SnapNames Domainers - Trying to keep prices low.

[Spade]

Just an idea for the active bidders on Snap Names. Is anyone interested in forming a group with the intent to share biddding information and agendas, thus instead of driving prices upward, keeping prices down?

IE - I usually see several domainers from NP in many of the auctions I go after at Snap. Instead of bidding against eachother, we could create a system that would allow open discussion of domains, and create a fair buying situation, so that a member can compete for a domain name, without directly bidding against any other of our members bids...

Considering Bonkers, Vaxis, and the like are bidding up many of the premium keywords, making it unaffordable for the rest of us, How about we team up to make the domains that are affordable even less expensive?

Anyone interested?

Justin

 

[gazzip]

Maybe...that Yofie.com guy sure is a pest :lol: , just kidding but you've outbid me a few times lately.

<removed> :tri:

Sounds interesting though Justin, what exactly did you have in mind ?? :blink:


.

 

[harkster]

Just a note of caution. I understand what you say and have been known to 'cut deals' like you layoff on... and I'll lay off on... for you. This was usually a 1 on 1 situation on a few select items.

This is commonly referred to as 'cooping' and I do believe that when done by a group in an organized manner is illegal and those engaged in the action can open themselves up to legal action. I have a call in to Dirk who will know for sure -- waiting for his call back.

This is not the same as forming a group who pool their funds to purchase item(s) which is just fine.

I don't know if the same would apply to the drop auction process but I would suggest checking this out and even if ok don't be 'public' about the who, what, when and where of it.

As usual JMHO

 

[Alan Glennon]

Hmm. Seems like this would legal -- as it's not much different than a boycott. Of course, I don't know, but generally, I know collusion between sellers is illegal; I have never really thought about collusion among customers/buyers. Of course, as hark mentions, if you make intentions known -- you are opening yourself up to scrutiny (which at this stage may be good -- as you explore the possibility and hear others' opinions), and also your outside buying competitors will know your strategy and you lose any advantage.

Just a note of caution. I understand what you say and have been known to 'cut deals' like you layoff on... and I'll lay off on... for you. This was usually a 1 on 1 situation on a few select items.

This is commonly referred to as 'cooping' and I do believe that when done by a group in an organized manner is illegal and those engaged in the action can open themselves up to legal action. I have a call in to Dirk who will know for sure -- waiting for his call back.

This is not the same as forming a group who pool their funds to purchase item(s) which is just fine.

I don't know if the same would apply to the drop auction process but I would suggest checking this out and even if ok don't be 'public' about the who, what, when and where of it.

As usual JMHO

 

[bobdigital]

Instead of bidding against each other, we could create a system that would allow open discussion of domains, and create a fair buying situation,

I think the term for this is collusion. It is a violation of anti-trust laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

It is what the Dolphins and Chiefs are doing with Trent Green.

 

[Spade]

Im not sure the legality of this move. The way I saw it, it would be on a points system...

Everyone starts with 1 point, You excerise or use 1 point by "Claiming" a particular auction - this would give that buyer the right to be the sole bidder in the group (on that domain name)

Now, that buyer has a -1

That means that the next auction they "claim", can be overtaken by another person who has a +1.

Although this a basic concept, it would be expanded upon.

Also, if its a group of Domainers, and not all domainers, Im not sure how illegal this would be. Particularly, Jamie (Yofie) and I, both like similar auctions I will lay up on the ones he really likes.

Justin

 

[jeffusa]

I think the best way to do it is have all interested parties in the group that are interested in a domain share the maximum amount they are willing to bid. Then bid that highest amount for that party.

 

[RyuKenLi]

I think -RJ- is forming an investment group.

I doubt this "keeping the price low" would work because domainers are greedy.

 

[gazzip]

Particularly, Jamie (Yofie) and I, both like similar auctions I will lay up on the ones he really likes.

I'm in 6 bids right now and Yofie is in 3 of them ! .....but so is Bonkers

It may get pretty tricky buying as individuals, especially when different domains are likely to have a totally different end user resale value, I could see that causing problems eventually.

I much prefer the idea of the coop style group - buy together and share any profits together.

.

 

[Dotmainer]

hmm,

how about creating page, with verification of users,
and every user tell how much he is going to spend for that domain,
so others dont need to bid if they know that they would be outbid ?