which someone should be able to sell their domains within a reasonably short period of time -- the period of time of course depending on the number of domains wanting to be sold.

I see it more or less as the bulk rate -- the lowest one could expect to find LLLL.coms readily available for sale. Under that definition, it's not $2, however under that definition it's certainly not $8 or $10 either.

To each their own I suppose. I don't invest at all in the lower quality stuff anymore, nor have I ever really had any really low quality stuff, with the large majority of my holdings always having been double premiums, triple premiums, and higher quality LLLL.coms.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

Originally Posted by tzsxc

so is the $2 minimum or average?

[bmugford]

That is a good point. The peak was just a short moment in time. It is like comparing the price of Apple shares right now to the brief moment in time it crossed $200.

A rolling average would actually be a great idea. That is how you can really see the trend lines more than a comparison to one moment in time.

Brad

Originally Posted by tzsxc

i agree that outliers need to be removed but also there needs to be a smoothing function like for stocks...60 day or 90 moving average. The peak was so short that it really was a blip IMO. I just don't like ppl manipulating the data to further their point.

The minimum should mean this. The price at which you would easily be able to sell the domain name.

But even there you have so many factors. Not all quads are comparable. Even though both are quads, a domain like OTCI.com is in another league than LFHM.com

Brad

Originally Posted by -REECE-

I see the minimum at $4 myself, Snoop sees it around $2-$3 he's said. Put them together and we have a minimum of around $3.25 ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 The minimum is obviously below $5 as we see TDNAM firesales not being bought. Minimum is a word we would have to define before arriving at a consensus on. I see minimum as the price at which someone should be able to sell their domains within a reasonably short period of time -- the period of time of course depending on the number of domains wanting to be sold. I see it more or less as the bulk rate -- the lowest one could expect to find LLLL.coms readily available for sale. Under that definition, it's not $2, however under that definition it's certainly not $8 or $10 either. To each their own I suppose. I don't invest at all in the lower quality stuff anymore, nor have I ever really had any really low quality stuff, with the large majority of my holdings always having been double premiums, triple premiums, and higher quality LLLL.coms.

[tzsxc]

NAMEJET MARCH data

bibn.com Lost Private Pre-Release $382 $69 3/31/2008
etlb.com Lost Public Pre-Release $436 $69 3/30/2008
bnbd.com Lost Private Pre-Release $310 $69 3/30/2008
gslb.com Lost Private Pre-Release $355 $69 3/30/2008
hsda.com Lost Private Pre-Release $9
bhol.com Lost Private Pre-Release $531 $69 3/29/2008
tbmd.com Lost Private Pre-Release $270 $69 3/29/2008
hrer.com Lost Private Pre-Release $411 $69 3/28/2008
bsae.com Lost Private Pre-Release $466 $6
mdlo.com Lost Private Pre-Release $373 $69
mgrb.com Lost Private Pre-Release $356 $69 3/27/2
hsoh.com Lost Private Pre-Release $311 $29 3/27/2008
etlb.com Lost Private Pre-Release $311 $69 3/22/2008
gmln.com Lost Private Pre-Release $412
itln.com Lost Private Pre-Release $420
etln.com Lost Private Pre-Release $412 $69 3/20/2008
ipdh.com Lost Private Pending Delete $381
lpmb.com Lost Private Pre-Release $411 $69
hfdf.com Lost Public Pre-Release $350 $70
mgln.com Lost Private Pre-Release $393 $343 3/11/2008
gmdl.com Lost Private Pre-Release $321 $69 3/11/2008
mlfo.com Lost Private Pre-Release $321 $69 3/11/2008
bspl.com Lost Private Pre-Release $397
saeh.com Lost Private Pre-Release $375
mafm.com Lost Private Pre-Release $610 $70 3/5/2008
cbch.com Lost Private Pre-Release $515 $70 3/5/2008
ehps.com Lost Private Pre-Release $603 $70 3/5/2008
bncm.com Lost Private Pre-Release $610 $70 3/5/2008
sdig.com Lost Private Pre-Release $910 $70


BTW, i consider NJ and Snap + godaddy as real sales data. Sedo sales data needs to be taken with a grain of salt

[-REECE-]

The problem with applying anything from the stock market to domaining is that the 2 markets are fundamentally different. Liquidity of a stock and LLLL.coms of comparable price aren't at all the same.

LLLL.coms for the most part don't produce revenue or return their owners dividends.

In this recessionary economy, I'm afraid it's dangerous to even look at the stock market with tools which may be applicable under normal economic conditions. We just don't know where we'll be a week, a month, etc from now. TSX here in Canada recorded it's worst day in history yesterday -- how does something like that factor into any stock models?

