Fabulous

[Pound]

Does anybody else think this is one of the best things to hit the domain industry? In the 2 weeks or so since I have upgraded, my parking revenue has gone up by about 600% and I am getting search engine traffic for highly competitive keywords! Anyone other opinions?

 

[billinchina]

It does usher in a paradigm shift in terms of what we should expect from parking companies. I hope other companies follow suit. Fabulous still has a few things they could do to make Fab+ even better in my opinion.

 

[yandig]

My fabulous revenue has been up as well since the format switch. I have names split between fab & bodis, and am torn between the two. I definitely think bodis has greater potential, and am willing to wait while Matt irons out the bugs.

 

[goodkarmaco]

Bodis is a rising star, but Fabulous has it down and is way ahead of Bodis.

I don't expect $8. to $12.00 clicks at Bodis, but they are common in Fabulous. The highest click I have got at Bodis is .45 cents.

I get clicks over $3.00 regularly at Fabulous and at least once a week I get clicks over $5.00. Of course I am talking about names with better keywords

 

[Pound]

Bodis is a rising star, but Fabulous has it down and is way ahead of Bodis.

I don't expect $8. to $12.00 clicks at Bodis, but they are common in Fabulous. The highest click I have got at Bodis is .45 cents.

I get clicks over $3.00 regularly at Fabulous and at least once a week I get clicks over $5.00. Of course I am talking about names with better keywords

I am just seriously impressed with Fabulous as a company. The way you can email your names to them and they sort out the best keywords. Now, you need to do nothing because they auto-optimize themselves so you can sit back and watch your revenues rise!

Also, name one other reputable registrar that doesn't continually have "xxx stole my name" or "another horror story with xxx" that is offering $6.50 .coms and $4.50 .nets!

 

[lzy]

I've always wanted to join Fabulous...but my names are too lousy to be accepted.

 

[Mike Robertson]

Thanks for the comments guys - I'm glad you're liking the new program. Think of this as Fabulous+ v1.0. We plan on making more regular updates as we get more and more feedback/comments. Feel free to shoot me any suggestions you may have for improving the program, landers, etc.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[Gene]

Mike, "Fabulous.com" truly lives up to it's name. It is a fabulous service all the way around. I love the new changes. But what I really don't 'get' is why parked landing pages have to look so boxy and uninteresting. Why not create landing pages that look like real websites rather than a box of a dozen links? Give the visitor a reason to stay for more than 2 seconds. Get some content into the parked pages. Perhaps have a database of articles that match up with the keywords used, that automatically get inserted. Pretty basic I think. Add basic menu items, header, footer, etc. along with automated content. Get a visitor to stay on the page twice as long and you're bound to increase revenues substantially. There are other parking companies doing exactly this, and the results are evident. Fabulous.com should be on the cutting edge of this sort of thing. My two cents!

Thanks for the comments guys - I'm glad you're liking the new program. Think of this as Fabulous+ v1.0. We plan on making more regular updates as we get more and more feedback/comments. Feel free to shoot me any suggestions you may have for improving the program, landers, etc.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[rbedell]

I agree, the same old tired boxy look is far too common among parked pages. Get some other designs in there to choose from.

But what I really don't 'get' is why parked landing pages have to look so boxy and uninteresting. Why not create landing pages that look like real websites rather than a box of a dozen links?

 

[Mike Robertson]

Thanks for the comments Gene. Content is definitely something that we are considering adding to our landing pages. I guess the biggest hurdle is unique content. Apart from keeping a user on the page longer, the biggest advantage of adding content to pages would be to improve SE rankings. And as we all know, SE's penalize sites if they are found to be using duplicate content.

In the past we have seen other companies include content on pages and initially domains parked on these programs receive a large amount of SE traffic, but eventually this dries up, for reasons mentioned above.

Once we have "cracked" this problem, I can assure you we will be rolling this out on our landers.

As for different designs/layouts, we are monitoring the conversions of the layouts available currently. We expect to "weed" out the low performing ones and replacing them with fresh designs.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[sashas]

Frankly, i was impressed with the style and layout of the parking pages. They look good, really. Very web 2.0

Is there any set number of domains that you require to get in?

 

[Mike Robertson]

Hi sashas,

Typically, the minimum requirements are 50+ domains. However, we are flexible depending on the quality of names.

Shoot your list of names in an email to [email protected] and we can review for eligibility.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[sashas]

Thanks for the fast reply Mike.

I had one more question (not sure if this thread is the right place to post it though. But I'll shoot anyway). I have mostly .coms and .in/.co.in names. Would the ccTLDs make me ineligible?

 

[Mike Robertson]

Hi sashas,

We are primarily interested in English language traffic, so domains with the following extensions, .com .net, .org, .co.uk, .com.au, .ca, .us, etc.

Whilst we wouldn't accept the .co.in domains, if you have 50+ domains in extensions that we allow, you should have no problems getting an account.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[SKG]

Hi sashas,

We are primarily interested in English language traffic, so domains with the following extensions, .com .net, .org, .co.uk, .com.au, .ca, .us, etc.

Whilst we wouldn't accept the .co.in domains, if you have 50+ domains in extensions that we allow, you should have no problems getting an account.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

Mike if accepted with 50 plus .com domains, would you consider additional domains that are in the .tv cctld?

 

[Mike Robertson]

Hi SKG,

Once someone has been approved for an account, we are happy to review additional cctld's on a individual basis.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

 

[SKG]

Hi SKG,

Once someone has been approved for an account, we are happy to review additional cctld's on a individual basis.

Cheers,

Mike
Fabulous.com

Thank you Mike, I will give it a try

 

[sashas]

Thanks for the info Mike. I'm in the process of building my portfolio up. Once I have what I believe to be a decent portfolio, I'll come knocking!

Thanks for the information. Its great to see CEOs of big companies like Fabulous and Moniker interacting with the domainers at NP.

 

[Sam]

Sigh, if mike only did FOREIGN traffic

 

[gingeman]

I am extremely impressed with the improvement to Fabulous +, was just comparing ctr etc and it really has gone up as my names have begun to optimise now. I am now thinking about moving some of my non-gambling names over to fab- can anyone else say what other niches perform well there?
Thanks