.tv Comment On Hotel.TV

[DU]

Posted in another Thread. Deleted because it was off topic. But in order to make a complete asshat of myself I've decided to post it here in all its glory.

In five years I will come back and see how right I was. I've already been to the future which makes it easier to make these kind of laughable assertions.

I'd take hotel.tv in a heartbeat if I could afford it.

Aside from the obvious usage potential, the seo value would be phenomenal.

Generics are underrated, if you see the top sales in ANY extension, they're almost always generics.

You're entitled to your difference of opinion. You're certainly far more experienced than I; however, I've got the advantage of having visited the future.

There is a transition afoot. I think generics may have their place - but I just don't like them in the TV namespace and they will lesses in the whole global tld namespace soon enough.

I'm not sure the "obvious" potential. I have no idea what I would do with it other than look at it and think how jealous everyone else was.

I have been on vacations and booked them online - I never search by hotel. I search by destination... in fact my first stop is always kayak.com (to get a price baseline) and then the rough guide series (excellent guides too).

I think it has been proven by now that SEO value is in developed content and not purely name alone. The real value of a domain in the market space that is "hotel" is in repeat visitors and traffic. I don't know that "Hotel.TV" buys you that. It's memorable so it's not bad but I don't think it's ENGAGING which is my new mantra. So it's a decent domain but not a killer one that I'd pay for in a "heartbeat".

In real domaining terms 10K is peanuts but in pure domainer terms it's quite a large amount with uncertainty of returns. Like everything else - find an end user and make a great ROI. With regular renewal - it's probably an easy gamble. Some of the more connected guys here could no doubt flip it for $100,000,000... (I exagerrate, but reasonable ROI I'm sure exists for those guys/gals)

What always makes me laugh is statements like :

I'd take hotel.tv in a heartbeat if I could afford it.

If I was so sure of something that I would take it in a heartbeat I could afford it. End of discussion. It means nothing when people say "IF something I WOULD do something".

This isn't meant as a slight on you - it's a general observation of people. In fact, I'm sure I've probably said it before - probably yesterday. But if someone offers me $50 for a $10 I don't think I would ever say, "well I would but I am short right now", which is essentially what you're implying or I'm inferring.

In looking at an overall picture. Generics are high return. But in terms of overall cost to an end user - the acquisition of generics is far less than the development of a flagship domain. I tend to believe that the latter is the future - PARTICULARLY in the TV space.

I hope everyone who invests proves me wrong. I just don't see the OBVIOUS use of Hotel/Medicine. Resort I'm more agreeable to

Just speculating. Probably considered bullsh*tting but its more interesting to read this than "just regged poopee.tv" I'm hoping.

OR I REALLY WILL QUIT!

Full disclosure: I own BuildingSociety.TV... now THERE'S a generic but at the price?!? couldn't turn it down.... So I'm not ANTI-generics. I'm just not seeing them as the great ROI of the future.. especially in the TVs.

I really need to blog more and write here less. You can all begin the hatin' now that you think Snoop has convinced me to go to the dark side (which he hasn't.. I'm just bored with separation of domaining and intelligent marketing... I think the gap is closing RAPIDLY)
:hearts:

I hope the new owners make mucho dinero!
__________________

 

[DU]

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.

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...

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.

 

[equity78]

Antonis do you plan on developing the name ?

 

[MicroGuy]

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.

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]

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

...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 .

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...

 

[gr8trfoo]

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.

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

 

[eyedomainous]

Here is the old thread,

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/644585-having-your-tv-realization-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."

"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."

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?

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

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

 

[snoop]

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?

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

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

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/

 

[DU]

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

http://www.lahoteltv.com/

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 ----------

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!

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.

 

[antonis12]

Antonis do you plan on developing the name ?

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.

 

[snoop]

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.

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

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

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.

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.