I've said it a many times already and I'll say it again -- this market is a long term play at this point and those looking to do quick flips will most likely get burnt unless:

1) They're getting amazing good deals -- so good that it won't matter if prices drop a further 10-20% before they're able to sell it

2) They're willing to hold if they can't sell their purchases for more than they paid.

Originally Posted by bmugford

That is a good point. The peak was just a short moment in time. It is like comparing the price of Apple shares right now to the brief moment in time it crossed $200. A rolling average would actually be a great idea. That is how you can really see the trend lines more than a comparison to one moment in time. Brad ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 The minimum should mean this. The price at which you would easily be able to sell the domain name. But even there you have so many factors. Not all quads are comparable. Even though both are quads, a domain like OTCI.com is in another league than LFHM.com Brad

Agree with you completely there Brad -- Matter of fact, I think you, me, and Andrei could write a book about that!

Certainly is money still to be made flipping LLLL.coms to the discriminate LLLL.com buyer who understands the fundamental differences in one LLLL.com versus another.

A few of them I posted on my blog:

*

Pronounceability (does it pass the radio test?)

*

Memorability

*

Brandability

*

Likelihood of an existing or future enduser

*

Traffic/Revenue

*

Anything else which differentiates it from other LLLL.coms


The big one is of course anything else which differentiates it from other LLLL.coms. Hard to explain and sometimes it's even hard to know.

Originally Posted by bmugford

The minimum should mean this. The price at which you would easily be able to sell the domain name. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387 But even there you have so many factors. Not all quads are comparable. Even though both are quads, a domain like OTCI.com is in another league than LFHM.com Brad

[Ergo]

When snoop talks about past time he likes to show how much prices were then. Talking about 400-500$ min. prices then. It would be not very correct. I've bought just two llll.coms in March at Snapnames:

olcf.cоm $387
hltr.cоm $325

I'm sure that you could buy even cheaper at forums.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

So it's difficult to see where there was 400$ minimum. Of course people were talking about 400$ as minimum with desire to hype the market even more, but the truth is that you could buy llll.coms especially worst ones for around 300$ the same as you can buy quads now for around 150$. And I can fully agree that quads have fallen exactly 50% from the very short time of peak. But how many people were buying on peak and how long this peak was.

I took bigger range of time: January-June 2009 and it hapenned that I've bought 38 quads LLLL.coms. And average price was 303$. If I would sell them now in a firesale like yesterdays's the average price would be 209$... But quality of my quads is nicer and I think they would see somewhat more in average.

[bmugford]

The original winner of HSOH.com must not have paid, because I won it a couple weeks later.

hsoh.com Won Public Pre-Release $270 $270 4/19/2008

That is exactly why outliers need to be removed. This was a fluke sale of a quad premium on NJ near the peak.

Brad

Originally Posted by tzsxc

NAMEJET MARCH data hsoh.com Lost Private Pre-Release $311 $29 3/27/2008 BTW, i consider NJ and Snap + godaddy as real sales data. Sedo sales data needs to be taken with a grain of salt

[-REECE-]

I bought a quad premium triple repeat for $200 in February -- private sale, lowball offer through Sedo.

Outliers mean nothing, nor do private sales.

The only reliable marker of value is how much the domain could fetch on the market -- and there is no doubt in my mind that EVERY quad premium LLLL.com could easily fetch $400 in early March -- I had people who wanted me to let them know if I found any in that range I wasn't interested in.

Who remembers CSOH.com? I think it sold for $70 or $80 if memory serves me correct? Obviously the minimum wholesale on quad premiums was far more than that at the time and nobody would have considered that anything more than an outlier.

It's funny that outliers are disputed when posted at the low end (the $1 and $2 sales) and yet when outliers are disputed at the higher end people justify them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Are we to consider all outliers, no outliers, special conditions on accepting outliers?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

If you analyze the February-March data versus the November data, you'll see very little difference in the substantial decline regardless of which method you use provided you apply the same method in the comparison.

I like percentiles because they reduce the bias which most LLLL.com investors have -- and it's understandable, heck I posted all the reported LLLL.com sales which were made available in this thread on my blog when suggesting prices in November just so nobody could claim I had a bias granted I'm invested in this market.

Standard deviation could be an interesting measure to look at -- maybe I'll look at that next month when analyzing sales.

