BrandBucket Experience

[xtremex]

hello

I am new to BrandBucket. Before getting my hands on this

I wish to experience about brandbucket from my fellow members


Thanks

 

[Simon Taylor]

This change also impacts sellers who choose to remove their names under the 30-day option of their T&Cs. Now removing names affects your "good standing". In effect there is now a penalty for removing your names, even though you adhere fully to their terms and conditions.

I copped a hit to my rating when I submitted a keyword + ona name, accidently put +ana instead, when I contacted support they removed the name (approved but not published) but it counted against me on that statistic.

You would think common sense would prevail when they could clearly see from Whois what had happened.

 

[Arca]

It's strange that it is also calculated based on your removed "accepted" names (which have never been published), e.g. you got a domain accepted, disagreed with the pricing, and then removed it from your "to do" list.

Doesn't really make sense to penalize sellers for not moving forward with publishing an accepted name, since this usually happens because the seller disagrees with BBs suggested listing price. For a published name, they have created a description and a logo, so I do see how they consider this to be a "loss" on their part, even though they didn't do this for free, as there is a listing fee (and also, removing published names *could* mean that you are selling names to end users right after the end of the 30 day removal period, bypassing BB). However, for an accepted name, they have simply added a suggested price to it, so it's not like they expended a lot of resources on "accepting" it.

I've only removed a few published names, all because of underpricing or ugly logo, and the number is so small that it would not have any impact on my account score. However, I have removed a lot of "accepted" names from my to do list, as I decided to not move forward with publishing those names, usually because I disagreed with them on the price. With the introduction of the dashboard scores, my bottom right account score (removed accepted names) now means my account will never be in "good standing" with them. With this new change announced by Nat, they have effectively excluded me from the BB re-seller market. And apparently, they are going to introduce further penalties and "sanctions" against accounts that are not in good standing in the future (and benefits for those in good standing).

According to their dashboard, I have a 5.4%+ sell-through rate and am in the "top 6% of sellers" - yet my BB account will increasingly be limited and disadvantaged, because the only thing that matters for them is whether you publish all accepted names, and then keep them published in perpetuity.

 

[JimJammy]

This change also impacts sellers who choose to remove their names under the 30-day option of their T&Cs. Now removing names affects your "good standing". In effect there is now a penalty for removing your names, even though you adhere fully to their terms and conditions.

It doesn't affect your ability to list names on BB.

I would have expected it to affect your standing, wouldn't you? I'm sure they don't want people removing names. How can someone who has removed lots of names (I say lots, because removing a few isn't going to affect your standing much) still expect to receive whatever benefits those that don't remove names might get?

I have no idea what BB is doing, but we can all see they have been moving towards structuring their sellers. It seems to me that they want to nurture (potentially reward?) those of us that are dedicated to growing a brandable portfolio with them.

 

[JimJammy]

It's strange that it is also calculated based on your removed "accepted" names (which have never been published), e.g. you got a domain accepted, disagreed with the pricing, and then removed it from your "to do" list.

Doesn't really make sense to penalize sellers for not moving forward with publishing an accepted name, since this usually happens because the seller disagrees with BBs suggested listing price. For a published name, they have created a description and a logo, so I do see how they consider this to be a "loss" on their part, even though they didn't do this for free, as there is a listing fee (and also, removing published names *could* mean that you are selling names to end users right after the end of the 30 day removal period, bypassing BB). However, for an accepted name, they have simply added a suggested price to it, so it's not like they expended a lot of resources on "accepting" it.

I've only removed a few published names, all because of underpricing or ugly logo, and the number is so small that it would not have any impact on my account score. However, I have removed a lot of "accepted" names from my to do list, as I decided to not move forward with publishing those names, usually because I disagreed with them on the price. With the introduction of the dashboard scores, my bottom right account score (removed accepted names) now means my account will never be in "good standing" with them. With this new change announced by Nat, they have effectively excluded me from the BB re-seller market. And apparently, they are going to introduce further penalties and "sanctions" against accounts that are not in good standing in the future (and benefits for those in good standing).

