Red.org sold for $50,000 - Why'd they buy it?

[RegFee]

I just saw on Namebio.com that red.org sold for $50,000. I figured the (Product)Red campaign was the one that bought it, and from the looks of where red.org redirects to, that seems to be right. So I'm wondering, why would a campaign that is trying to fight aids spend $50,000 on a domain name? They've already marketed the heck out of JoinRed.com (over 50,000 backlinks), and I realize that compared to the donations they are generating, $50k is probably pocket change, but it still seems like kind of an odd thing for a charity to do.

 

[stscac]

Beats me why they would spend that much money. My only thought that is American Express backed the effort. Looks like the domain name was updated on the 12th on the current month.

Also just about no backlinks on the domain names as well.

-Steve

 

[NameTower]

red.org seems like a more natural name. Perhaps they wanted to get the people looking for the site to the site.

If purchasing the name for 50k can bring in 50,001 then it is worthwhile for the charity; charity's can also be run like businesses in order to maximize the money they can use to benefit their cause. They are obviously working on that assumption (that it will make more than 50k)

I don't really like the idea of charities taking this sort of approach, but I've been told it is common practice and it does seem relatively sound from a pragmatic approach.

 

[domainer50]

My guess is this right here. Its going to get people talking, and hopefully draw more visitors to their stie.

 

[RegFee]

NameTower, that's what I was thinking, and you're right that if they can get more money because of it in the long run, then it is worth it. It just seems like such a gamble to me, but then again, anything more than $100 is a gamble for me.

 

[gausap23]

Give me Red !
International Red Cross Organisation and Aids awareness program might be linking to this site.

 

[floatingworld]

red.org a very powerful domain name which linked to the right organisation/company is awesome....a good investment IMHO.

 

[Malaysia]

i think its quite a good investment..

 

[owntype]

short, why not

 

[-Adam-]

JoinRed.com looks commercialistic and gets some people weary when they think they are donating/supporting a charity. However Red.org which is extremly short and easy to remember not only loses it's commercial counterpart extention it actually gives some people a "sense of trust" if you will that they are an organization and not just some business facade trying to make another dollar. Just my two cents though.

 

[geek]

They spend $50,000 for the sake of having shorter domain. To me that is just plain stupid. If they spend the extra money on the charity i bet it would make a better world! .org just sound awful, i can imagine everyone will just go to the .com instead. Bad buy imo.

 

[sker]

Fight Aids and Red are big things in the UK and i would assume the same in America.

Working with charity seems like a trend now.

Bono's LiveAid,Fight Aids and Madonna's adoption are all big marketing hit and becoming sort of style.

Apple & AmEx are behind this, soon all other corporate giants whose natural coporate colour is RED will join in(Vodafone & HSBC). Google is also supporting this "RED-Fight Aids in Africa" charity
Charity is money making business now... with a bit of fashion twist and trendsetting.

The beauty of this sale is the seller's negotiation skill. How on earth he got the nerve to hold up his face until he gets that 50k offer? He must have studied the buyer and the whole market movement.

he made the money and played his part for humanity by selling his name to fight Aids in Africa.

Well Done Sailor!

 

[stscac]

After reading some of the other responses, I think that in the long run, it will be a good investment. Look at the campaign for ONE. Unless it was donated (highly doubtful), I'm sure that they paid a pretty penny for it as well.

-Steve

 

[cache]

I know t is common practice for charity to spend a lot, but I still don't like it.

 

[Mike]

since its a charity, at the end of any fiscal year, a charity cannot show any profits. (at least accoring to the books) to any charity buying a 3-char domain is a great investment if it follows:
- better and more efficient transportation of their mission
- reduces the amount of donated contribution to zero or next to zero
- enables them to advertise their mission
- shows a significant investment in the/their future

all in all, this buy was kickass :imho: all around a smart move.

 

[omnia]

Branding, branding, branding..... Top buy for them i'd say. Most charities have benefactors who stump up for this sort of thing, so its not as if it will come out of donations etc. The benefactor claims the donation as a tax deduction, the charity gets what they need. Happens regularly...

 

[Coopey]

Branding, branding, branding...

Agree- despite the marketing, I didn't remember joinred.com- I wouldn't forget red.org.
joinred.com also sounds like the supplier site i.e. join to offer your (product)red, not the audience side i.e. the people donating their money.

Plus, now they can use (product).red.org subdomains too.

 

[stscac]

since its a charity, at the end of any fiscal year, a charity cannot show any profits.

But it does need to cover its expenses. This is where the water gets murky. Was red.org a necessary buy for the charity? Probably not. Will it help the organization in the long run? Most likely.

In your opinion, would "profits" either turned into an expense or placed in the well-being of the charity?

-Steve

 

[YesBrilliant]

JoinRed.com looks commercialistic and gets some people weary when they think they are donating/supporting a charity. However Red.org which is extremly short and easy to remember not only loses it's commercial counterpart extention it actually gives some people a "sense of trust" if you will that they are an organization and not just some business facade trying to make another dollar. Just my two cents though.

Among all other interesting oppinions in this thread, the one above is what better express their move, IMHO.

 

[ezimedia]

HI

It is a lot of money but I still think if they get traffic to that domain iT will turn in to $$$ for them and in 5 years time the domain will be worth loads more then they paid for it any way so either way you look at it I think they did the right thing.

Thanks
Tom Dahne