Originally Posted by Ergo

When snoop talks about past time he likes to show how much prices were then. Talking about 400-500$ min. prices then. It would be not very correct. I've bought just two llll.coms in March: olcf.cоm $387 hltr.cоm $325 So it's difficult to see where there was 400$ minimum. Of course people were talking about 400$ as minimum with desire to hype the market even more, but the truth is that you could buy llll.coms especially worst ones for around 300$ the same as you can buy quads now for around 150$. And I can fully agree that quads have fallen exactly 50% from the very short time of peak. But how many people were buying on peak and how long this peak was. I took bigger range of time: January-June 2009 and it hapenned that I've bought 38 quads LLLL.coms. And average price was 303$. If I would sell them now in a firesale like yesterdays's the average price would be 209$... But quality of my quads is nicer and I think they would see somewhat more in average.

[bmugford]

Generally for me to buy a LLLL.com it needs to fit one of four categories.

1.) Potential End User.
2.) Something unique.
3.) Highly Brandable
4.) Ridiculous Bargain.

If people were just buying anything regardless of quality during the peak then I guess they learned their lesson. This is a business. It takes the necessary time and effort to succeed.

As far as end users go generally two things appeal to them.

- Brandability.

The radio test is crucial. Domainers rely too much on letter quality. End users in general would prefer a double premium CVCV like DUMU.com over a quad like BIHE.com. One passes the radio test, the other does not.

- Acronyms.

Many of my best sales are based on acronyms. If you ever show a non domainer a LLLL.com that is not pronounceable, they will always try to come up with an acronym.

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387
Sometimes a good acronym can shorten a domain. Things like US/UK/NY/CA/TV/etc can shorten the domain name so it is more likely to find an end user.

Brad

Originally Posted by -REECE-

Agree with you completely there Brad -- Matter of fact, I think you, me, and Andrei could write a book about that! Certainly is money still to be made flipping LLLL.coms to the discriminate LLLL.com buyer who understands the fundamental differences in one LLLL.com versus another. A few of them I posted on my blog: * Pronounceability (does it pass the radio test?) * Memorability * Brandability * Likelihood of an existing or future enduser * Traffic/Revenue * Anything else which differentiates it from other LLLL.coms The big one is of course anything else which differentiates it from other LLLL.coms. Hard to explain and sometimes it's even hard to know.

You either need to compare average vs average (removing outliers) or lowest sales vs lowest sales.

If you are comparing lowest sales vs lowest sales the peak never even reached $400. The are many sales at the peak even below $350.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

That is why comparing the average at peak vs the lowest sales now is a false argument.

I prefer the method Reece uses. It is the most honest representation of the market.

Brad

Originally Posted by Ergo

When snoop talks about past time he likes to show how much prices were then. Talking about 400-500$ min. prices then. It would be not very correct. I've bought just two llll.coms in March: olcf.cоm $387 hltr.cоm $325 So it's difficult to see where there was 400$ minimum. Of course people were talking about 400$ as minimum with desire to hype the market even more, but the truth is that you could buy llll.coms especially worst ones for around 300$ the same as you can buy quads now for around 150$.

[Nem0]

Originally Posted by -REECE-

Verdict: Seems to be a relatively strong showing and quad premiums seem to be up slightly from the $150 minimum recorded in November.

Originally Posted by snoop

it looks like the quad premiums have come back from around $400-$500 minimum in February to around $160 today (60%-70% loss)

Originally Posted by tzsxc

quad premiums minimums were at 300 - 350 in the crazy days. So the drop is only ~50%

Originally Posted by bmugford

I bought some quads back at the "peak" for mid $300 or slightly lower. So if we are going by the very low end sales to indicate the minimum, then the peak was never actually $500.

Originally Posted by bmugford

If we are using averages then Quads were probably $500. If we are using minimum then it is under $400.

Originally Posted by Ergo

So it's difficult to see where there was 400$ minimum.

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

Originally Posted by -REECE-

I see the minimum at $4 myself, Snoop sees it around $2-$3 he's said. Put them together and we have a minimum of around $3.25

Originally Posted by -REECE-

Minimum is a word we would have to define before arriving at a consensus on.

Oh we've already done that


In seriousness, this 'minimum' word just doesn't fit in with LLLL IMO. If it fit then it would be accepted consensus among everyone instead of being debated everytime it is brought up. I prefer Reece's percentiles, minimum wholesale or averages when talking about all this "low stuff"

Regarding "radio test", I think brandability is much more important. The internet is mainly visual. There are tons of successful sites today that have off-spellings of radio-test-type names. These types of names have really been infused in pop culture, music, urban-styles etc lately too and it seems to be growing and becoming more accepted as the young gen-X decision-makers slowly take over baby-boomer positions in marketing and such. I think the radio-test may have been more valid 10+ years ago for domains, not so much so now. I just don't get why it is so important to some today. Most 'radio test' type names people bring up in examples can usually be spelled different ways anyway.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=358387

Or maybe I'm just ranting about this because I can't afford any of the really cool radio-test-type names?