NYTimes article on website flipping

[labrocca]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/t...17995200&en=8037a5889757770c&ei=5070&emc=eta1

A friend sent that to me....it's pretty much exact to my model and I know many others too. Interesting quick article. This might bring in more buyers initially.

 

[pcp]

Nice read - thanks for sharing.

 

[-REECE-]

Great article, thanks for sharing Jesse

 

[Pred]

cheers
repped

i had to nail 'LuxuryCages.com' :sold:

 

[soggyindo]

hey, nice article. thanks!

just thinking through the issues in there. what are the main advantages in buying a site, instead of picking a cool domain and making it yourself? you certainly save a big bunch of change if you hand reg or find a cheap name...

these crappy sites obviously don't get much traffic - is it mainly aged domains, with backlinks and google love?

 

[-REECE-]

Someone might have a killer idea but not have the time or finances to bring it to that next level.

Eg. TDVR.com was recently bought for I believe ~ $3000, however this name has much significance in the LLLL.com world and could be easily made into something much more if the new buyer has the time to do that.

Alot of people aren't good at dev either -- might be cheaper to buy something already well developed (but maybe not well marketed) than starting something from scratch.

hey, nice article. thanks!

just thinking through the issues in there. what are the main advantages in buying a site, instead of picking a cool domain and making it yourself? you certainly save a big bunch of change if you hand reg or find a cheap name...

these crappy sites obviously don't get much traffic - is it mainly aged domains, with backlinks and google love?

 

[labrocca]

just thinking through the issues in there. what are the main advantages in buying a site, instead of picking a cool domain and making it yourself? you certainly save a big bunch of change if you hand reg or find a cheap name...

Not neccessarily. Sometimes the amount of effort placed into a site is great and if you can get the site cheap then you save money. You have to consider what your own time is worth. Let's say it's $10 an hour (low figure but good for math) ...you find a site that might take you 30 hours to construct and then 5 hours worth of promotional efforts to get it near the same place as the seller. That's $350. What if the price tag on the site is $200? You also have the skills to further the site by improving it and raising it's income level or inherent value. That's really what the article is about.

Many that Dev (such as myself) do start sites from scratch but I also look for bargains. Sometimes people make real nice custom scripts or maybe just innovative sites.

Here is an example of a site I bought for $250.

http://www.namefunk.com

The site had traffic, a good name, and something I was sure I could build upon. After grabbing it I did about 2 hours work adding a new page and just sprucing it up. I did some inbound linking from my other sites and added some sig links too. Now the site makes me $20-$40 a month and growing. Over a 2 year period I will probably double my investment. I do ZERO work since my initial setups. I know I can continue to add to that site too for even more income. Or heck...maybe a potential buyer (wink, wink) could bring their skills and triple it's income.

This is really exactly what the article is talking about. I think it's pretty good that NYT recognizes what some of us do and hopefully bring in more buyers.

 

[soggyindo]

hey thanks for that labrocca and reece. nice site labrocca. i seem to stick to from-scratch wordpress sites i think from not knowing where to start with hacking around with 'real' ones. it's also nice to feel like you have an idea that hasn't been done before.

But i can see how fixing-upping under-potentialized ones could easily be just as addictive. There's not a day where I don't think "Man, he should really get a new favicon/ logo, it would make such a difference..."

:D

Has anyone ever bought a site and just improved on its existing crappy domain name? I see that a lot, too. Or is that kinda defeating the purpose of getting an aged site...?

 

[RickM]

Thanks for that. A great read. Its really good to see this hitting the media, its finally becoming known that the Internet isn't just a toy. Its the biggest source of income that has ever, and (most likely) will ever exist.

 

[labrocca]

Thanks for that. A great read. Its really good to see this hitting the media, its finally becoming known that the Internet isn't just a toy. Its the biggest source of income that has ever, and (most likely) will ever exist.

When we start to colonize the moon that will be a huge income earner for a LOT of people.

 

[MJ]

When we start to colonize the moon that will be a huge income earner for a LOT of people.

http://www.lunarregistry.com/

You mean all the fake land people bought? :D

Thanks for the read though it was amazing! Very enjoyable

 

[xman]

Another good article I enjoy reading.

Thanks labrocca

 

[thebutler]

traffic wins

I'd say the key point is finding niches sites that can grow in traffic. Most potential buyers know traffic is king for any website. Certain niches sites would obviously value traffic more greatly.

 

[Easydoms]

Nice read, some good points raised, just goes to show with a bit of imagination what people can achieve.

 

[Jacklin]

Interesting one... thanks for sharing it

 

[fatratstew]

Thanks for sharing. Was looking for something just like this! :D

 

[barefoottech]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/t...17995200&en=8037a5889757770c&ei=5070&emc=eta1

A friend sent that to me....it's pretty much exact to my model and I know many others too. Interesting quick article. This might bring in more buyers initially.

Thanks ,for sharing the great reading.

 

[abercrombie]

good reading. nice to know there's still press on the cyber real estate market.

 

[luffo]

Thanks for sharing,

great article!

 

[Chef Patrick]

great article, very similar to what i did with real estate. now i am taking those same skills and transferring it to domains.