RE: [DNS] thread.119

RE: [DNS] thread.119

From: Mark Hughes <effectivebusiness§>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:18:07 +1100
> What do you think?

Not much, of that line of reasoning.

The starting assumption is that is automatically 'better'
than a less generic version of the same thing.  That's a wrong assumption.
Generic names are less valuable than non-generic names, not more.

That's why the company that has '' stopped using it and changed to
'' - because they worked out that you can't successfully brand a
generic name.  Go to and you'll see.

And the Australian Cricket Board brands its site as:

  Baggy Green - home of Australian Cricket

and even then they re-direct to another name.  Try or and see how important (or not) they reckon a domain name is,

You can't successfully brand a generic name.

Gee, I mean, I'm really really sorry that I keep pointing out that all those
hype articles written over the years by clueless journos about 'how great
generic names are' are a load of codswallop, but lets face it - generic
names are crap.

Hey, don't take my word for it - the proof is available on the internet.  If
generic domain names were 'better' than non-generic names, then they would
be over-represented in any list of successful web sites.  They ain't.
They're virtually non-existent in any list of successful web sites.


Not very generic, are they?

Having an auction as a mechanism to put the generic domain names
into play is a bit like Churchill's definition of democracy: pretty poor,
but better than all the alternatives.

> they received the bad news that after they applied the domain
> name ‘’ had been placed on the list of GENERIC
> names and was no longer available.  After that Anne and Dave
> put their Internet plans on hold and have been
> tossing around the idea of getting out of the industry.

Yeah, I bet that's how the guys who started Yahoo worked.  I can just see
them a decade ago sitting around saying:

 "sorry guys, we couldn't get '' so we might as well abandon
our plans.  A wacky name like would never work - lets give up now"

Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
+61 4 1374 3959

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lin [mailto:nanchou&#167;]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:12
> To: dns&#167;
> Subject: [DNS] thread.119
> Hi
> I am interested in the claims that the auction is the 'fairest way' to
> dispose of the domain names and that the entity that 'values them
> the most'
> will be able to purchase them
> So we understand what we are talking about here lets develop the
> scenario of
> two entities who will be bidding for the domain name ‘’.
> Business 1 is a publicly listed company with assets of $35,000,000 and
> yearly profit of $4,000,000. Widgets are a very small part of
> their overall
> business but they do own the business name: ‘australian gidgets,
> didgets,nidgets, fidgets and widgets service’ which they obtained as a
> result of taking over a smaller competitor. They have no plans to
> purchase
> ‘’ but the web-development company they use
> contacts them and
> tells them it is available at auction. Although they can’t see
> any use for
> it in the short-term their web-developer tells them that they can
> just point
> it to their company site and if they get it their competitors will not be
> able to use it. Not wanting to end up with egg on their face if a
> competitor
> gets ‘’ they decide to allocate $10,000 to secure
> the name at
> auction.
> Business 2 is a small family business named ‘Anne and Dave’s Complete
> Widgets’. Anne and Dave specialise in widgets and pride
> themselves on having
> the widest range in Australia. They have a shop front but rely mainly on
> mail orders for business. Business has been slow for a while and
> some time
> ago they became concerned about how the Internet would eat into their
> mail-order business. Eighteen months ago they decided to develop
> a website
> and contacted a specialist who informed them that ‘’ was
> available for purchase and would make an excellent domain name.
> After giving
> the developer the go-ahead they received the bad news that after they
> applied the domain name ‘’ had been placed on the list of
> GENERIC names and was no longer available.
> After that Anne and Dave put their Internet plans on hold and have been
> tossing around the idea of getting out of the industry. Anne and
> Dave’s only
> assets are $250,000 equity in their family home and their business is
> currently making a yearly profit of $50,000. Now the developer they
> initially contacted about the web site contacts them and tells
> them the name
> ‘’ is going up for auction. This makes Anne and Dave very
> excited because this is a chance for them to stay in the industry
> and build
> a business for their future. They decide to allocate $5,000 for
> the purchase
> of the domain name.
> Who values it more?
> Business 1 was not really interested in the name and does not
> intend to use
> it but will buy it so a competitor will not be able to use it.
> Business 2 have previously applied for the name when it was available and
> see the name as the key to the survival of their business.
> Business 1 have allocated $10,000, or 0.03% of their total assets
> and 0.25%
> of their annual profit on purchasing the name.
> Business 2 have allocated $5,000 or 2% of their total assets and 10% of
> their annual profits to purchase the name.
> What is the best social outcome?
> Purchase by Business 1 will mean the widget business become more
> centralised
> and result in higher prices. Purchase by Business 2 will mean that the
> people involved can remain with their business and the people of
> Australia
> can have a wider choice of widget retailers.
> What is the best outcome in terms of the development of Internet
> businesses
> in Australia?
> Purchase by Business 1 will mean the name will not be used, purchase by
> Business 2 means the Internet business will become the focus of their
> operations and increase the overall number of Internet businesses in
> Australia.
> (Purchase by Business 1 also brings substantial benefits to those
> involved
> in selecting and managing this style of auction disposal method
> which I do
> not intend to discuss here)
> What is the final decision regarding the fairest way to dispose of
> ‘’?
> Organising the disposal so that Business 1, the company with the deepest
> pockets, can buy it is seen as the ‘fairest way’ to dispose of
> ‘’.
> What do you think?
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC