Last week, we released the first of our two-part series looking at $10.7 million worth of three-letter .COM sales that took place on the NameJet platform since 2011. We looked at establishing domain name and pricing data, showing statistics such as the average sales price.
In this second and final part, we’ll be expanding our analysis by looking at information such as the total sales data from 2012 to 2017, and we’ll look at those domains that sold more than once.
Total Sales
In part one, we covered the average sales price and the number of domain names sold per year. Tying those two pieces of data together is the total sales amount per year in USD. We have looked at data from 2012 to 2017 (figure 1) for this dataset since those are the six complete years (we have data from half of 2011 and nine months of 2018).
Starting off, 2012 shows a volume of $667,527, which actually dropped in 2013 despite the average sales price (shown in part one) increasing. The $1 million mark is broken in 2014 with a sales total of $1.29 million, but this figure is almost tripled in 2015 at the peak of China’s interest in three-letter .COM’s.
Since 2015, there has been a steady decline in the dollar amount of total sales. This is in line with the total average volume of three-letter .COM’s that we discussed in part one. In the first nine months of 2018, sales of three-letter .COM’s at NameJet amounted to $498,800.
Domains That Sold More Than Once
As an investor-centric platform, NameJet may occasionally sell the same domain name more than once. In fact, we’ve counted 24 domain names that have sold twice at NameJet. Does it tend to be a profitable move to resell a three-letter domain at NameJet? Historically, it would seem that a profit can be made.
In the table below, we can see a list of all 24 names that sold more than once on the NameJet marketplace, along with data from the first sale and the second sale. No single domain sold more than twice at NameJet. We have also included the percentage profit or loss, not taking into account NameJet’s commission and any other fees. It is believed that NameJet’s commission rate is 15%.
As you can see, the majority of domains resold on the NameJet platform were done so within two years of the original sales date. In total, 79.1% of names resold on NameJet produced a profit of some description, disregarding commission rates.
The most profitable flip was OQL.com, which first sold at NameJet in June 2013 for $3,488 and was later resold in December 2015 for $29,088 - a 733.95% profit before commission. The domain that lost the most money was ZEV.com, which sold for $36,000 in December 2015, ultimately reselling for $25,000 in July 2017. That's a loss of 30.55% before commission.
It's interesting to note that the large majority of domains resold at NameJet were done so within a year. Please share your opinions on why this may be.
How Are the Domains Used?
For the purpose of this article, we visited all 496 three-letter .COM domain names sold at NameJet in our dataset. As of October 2018, there were just 43 domains (8.66%) hosting a developed website of some description. In comparison 111 of those domains (22.37%) were hosting a for sale page or stated that the domain is for sale.
There were 132 domains (26.61%) that didn't resolve to any website, which I have noticed can be common amongst Chinese domain investors. There were also 105 domains (21.16%) which were parked.
It's very clear that NameJet caters to a largely investor based clientele, which is a good sign for the domain industry. NameJet and other similar platforms allow investors to pick up quality domain names and either actively seek out end users or wait for end users to come looking for the name.
Domain Use vs Price Paid
Does the price paid at NameJet for a domain name have any bearing on the current use of the domain? If we take a look at DNJournal's Year to Date sales chart, the vast majority of domains listed there have been sold to end users and developed since end users will typically pay the highest prices. Does that same theory ring true at NameJet?
There have only ever been four sales of three-letter .COM's at $100,000 or more. Those are VVV.com, LIU.com, NYE.com, and LTD.com. Only one of those domain names, NYE.com, has been developed. Another domain, LTD.com, is forwarding to a developed website.
Of the 29 names sold between $50,000 and $100,000, just three of the names have been developed with the majority being parked, or not responding. This clearly shows that the theory applied to DNJournal's chart cannot apply to NameJet's three-letter .COM sales.
Conclusions
NameJet has been very transparent with their sales data, releasing information publicly every month. This isn't something that all marketplaces do, with the industry having to rely on services such as NameBio to find out about sales from GoDaddy auctions, for example.
Thanks to NameJet's transparency, it's been relatively easy to track every single three-letter .COM sale on the platform, dating back to 2011. These sales form a basis for a fascinating dataset for one of the most desirable liquid domain categories in the world.
The data shows a journey of growth from 2011 to 2016, encompassing the interest from Chinese investors that saw NameJet's revenue from three-letter .COM's rise from $667,527 in 2011 to over $3 million in 2015.
As you might expect, there has been a decline in prices across the board since then, but judging by NameJet's data, interest in three-letter .COM's was still strong in 2017. If NameJet represents the three-letter market, then this year seems to show a slowing market with both sales volume and revenue down from last year. Is that a trend that will continue into 2019?
In this second and final part, we’ll be expanding our analysis by looking at information such as the total sales data from 2012 to 2017, and we’ll look at those domains that sold more than once.
Total Sales
Starting off, 2012 shows a volume of $667,527, which actually dropped in 2013 despite the average sales price (shown in part one) increasing. The $1 million mark is broken in 2014 with a sales total of $1.29 million, but this figure is almost tripled in 2015 at the peak of China’s interest in three-letter .COM’s.
Since 2015, there has been a steady decline in the dollar amount of total sales. This is in line with the total average volume of three-letter .COM’s that we discussed in part one. In the first nine months of 2018, sales of three-letter .COM’s at NameJet amounted to $498,800.
Domains That Sold More Than Once
As an investor-centric platform, NameJet may occasionally sell the same domain name more than once. In fact, we’ve counted 24 domain names that have sold twice at NameJet. Does it tend to be a profitable move to resell a three-letter domain at NameJet? Historically, it would seem that a profit can be made.