According to their dashboard, I have a 5.4%+ sell-through rate and am in the "top 6% of sellers" - yet my BB account will increasingly be limited and disadvantaged, because the only thing that matters for them is whether you publish all accepted names, and then keep them published in perpetuity.

Have you contacted them? I would absolutely contact them if I were you. I can understand why they are rewarding/penalizing sellers good standing status but their algorithm may need tweaking. You are not trying to buck they system in any way and you have fallen into the position you are in for very valid reasons. They need to know about this.

 

[Grilled]

I assume not renewing (dropping a bb domain) affects this score as well. With decreasing sales through rates, and rising inventory, hopefully they are considering some incentives to those who continually renew with sketchy margins. ie If you have 150 bb domains, you need to average at least one sale per year. If not, the domainer will have to pay $1,500 out of pocket, and hope for better luck next year.

 

[Arca]

Have you contacted them? I would absolutely contact them if I were you. I can understand why they are rewarding/penalizing sellers good standing status but their algorithm may need tweaking. You are not trying to buck they system in any way and you have fallen into the position you are in for very valid reasons. They need to know about this.

I did contact them about it and nothing will be done about it.

In fact, they did manually check my account dashboard situation, and recognized that not all my "accepted but then removed before ever being published" names had been included in the list, due to a system error. So they added those to my score too (and now it is so bad that there is no way my account will ever be in good standing). I tried ask them to be reasonable, in the hopes of fixing my account standing, yet the result was that it worsened my "standing" with them further.

 

[JimJammy]

I did contact them about it and nothing will be done about it.

In fact, they did manually check my account dashboard situation, and recognized that not all my "accepted but then removed before published" names had been included in the list, due to a system error. So they added those to my score too (and now it is so bad that there is no way my account will ever be in good standing). I tried ask them to be reasonable, in the hopes of fixing my account standing, yet the result was that it worsened my "standing" with them further.

What type of response is that from them? I'm not impressed! How can someone in the top 6% of sellers not be in good standing? Logic says something somewhere needs tweaking. I've just contacted them. When I get a response, I'll PM you.

 

[Arca]

The strange thing about their system, in my opinion, is that they introduced it in a way akin to an “ex post facto law” (retroactively changing the consequences of something that was done).

Consider how their reminder emails, regarding accepted but not yet published names in our “to do” list has always said “if you simply would like any of the names removed from this list, please don’t hesitate to contact us” - they always made it seem perfectly OK to remove any accepted name you didn’t want to publish. No warning that it would have negative consequences for your account later on. So over the past one and a half year, I did just that; sometimes domains sold outside before getting accepted (since the review took ages before), or I felt the price didn’t match the value of the name, etc. and over time I removed quite a few names from my to do list, without ever publishing them.

And then suddenly they introduce an account score system where they declare that it will have negative consequences for your account to remove accepted names, and even though they just announced this recently, names that were removed years before it was announced also counts negatively towards your account score.

However, when I discussed this issue with them, they made it entirely clear that this was their intention: “submitting something and never publish it affects your dashboard metrics just as much as it does to publish and then remove”. In other words, holding their sellers retroactively accountable for something they didn’t declare was a problem until recently.

Speaking of accountability, now that they have finally acknowledged that letting BB staff publish names that never would have been accepted if they had been submitted by a regular seller (even names that had been rejected previously, when submitted by regular sellers) was a bad practice, and taken steps to try to lessen this trend, it would be good to see them use the same kind of logic they apply to regular sellers, and retroactively hold themselves accountable too, for what they have now declared was a problem. Since they have acknowledged that this was problematic, and changed the system accordingly, shouldn't they address all such problematic names already published by BB staff in the past? Is there any reason why they shouldn't hold themselves to similar standards that they hold their sellers to?

