domain rockymountain.com / .net / .org

[Magincia Beach]

These could be available individually or as a package. Any comments are appreciated. Thank you.

 

[bashishtha]

Average monthly search for this keyword is around 60k and can be worth something for end user. mid-high $xxx for the .com and low $xxx for the package.

 

[Fonzie]

^ ugh ^

OK, so this is what you call a 'generic brandable'.
It's a term that is etched into the conciousness of every American (and most non-Americans).
Add a product to the end of it (Rocky Mountain Whatever) and you have one helluva brand. Its value has literally nothing to do with how many times its searched every month.

This is a very valuable domain name.
I wouldn't even consider selling for four figures.
Its the kind of name that has the potential to go yard if the right people want it.

For a little relative comparison: There isn't another name on the front page of the appraisal forum right now that I would take for FREE. This name, I would fight for against SaggyDimes and may make him say uncle.

 

[Dave]

Like Fonzie said these are quality domain names. To the right buyer low $xx,xxx and upwards for the set.

 

[DU]

Fonzie's right; however, the name is only half of what it needs to be. The domain is the qualifier - it's still missing the "what" which is alluded to in the "add a product to it and you have a helluva brand". Loads of companies are called RockyMountainSomething and they're all on the domain Rocky Mountain <power, bikes, patent, whatever>. So the question is - why wouldn't you add the "product to it" make that the brand and then make that your domain? Why exist on half your brand? It's simply not able to stand on its own as a really defining brand imho.... it will always be rocky mountain <something>.... but that's not to say it's bad, far far from it.

Some of these companies would be able identify as brand "Rocky Mountain" only and love to have it but that prevents it having the extreme value that Fonzie sees, imho. For example, a bike company would because they would only have Rocky Mountain etched on the side. Any company that gains exposure through graphic media means would like the shorthand because the media branding would make it pop without the <product>

To me it's such a common phrase that it lacks the identifying punch... and I'd rather be on the domain RockyMountain<WhatIDo>.com - well, I at least wouldn't feel the need to spend $$$ to upgrade.

But you know - right buyer, right time and anything is possible.

Easy high X,XXX. More than that would be based on your negotiation prowess and willingness to hold out and buyer... Coors should really own this

 

[Fonzie]

Fonzie's right; however, the name is only half of what it needs to be. The domain is the qualifier - it's still missing the "what" which is alluded to in the "add a product to it and you have a helluva brand". Loads of companies are called RockyMountainSomething and they're all on the domain Rocky Mountain <power, bikes, patent, whatever>. So the question is - why wouldn't you add the "product to it" make that the brand and then make that your domain? Why exist on half your brand? It's simply not able to stand on its own as a really defining brand imho.... it will always be rocky mountain <something>.... but that's not to say it's bad, far far from it.

Some of these companies would be able identify as brand "Rocky Mountain" only and love to have it but that prevents it having the extreme value that Fonzie sees, imho. For example, a bike company would because they would only have Rocky Mountain etched on the side. Any company that gains exposure through graphic media means would like the shorthand because the media branding would make it pop without the <product>

To me it's such a common phrase that it lacks the identifying punch... and I'd rather be on the domain RockyMountain<WhatIDo>.com - well, I at least wouldn't feel the need to spend $$$ to upgrade.

But you know - right buyer, right time and anything is possible.

Easy high X,XXX. More than that would be based on your negotiation prowess and willingness to hold out and buyer... Coors should really own this

You're basically making the case that Apple is dumb for operating on Apple.com.

 

[DU]

You're basically making the case that Apple is dumb for operating on Apple.com.

Not really because Apple acts as a noun where Rocky Mountain acts more adjectival. I wouldn't ever see General Electric or General Motors moving to General.com (it's a stretch as an example but to make a point).

Apple was Apple Computer until 2007 and they tied that transition to Apple in with an extremely powerful marketing campaign to establish that singular noun as their brand. I didn't anywhere say anyone was stupid to do anything - let alone Apple - and it was, part of a global rebranding effort. It made sense because they took the name and the image and melded them together. They wanted to brand as Apple from the beginning... so being on that domain made sense - they had the logo/branding vision way back in the 80s.

I don't see any company called "Rocky Mountain" + something that is anywhere near the scope of Apple but I stated that if one of them wanted to focus their brand on just that term they would quote "LOVE" to have it but it would be one that could afford to take the product of the end and create that whole package image.

Just a question as a pitiful example: What's on BlueMountain.com? and what's on BlueMountainBrewery.com?

I'm sure BlueMountainBrewery.com works just as well for them as BlueMountain.com works for the other. There's just no point, imho, in spending massive dollars to get there unless you have it to spend and it's part of your effort to brand SOLELY as that - and I said what?

value would depend on your willingness to hold out.

 

[Domainace]

IMHO, you could get maybe mid-5 figures from a reseller, but if you're in no hurry, why sell? Personally, I would take these names to bed with me every night and cuddle with them.

The difference I see between Fonzie and DU above is that Fonzie is talking about potential value and DU is just talking about right now. All it takes is one of those many Rocky Mountain (Product) companies to aim for the big time. When they decide to jump from small business to global brand, you'll be in the driver's seat with those names. I don't think that's much of a reach unless you need to sell now.

Still, I can't see how anyone could say RockyMountain isn't much better than RockyMountain(Anything). Or maybe I'm missing DU's point? Unless it's that great names can't be sold at a price anywhere near their potential as easily as just-good names can.

 

[DU]

Still, I can't see how anyone could say RockyMountain isn't much better than RockyMountain(Anything). Or maybe I'm missing DU's point? Unless it's that great names can't be sold at a price anywhere near their potential as easily as just-good names can.

I ascribe to the theory that something can be almost too generic and I think here is some evidence for this when someone says "Add a product to the end of it and you have one helluva brand". While there is some cache to the generic - a lot of of the potential market can easily settle for something significantly less costly to them. The big dollar will only come to he who waits.... where a BIN of $10,000 would probably garner quite a lot of interest right off the bat.

I suppose that does translate to great names are more difficult to sell at full face value than good names are. Probably obvious and I'm making a hash of explaining it.

Put it this way. I might pay $70 to see Soundgarden on 1st Level versus $100 to see them on the floor because that's good enough for them for me .. but to see Nick Cave I may pay for an out of state flight, hotel, and orchestra seats

 

[McDuke]

This name rocks! there should be companies all over this.

 

[SearchEngineZ]

As American as Eagle. Go large.

 

[DU]

Just noticed that he had the .net/.org as well. That's a great value add in this situation as it really solidifies exactly what everyone (me) is talking about - which is control of the brand. Not strictly necessary but erases ALL doubt when you have all the main components.
That adds significant value to the holding.

 

[banners]

I can see the .com/.net/.org rocky mountain domain package easily going for for low $ xx, xxx

 

[Fonzie]

I ascribe to the theory that something can be almost too generic and I think here is some evidence for this when someone says "Add a product to the end of it and you have one helluva brand".

Do you have much experience in the world of branding?

 

[DU]

Do you have much experience in the world of branding?

I know the difference between Coke and cola but don't work for Saatchi & Saatchi if that helps...