In the table below, we can see a list of all 24 names that sold more than once on the NameJet marketplace, along with data from the first sale and the second sale. No single domain sold more than twice at NameJet. We have also included the percentage profit or loss, not taking into account NameJet’s commission and any other fees. It is believed that NameJet’s commission rate is 15%.
| Domain Name | First Sale (Price) | Second Sale (Price) | Percentage Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEF.com | January 2016 ($37,900) | September 2017 ($39,000) | 2.90% |
| CGQ.com | September 2011 ($4,900) | December 2012 ($4,407) | -10.06% |
| EIQ.com | November 2015 ($24,600) | September 2016 ($30,200) | 22.76% |
| FJO.com | February 2015 ($9,820) | October 2016 ($17,800) | 81.26% |
| GXV.com | January 2015 ($8,450) | November 2015 ($23,000) | 172.19% |
| HPU.com | August 2016 ($18,988) | October 2017 ($25,000) | 31.66% |
| IVQ.com | June 2011 ($4,506) | November 2012 ($4,100) | -9.01% |
| KEO.com | May 2015 ($25,000) | March 2016 ($42,600) | 70.40% |
| LAA.com | November 2016 ($35,700) | September 2017 ($36,716) | 2.84% |
| NBO.com | May 2014 ($25,000) | April 2017 ($30,000) | 20% |
| OQL.com | June 2013 ($3,488) | December 2015 ($29,088) | 733.95% |
| OUJ.com | December 2012 ($4,233) | September 2014 ($10,100) | 138.60% |
| PXC.com | July 2012 ($4,200) | November 2013 ($5,600) | 33.33% |
| PZV.com | June 2012 ($3,999) | December 2016 ($15,100) | 287.18% |
| QVJ.com | June 2012 ($3,967) | January 2016 ($17,600) | 343.66% |
| SYV.com | March 2016 ($20,100) | April 2018 ($23,000) | 14.43% |
| UTH.com | July 2012 ($7,700) | May 2014 ($10,400) | 35.06% |
| UZW.com | September 2012 ($3,600) | March 2014 ($7,007) | 94.63% |
| VKZ.com | June 2012 ($4,100) | December 2013 ($6,387) | 55.78% |
| VMB.com | February 2016 ($31,000) | September 2017 ($22,322) | -27.99% |
| XFU.com | January 2015 ($8,600) | September 2017 ($20,120) | 133.95% |
| XUH.com | February 2015 ($8,801) | October 2015 ($18,220) | 107.02% |
| YIL.com | January 2017 ($22,200) | May 2017 ($18,000) | -18.92% |
| ZEV.com | December 2015 ($36,000) | July 2017 ($25,000) | -30.55% |
The most profitable flip was OQL.com, which first sold at NameJet in June 2013 for $3,488 and was later resold in December 2015 for $29,088 - a 733.95% profit before commission. The domain that lost the most money was ZEV.com, which sold for $36,000 in December 2015, ultimately reselling for $25,000 in July 2017. That's a loss of 30.55% before commission.
It's interesting to note that the large majority of domains resold at NameJet were done so within a year. Please share your opinions on why this may be.
How Are the Domains Used?
For the purpose of this article, we visited all 496 three-letter .COM domain names sold at NameJet in our dataset. As of October 2018, there were just 43 domains (8.66%) hosting a developed website of some description. In comparison 111 of those domains (22.37%) were hosting a for sale page or stated that the domain is for sale.
There were 132 domains (26.61%) that didn't resolve to any website, which I have noticed can be common amongst Chinese domain investors. There were also 105 domains (21.16%) which were parked.
It's very clear that NameJet caters to a largely investor based clientele, which is a good sign for the domain industry. NameJet and other similar platforms allow investors to pick up quality domain names and either actively seek out end users or wait for end users to come looking for the name.
Domain Use vs Price Paid
Does the price paid at NameJet for a domain name have any bearing on the current use of the domain? If we take a look at DNJournal's Year to Date sales chart, the vast majority of domains listed there have been sold to end users and developed since end users will typically pay the highest prices. Does that same theory ring true at NameJet?
There have only ever been four sales of three-letter .COM's at $100,000 or more. Those are VVV.com, LIU.com, NYE.com, and LTD.com. Only one of those domain names, NYE.com, has been developed. Another domain, LTD.com, is forwarding to a developed website.
Of the 29 names sold between $50,000 and $100,000, just three of the names have been developed with the majority being parked, or not responding. This clearly shows that the theory applied to DNJournal's chart cannot apply to NameJet's three-letter .COM sales.
Conclusions
NameJet has been very transparent with their sales data, releasing information publicly every month. This isn't something that all marketplaces do, with the industry having to rely on services such as NameBio to find out about sales from GoDaddy auctions, for example.
Thanks to NameJet's transparency, it's been relatively easy to track every single three-letter .COM sale on the platform, dating back to 2011. These sales form a basis for a fascinating dataset for one of the most desirable liquid domain categories in the world.
The data shows a journey of growth from 2011 to 2016, encompassing the interest from Chinese investors that saw NameJet's revenue from three-letter .COM's rise from $667,527 in 2011 to over $3 million in 2015.
As you might expect, there has been a decline in prices across the board since then, but judging by NameJet's data, interest in three-letter .COM's was still strong in 2017. If NameJet represents the three-letter market, then this year seems to show a slowing market with both sales volume and revenue down from last year. Is that a trend that will continue into 2019?
