news Dan.com to increase comission from 9% to 15% effective Feb 1st 2023

[MadAboutDomains]

Just received this email from Dan.com about commission increases (snippet of email):

Thoughts?

 

[justlife]

Is there any update on the pricing policy? Do we really need to put the same BIN price for lander and Afternic?

 

[Sutruk]

Russia's anti-monopoly agency has fined Booking.com a record €14.9 million for alleged market dominance.

Booking.com was accused of preventing Russian hotels and hostels from offering their services at lower prices on other platforms.

"For hotels, this meant that they could not set the prices for their services lower on other sales channels than on Booking.com."

"Such actions restrict competition in the market and harm the interests of hotels," it added.

Source:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/08/27...com-record-14-9m-for-alleged-market-dominance

And this is exactly what Afternic is demanding right now to their users. It's not enough for them to punish their Afternic users by increasing by a 10% (from 15% to 25%) the fees if you don't point your landers to their nameservers, but now they also want everybody to put the same price on their landers if they are not pointing to their "network" of nameservers. I guess they want to break the World Guiness record of Monopolistic behaviour.
I bet the European Commission would like to know about their "fixed price" and Anti-competitive behaviour, as well as the US Anti-trust Agency.

And now they are telling us, everyone, to put the same price everywhere. This blatantly goes against the antitrust policy about Price Fixing..

You Afternic, are telling us that you will charge a whopping 25% if we don't point our Landers to your Nameservers. Now don't tell us to put the same price on our landers, because its YOU who are increasing the price of our product by a 25%, a whopping 25% more than if we sell it using our landers by using a fair escrow service like Escrow.com.

-----------------------------------------------------

Price Fixing​

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...itrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors to raise, lower, maintain, or stabilize prices or price levels. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other competitive terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor. When purchasers make choices about what products and services to buy, they expect that the price has been determined on the basis of supply and demand, not by an agreement among competitors. When competitors agree to restrict competition, the result is often higher prices. Price fixing also includes agreements among competing purchasers or competing employers about the prices or wages they will pay. Price fixing is a major concern of government antitrust enforcement. Individuals and companies that knowingly enter price-fixing agreements are routinely investigated by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies and can be criminally prosecuted.

-----------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

Antitrust Laws And You​

Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for products and services.

The Sherman Antitrust Act​

This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies.

The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.

The Clayton Act​

This Act is a civil statute (carrying no criminal penalties) that prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under this Act, the Government challenges those mergers that are likely to increase prices to consumers. All persons considering a merger or acquisition above a certain size must notify both the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The Act also prohibits other business practices that may harm competition under certain circumstances.

 

[Sutruk]

This tweet by Mr. Berryhill is quite descriptive about the situation. Priceless as always!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621261181607444480

 

[LoveCatchyDomains]

And this is exactly what Afternic is demanding right now to their users. It's not enough for them to punish their Afternic users by increasing by a 10% (from 15% to 25%) the fees if you don't point your landers to their nameservers, but now they also want everybody to put the same price on their landers if they are not pointing to their "network" of nameservers. I guess they want to break the World Guiness record of Monopolistic behaviour.
I bet the European Commission would like to know about their "fixed price" and Anti-competitive behaviour, along with the US Anti-trust Agency.

Demanding that the pricing being the same across the board, even on non-GD-related sites, does raise some anti-trust concerns.

The underlying policy may relate to their demand to have payment of their 'fees' up to six months after an "introduction" of a domain buyer on their website. How can they prevent that buyer from going elsewhere during those six months and purchasing the domain at a different venue? Well, GD/DAN/AN has a challenge there. With privacy on, they really would have a difficult time proving that it was the same seller as before.

So, by demanding that the prices are the same everywhere, there might be less temptation for a buyer to go elsewhere. This could be a loss for the seller, who may indeed prefer to have lower sales fees using a different venue.

Granted, the flip side of this is that if the GD/AN/DAN site did indeed attract the buyer and convince them to purchase the domain, then there's a argument to be made that they deserve to be paid for providing those resources.

However, it's possible that the initial lander or marketplace didn't actually encourage a sale initially. Maybe other domains were being shown as well prior to checkout, and distracted the potential buyer. Perhaps there was a long legal agreement that needed to be signed to complete the sale. That might turn away some folks.

And, realistically, some end-users may be initially naive, not realizing that there are ways to contact a domain owner and do the sale directly. Or they later learn of other marketplaces. Maybe they abandoned the initial sale, and decided, perhaps months later, to try to pursue the purchase at that point, on other venues.

Hopefully, in the interest of fair competition, some leeway can be provided to allow for different prices on different marketplaces as well as avoiding a demand for fees within six months of an "introduction."

 

[Dream Domains]

I would not be surprised if their commission rate exceeds 50% down the road.
Antiques.org is listed on Afternic for double the price, in case they can find the buyer, which is like winning a lottery.

 

[NigelD]

For those of us who have a lot of domains listed on Dan with 'buy now' prices in GBP (British Pounds) this is a mess. Our commission rate has increased to 15% but we can't agree to the domains being listed on afternic/godaddy network unless we are prepared to accept two different prices i.e. a domain listed as £5000 on dan appears as $5000 on afternic. So I could spend most days working out the exchange rate and giving comparable prices on over 2000 domains or just decide not to list on afternic/godaddy network - which is what we've decided. Most of our domains are .uk and orientated to the uk market so wouldn't want them listed in dollars on dan.

