.tv Business models and Partnerships for .tv's

[[email protected]]

Hello My name is Dave Lalande and I own a small startup called Impel.TV

This is my first thread in many many years. I would like to attempt to start some talk about business models and partnerships with .tv domain names. What else can we do with .tv domain names besides sell them to each other or sell them to an occasional end user? How about parking... That's not really doing anything with the great name. We ALL need people making markets with .tv's, making the domain extension popular. Watch what happens to the value of you .tv's when someone sells one or more to the Google machine for a billion dollars.

I believe that .tv actually means something to people. I think we all do. It's really the only one other than .com that really makes people think of something.

Years ago, via a Public company, I filed patent on a domain name system addition called, Simplified Domains. The concept is that SD would allow for any domain name extension, 3-back. That is micros.oft or ap.ple or taxi.cab. You would just type in the word(s) and hit enter, the browser would test for the domain "3-back" and if it didn't resolve it would kick it over to the current domain name system to check for the silly "categorized" ones we now use. It worked great and we had $50K in domain registrations in the first 2 days. I didn't allow this company to actually charge anyone, but it was an interesting test of the concept. I was actually asked to speak at an ICANN meeting in LA about Simplified Domains and did just that. You can read more about SD of course, now that I have told you this much.

I told about Simplified Domains to show a little history I have had with domain names and also to impress the fact that the naming categorization model, that is .biz, .info and the rest, are garbage. They don't REALLY mean anything. It's goofy to roll out more, quite frankly. If they roll out .sex, churches will buy them up to protect themselves and that just runs the cost of doing business up for everyone.

Having said that, IF a domain extension did actually mean something (.tv) theeeeeeeeen we would have something of value. That's us folks. .tv does actually mean something. Congrats to all the .tv'ers, you are in the right place a good time, a little early, but great timing never-the-less. That is, if you can find an "end user" to buy your name OR, you figure out a "legitimate" revenue stream with it. Parking is not legit, we all have figured that out. Only a handful of people make any real money this way, it's in the numbers and paying $40+ for the domain names makes it tougher.

The television industry is in turmoil. I recently read that 30% of the ad revenue had been ripped out and handed over to the Internet. Disruption... Other industries are seeing this Internet disruption, we are all reading about it. The travel industry, real estate, gambling, music, government, software/OS, nothing is immune to what the Internet is doing. It's clearing the playing field and saying "start over".

It's the television industry's turn and .tv is where it's going to happen. Did you ever wonder how someone comes to own an NBC affiliate? Well, this is it, your chance. If someone could have slapped down a chance to own a television channel waaaaaaaay back when the Television Industry 1.0 was taking place and then said, "THIS IS YOUR CHANCE", would you have jumped? Seriously, sell your domain name for 3-4 times the cost, park it for pennies or use it. Try something... What? We don't know, if we did, it would be too late or too much money to get into for most of us. That's the cool thing about the only other potentially commercial domain name extension besides .com that means anything. .TV It makes me smile when I write .tv.

So here is the deal, let's talk about business models that we know of, the good, bad and the ugly. Although, ugly is okay if the content is good, on the Internet. How do we make money with these names? Impel.TV believes that the Internet will break the television viewers/business into little chucks, islands of interest. CBS has a broad range of programming for instance, whereas you would assume that tampabay.tv is going to be about Tampa, FL., before you land there. Well this is an advertisers dream. Target marketing. Everything about a topic of interest in one place. Now marketeers are hunting with a rifle.tv not a shotgun.tv. If what you want to sell is in Tampa, you can pretty much count on the audience's interest in tampabay.tv, tampa.tv or tampaguide.tv. (I was doing so well )

Before I go on any further and explain about what Impel.TV does and some partnership ideas, I want to ask if there is a genuine interest from this crowd about doing something with your names, not just sitting on them? If you want to keep you "for sale" options open, well that's just part of the model that needs to be there for you to participate? Take it from a guy that has bought and sold a number companies/businesses, including to a public entity, your domain name is worth more if there is revenue attached. WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more. Try marketing your name with $5K monthly revenue attached and a market started. Your negotiating position now becomes mathematical. Not, "because I think it's a great name". You now can say, "I am going to lose $60K a year selling you this name, what's that worth?"

Are you interested in figuring this out? I am starting to meet a few that are, right here on namepros.com That is what this thread is about, let's talk business models and partnerships.

 

[[email protected]]

Don't worry about it Makis, it's fine by me. Bad press is good press, I learned that a long time ago.

I have been surrounded my whole life with people that talk about it and never do. Also, this isn't the first time someone has tried to drag me down. The more successful you get the more downers come crawling out to spit on ya.

400 channels on the way... Anybody want to run one?

ok, i think there is nothing more to say as matters Dave and impel.tv

please dont make this a flame!!!

 

[TheBulldog]

Well Dave, that is kind of what I am saying....


You have asked "Does anyone want to......."

And we have answered: "Yes, tell me the details of how......"

We are now waiting on how.

 

[Shammy]

The equity suggestion is similar to our model, and makes sense. Rather than 'franchise' out a channel, let the 'partner' have an incentive, with no upfront costs - when a partner is motivated it is money in our pocket.

For example, our .com real estate web site (www.RealEstateAvailable.com), model which displays brokers and agents in all 50 states works like this:

1. We find a partner in a large city, and make a simple non-binding agreement, more like a guide to success.
2. That person contacts brokers/agents in their own city and offers a free simple listing or a paid graphic image listing on our site. (It is a yearly fee).
3. They enter the free listing to the site or send info for us to create a paid listing ad. The broker/agent doesn't have to do anything but give us contact info.
4. The partner gets 50% of all income for that city, but not PPC.
5. With no domain, no cost, but a strong incentive, the partner can make money at home. Plus, we get a strong opt-in.
6. If the partner has a domain that compliments that city, we put up a link for free for them. (If they earn their own PPC from our traffic, that's fine).
7. The partner can also set up subdomains (from our site) and we split the income on those too. Only the partner knows the city they live in - not us.

This model is simple and we think it will work for us. It is new, so we don't know yet. Eventually, we hope to have a partner in every major US city working to bring us income. It might work for .tv as well.

 

[TLDnetworks]

I've backed out of responding to this thread several times.

First, this is not a thread about "Business models and Partnerships for .tv's", it's essentially an advertisement.

Second, I'm all for Entrepreneurship and bringing to market new ideas and ways to monetize. I commend you and your efforts for that. However, this thread is a very tough read due to all the excessive lengthy posts that really don't accomplish much in terms of facts and answers. Sounds alot like a used car salesman really.

Third, there is an awful lot of hype and "soon", "will be turning on", etc... The domains at Impel, for the most part, WILL require a tremendous amount cash for marketing and branding in order to stick. I can only imagine that is the reason for finding outside domain owners with higher quality names to further this along. In no way shape or form are the pages or tools going to be confused with those of Brightcove, Me.tv, or Narrowstep, and I do not see how CBS would be intimidated by this program.

I do not see any tremendous, cutting edge technology. What I do SEE, and I do not profess to understanding your whole software, is a glorified parking page that is feed by an rss type video grab, limited if any ability for original content, and poor graphics. There are plenty of simple template sites that have better visual elements than what you've shown. The samples you've posted as being the "designer" proposals do not even compete. It may be just my angle, but if I was going to try to convince potential customers to believe in my product I would have the "show site" totally dialed in and buffed out before showing it off (also, you still have the automobile wheels in the right side image on the western heritage site from the template used). I do not think comparing this venture to craig's list is really comparison regading visual style.

Finally, while I understand your angle on the revenue share, there is no way I would ever sign over 50% of revenue + 50% of a sale of a name, and lock it up for 12 months (a year of reg fee) on top of the sign up fee and monthly fees.

I do wish you luck and fortune with your venture just as I do for all the supporters and believers in dot TV.

 

[[email protected]]

The equity suggestion is similar to our model, and makes sense. Rather than 'franchise' out a channel, let the 'partner' have an incentive, with no upfront costs - when a partner is motivated it is money in our pocket.

I like this Shammy, thanks for sharing. Makes alot of sense to me.

 

[BDM1]

no more discussion for me.

 

[[email protected]]

Im in the US next month and would like to meet with you if you are ok with that.
cheers

I would very much like to meet you. This is great. I have gotten some solid ideas out of today, couple from Equity an a few from Shammy. Contrary to what westblock says, (no offense westblock) there are some good ideas flowing now.

 

[StargateCapital]

there is no way I would ever sign over 50% of revenue + 50% of a sale of a name, and lock it up for 12 months (a year of reg fee) on top of the sign up fee and monthly fees.

This stood out to me as well. Those terms are not something I'd go for, personally, but then again, I'm the guy that reads the entire agreement, and modifies it to something I'd be willing to accept

Regards,

Ca$h

 

[[email protected]]

This stood out to me as well. Those terms are not something I'd go for, personally.