 

[Candace]

I am actually being penalized for two typos. My autocorrect changed the names that I entered, and the auto- corrected names were approved (even though they weren't mine). Don't ask me how- maybe a glitch. Anyhow, I told them what occured for at least one of the names, and the names were removed.

So, my score now reflects the removals. I am still in good standing but this makes no sense,

I kinda get the feeling that this was not properly thought through before it was implemented. I think BB's management needs to go back to the 'drawing board' and re-think this.

 

[Keith DeBoer]

I am actually being penalized for two typos. My auto correct changed the names that I entered, and the auto- corrected names were approved (even though they weren't mine). Don't ask me how- maybe a glitch. Anyhow, I told them what occured for at least one of the names, and the names were removed.

So, my score now reflects the removals. I am still in good standing but this makes no sense,

I kinda get the feeling that this was not properly thought through before it was implemented. I think BB's management needs to go back to the 'drawing board' and re-think this.

Good comments, Candace.

What BB wants to do is discourage abuse of their system. There are some sellers (not you or Arca of course) who are using BB as a free appraisal service so they can make money reselling approved (and unpublished) names.

Over the past few years thousands of brandables have been accepted by BB and never published. This is wasting time and resources that BB could put towards selling our BB listed names.

This abuse of the system also creates an invitation for end users (our customers) to enter the aftermarket and purchase BB curated names at wholesale prices. That is not good for BB or us.

The rating system BB has implemented is intended to 1) acknowledge those sellers who are acting in good faith and publishing most or all of their accepted names and 2) discourage those that are abusing the system at our expense.

Admittedly the system is imperfect and feedback from people like you and Arca etc. is going to help and refine and improve it over time.

Since the BB staff are not active on NPs, the best way to give feedback is via the BB Feedback channel on Slack or via their troubleshooting email: [email protected]

Thanks for your help!

 

[Grilled]

Over the past few years thousands of brandables have been accepted by BB and never published. This is wasting time and resources that BB could put towards selling our BB listed names.

Sounds like a scheme to keep the listing fee money train rolling. SMH

 

[Arca]

Good comments, Candace.

What BB wants to do is discourage abuse of their system. There are some sellers (not you or Arca of course) who are using BB as a free appraisal service so they can make money reselling approved (and unpublished) names.

Over the past few years thousands of brandables have been accepted by BB and never published. This is wasting time and resources that BB could put towards selling our BB listed names.

This abuse of the system also creates an invitation for end users (our customers) to enter the aftermarket and purchase BB curated names at wholesale prices. That is not good for BB or us.

The rating system BB has implemented is intended to 1) acknowledge those sellers who are acting in good faith and publishing most or all of their accepted names and 2) discourage those that are abusing the system at our expense.

Admittedly the system is imperfect and feedback from people like you and Arca etc. is going to help and refine and improve it over time.

Since the BB staff are not active on NPs, the best way to give feedback is via the BB Feedback channel on Slack or via their troubleshooting email: [email protected]

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for clarifying, Keith. Helps me understand some of BBs thinking behind what they are doing. Some feedback based on your explanation of BB’s intentions:

It doesn’t make sense to penalize the removal of accepted domains that were removed before this actually came to be considered “abuse”. If this metric is going to be used, I think no domains removed before BrandBucket “officially” started to consider it abuse should be counted. It would be better to “reset” every account to 0 (e.g. “good standing”/A), and then start calculating from the day this system was introduced, which I guess would be the day the dashboard score system was introduced. At least then sellers would only be held accountable for behaviour that BB has explicitly said they don’t approve of, and that would be a more logical way to deal with this.

