crymeariver

I don't understand. Why are people putting a guy down when he is one of the few to have done something with their names. (However big or small it actually is)

We should be patting him on the back and wishing him only the best.....not trying to catch him off guard or research past comments by EyeDomainous to hang him out to dry

freedom30

Hey EyeD!

I first want to thank you for taking the time to explain to many of us techniques that are possible for this extension, which is in tune with this, the 21st century, and all the technology that is available within it to make a successful venture.

I would really hope that the few malcontents that are on this thread do not discourage you from citing your examples as I and others have learned much from you. I would assume that the majority here did as well.

As for the malcontents(you know who they are), I have learned years ago that the ancient adage "an empty barrel makes a lot of noise" is applicable regarding them. That is all I can see them doing on this thread as they attempt to berate you and .tv investors in general.

They do not suffer .tv success very well, and are loud about it.

EyeDomainicus, I appreciate your efforts and find it encouraging for the path that .tv is taking. Inspiring action as yours, rather than the drone of the empty barrels that unsuccessfully and vainly attempt to drown out the posts, are what makes people pay attention to the extension.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/674243-comment-on-hotel-tv.html

Again, thanks and have a great day!

__________________
.TV - go ahead...turn it on!

DomainSales.TV

snoop

It is true that he is one of the few people to have actually developed anything beyond an MFA and he should be congratulated for doing something with his .tv domain and going out and getting a real world client.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

Personally I think there is an awful lot of of back patting going on here however from what I would call yes men. I think it is fairly clear that this project isn't going very well. Eyedomainous now claims a major competitor has copied him and they didn't buy him out out. It was said months ago that the project was not novel, was just video streaming and lots of people could easily do the same thing. Some of the claims made about the site were highly exaggerated in my view and that caused a lot of debate.

Still today we have people continuing the back patting, for example saying this person is more talented that the founder of Facebook, a completely hollow complement. These are the kind of friends that won't tell you when you are making a mistake, they won't tell you the shirt doesn't look so good or that you have maybe had a few too many drinks. They'll just tell you everything is fine and dandy whilst you keep making mistakes.

In my opinion genuinely good project should be held up as examples, ones that are working, bringing in revenue. In .tv land however, where getting beyond a park page is an amazing feat, the one Eyed man is truly king.

freedom30

...while you would be who...Rip Van Winkle, awakening thinking that the 20th century is still here? Time to shake the sand out of your eyes and realize that time doesn't stand still for you because you want it to, bubba.

__________________
.TV - go ahead...turn it on!

DomainSales.TV

finster

Prank call you? Balderdash! I'm a 40 yo man, I dont prank call people. Once again I think maybe you are being unfortunately paranoid.


What, NP's not good enough for you? Well I in fact do a lot of business here, as most of the participants here can attest. The reason most of us are here is to do business.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

Maybe you're only here to brag about your hotel channel. No doubt you couldnt have found a more gleeful chorus of congratulations, but I for one remain very skeptical of your claims, both here in forum and on your website.

You can try and turn it around and say you're skeptical of me too and that "we're even" but the difference is I'm not trying to sell anything to the public while you, sir, are offering a commercial product. You claimed, among other things, to be the #1 online tv channel in downtown LA and I do challenge you to back that up. Most publishers/broadcasters that Ive ever dealt with have prepared a media kit, or at least a rate card, detailing what the product is, its viewership/readership and the costs of its standard products. A seasoned business executive would simply demonstrate the veracity of their commercial claims, and be damn proud of it too. I dont know what to call your reaction.

You had your hackles up from the moment I said I couldnt find your videos. I just wanted to know where they were but you seemed to take it personally - "are you checking up on me". I have other technical questions about your product and I'm not interested in getting into an argument. Since you've come here to promote your product lets talk about it and learn.

is that the total number since you began? can you break those numbers down further, by months and/or days?


so the monitors being turned to the channel dont start the minute counter? how does livestream know the difference?


really? is that 20% of the rooms that have the tv turned on or 20% all the time? i'm truly astounded by this stat. is your channel programmed to be the one that automatically comes up whenever the sets are turned on initially? becasue while found your mix of videos interesting and enjoyable it seems incredible that they would capture 20% of the viewership all the time out of natural inclination on the viewers part.

btw, how often do you change the video rotation?


assuming they are full all the time that might be possible. do you have figures on the avg occupancy rate for that property?


of course there's no way to tell when someones stepped into the shower or fallen asleep. plus a lot of people just turn on tv for background noise.


when i was on it first said "1 Viewer" than after awhile it said "2 viewers". but you should have very hard numbers for online viewer ship, right?

__________________
.

eyedomainous

Finster... I value my time too much to spend any more of it in discussion with an individual who claims in one post to be a potential site advertiser, then in the next post states "I'm not trying to sell anything to the public". Perhaps you meant your not selling anything on NamePros? But then, why urge me to do business with you on NP? You appear confused here... so allow me to point out, as a general rule, if you are promoting something in your sig, as you are, than your selling something to the public.