Regards,

Ca$h

What would make sense is the question we would have?

Thanks,

Dave

 

[TLDnetworks]

I would very much like to meet you. This is great. I have gotten some solid ideas out of today, couple from Equity an a few from Shammy. Contrary to what westblock says, (no offense westblock) there are some good ideas flowing now.

No offense taken. I didn't post as an attack, just my take on the program you're offering and why it doesn't appeal to me. The flow of ideas and collaboration is great; the direction WAS too focused on promoting your program.

Different strokes for different folks. As BDM1 stated, we all want the community here to succeed, and there are differnt avenues to acheive that.

What would make sense is the question we would have?

Thanks,

Dave

I don't know that there is a solution that protects your investment vs. the domain owners property.

 

[BrianF]

The issue that I see is that you'll have too much control of the domains. Your current contract makes it seems like it's content that will be bringing value to the and not a great generic domain name. For instance, if I have an awesome name like sex.tv which receives natural traffic and I use your engine for content- you should be giving a little more that I'm bringing attention to you. No everyone here once to be lock down due to contract when a serious offer comes along. Current contracts seems to mostly benefit your firm. With I have a hot name, I would rather just leave it parked at Sedo and pay 10% when it sells. I also see a lot of holes for dishonesty on your side and domainer's side with shill offers. How would that be addressed?

If I were to partner up, I would not do it with my best names or any premiums and I'm sure most people wouldn't neither.

Those are just thoughts. But to also be constructive here are a few suggestions that would allow me to think twice and seek a partnership...

1) A contract with an opt out at the end of every month (renewable online of course)
2) I think 50/50 should be adjusted for premium name owners as they stand more to lose being locked in contract and the names would bring in more people via cross promotions
3) You should reduce or eliminate the 50% share if a domains sales as content may not be the reason an end user wants the name so its outrageous to share that much with you. It should be 10%-15% to stay in line with the market.

Just some thoughts.

 

[waqarsh]

there should be a framework to move forward with .tv.

ideally, it should envisage:

1. very high quality streaming video featured solely on .tv domains. this means DVD quality video, aggressively aimed at replacing cable TV
2. promoting the general public perception that video is to be found solely on .tv domains, and not elsewhere on the internet.
3. to discourage use of .tv for things unrelated to video or television
4. to encourage television manufacturers to include internet plugins to source .TV channels directly, producing DVD quality video , in effect replacing cable tv


to summarize, the ultimate salvation of .tv lies in aggressive lobbying to replace traditional cable tv by IP channeling, i.e. the Internet. this will ultimately force cable TV companies to move over to IP channeling, in effect reducing them to our level, while simultaneously exalting us to their level.

this may well see the creation of whole new companies, causing direct threats to the big cable tv networks.

 

[[email protected]]

Thank you Brian

If I were to partner up, I would not do it with my best names or any premiums and I'm sure most people wouldn't neither.

Those are just thoughts. But to also be constructive here are a few suggestions that would allow me to think twice and seek a partnership...

1) A contract with an opt out at the end of every month (renewable online of course)

Okay... No problem, we own the users. You can't use us to build up a user base and then cancel taking them with you. This wouldn't be fair to your partner, me.tv for instance. I am going to use them more of an example. I want them to be successful remember, me.tv. It only helps us.

2) I think 50/50 should be adjusted for premium name owners as they stand more to lose being locked in contract and the names would bring in more people via cross promotions

Okay, how about 40/60% leaning towards the domain holder? Remember we spent alot of money/time getting here and we intend to code full time in the future enhancing the system. We even have an automated upgrade so all the sites stay current together with upgrades. Would that be better?

We are also serving. We have some real cost. We just brought in a person full time to help the partners and populate content. It doens't do the domain holder any good to not allow us to make money. Please consider these things. This would be the same for anyone you guys deal with. You want your partners and vendors to make money. me.tv and anyone else. Then they are there to take your call. I have had many partners and vendors in my day and my policy was to not squeeze them.

How about 40/60% for premium domain holders?

3) You should reduce or eliminate the 50% share if a domains sales as content may not be the reason an end user wants the name so its outrageous to share that much with you. It should be 10%-15% to stay in line with the market.

Okay, let me tell you our thought pattern here. Say a guy has a domain and its goooood. Maybe he wants $25K right now. Let's say we start in partnership with him and all heck breaks lose. We now have to answer that call and when we do, the value of his name goes up, especially if the userbase and revenue is attached. So, let's say it's beer.tv Hey, I am not valuing this domain, this is an example. So it goes well and Bud comes along and wants to buy the channel, the whole kit, domain name and all. Bear in mind they might not even want to use the name but to route it bud.tv. They offer a million dollars for this now. Shouldn't Impel.TV or any partner me.tv ___________.tv software/server benefit from this? We could just say, we own the users? I am trying to hit one out of the park for the gent who owns beer.tv. I have no upside, so I just want the thing to generate north of $1000 a month average like any other channel? This is another case where you want to make us money. We want then to spank it out of the park. Its a parallel motive thing.


Maybe we come up with a value now for the domain and the first "x" dollars go to the domain holder? That is fair, I think. This way he is getting what the domain would have been worth without us, saving 10% from Sedo. Then anything over and above that he shares with us in some split. We are talking about slamming people into Web Television Channels and giving them a chance to make some real money and have something enjoyable going, managing the channel. We will help manage too. We want our partners to be successful. Everyone is motivated to sell.

Just some thoughts.

Man I cannot thank you enough for talking about this. It really is how we are going to take these values up a notch. A friend of mine sold wallstreet.com for north of a million dollars years ago. Ehud Gavron. If anyone knows him, tell him I said HI! This is what could happen to beer.tv if we all make good on some other domains.

Sorry for the long reply.

Dave

 

[Shammy]

Here are a few more thoughts, I refer to as thinking outside the 'website', rather than the box. We all talk about revenue stream from the sites but there are just as many opportunities outside of the site. I'll use one of my .tv sites for an example:

MusicTeacher.tv - Provides video music lessons for students (guitar, voice, piano, etc)

objective 1: Revenue from Music Teachers
a. Contact music teachers via email (or website) and tell them they can make money by uploading their music lessons to our site. $10.00 Member fee.
b. Interested teachers can video themselves and send us a video tape. We charge about $25.00 per tape for conversion/uploading video and setting up a personal area, or they can upload it themselves for free.
c. Set up relationship with local remote recording studio to record in studio or to got to teacher's house if they want a professional tape. Costs about $150.00, we get $25.00.
Costs more if video is edited.
d. When a lesson is downloaded, teacher gets 80%, we get 20%. Lesson costs student about $10.00.
e. Teacher gets $10.00 credit on their account for every other teacher they bring to MusicTeacher.tv. This begins a type of 'network marketing'.

objective 2: Revenue from Students
a. Student pays $10.00 per lesson, we get $2.00. Or they can buy a subscription to get all videos for a month, etc.
b. Student needs supplies and instruments, which we sell through Commission Junction or set up a partnership with music store to receive commissions on sales to students that we send to them.
c. Student gets $2.00 discount (credit) for every other student they bring on board. This begins a student 'network marketing'.

objective 3: Revenue from Advertising,etc.
a. PPC income on site
b: Banners
c. Affiliate revenue
d. Contact publishers of video (tapes, dvd, etc) content already for sale, and work out a deal to upload/edit.

Multiply everything by about 1,000+ students per month in one state alone.

Here are the sources of income:
1. Upload/Conversion fees paid by teacher
2. Member fees paid by teacher
3. Referal fees paid by recording studio
4. Lesson download fees paid by student
5. Subscription fees paid by student
6. Commissions on musical instruments instruments
7. Commissions on supplies (music books, sheet music, etc)
8. Offers CD or DVD duplication services for a fee.
9. Money from publishers of music tapes
10. Commissions from local music stores

None of this really set up yet, so please don't to go to the site. I'm just giving an example of how we plan to generate revenue in other ways besides the website. Sure, it's a lot of effort, but I believe that thinking 'locally' to generate revenue is under-used and under estimated. Dot TV is perfectly suited for local and vertical revenue.

Just something to think about...

