.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]

I wasn't going to comment but I thought I owed at least coming back to this thread.

It seems a lot of people are confusing DOMAIN NAME with BUSINESS NAME.

The truth is that you can run a very successful business without a domain name (that has immediacy and brand). It is hard to run a successful domain(that has immediacy and/or brand) without a business.

If you are a business that owns streaming data into a hotel - sure Hotel.TV would be a great name for that product domain. At $20K that would be but a small snip. I don't see domain investors banking on being able to find that company choosing and hoping that that one company wants that one name. The odds are too small.

They could just as easily use Loge.Net or HotelGoggleBox.com - does it really matter? They're streaming their material into your room - they own the distribution channel. Their name is irrelevant. Their customer is the hotel (chains). They would probably sell rebranding rights. They don't care if a vacationer knows their name - they care if the CIO / Marketing department of Hilton et al know who they are....

Most powerful words on the internet are: "Powered By"

Now if you are a channel ON THAT service you might want to have nice names - Peace/Beach/Sunset/Magenta/Orange/BeachBall/Bikini or potentially even Hotel ... whatever.... they will probably like to tie it to .TV or Channel.com etc because they're branding.

My point. People have huge visions for Hotel.TV which they are using to build value into the domain. The problem is that only 1 or 2 companies are really capable of actually fulfilling that vision. The odds are against you finding that client. I'm sure there are plenty of developers that would love to have a name like Hotel... but just not at 10K... they want a great name for their small hotel maybe.

Before I sound too stupid let me continue (or is that, to continue sounding).

There are people that travel through these parts of NP that have a hugely powerful and fantastic portfolio of awesome names. Each now carried at at RegFee renewal. These people are in the business of branding, building and creating and marketing for small/medium/large clients - and at least are rubbing shoulders with the right people. It is of course in their interest to own powerful names. In part because owning these name bring an immediate notion of "business acumen".

It's hard to sell yourself as a company capable of great things to a travel company if the best name you own is StPeteBeach.tv.

It's an entirely different proposition approaching projects if you own SouthBeach.tv, BondiBeach.TV, LasVegas.TV, NY.TV etc...

Having Wedding.TV, RealEstate.TV etc. brings immediate legitimacy to your ability to manage a top performing portfolio. The owner of these WON'T be using ebay affiliate web sites. (Sorry for using specific sites owned by members here.. I only picked good ones and I think he might support the whole "Powered By" idea...could be wrong... it's a mystery to me what anyone does ).

In general the future is not generics but branding. There is a HUGE investor problem here. You cannot SIT on a Brand and Brands can be build around you. There is still the place for long tail/keyword searched but as I've been saying for a LONG time these are going away - and not just because of Apps, and not just because of FOAF applications but because of the nature of the way people are.

Cloud Computing is Phase 1. Most of you just can't see it.

 

[eyedomainous]

i'm not finding the 77 videos.

Interesting reply. Checking up on me, huh? :lol:

As stated in the original thread, where I "showed my hand" / hotel channel, and stated, I use Livestream to power the in-room hotel channel. You can find that feed here: livestream.com/lalively -(the video count is at the bottom of the page).

Thanks for the look. And why, might I ask, is the number of videos shown important? I'm left with the impression your motivation is to catch me in a lie... though it would be a meaningless fib, as the point I was making would be valid if there were only 10 vids in the stream.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

They could just as easily use Loge.Net or HotelGoggleBox.com - does it really matter? They're streaming their material into your room - they own the distribution channel. Their name is irrelevant. Their customer is the hotel (chains). They would probably sell rebranding rights. They don't care if a vacationer knows their name - they care if the CIO / Marketing department of Hilton et al know who they are....

Actually, you want a name that works for both the hotel and the vacationer. In fact I was going to use VacationerTV.com but went with FieldGuideTV.com -as not every guest in the hotel is on vacation, and I wanted to serve the (in-room tv viewing) guests while they were in-the-field... and I do that with a Field Guide TV map that map-pins the vids seen on TV.

My main point in this discussion is, contrary to what some are claiming, Hotel TV actually has a better business model than most tv domains because hotels have their own TV networks!!!

And, these networks not only happen to be pay TV systems, they are the 'gold standard' in the subscription TV business because people subscribe to tv channels in hotel rooms they would never subscribe to at home.

 

[snoop]

My main point in this discussion is, contrary to what some are claiming, Hotel TV actually has a better business model than most tv domains because hotels have their own TV networks!!!

I still don't think any obvious business model has been demonstrated. All we have seen is how someone already in business could use it instead of the current domain (in house tv network) or what could be done with seemingly massive budget (video reviews of hotels).

It is a bit like saying you could buy oil.com and become an oil refiner, instead of that oil.com is a pretty average site with a news feed on it (ie there is no really clear business model for the name). The suggestions for hotel.tv just aren't practical or likely, it is one of those names where the degree of money needed to be spent far outweighs the name itself.

 

[freedom30]

I still don't think any obvious business model has been demonstrated. All we have seen is how someone already in business could use it instead of the current domain (in house tv network) or what could be done with seemingly massive budget (video reviews of hotels).

It is a bit like saying you could buy oil.com and become an oil refiner, instead of that oil.com is a pretty average site with a news feed on it (ie there is no really clear business model for the name). The suggestions for hotel.tv just aren't practical or likely, it is one of those names where the degree of money needed to be spent far outweighs the name itself.

...you know Snoop, you are actually beginning to not make any sense anymore!

 

[eyedomainous]

The critical difference is hotels are not operating their own tv 'refinery' now. They let others do the 'drilling' because, at the time, the capital investment and expertise was too much for them to manage, so, as a result, they just get a small cut of the in-room tv fees.

Now consider, the in-room tv providers are natioanl, they do not do local. In-room local tourism tv played from a 40 minute (looped) dvd. So, my approach was... if I can deliver a 24/7 local tourism tv feed will you GIVE me an in-room tv channel, PAY the bandwidth cost, and let me keep 100% of any advertising I can sell on the channel. The answer was a big resounding "YES!... You can do that?!?".

The point is, if you structure it right hotels will foot much of the bill IF its a value added proposition... and I tell you, they Really value that "rehashed" (curated) YouTube content... and so do the guests, because it Really delivers 'local', in-room... on 'their' tv set, making it a much more intimate experience, for a "guest" in town, than watching it on a laptop, from YouTube (assuming they would even know what to look for).

I still don't think any obvious business model has been demonstrated. All we have seen is how someone already in business could use it instead of the current domain (in house tv network) or what could be done with seemingly massive budget (video reviews of hotels).

It is a bit like saying you could buy oil.com and become an oil refiner, instead of that oil.com is a pretty average site with a news feed on it (ie there is no really clear business model for the name). The suggestions for hotel.tv just aren't practical or likely, it is one of those names where the degree of money needed to be spent far outweighs the name itself.

 

[gr8trfoo]

Interesting reply. Checking up on me, huh? :lol:
...
And why, might I ask, is the number of videos shown important? I'm left with the impression your motivation is to catch me in a lie...

arnt you being a bit paranoid?

its an interesting collection of videos you've cobbled together. if i were really stoned and sitting in my room in downtown la i might be as likely to watch your program as any other.

i'm a bit confused though- is this meant to be viewed on a dedicated hotel network tv channel or online?

and as a potential advertiser i find this claim highly dubious:
"We are certainly the most watched online TV network in downtown Los Angeles."

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Now consider, the in-room tv providers are natioanl, they do not do local. In-room local tourism tv played from a 40 minute (looped) dvd. So, my approach was... if I can deliver a 24/7 local tourism tv feed will you GIVE me an in-room tv channel, PAY the bandwidth cost, and let me keep 100% of any advertising I can sell on the channel. The answer was a big resounding "YES!... You can do that?!?".

The point is, if you structure it right hotels will foot much of the bill IF its a value added proposition... and I tell you, they Really value that "rehashed" (curated) YouTube content... and so do the guests, because it Really delivers 'local', in-room... on 'their' tv set, making it a much more intimate experience, for a "guest" in town, than watching it on a laptop, from YouTube (assuming they would even know what to look for).

so you cobble together available online videos and produce a microchannel for this niche. i get it - makes sense. but what happens if the content owners get wind and demand a cut or worse? and what happens when astute viewers see this and realize they can do the same thing too? what if i cobble together a similar channel and agree to cut the hotel in on a %? i can see a flood of competitors queing up for a peice of this market if its at all lucrative, and none of them have any more barrier to entry than you did.

and which ads are yours? just the bottom text roll? who gets the $ from the honey bunches of o's vids or the trojan popins?

 

[eyedomainous]

finster... the channels' intent is to serve viewers in their hotel room and when they are in the field. The content feed, in one form or another, also plays across a network of sites serving key verticals.

I find the statement that your a "potential advertiser" dubious, so we're even. I have (3rd party) viewer stats to back up my statement, anytime you care to put your money where your mouth is.

I feature tourism related promotional videos. Content producers frequently contact me, or the hotel, to try to get their stuff on the channel because the in-room hotel viewer is seen as cash money. Most importantly, all video producers choose to 'Opt-In to video syndication'and can Opt-Out anytime.

Beyond the text feed rev, I produce some of the tv spots, get paid to run others, do high-end barter for tickets to sporting events, concerts, meals, and so on.

There are some technical barriers in porting IPTV into CATV system, then powering the feed to deliver the same quality picture in hundreds of rooms on mmultiple floors, keeping the player streaming 24/7 365 and so on. I have some 'trade secrets', custom gear and unique operational knowledge that gets the job done.

Getting a hotel channel means you'll be injecting a (remote control) third party channel into someone else's custom tv network. Simply offering the hotel a cut won't do it. But, yes, internet tv can make site operators players in 'brick & mortar' tv businesses.

 

[gr8trfoo]

I find the statement that your a "potential advertiser" dubious, so we're even. I have (3rd party) viewer stats to back up my statement, anytime you care to put your money where your mouth is.

so you dont think i have 5 bucks? thats how much it is a day to insert my short text ad right, and have it run all day? so yeah i'm ready to put the money up - now lets see the stats.

 

[DU]

So... Hotel.TV... awesome name.

Congrats to buyer.

 

[eyedomainous]

so you dont think i have 5 bucks? thats how much it is a day to insert my short text ad right, and have it run all day? so yeah i'm ready to put the money up - now lets see the stats.

As of 12:07 P.M. August 31, 2010 the FieldGuideTV.com Hotel Channel, lalively, shows: 373,290 viewer minutes served*. As reported, by Livestream.com. [livestream.com/lalively]

*NOTE: as hotel TV sets do not have 'IP' addresses, like a computer, each TV set cannot be counted by Livestream.com. The Livestream "viewer minute" only counts the first in-room hotel TV viewer that clicks-on the channel... though the channel currently serves 498 rooms, and about 15 other monitors placed throughout the hotel. LogeNet, the hotel tv network operator, says 20% of the rooms watch the channel at any given time. So actual "viewer minutes" would be in the neighborhood of -- 373,000 x 100.

-- This number assumes only one viewer per room / screen.

-- These numbers do not take into account ANY online viewers from the FieldGuideTV.com network of sites.

Keep your five bucks.

BTW, I do not conduct biz through NP. But I won't have you call me out, as you have tried to do twice now. If you really wanted to do biz you would have gone through the proper channels, my sites -that you obviously have visited, but as thats clearly not the case... I trust you, and readers, will understand if I don't come out to play the next time you (prank) call me.

 

[crymeariver]

Keep your five bucks.I trust you, and readers, will understand if I don't come out to play the next time you (prank) call me.

I don't understand. Why are people putting a guy down when he is one of the few to have done something with their names. (However big or small it actually is)

We should be patting him on the back and wishing him only the best.....not trying to catch him off guard or research past comments by EyeDomainous to hang him out to dry

 

[freedom30]

Hey EyeD!

I first want to thank you for taking the time to explain to many of us techniques that are possible for this extension, which is in tune with this, the 21st century, and all the technology that is available within it to make a successful venture.

I would really hope that the few malcontents that are on this thread do not discourage you from citing your examples as I and others have learned much from you. I would assume that the majority here did as well.

As for the malcontents(you know who they are), I have learned years ago that the ancient adage "an empty barrel makes a lot of noise" is applicable regarding them. That is all I can see them doing on this thread as they attempt to berate you and .tv investors in general.

They do not suffer .tv success very well, and are loud about it.

EyeDomainicus, I appreciate your efforts and find it encouraging for the path that .tv is taking. Inspiring action as yours, rather than the drone of the empty barrels that unsuccessfully and vainly attempt to drown out the posts, are what makes people pay attention to the extension.

Again, thanks and have a great day! :wave:

 

[snoop]

I don't understand. Why are people putting a guy down when he is one of the few to have done something with their names. (However big or small it actually is)

We should be patting him on the back and wishing him only the best.....not trying to catch him off guard or research past comments by EyeDomainous to hang him out to dry

It is true that he is one of the few people to have actually developed anything beyond an MFA and he should be congratulated for doing something with his .tv domain and going out and getting a real world client.

Personally I think there is an awful lot of of back patting going on here however from what I would call yes men. I think it is fairly clear that this project isn't going very well. Eyedomainous now claims a major competitor has copied him and they didn't buy him out out. It was said months ago that the project was not novel, was just video streaming and lots of people could easily do the same thing. Some of the claims made about the site were highly exaggerated in my view and that caused a lot of debate.

