While we can not discuss specific incidents in a public forum, I understand where you are coming from. When a domain registration is reported, we follow
this process to handle such issues. We've had too many situations where it later turned out that the domains were registered by someone other than CH (e.g. sometimes by other creatives, sometimes by a person unrelated to CH etc). Therefore we can not automatically assume that the registration was done by the CH - and we follow the above process in every situation.
Our recommendation is to always register your good domains before submission to contests (you can submit them as Basic listing or Basic Plus even if they are not approved as Premium domains). However we understand that this can get costly, and you may need to balance the risk vs reward when deciding whether or not to participate by submitting unregistered domains to contests.
I understand the process. SquadHelp, as far as I can tell, has fulfilled its commitment to following
that process; however, the process, itself, does not fulfill SquadHelp's expressed commitment to "protecting the hard work of our creatives". It offers no protection whatsoever. SH makes an attempt to ask a (quite-likely) devious contest holder whether they are indeed devious. And when no response is given by that contest holder (no surprise), SH throws their hands in the air and says "we tried" ..."we followed the process". The process is flawed. As you stated, the only
real protection is for the creative to reg the name; and thus, SquadHelp's expressed commitment is indeed quite meaningless. In fact, SquadHelp is complicit in such transgressions, as there is no transparency. Here is what I mean:
I just spotted yet another incident. A name was shortlisted in a contest in August and regged in early September. I just reported it. I'm number nine now, of reported registrations in that contest. Nine regs in one contest? That's rather suspicious. But I will never know anything substantial about the other eight domains. Maybe all nine names were regged on the same day. SquadHelp would know from the reports if such were the case, while the creatives remain in the dark, and if the CH were never to respond to an email inquiry, SH could conveniently hide behind having followed "the process" while claiming a commitment to protecting the creatives. Did such a thing happen in this case? It could have. I'd never know. There is no transparency. I could raise the issue ...and you could again advise me to reg names before I submit them. It would be irrational to reg names as such. ...and here is what I mean, again:
I have had over 100 separate shortlisted names in the past year that did not win the contest. If I were to have regged each one, I would be out at least $800. ...and that's not regging the good names before I submit them, as you advised in your reply; that's regging the
shortlisted names that might actually win. With the preponderance of $100 contests as of late, there is little financial upside to regging names in contests, even if the name wins. SH deducts 10% upon withdrawal, effectively making the prize $90. Further deduct $8 for the name, and you're looking at $82
if you win. You're asking your creatives to act irrationally, plain and simple.
All this said, I don't believe in magic. I don't expect SH to magically make things better for those creatives who have been slighted. What I do want is for SH to be honest and not hide behind a veil of "commitment to protect" when, at the end of the day, the real answer is "reg the names you don't want to miss out on, because we don't
really have any way to protect you".
And, as it's already clear that regging names to the extent that they will not be "stolen" by the CH is irrational, all that remains, if SquadHelp is indeed to have the creatives' interests in mind, is for SquadHelp to increase the contest prize payouts. Make it worth the time, effort, and financial investment that creatives must make in order to come up with good names
and ensure they're not stolen by the CH. Fortunately for SH, there are currently creatives who don't seem to mind acting irrationally. But I have read accounts from others in this thread who have woken up. I'll bet they were good contributors. I know I am. It would be a shame if SquadHelp's business model were to attract creative minds, but retain only the irrational ones.
What do I want, beyond griping about an issue that has been faced by many creatives, no doubt? Well, a solution is not cut-and-dry, surely. But here are the two things I'd like to make clear:
1. I'd prefer if SH didn't claim this commitment to protection. It's shifty. It's not true. "Protection", demonstrably, cannot be achieved, and to claim that it can is dishonest.
2.
Perhaps there could be "premium/basic plus name only" contests. I have noticed in recent weeks that the ratio of $100 to >$100 contests has increased. It has been quite high all year, in fact. It seems that the CHs are trying to go the cheap route. Such a trend dis-incentivizes we creatives to participate and try to come up with (let alone reg to protect our IP) quality names when the prize is so low. Furthermore, if the CH is not willing to spring for even $200 for the contest, they are unlikely to want a premium/basic plus name, so it is not worth submitting our regged names, which could result in our score taking a hit when they rate it "No Thank You".
Encourage CHs to try to extract our best ideas, and compensate the creatives accordingly. Find a way to make it worth the time to come up with good names and protect them by regging them. Seems reasonable. Anything less is irrational.
