discuss Domain Myths and Lies

[ThatNameGuy]

I'd like to start this thread with the statement I hear so often from "so called" professionals in the domain industry, "All the Good Domains, especially the .coms are already taken"

This couldn't be further from the truth Having started, operated and yes NAMED dozens of businesses in my lifetime, I know better. Regardless of the business you're looking to start, chances are I can find or locate a name that's more than satisfactory to run/operate your business within an hour. Seriously, naming a business isn't rocket science, but to listen to those who make a living from the domain industry, they would like for you to think it is

Having discovered this industry just a little over two years ago, I've hand registered a couple thousand names of which I still own a little over a thousand of which 80% are more than satisfactory for running a business.

Other myths to discuss;

"Shorter is better"

"Older is better"

"New gTLD's are garbage"

Please feel free to chime in. Thanks

 

[Randolph]

True... just like to add that since we're discussing shorter is better...

How about match/com matches/com? shorter is definitely better when it comes to given example. Not that I would use those names for a matchstick brand but you get the point.

That's the problem. Most of these names are used, sat on, overpriced. Instead of going with a 4/5-letter or some long-shot word, get a fitting name.

Let's say two different people, same experience and wit, are starting a match company. Each has a budget of $100k.

#1 buys matches.com for $50k
#2 buys onlymatches.com for $5k

Don't forget equipment, marketing, etc.

Which company dies before the year ends?

There is no evidence that shorter leads to more success. The reason why you see companies blow up, raise $100m, THEN buy the cute domain.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

You make good points, @Randolph, if I am following correctly.

I think that better domain names do help startups succeed, but if the business puts too much of their limited resources into the great name right off they may fail because not enough resources to actually run a business (that is how I read your example). That is why I do not subscribe to the arguments of many domainers that the company made a mistake by going with a satisfactory, but less ideal, name to start. Then, when they are profitable and have resources, upgrade to a prime name (and make some domainer rich ). Yes, there are definitely inefficiencies in changing a domain name, but most growing companies also change physical quarters, management structures, etc. A smart company can rebrand when it has the resources and there may even be advantages choosing your ultimate domain name after you are somewhat established.

Bob

 

[Randolph]

You make good points, @Randolph, if I am following correctly.

I think that better domain names do help startups succeed, but if the business puts too much of their limited resources into the great name right off they may fail because not enough resources to actually run a business (that is how I read your example). That is why I do not subscribe to the arguments of many domainers that the company made a mistake by going with a satisfactory, but less ideal, name to start. Then, when they are profitable and have resources, upgrade to a prime name (and make some domainer rich ). Yes, there are definitely inefficiencies in changing a domain name, but most growing companies also change physical quarters, management structures, etc. A smart company can rebrand when it has the resources and there may even be advantages choosing your ultimate domain name after you are somewhat established.

Bob

Exactly, Bob. Don't ruin your runway over vanity.

If you have the funds, by all means, get the top domain! You still have to work hard either way.

You are correct, a rebrand can be beneficial when done right. I've seen it turned into full-blown marketing campaigns many times — most likely paying for domain itself.

 

[BrandEntrance.com]

WOW!!! Another post from downunder that only "confirms" my suspicions about "Myths and Lies", the title of this thread. First, you should be following me close enough by now to know that I've culled my portfolio of about 2000 domains down to around 1,200 domains. You probably didn't notice either that my portfolio, less than a year ago consisted of 80% new gTLD's and 20% .coms, and now those percentages have flipped almost overnight. You probably didn't notice either the rationale behind it, so I won't bore you or any of the readers with an explanation.

Contrary to your statement/fib that my portfolio just keeps getting "bigger and bigger", and that "renewal fees will be killing you", my portfolio keeps getting "smaller and smaller", and I've made enough money from my domains that I can more than afford the renewal fees. Giles, I'm not super rich, but my retirement income is in the neighborhood of about 80K a year, and like most of my peers we own our homes and have other assets. Is that hard for you to fathom. Let me give you a math lesson here Giles, if I need to renew 1,200 domains a year and I don't sell a single domain, and the "average' renewal cost is $10 per domain how much does that come to "annually"? Here, I'll help, it's $12,000. Sorry to inform you Giles, but out of the 80K I make a year in retirement, I think I can afford it despite the myth/fib you're alluding to.

Like your friend Kate from downunder, I don't expect to ever hear any apology from you either. In this case I just consider the source, and you may wish to notice that i did apologize to the other Kate "insinuating" they may be one in the same because that's what a real gentleman in America does when he realizes he "may" be wrong. Cheers

Same here. Not on a pension yet but I don't live on this yet by a long shot.

I have a load of rubbish domains I bought in the beginning that sounded great... to me. Great if I wanted to develop a business idea out of them, but that's not what I was buying these for. I wanted to try to make some money out of them.. Won't be renewing all that I have bought, even though many have potential. I have moved into profit from the little I invested. (My wife spends more on Shoes). My kids need all sorts even though three are adults. My youngest is an IVF third attempt. Not cheap. So yes I have the means.

To compare it to gold panning, which I have also tried, I got a lot of fancy looking dirt, some gold dust and some small nuggets. I will keep the nuggets. Now I'm only looking for nuggets.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

The way the sounds terminate in 'stick' and 'tech', completing with -nology softens the name and makes it easier to say.

Some words are interchangeable, while others are not, that's why seemingly good names get no interest and have no use. The way tech vs technology works is:

Tech = Technique or a service. (Wouldn't work with matchstick)
Technology = Machines and processes. (It makes sense. "Matchstick Technology — We put fire to your processes")

If the domain were MSTN dot com, the cognitive load to remember and type the shorter domain is more than MatchstickTechnology would require. The latter looks better, makes more sense, and holds weight/emotion. No one will remember MSTN in passing, but MatchstickTechnology (or equivalent) leaves an impression.

I see bigger problems if you're scared of, or think the world is scared of words longer than 8 letters — and they have nothing to do with the size of your domain.

@ThatNameGuy , This isn't a bad name overall and you're onto something with BOGO and your thought processes. I can see BOGO names with common and realistic items or places going for $249 consistently.

Hi Full Stack...i've been away for a while, but to let you know I've done some research on the Matchstick idea as seen here; http://www.incensematch.com/ and I have even more interesting stuff for BoGo ideas. When you find the time, send me a PM and I'll share Thanks

 

[JayT]

That donuts deleted @andrewschnarr .bar domains: icannwiki.org/Punto_2012