Still today we have people continuing the back patting, for example saying this person is more talented that the founder of Facebook, a completely hollow complement. These are the kind of friends that won't tell you when you are making a mistake, they won't tell you the shirt doesn't look so good or that you have maybe had a few too many drinks. They'll just tell you everything is fine and dandy whilst you keep making mistakes.

In my opinion genuinely good project should be held up as examples, ones that are working, bringing in revenue. In .tv land however, where getting beyond a park page is an amazing feat, the one Eyed man is truly king.

 

[freedom30]

...where getting beyond a park page is an amazing feat, the one eyed man is truly king.

...while you would be who...Rip Van Winkle, awakening thinking that the 20th century is still here? Time to shake the sand out of your eyes and realize that time doesn't stand still for you because you want it to, bubba.

 

[gr8trfoo]

I trust you, and readers, will understand if I don't come out to play the next time you (prank) call me.

Prank call you? Balderdash! I'm a 40 yo man, I dont prank call people. Once again I think maybe you are being unfortunately paranoid.

BTW, I do not conduct biz through NP...If you really wanted to do biz you would have gone through the proper channels

What, NP's not good enough for you? Well I in fact do a lot of business here, as most of the participants here can attest. The reason most of us are here is to do business.

Maybe you're only here to brag about your hotel channel. No doubt you couldnt have found a more gleeful chorus of congratulations, but I for one remain very skeptical of your claims, both here in forum and on your website.

You can try and turn it around and say you're skeptical of me too and that "we're even" but the difference is I'm not trying to sell anything to the public while you, sir, are offering a commercial product. You claimed, among other things, to be the #1 online tv channel in downtown LA and I do challenge you to back that up. Most publishers/broadcasters that Ive ever dealt with have prepared a media kit, or at least a rate card, detailing what the product is, its viewership/readership and the costs of its standard products. A seasoned business executive would simply demonstrate the veracity of their commercial claims, and be damn proud of it too. I dont know what to call your reaction.

You had your hackles up from the moment I said I couldnt find your videos. I just wanted to know where they were but you seemed to take it personally - "are you checking up on me". I have other technical questions about your product and I'm not interested in getting into an argument. Since you've come here to promote your product lets talk about it and learn.

As of 12:07 P.M. August 31, 2010 the FieldGuideTV.com Hotel Channel, lalively, shows: 373,290 viewer minutes served*. As reported, by Livestream.com. [livestream.com/lalively]

is that the total number since you began? can you break those numbers down further, by months and/or days?

*NOTE: as hotel TV sets do not have 'IP' addresses, like a computer, each TV set cannot be counted by Livestream.com. The Livestream "viewer minute" only counts the first in-room hotel TV viewer that clicks-on the channel... though the channel currently serves 498 rooms, and about 15 other monitors placed throughout the hotel.

so the monitors being turned to the channel dont start the minute counter? how does livestream know the difference?

20% of the rooms watch the channel at any given time.

really? is that 20% of the rooms that have the tv turned on or 20% all the time? i'm truly astounded by this stat. is your channel programmed to be the one that automatically comes up whenever the sets are turned on initially? becasue while found your mix of videos interesting and enjoyable it seems incredible that they would capture 20% of the viewership all the time out of natural inclination on the viewers part.

btw, how often do you change the video rotation?

actual "viewer minutes" would be in the neighborhood of -- 373,000 x 100.

assuming they are full all the time that might be possible. do you have figures on the avg occupancy rate for that property?

-- This number assumes only one viewer per room / screen.

of course there's no way to tell when someones stepped into the shower or fallen asleep. plus a lot of people just turn on tv for background noise.

-- These numbers do not take into account ANY online viewers from the FieldGuideTV.com network of sites.

when i was on it first said "1 Viewer" than after awhile it said "2 viewers". but you should have very hard numbers for online viewer ship, right?

 

[eyedomainous]

Finster... I value my time too much to spend any more of it in discussion with an individual who claims in one post to be a potential site advertiser, then in the next post states "I'm not trying to sell anything to the public". Perhaps you meant your not selling anything on NamePros? But then, why urge me to do business with you on NP? You appear confused here... so allow me to point out, as a general rule, if you are promoting something in your sig, as you are, than your selling something to the public.