 

[MillersCrossing]

Here are a few more thoughts, I refer to as thinking outside the 'website', rather than the box. We all talk about revenue stream from the sites but there are just as many opportunities outside of the site. I'll use one of my .tv sites for an example:

MusicTeacher.tv - Provides video music lessons for students (guitar, voice, piano, etc)

objective 1: Revenue from Music Teachers
a. Contact music teachers via email (or website) and tell them they can make money by uploading their music lessons to our site. $10.00 Member fee.
b. Interested teachers can video themselves and send us a video tape. We charge about $25.00 per tape for conversion/uploading video and setting up a personal area, or they can upload it themselves for free.
c. Set up relationship with local remote recording studio to record in studio or to got to teacher's house if they want a professional tape. Costs about $150.00, we get $25.00.
Costs more if video is edited.
d. When a lesson is downloaded, teacher gets 80%, we get 20%. Lesson costs student about $10.00.
e. Teacher gets $10.00 credit on their account for every other teacher they bring to MusicTeacher.tv. This begins a type of 'network marketing'.

objective 2: Revenue from Students
a. Student pays $10.00 per lesson, we get $2.00. Or they can buy a subscription to get all videos for a month, etc.
b. Student needs supplies and instruments, which we sell through Commission Junction or set up a partnership with music store to receive commissions on sales to students that we send to them.
c. Student gets $2.00 discount (credit) for every other student they bring on board. This begins a student 'network marketing'.

objective 3: Revenue from Advertising,etc.
a. PPC income on site
b: Banners
c. Affiliate revenue
d. Contact publishers of video (tapes, dvd, etc) content already for sale, and work out a deal to upload/edit.

Multiply everything by about 1,000+ students per month in one state alone.

Here are the sources of income:
1. Upload/Conversion fees paid by teacher
2. Member fees paid by teacher
3. Referal fees paid by recording studio
4. Lesson download fees paid by student
5. Subscription fees paid by student
6. Commissions on musical instruments instruments
7. Commissions on supplies (music books, sheet music, etc)
8. Offers CD or DVD duplication services for a fee.
9. Money from publishers of music tapes
10. Commissions from local music stores

None of this really set up yet, so please don't to go to the site. I'm just giving an example of how we plan to generate revenue in other ways besides the website. Sure, it's a lot of effort, but I believe that thinking 'locally' to generate revenue is under-used and under estimated. Dot TV is perfectly suited for local and vertical revenue.

Just something to think about...

Top quality info Shammy,

Really excellent precise and informative

Thankyou....

 

[Cate.tv]

Love it Shammy! - Think, Think some more, Create, Do - repeat cycle! - Best, Cate

 

[boboski]

there should be a framework to move forward with .tv.

ideally, it should envisage:

1. very high quality streaming video featured solely on .tv domains. this means DVD quality video, aggressively aimed at replacing cable TV
2. promoting the general public perception that video is to be found solely on .tv domains, and not elsewhere on the internet.
3. to discourage use of .tv for things unrelated to video or television
4. to encourage television manufacturers to include internet plugins to source .TV channels directly, producing DVD quality video , in effect replacing cable tv


to summarize, the ultimate salvation of .tv lies in aggressive lobbying to replace traditional cable tv by IP channeling, i.e. the Internet. this will ultimately force cable TV companies to move over to IP channeling, in effect reducing them to our level, while simultaneously exalting us to their level.

this may well see the creation of whole new companies, causing direct threats to the big cable tv networks.

WOW! now this is the power logic out of all thats been said onthis thread--Total disruptuion of the norm IMHO RIGHT ON!

 

[BDM1]

no more discussion for me.

 

[mckennaronnie]

That is definately my thoughts for TV, anyone not using the TV extension to stream video, should hand em back

To Waqarsh & BDM1: I know the last comment about anyone not using .tv for Video should hand them back was tongue in cheek but i do completely disagree about .tv should only be used for Video. :imho:

Out of all the .tv's i have plans to develop i expect only around 10 - 20% of pages or space to be taken up with Video content. I like your idea of .tv being purely for Streaming Video & it could see the whole extension take off quicker and with more media extension BUT for many people who own .tv's there is no need to build, make or buy video footage to achieve profits (its ONLY about profit to me)

I have spoken to 3,4 people on this forum who have good solid business models that wont use very much video on their site as there is little need in video to work their business.

Personally i bought some high overture .tv's for the keywor only and will develop then into Online stores for their sector with the site having No Video at all. The keywords will be worth their weight in gold in helping me build traffic and in no other credible extension could i get such keywords or Search results which will really help SEO wise.

We all see different futures for .tv and that what makes it so exciting right now. Some like you guys see it as being pure Video extension (much like conventional TV) but many see it as a mix of traditional websites & Video element added.

Personally my Vision for .tv changes depending what site im working on right now. My current project is Cranes.tv : I see it as being a MIx of traditional Directory website, part Web TV Channel with Videos intended for only viewers in this industry and with a heavy influence of Social networking.

That is my vision for .tv but we all have a different vision i believe :imho:

 

[BDM1]

no more discussion for me.