The content and tone of your post indicates its a 'prank (business) call', and your real intent is to prove me wrong. The solution here is easy... simply find a more "watched online TV network in downtown Los Angeles" and I'll change the text to be the 2nd most watched online TV network...". (LOL)


That goes for you to snoop, its easy to slander me with making "highly exaggerated" claims, its another to prove it. And what claims? Can you be more specific? You also employ a (familiar) methodolgy of 'repeating the lie you made-up'... so let me say again, the site is doing fine -business is steady, viewership is up. Having another player in the space does not mean business is not going well. If you launch a new concept on a .com and later a company copies the concept on .net does that mean .com's biz is "not going well"? Of course not.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

What's most telling here is... the last thread I engaged snoop on the argument made against my tshirtstv.com domain was it had less value because there are no other players in the space... on the .net or .org, in effect... there is no compettion for the Tshirt TV concept so the biz/domain won't do well.

Jason.tv

looks like this does not matter anymore considering the domain was turned over to the previous owner Antonis that let it drop.

Jason

finster

You sure are good at talking in circles.

More than just hollow. Utterly ridiculous.

Once in a while i have to stand in completely agreement with snoop. Doesnt happen too often but there it is.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

I think you get buttered up here by some in hopes you'll pay more for the domains they want to sell you. Since I could care less if you ever buy a domain from me or not I'm going to tell you straight up what I think.

I actually was thinking about spending a few bucks with you Eye to support prop 19 but you certainly have not acted like someone who really wants to do business, or even knows how. Seriously, when does a real businessman tell a potential customer to take their money and take a hike? ASTOUNDING! And in public even! All I did was challenge you to back up the statements that *YOU* made and to show me that I would be getting real value for my advertising dollar. Instead of providing a simple straightforward answer you instead ramble about how I'm really only out to get you.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

I even tried again to ask serious questions about your product and given your reply am at this point left only to conclude you dont have any real answers. It may only be $5 a day we're talking about but thats the price YOU set for the product. Still comes to $1825/yr and for that much I think anyone here would agree that you could have treated the matter with quite a bit more seriousness and professionalism than was brought to bare.


One last thing - here's a marketplace item you might find interesting:
http://www.namepros.com/tv-marketpla...ml#post3922582

__________________
.

antonis12

Well, I am not sure why it would not matter anymore - the conceptual discussion of how one might or might not develop it still holds.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

I will say that I mostly agree with snoop in this discussion. This is a challenging name to develop and absolutely not an inexpensive name to develop.

For the exact same reason it is a good domain (big market in theory), it is a bad domain (the big market has attracted and built ferocious competitors from more or less the beginning of the web-based public internet). i can think off the top of my head of 3-4 VC-backed startups each with several million dollars and full-blown executive teams trying to do the "we will take videos of hotels" thing with limited traction as far as I can tell, to say nothing of the real players in the space (expedia, hotels.com, etc) who are 9 and 10 figure firms and who compete ferociously for traffic.

this domain needs both a big and savvy effort to make something of it.

It honestly might even be out of my league to do anything with it. So we will have to see.

But it certainly is not the simple "oh, it is hotel dot tv, therefore I can do videos of hotels or videos in hotels" because to compete in either of those spaces, you need 7 figures at least to even have a shot.

One has to be careful with these "big" domains. For 99% of the people reading this (including me), by far the most promising approach would be to take a very narrow niche that nobody really is focused on but that you have expertise in (e.g. and just totally making these up time-lapse photography, variableannuities, your-neighborhood-or-town-of-less-than-100K) and aim to be dominant in that area. It won't make you bill gates but it can lead to a win and from there you can take the next step.

there is no doubt in my mind that a highly specialized site can beat the major competitors out there in a very tightly defined area of expertise -- but when you step into the big verticals (auto, travel, loan, etc), then you are a guppy and you are swimming among the great whites. the best you can hope for is that you are too irrelevant for them to bother noticing you...

__________________
www.Online.tv

snoop

Here is the old thread,

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/64458...on-moment.html

And here are some examples of the exaggerated claims,

"I created my own Ad network via a Text crawl that runs under the screen."

"So while I did not want to toot my own horn, I can't let that statement stand... as several hotel owners have called the service "revolutionary"."

"Certainly being the first website to power a hotel tv channel is an evolution. "

"The tex ticker is an innovation, and thats not an exaggeration, because -amongst other things, for the first time local businesses can send text messages to tv screens in local hotel rooms while people are watching. "

"True, it is an in-house ad network. I say 'network' because the text ticker is on a growing network of LA sites."

"Truth is, what I developed is a trade secret; as the biggest technical obstacle I had to overcome was how to keep the free, 'off the shelf', video players playing around the clock. Try it sometime; See how often they "time out". And, NO... I am not using an auto 'page reloader' as that kinda destroys the viewing experience."