Which begs the question why can't Dan/godaddy list our domains in GBP on the afternic network. Or if they must list in dollars why can't they work out the exchange rate and list them at the right price.

 

[trap3]

...

 

[karmaco]

Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but......

I just checked through my domains for sale on Dan.com and about 1/2 the domains that it has marked as un-parked are actually parked.

I'm guessing that if any of those incorrectly marked domains get sold, I am going to get charged 25% commission, rather than 15%.

Anyone else seeing this issue ?
Has anyone sold a domain and then got incorrectly charged 25% ?

Thanks

They don’t mark them unparked. They are either resolving or they are not. You need to check your dns settings, type the names into browser etc. Problem is on your end.

 

[Future Sensors]

They don’t mark them unparked. They are either resolving or they are not. You need to check your dns settings, type the names into browser etc. Problem is on your end.

I sometimes experience sporadically that the Parked symbol disappears from a domain in Dan's dashboard. Simply requesting the lander again fixes this immediately. So this could definitely be a (temporary) glitch at Dan as well.

 

[Future Sensors]

(Cross reference)

Recent discussion in the DAN.COM Official Thread, re: having different pricing on DAN lander and Afternic network.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/da...official-thread.1148567/page-221#post-8853532

 

[karmaco]

I sometimes experience sporadically that the Parked symbol disappears from a domain in Dan's dashboard. Simply requesting the lander again fixes this immediately. So this could definitely be a (temporary) glitch at Dan as well.

I had that happen on two names over and over. DAN walked me through fixing it. I am no expert at this kind of stuff but the fix they gave me stopped it immediately. I had to go into the settings of the domains to fix it. If it repeatedly happens on same name it’s possibly something in the domains settings.

 

[Future Sensors]

I had that happen on two names over and over. DAN walked me through fixing it. I am no expert at this kind of stuff but the fix they gave me stopped it immediately. I had to go into the settings of the domains to fix it. If it repeatedly happens on same name it’s possibly something in the domains settings.

Ah, what was that fix?

 

[karmaco]

Ah, what was that fix?

I am not 100% sure it was about 5 months ago but I think it had to do with DNSSEC settings.

 

[Future Sensors]

I am not 100% sure it was about 5 months ago but I think it had to do with DNSSEC settings.

Okay, but DS records were not an issue with my domains, so it was a glitch at DAN.

But in general I agree. When acquiring domains, always check if there are previous DS records set for the domain. It may break things if you're not using DNSSEC anymore. I have already advised DAN to check the existence of DS records proactively for all domains, so that customers can be proactively warned about such issues. I don't know if it was taken up by the team.

 

[cabotower]

is the 15% commission on bin only or also make offer?

 

[internext]

is the 15% commission on bin only or also make offer?

It's on all sales with GoDaddy-associated name servers, including Dan ns. If on other name servers, you suffer a 10% penalty, and the commission rises to a very punitive 25%

 

[Acroplex]

Warning: Closed on a sale last week, taking the offer that arrived via the Dan.com lander. The domain had no BIN but the offer was too good to decline. Once the transfer completed, I was sent an invoice with a nice round 25% fee imposed. The DNS was ns1/ns2.dan.com and the standard 15% fee applies. I questioned the fee via a ticket and it was promptly fixed. There was no explanation why that 25% fee was imposed in the first place. I suspect that the account managers look whether the domain is listed on Afternic to gauge the fee. As this had no BIN, the domain was not listed on Afternic. I suggest that you are vigilant when getting paid and take note of the invoice's details.

 

[Future Sensors]

Warning: Closed on a sale last week, taking the offer that arrived via the Dan.com lander. The domain had no BIN but the offer was too good to decline. Once the transfer completed, I was sent an invoice with a nice round 25% fee imposed. The DNS was ns1/ns2.dan.com and the standard 15% fee applies. I questioned the fee via a ticket and it was promptly fixed. There was no explanation why that 25% fee was imposed in the first place. I suspect that the account managers look whether the domain is listed on Afternic to gauge the fee. As this had no BIN, the domain was not listed on Afternic. I suggest that you are vigilant when getting paid and take note of the invoice's details.

Thanks for the warning. You would hope that @DAN.COM checks DNS automatically. And whether or not a domain is listed on Afternic, they have never made that a condition. I also understood that the moment of payment (by the buyer) is leading for when they will check nameservers. Is there any possibility that they checked the nameservers after the domain transfer took place? In short, this raises many questions. Too bad Dan doesn't tell you how the wrong percentage of 25% could have happened.

 

[internext]

You would hope that @DAN.COM checks DNS automatically.

They did on my last sale

 

[Acroplex]

While it *might* have been a glitch or a mistake, my hunch is that the managers check Afternic listings as the authority. I had to ask them to fix it.

And yes, the "at the time of the sale..." line was also included, along with the 25% "success fee." (they were really successful at nothing, just providing a lander and a form.)