Yet another mainstream article calling us squatters...

[the_poet]

Snagging an unclaimed great one is almost impossible these days because domain "squatters" gobbled up a lot of the catchy real estate several years ago. Kevin Ham was the most powerful dotcom mogul you've never heard of in 2007, reports Business 2.0 Magazine. Here's how the master of Web domains built a $300 million empire of over 300,000 domain names.

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-to-pay-a-premium-for-your-company-domain-name-2011-4

 

[alien51]

In fairness, he did put the term "squatters" inside quotation marks, perhaps for the lack of a better word to describe the situation to the common readers who have no clue on what a "domainer" is.

 

[DU]

Another domainer calling an article mainstream

He said "squatter" and not squatter. Totally different. The problem is that people took the real estate analogy too far and this is the end results of that. It's not really important.

So you're not a squatter..you're someone who's going to charge a lot more to someone than they want to pay and probably drive them to a lower quality domain.

Investor? That's not quite right either.

You're a small business dream damager?
You're a small business ?

Happy Now?

Don't worry about it so much.

There are three camps in the domain "investor" world - that is holders of more than 10 domains:

Squatters
Squatters by Accident
Non-Squatters

I think about 20% are in Camp 1
I think about 75% are in Camp 2
I think about 5% are in Camp 3

What matters is whether you, your family, and your friends can look at you and feel ok about what you're doing... if it passes that test? Who cares?

 

[the_poet]

In fairness, he did put the term "squatters" inside quotation marks, perhaps for the lack of a better word to describe the situation to the common readers who have no clue on what a "domainer" is.

Even though I don't agree, OK, but what about describing Kevin Ham as trying to conquer TLDs like .co, .om, .et, .ne for squatting purposes? Maybe I'm not up-to-date enough on domaining news, but it sounds like complete lying to me:

He is now on a campaign to win Colombia (.co), Oman (.om), Niger (.ne), and Ethiopia (.et) as well.

 

[DU]

OK, but what about describing Kevin Ham as one who's trying to conquer TLDs like .co, .om, .ne, .et for squatting purposes? Maybe I'm not up-to-date enough on domaining news, but it sounds like complete lying to me.

Some people think .cm was genius. It is not squatting, per se but given the "standard" rules of typos being squatting it really is.

How is MicrosoftWindoes.com worse than Microsoft.cm? By taking that one rule of typos - and applying the letter of that rule to .cm - he was King Squatter.

You could argue all day on what is and isn't what. At the end of the day does it matter?

Do you think ambulance chasers discuss their feelings about that name?

Every industry has distasteful names...just as I'm sure that some lawyers actually seek appropriate justice.

 

[johname]

There are people that think domain squatting is holding any name thats not developed and asking for a premium over the regfee. The idea in there minds is if your not a water company developing freewater.com then your squating on it. But domainers see squatting as buying a trademark like googleengine.com. I dont get too worked up over the first way of looking at it as that perception will never go away.

 

[the_poet]

that perception will never go away.

I fear that too.

 

[alien51]

Before we drown once again in the debate for semantics, the bottomline of that article remains the same:

That the "business model" of domaining is to "hoard" as many domain names as possible, in the assumption that the collected domains can be resold to another person at a much higher price than what you have paid for.

Whether a domainer legally and fairly purchased the domain without any legitimate use for it, is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because registering a domain with a registrar does not require you to provide "proof" of legitimate use for the domain, unlike when you file a patent or trademark.

In effect, Domaining is just like Stock Market Trading. Many people buy stocks not because they have a legitimate interest in being a part owner of the company of the stocks they are purchasing. They simply bought the stock shares in the assumption that they can resell them to another buyer at a much higher price, and pocket the profit.

Whatever semantics is used, is just a cause for emotional arguments. Legally and technically, the bottomline never changes.

 

[FreshAvails.com]

The good news with that article is that he provides solid advice and doesn't shun the aftermarket. He lays out what the landscape looks like and suggests ponying up to buy the name you want. I can take the squatter misperception if the marketplace is moved to recognition of value and purchase.

 

[DU]

Pot. Meet Kettle.

http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/706193-massive-8-9-quake-tsunamis-hit.html#post4075903

Sorry The_Poet... I had to

 

[the_poet]

Pot. Meet Kettle.

http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/706193-massive-8-9-quake-tsunamis-hit.html#post4075903

Sorry The_Poet... I had to

Do you mean 'squatted'?

Let's hope the situation doesn't get worse. From Google homepage:

Meanwhile, related domains have been already squatted!

For a real domainer, when catastrophes like this occur, the worst thing that can happen is someone grabbing all the domains related to the sad event to profit from the visits. That's another form of cybersquatting, just like regging TM domains is: the difference is the former goes against ethics, while the latter goes against the law.

 

[alien51]

the difference is the former goes against ethics, while the latter goes against the law.

Ethics is a blurred subject, especially if you are dealing with freedom of expression and free-markets. They may be annoying, i agree. But you just have to live with it, and learn to adapt... just like what the article above on domain "squatting" says.