The content and tone of your post indicates its a 'prank (business) call', and your real intent is to prove me wrong. The solution here is easy... simply find a more "watched online TV network in downtown Los Angeles" and I'll change the text to be the 2nd most watched online TV network...". (LOL)


That goes for you to snoop, its easy to slander me with making "highly exaggerated" claims, its another to prove it. And what claims? Can you be more specific? You also employ a (familiar) methodolgy of 'repeating the lie you made-up'... so let me say again, the site is doing fine -business is steady, viewership is up. Having another player in the space does not mean business is not going well. If you launch a new concept on a .com and later a company copies the concept on .net does that mean .com's biz is "not going well"? Of course not.

What's most telling here is... the last thread I engaged snoop on the argument made against my tshirtstv.com domain was it had less value because there are no other players in the space... on the .net or .org, in effect... there is no compettion for the Tshirt TV concept so the biz/domain won't do well.

 

[Jason.tv]

looks like this does not matter anymore considering the domain was turned over to the previous owner Antonis that let it drop.

Jason

 

[gr8trfoo]

You appear confused here...

You sure are good at talking in circles.

Still today we have people continuing the back patting, for example saying this person is more talented that the founder of Facebook, a completely hollow complement.

More than just hollow. Utterly ridiculous.

These are the kind of friends that won't tell you when you are making a mistake, they won't tell you the shirt doesn't look so good or that you have maybe had a few too many drinks. They'll just tell you everything is fine and dandy whilst you keep making mistakes.

Once in a while i have to stand in completely agreement with snoop. Doesnt happen too often but there it is.

I think you get buttered up here by some in hopes you'll pay more for the domains they want to sell you. Since I could care less if you ever buy a domain from me or not I'm going to tell you straight up what I think.

I actually was thinking about spending a few bucks with you Eye to support prop 19 but you certainly have not acted like someone who really wants to do business, or even knows how. Seriously, when does a real businessman tell a potential customer to take their money and take a hike? ASTOUNDING! And in public even! All I did was challenge you to back up the statements that *YOU* made and to show me that I would be getting real value for my advertising dollar. Instead of providing a simple straightforward answer you instead ramble about how I'm really only out to get you.

I even tried again to ask serious questions about your product and given your reply am at this point left only to conclude you dont have any real answers. It may only be $5 a day we're talking about but thats the price YOU set for the product. Still comes to $1825/yr and for that much I think anyone here would agree that you could have treated the matter with quite a bit more seriousness and professionalism than was brought to bare.


One last thing - here's a marketplace item you might find interesting:
http://www.namepros.com/tv-marketplace/675423-fieldguide-tv.html#post3922582

 

[antonis12]

looks like this does not matter anymore considering the domain was turned over to the previous owner Antonis that let it drop.

Jason

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...

 

[snoop]

That goes for you to snoop, its easy to slander me with making "highly exaggerated" claims, its another to prove it. And what claims? Can you be more specific?

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."

"So while I did not want to toot my own horn, I can't let that statement stand... as several hotel owners have called the service "revolutionary"."

"Certainly being the first website to power a hotel tv channel is an evolution. "

"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."

"Truth is, what I developed is a trade secret; as the biggest technical obstacle I had to overcome was how to keep the free, 'off the shelf', video players playing around the clock. Try it sometime; See how often they "time out". And, NO... I am not using an auto 'page reloader' as that kinda destroys the viewing experience."

You also employ a (familiar) methodolgy of 'repeating the lie you made-up'... so let me say again, the site is doing fine -business is steady, viewership is up. Having another player in the space does not mean business is not going well. If you launch a new concept on a .com and later a company copies the concept on .net does that mean .com's biz is "not going well"? Of course not.

This is what you stated,

Last year, I launched the first web powered in-room hotel tv channel. It was quickly copied by LogeNet -the largest provider of in-room tv, at $450 milllion a year. While it was a knock-down blow... I'm not 'out'. I'm still in the game and I have plan-of-attack for the next round.

If the site is doing fine then why would you describe it as a "knock down blow". I take it it still only has one client?

What's most telling here is... the last thread I engaged snoop on the argument made against my tshirtstv.com domain was it had less value because there are no other players in the space... on the .net or .org, in effect... there is no compettion for the Tshirt TV concept so the biz/domain won't do well.

I find this to be a strange argument. If there is a lot of competitors in a space that is good for selling a domain. Personally I felt you made a major mistake not taking a 10k offer for that name, and everyone else commenting felt the same way.

Nowhere did a suggest lack of competition was bad for developing a business-the discussion was about selling a domain. You've made that up to try and make an argument here.