Moniker Extended Online Auction: Monkey Business?

[dkh]

I hope there's not another thread started on this already, but I thought I'd post a list of 74 names in the Moniker Extended Live Online Auction (TRAFFIC) that ends next Thursday, 10/2.

Take a look and see if you think the bids on these are all valid. I posted 4 of these as examples to Elliot Silver's blog yesterday, asking him (and others) if they thought the bids were legit or not. Reason? Some of these seem really high compared to what was sold in the offline auctions. I mean, CharityAuctions.com for over $5 million? Immortal.com for nearly $600,000?? GutterGuard.com for over $700,000??? Hm m m m . . . .

I sure hope all these are legitimate (and particularly for the two on which we've received bids - neither of which is listed below). But I have read on this forum before about Snapnames auctions won by people who never pay, and then they are allowed to bid again in subsequent auctions (and don't pay again). As far as I can tell, Moniker and Snapnames don't have any safeguards in place to prevent overinflated, bogus bids on these domains (and probably no "consequences" for doing so either). Not that I know how they could prevent scam bidders.

But think about it: of all the names that sold in the 3 live TRAFFIC NYC 2008 auctions, about $4 million in sales were realized (as reported on numerous domaining blogs). For the 74 domains in the extended online auction listed below (many of which are vey nice names - all of which have the number of bids directly behind the domain, followed by the current bid), the amount of bids on these 74 names alone totals more than $36 million! And there are still 6 days to go!! And there are ~2,700 names listed in the online auction!!!

Folks, that's in excess of 3 times more revenue than last year's "record-breaking" TRAFFIC NYC live auction fetched (around $10 million).
Yet, no one is writing about this (that I've seen, except me). I don't get it - fill me in.

At any rate, what do you think? Bogus or not bogus? Deal or no deal?? My guess is there's at least a little monkeybusiness taking place, but as I said, I hope I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, then what would motivate someone to place these bogus bids? Is this akin to computer virus writers who revel in destroying other people's machines "just because they can?" If not, then what?

Anyway, here's the list of the top 74 domains with bids placed on them:

charityauction.com 3 $5,882,400.00
panties.com 10 $3,529,500.00
ticketsales.com 1 $3,529,500.00
touchscreen.com 4 $1,411,800.00
planeticket.com 2 $1,176,500.00
guaranteed.com 5 $882,400.00
machinery.com 14 $882,400.00
onlinehomes.com 3 $882,400.00
androids.com 1 $868,300.00
gutterguard.com 1 $764,800.00
factories.com 5 $705,900.00
homerefinancing.com 5 $705,900.00
handtools.com 4 $647,100.00
authors.com 8 $588,300.00
fitnessclubs.com 3 $588,300.00
immortal.com 3 $588,300.00
openoffice.com 2 $588,300.00
sails.com 3 $529,500.00
asset.com 12 $470,600.00
hmo.com 49 $470,600.00
recruiter.com 7 $470,600.00
toasts.com 2 $411,800.00
organizations.com 6 $338,300.00
personalcomputers.com 3 $328,300.00
bookmarking.com 1 $294,200.00
breads.com 3 $294,200.00
drycleaner.com 3 $294,200.00
childbirth.com 4 $250,600.00
commercialproperties.com 6 $250,600.00
computernetwork.com 2 $250,600.00
consignment.com 4 $250,600.00
loveline.com 3 $250,600.00
repaircredit.com 2 $250,600.00
vehicle.com 10 $250,600.00
assistants.com 1 $235,300.00
attractions.com 3 $235,300.00
domain-names.com 3 $235,300.00
fashionstore.com 4 $235,300.00
item.com 16 $235,300.00
pant.com 12 $235,300.00
supremecourt.com 1 $235,300.00
mortgaging.com 1 $234,200.00
judgment.com 6 $205,900.00
choir.com 4 $176,500.00
hum.com 142 $176,500.00
jf.com 58 $176,500.00
legends.com 4 $176,500.00
mortgageservice.com 1 $176,500.00
singlemen.com 1 $176,500.00
singlewomen.com 1 $176,500.00
turntable.com 5 $176,500.00
earnmoney.com 6 $175,300.00
investmoney.com 2 $175,300.00
medicalservice.com 1 $153,000.00
danforth.com 3 $147,100.00
gesture.com 3 $147,100.00
walters.com 9 $147,100.00
moneyblog.com 7 $141,200.00
invites.com 45 $129,500.00
401krollovers.com 2 $117,700.00
abcde.com 1 $117,700.00
alligators.com 4 $117,700.00
bouncers.com 3 $117,700.00
businessadministration.com 2 $117,700.00
buydrugs.com 1 $117,700.00
darkbeer.com 3 $117,700.00
denied.com 2 $117,700.00
downloader.com 1 $117,700.00
financialmanagement.com 2 $117,700.00
gtv.com 45 $117,700.00
hotflashes.com 2 $117,700.00
importcars.com 2 $117,700.00
meters.com 2 $117,700.00
mortgagebanking.com 1 $117,700.00

To see all the names in the extended auction, go here:

http://marketplacepro.moniker.com/auction/index.html

Your thoughts?