The current system does not do anything to discourage resellers of published names, since such sellers do not remove/drop domains, they simply push them to other accounts, which does not impact your two bottom right corner scores negatively. I also think it’s important for BB to take into consideration that, when the BB reseller market on NP first appeared in 2015, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not this violated BrandBucket’s TOS. BrandBucket came out and approved of the reselling of BB domains on NamePros, and even introduced an account push function to facilitate the reseller market. Now they have backtracked on this position, and considers it an abuse of their system. That’s understandable (it never made sense to me that they approved this practice in the first place), but instead of holding sellers accountable for what turned out to be their own unfortunate decision (by going back and punishing seller’s behaviour that at the time was fully accepted by BB), it would be better for them to just owe up to the fact that they themselves allowed for these various “abuses” of the system, such as allowing the BB reseller market to flourish.

Implementing new regulations now that they have understood that this was a bad idea that led to what they now consider an abuse of their system is fine. But penalizing actions that were previously endorsed by them does not make any sense, and they should only penalize sellers starting from the day they clearly declared that such actions were considered a form of abuse (or just do away with the entire reseller market for a simpler fix - that would also do away for the need to "score and rank" sellers, and penalize/reward them accordingly).

Lastly, the way the scores are calculated is really strict. If you remove more than 50% of your accepted names, then yes you are probably abusing the system. However, under the current system, it looks like if your removed accepted names make up somewhere between 6-8% of your whole portfolio, your account is already considered to be in bad standing (C score or below). My account has been vacillating between C/D score, so I'm just extrapolating that 6-8% is when you first enter bad standing territory. Removing less than 10-20% of accepted names does not strike me as “abuse” at all. They can't expect sellers to agree with 95% of their appraisals/suggested prices. I've removed lots of names for this reason, and just half a day ago I sold a name that I recently removed from my to do list (for close to twice as much the BB suggested price). I would surely have published that name with BB if their suggested price had been double of what they actually suggested, but I was not interested at the price level they suggested. Since sellers are not allowed to set their own prices for domains, besides a 20% increase/decrease, removing accepted names due to price disagreements should probably not be considered "abusing" the system.

 

[Zoltan P.]

Well said @Arca. I have never abused their system, however I did 'reshuffle' my names a few times and now have B and C scores. Hopefully they'll figure out the obvious problem with this scoring system quickly.

 

[Grilled]

Domain: CodeStage
Logo: CareBadge ??

#FreeQA


Side note: Does anyone else think The/Discount.com is underpriced? Not mine, but seeing the amount of similar regged domains beginning with The/Discount, and Alexa rankings for such domains, I see many endusers with money.

 

[Keith DeBoer]

Thanks Arca for your thoughtful comments.

You are correct that it has been "allowed" to go on for some time even though it could be seen as a violation of the TOU. And yes BB did implement a dashboard option to "push' the domain to another BB seller. I think this was to reduce their work load but I see how that push tool could have been interpreted by many as an endorsement.

The sale of BB names among domainers is a situation BB never saw coming it was unprecedented for any brandable marketplace. They didn't know if it would last or how it would effect things. So they waited. But as time went on it began to have unfortunate side effects when some creative people started using it as a business model.

So slowly the situation is being addressed. But the new system has its own unfortunate side effects and is not nuanced enough to protect the well intended sellers like yourself.

I think if we give them some time they'll adjust things and get it right. I'll also bring this up next chance I have to talk to Michael and Margot so they can fully appreciate the scope of the problem.

Thanks again for your detailed feedback.

 

[Grilled]

So they waited. But as time went on it began to have unfortunate side effects when some creative people started using it as a business model.

Define using it as a business model... If I remember correctly you've sold 15+ bb domains on NP.

Some questions on peoples minds:

• What were the unfortunate side effects? The reseller market created a HUGE inventory boom for bb. They weren't complaining when they were raking in the listing fee's.
• Did something change since then?
• Are they phasing out the reseller market?
• How do they plan to address the sales equality if they prohibit cutting losses by liquidating to other sellers who made sales?
• Will bb start releasing traffic details so domainers can have a better idea if the domain is worth renewing?
• How about reporting low ball offers?