This is what you stated,

If the site is doing fine then why would you describe it as a "knock down blow". I take it it still only has one client?

I find this to be a strange argument. If there is a lot of competitors in a space that is good for selling a domain. Personally I felt you made a major mistake not taking a 10k offer for that name, and everyone else commenting felt the same way.

Nowhere did a suggest lack of competition was bad for developing a business-the discussion was about selling a domain. You've made that up to try and make an argument here.

defaultuser

Nothing much to add. I just thought this was a much better post than the others here and I think it deserves to be the last post.

Those are similar to my thoughts. I do still wonder, with the huge budget, why the Hotel.TV name would be a differentiator.

Good luck though. Though you won't need it because I've heard you're smarter than the founder of Twitter and more handsome than the star of Mad Men.

__________________

internet@ctivist.com

equity78

Antonis do you plan on developing the name ?

__________________
Congrats and Thank you to RJ

Protect your brand,secure your .sucks today

MicroGuy

If you invest too much capital into a ccTLD ultimately controlled by (which is not in dispute) a tiny Country in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, then I agree, you might wind up swimming among the great whites. IMO.

__________________
......

freedom30

...I can't dispute what you say here Micro as you do have common sense more often than not...but I also am familiar with the old adage that money talks. Enough money spent by enough big money concerns on an extension with those two letters can work wonders .
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

Politics enters into the fray whenever money moves in a certain direction and I would venture to guess that extensions are no exception to that rule...

__________________
.TV - go ahead...turn it on!

DomainSales.TV

finster

investments in .tv or not in the long run we are all fish bait.

__________________
.

eyedomainous

These statements are true, snoop. Merely quoting me does not make these statements exaggerations. Some form of proof is needed. For example, I did not just say "I created my own Ad network via a Text crawl that runs under the screen." I showed-it. Here a five sites in that network:

livestream.com/lalively
readertv.com/
lahoteltv.com/
3dmuzik.com/
artfair.tv/lastream/

1). Did I create this? YES. 2). Are these Ads? YES. 3). Is this 'my own ad network? YES. 4). Is it text crawl? YES. 5). Does it run under the screen? YES.

6). I have not seen another text ticker ad network that plays under embedded video players? So I called it an innovation. If you can demonstrate that such a network is common then my statement would be an exaggeration. And, in order for you to claim the statement to be an exaggeration you must have been aware of others at the time I made the statement, now please provide links, as I have done, to comparable ad networks.

7). I can demonstrate local businesses sending text messages to TV screens in my hotel network, while people are watching TV. This was not possible before I installed a 'live feed' web powered channel in the Sheraton. -- Can you demonstrate that it was possible before, in ANY hotel?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=674243

Answer these and we can move on to the other "points".

-----
[This is where you repeat the lie again, the say, IMO.]
-----

snoop

We've been through all this before. You don't think any of your claims are exaggerated...others do. You asked for examples and I posted up half a dozen. There is no point now asking for "proof" of exaggeration.

To say scrolling text on some sites is an "ad network", most people would call that exaggerated. To say hotel owners are calling what you have developed revolutionary, whilst only one hotel looks to be using your system, most would call that exaggerated. To say scrolling text on a webpage is an innovation, most would call that exaggerated.

Calling that an ad network is a bit like telling your friends you own a red Ferrari and its the best ever, they tell you are exaggerating and then you take them back to you place and show them some rusty parts in a garage.

The parts are red?
They are Ferrari?
How can you say that isn't a red Ferrari and the best ever?
Show me proof that my claim isn't exaggerated!

The "proof" is garage full of rusty parts, in your case the proof is here,

http://www.lahoteltv.com/

defaultuser

I suggest the owner get an editor. Even if the site had the best videos ever made... the text is so littered with basic problems that it loses credibility.

I've been to restaurants that serve luxurious food and then serve bad coffee. To me its unbelievable that a restaurant would spend hours prepping, slave in a hot kitchen, make awesome food ... and then serve a generic and poor coffee. Coffee is a differentiator.

In the same way the text and detail on a web site catering to tourists is a differentiator. If you don't sound professional, look professional, seem professional then you are amateurish and no one will care (unless that is the as the obvious schtick, of course).

It's well worth the $50 investment to get someone to edit it. Seriously.

"We desire to experience friendly people" - I think this might be where Prostitution.TV comes in.. talk to Jim.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------

In spite of the obvious flaw (parts of a Ferrari would never be described as a Ferrari) I thought you were anti-useless-analogies.
Lord knows you've told me mine suck often enough.

__________________

internet@ctivist.com

antonis12

Honestly, I don't know yet. Though I would like to think that I will, I have not yet thought of a business case that makes sense to me yet.

I might at some point put something lightweight up to see what happens, but that is not what most people would consider development.

__________________
www.Online.tv

snoop

Don't worry, I realise mine suck as well.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

I think that is probably a good strategy if you are thinking about developing, put up something pretty basic to test it. Wouldn't be getting in too deep with it.