 

[Ross]

I think those are reserves. Click on watch and you will see the bids i believe. Correct me if i am wrong please.

 

[DotWeekly]

You are correct Ross. This is a misunderstanding by many with SnapNames.com domain auctions that are "in-auction".

I explained this pretty well here, which should clear this up. http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/08/11/snapnamescom-in-auction-format-explained/

 

[dkh]

I think those are reserves. Click on watch and you will see the bids i believe. Correct me if i am wrong please.

Ross,

Well now, don't I feel stupid. If the price next to the domain says "Minimum Bid: $5,000,000," then shouldn't those bidders have to meet the minimum bid before their bids are "accepted." Apparently not.

You are right: the current bid for CharityAuction.com is $60, though the "Minimum bid" displayed is over $5 million.

Seems totally misleading to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that thought.

I would have thought that a minimum bid (and/or reserve price) meant something (like, if you want to bid, you must meet the minimum). Apparently not.

Live and learn . . .

Bob

 

[DotWeekly]

Ross,

Well now, don't I feel stupid. If the price next to the domain says "Minimum Bid: $5,000,000," then shouldn't those bidders have to meet the minimum bid before their bids are "accepted." Apparently not.

You are right: the current bid for CharityAuction.com is $60, though the "Minimum bid" displayed is over $5 million.

Seems totally misleading to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that thought.

I would have thought that a minimum bid (and/or reserve price) meant something (like, if you want to bid, you must meet the minimum). Apparently not.

Live and learn . . .

Bob

It is very misleading Bob. I had seen a post like yours many times, which made me write the post that I stated above which clears that up.

 

[dkh]

You are correct Ross. This is a misunderstanding by many with SnapNames.com domain auctions that are "in-auction".

I explained this pretty well here, which should clear this up. http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/08/11/snapnamescom-in-auction-format-explained/

Thanks Jamie. I just read your blog, and you are totally correct on how misleading this is.

What really sucks (#1) is that if you do click the "Watch" link, it doesn't even show you what the Reserve price is. So, you could waste time as a bidder putting in bids that have no chance of reaching the reserve.

But what's got me particularly cheesed is that we had 2 names accepted for this auction, and Moniker placed a higher reserve on them than we specified. In one case, $7,000 more than what we specified. What is up with that?

But really, all they would have to do is change that "Minimum Bid" column to state "Reserve Price."

I would bet they have some mangled logic for why they've set things up this way, but if a live auction requires a bid at or above the reserve price, then why shouldn't their online auction platform perform the same way.

Big, BIG waste of time . . . :td:

 

[buymynames]

CharityAuctions.com for over $5 million? Immortal.com for nearly $600,000?? GutterGuard.com for over $700,000??? Hm m m m . . . .

Add 'be nice'

to

Live and learn . . .

Cheers!

 

[gazzip]

Seems totally misleading to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that thought.

Its very misleading and not very logical IMO ...but, its their party !




.

 

[Cronus]

I also found this very confusing until I determined what was going on. I hope Snapnames fixes this. Snapnames should mail people who have a backorder on the domain (to give them a chance to join @ the minimum price if they want to), but don't add them to the auction with an invalid bid. That is similar to what NameJet does if your pre-bid value is too low.

The one really wonderful thing about the SnapNames system is that we know the exact reserve prices. That lets me find the ones I'm truly interested in quickly.

 

[wot]

Just checked a few names, 4/5/6 bids all very low obviously way below reserves- first look gives a very false impression. :td:

 

[rookie7]

re: higher reserve price

Bob,

There is a good chance that the higher reserve price accounts for the comission that Moniker will be taking on the sale. I believe when you listed your reserve, you were saying that was the minimum take home amount that you would accept...Moniker then adds its commission to that amount.

 

[lzy]

Bob,

There is a good chance that the higher reserve price accounts for the comission that Moniker will be taking on the sale. I believe when you listed your reserve, you were saying that was the minimum take home amount that you would accept...Moniker then adds its commission to that amount.

Hmm, I was under the impression that Moniker will deduct their commision from the reserve you listed.

Thanks for verifying.

 

[yandig]

Rookie7 is right...Moniker adds their commission to your stated reserve. So if you put a reserve of $500, the actual price to the buyer would be around $560, I believe.

 

[lzy]

Fixed 12% commision?

 

[DomainTalker]

"...Now clearly Sucker.com is worth well more then the current high bid of $60, but in order for that price to rise, one of the current bidders would have to place a higher bid OR a new bidder would have to bid the $141,180.00 (reserve) to get in...."

(...Quote from Yofie's blog...)


Thanks for the explanation, Yofie...


So, that means that, if you had NOT backordered on a domain in the auction, then, the only way to register a bid on any names is to make a bid at the shown 'Minimum Bid'?


Amazingly presented auction process...!!

The only reason I can think of to show a big 'Minimum Bid' price - whilst showing bids beside it that, in reality, are a only fraction of that Minimum Bid price shown (falsely implying that those bids have taken the price up to that Minimum Bid level) - is to mislead people into thinking bids are higher than they are...

That's really tacky practice, imo.


Do they really think people will get suckered in by that??

.

 

[Hurley4540]

@ OP, great domains up there...