 

[Brandworthy]

I see how that push tool could have been interpreted by many as an endorsement.

Sorry to call you it Keith, but in fairness implementing that tool could ONLY be interpreted as an endorsement. Any suggestion otherwise is daft.

I have my own separate reasons for disliking this change. I don't sell any names, but if I choose to remove a portion of my names I'll then be viewed as a seller in bad standing. I think that's unfair also.

If the purpose is to try to stem people selling accepted names then why is it impacting sellers who have never sold a single name wholesale?

 

[JimJammy]

Sorry to call you it Keith, but in fairness implementing that tool could ONLY be interpreted as an endorsement. Any suggestion otherwise is daft

Agreed!

However, if you sell to a person that retains the domains on BB, this doesn't affect your standing at all.

I have my own separate reasons for disliking this change. I don't sell any names, but if I choose to remove a portion of my names I'll then be viewed as a seller in bad standing. I think that's unfair also.

If the purpose is to try to stem people selling accepted names then why is it impacting sellers who have never sold a single name wholesale?

I don't think the purpose is to try to stem people selling accepted names to other members that want to retain the names on BB. Isn't this about trying to stop names being removed from their marketplace and/or stop the abuse as an appraisal service?

If you remove your names Richard, any logo creator that chose the payment on sale option has no chance of getting paid, what about the promotion they've done for those domains on their social accounts, newsletters and who knows what else behind the scenes? That promotion is still out there... pointing to your domains that have been removed from the marketplace. I'm sure it doesn't look good when someone clicks on one of their links and gets taken to a domain not listed on BB. Why would BB want this type of seller?

I understand why they have this algorithm and I think it's a great idea, but I don't think they have it right yet and need to receive feedback from us. Thanks Keith for confirming that you'll talk to Michael and Margot so they can fully appreciate the scope of the problem.

 

[Brandworthy]

If you remove your names Richard, any logo creator that chose the payment on sale option has no chance of getting paid, what about the promotion they've done for those domains on their social accounts, newsletters and who knows what else behind the scenes? That promotion is still out there... pointing to your domains that have been removed from the marketplace. I'm sure it doesn't look good when someone clicks on one of their links and gets taken to a domain not listed on BB. Why would BB want this type of seller?

You make it sound like all of this was done without cost to me. Listing fees are a small part of what I've paid, but the commissions and design awards on my 40 sales likely amount to $25K+. I don't feel BB owe me anything, but likewise I don't feel I owe them anything either. I'm grateful to them for the sales I've had, but I feel it's been a mutually beneficial relationship rather than one-sided.

I don't think any seller should feel indebted to them at any time. BB don't want to credit any direct traffic our names bring too their site, so why should I credit any promotion they do while my names are listed? And just to be clear - apart from a one-time listing in a email newsletter and one automated tweet I'm not aware of any further promotional of individual names. "who knows what else behind the scenes" is just that - nobody knows of any further direct promotion of individual domains. They promote their marketplace and not our names. Exclusivity and ~35% charges on sales more than cover that email drop and auto tweet IMO.

The only people I do feel somewhat for are the logo designers. But I wonder how many opt for the $5 up front payment for a logo? Leaving minimum $95 additional revenue to brandbucket should a name sell...

I agreed to list my names with a condition that a 30 day window of exclusivity would apply if I ever wanted to delist. I've never actually removed a name to date, but I absolutely won't entertain any suggestion that I should be beholden beyond the terms agreed. Perhaps BB should be addressing why sellers want to remove their names rather than applying prejudicial labels to users who adhere to all the agreed terms and conditions? Using sanctions to try to force owners to retain paid-for exclusive listings is totally inappropriate imo.

Fwiw I was an ardent supporter of brandbucket in the past. If you look back through this thread I think it's easy to back up this claim. My support for them has waned significantly, especially this year. Maybe in 6-12 months we'll come back and see if my negativity was justified out not.

 

[JimJammy]

duplicate post, sorry