The article writer initially assaulted the abhorrence of domain squatters. But in the end, his advice is to just dip your hand in your pocket and pay the man.

 

[DU]

Do you mean 'squatted'?

For a real domainer, when catastrophes like this occur, the worst thing that can happen is someone grabbing all the domains related to the sad event to profit from the visits. That's another form of cybersquatting, just like regging TM domains is: the difference is the former goes against ethics, while the latter goes against the law.

You can add ethics into if you want but the minute you apply your personal standard to a rule you've already lost the fight. For appropriate word choice in explaining what the holder of a domain should be could please apply a vague ethical rule. What about BPOilSpill? Is that better NOW then it was THEN? Is it still squatting? what is squatting? was it unethical investing? Is investing in Tobacco unethical? BP?

I'm pretty sure a small business owner in a town called HardWorkVille as a handyman doesn't think much of an "investor" 2000 miles away who takes the domains HardWorkVilleHandyMan.com and offers it to him for a lot more than it's real value (which is zero to the investor). In fact, that small business owner might think that's unethical because you have no legitimate use and are a dirty "squatter".

What about porn sites? What about sites about diseases? Mesothelioma is a domainer favorite? That's taking advantage of cancer sufferers.

Have you ever tried to find out about Rest homes for the elderly? Funeral Services? Many a domainer "investing" in those spaces.

I won't go on but you see my point.

 

[Vito]

This article should be celebrated because this author is very influential to Start-Ups/Entrepenuers, and the message he is getting across is...
Having a great domain is very important to your Business. Matter of fact, he recommends having 15-20 domains that are similar!

I see this article in only one light - positive.
This only helps us. IMO

 

[DU]

This article should be celebrated because this author is very influential to Start-Ups/Entrepenuers, and the message he is getting across is...
Having a great domain is very important to your Business. Matter of fact, he recommends having 15-20 domains that are similar!

I see this article in only one light - positive.
This only helps us. IMO

As posted - he actually says buy the PERFECT name even if it costs you. As a small business I think this is a great statement because it encourages people to think about VALUE.

Register a domain for $8 and you might think about doing something.

Pay $5000 and the incentive to do something goes up as well as the realization that there's got to be value.

Most small domainers would take $5K and let you call them whatever you want!

 

[alien51]

What about porn sites? What about sites about diseases? Mesothelioma is a domainer favorite? That's taking advantage of cancer sufferers.

Have you ever tried to find out about Rest homes for the elderly? Funeral Services? Many a domainer "investing" in those spaces.

You gotta love FREE MARKET. You can freely put up unethical domains and websites and registrars, and shoot elephants... and people can freely choose to move away from you, avoid you, or boycott you. Both sides are free to do what they want.

Fair enough.

 

[enterpryzman]

Some of the opinions here are amazing.....I for one "hold" a fairly large portfolio of domains, some of which are generic in nature and many in niche industries. Call me what you want, it matters not.....I wish I had started sooner than I did.

The only reason I purchased a computer some 12 years ago and taught myself how to surf the Internet on my 28.8 connection was to learn how to buy domains as investments, period. I paid out my $ 140. per name at Network Solutions and was pretty selective. I have owned more domains than I thought possible and actively buy even today as many great names expire all the time.

I wish everyone success that was smart enough to get in early or late, as long as they figure out how to get in.

Enterpryzman

 

[enterpryzman]

don't think so

I do not think anyone can judge another person's domain buying, no matter what has happened. Just because I or you might not buy those domains does not make it wrong for another to do so.

I did this in the past a couple of times and the domains ended up going to good use. My choice is not to do it anymore but, more power to those who do, it simply does not matter.

Don't read wrongly into what I am saying here . This has nothing to do with ethics in any way.

Enterpryzman

Do you mean 'squatted'?



For a real domainer, when catastrophes like this occur, the worst thing that can happen is someone grabbing all the domains related to the sad event to profit from the visits. That's another form of cybersquatting, just like regging TM domains is: the difference is the former goes against ethics, while the latter goes against the law.

 

[Weber]

Maybe part of the problem is the name tag.
Does anyone actuallly put "domainer" on their business cards?

Is a real estate investor called a real estater?
Is a stock trader called a stocker?

 

[FreshAvails.com]

Maybe part of the problem is the name tag.
Does anyone actuallly put "domainer" on their business cards?

Is a real estate investor called a real estater?
Is a stock trader called a stocker?

Not sure that is an issue.

A Stock Trader is a "Trader" (not a Stocker)
An Auction Professional is an "Auctioneer"
Some who Legislates for Government is a "Legislator"
A person who deals in Jewels and Jewelry is a "Jeweler"

The problem isn't the name it's the business of speculating. Speculating in domains just isn't akin to real estate and monetary...yet. The general public equates it with those folks who go to a store and buy up all the hot toys for Christmas and then sell them at a premium on EBAY.