Successclick, Domain Monetization

MY RANTS GO BIG, BUT I’M STILL UNWORTHY

Well, today I have been honored by two big voices in the domain industry, one who gives me credit, and another who, well, probably would vomit if forced to do so…

Let’s start with Owen Frager of the Fragerfactor.com. He picked up on a side comment I made on Michael Berkens blog about Madison Avenue. It’s the same thing I’ve been saying for three years, but I appreciate Owen’s recognition and credit given to me about my “observation”.

I think in the archives of my blog here, I’ve commented several times about Madison Avenue agencies fearing domains. I know I made about 20 posts on domain forums about this. I worked as a consultant for one of the largest MAA’s, Foote Cone & Belding, so I know the intricacies of their “profit model”. One thing MAA’s don’t want is having a client purchase a domain name for 1/10 their ad agency budget and then seeing that domain perform better, and forever, bringing in eyeballs. This is a clearcut “crystal ball” of advertising investment success for any company.  Spend $1 million on a domain name that brings in eyeballs 24/7/365, or pay an ad agency $10 million for a campaign that lasts, well… maybe 60-90 days.  And, throw in the kiss by the pretty girl when you score the touchdown – the investment in the domain appreciates, so as I’ve said, a domain is an “appreciable marketing asset.” It is a fact that many domain companies that failed during the Great Internet Bubble Massacre in 2000 had domains worth more than the company’s other assets.

The MAA’s don’t like this idea, and really are terrified of it. I actually found a “Brandweek.com” article alluding to this back in 2005. “New Media” advertising was threatening the “old guard”. It was regarding the Johnson & Johnson “baby.com” domain purchase and branding. Contact me if you want to read it.

Then Rick Schwartz writes about “incestuous” domaining, which is great to see his change of heart, because for years, he’s promoted his TRAFFIC conferences as being only for the “best of the best” attending. There is a reason the term “bluebloods” came about. It referred to royalty back in medieval times, where the court advisors believed royal bloodlines should only marry each other, which kind of weakened the DNA of the spawn, hence “bluebloods”.

I coined the term “incestuous domaining” years ago, because I knew that selling domains back and forth to the same group of people, especially at domain conferences, would eventually diminish the value of the domain unless the buyer/domainer developed it.

So I’m honored by Owen’s recognition of my observation (really a fact) that I’ve been pushing for years, and I’m really honored that Rick The King would be influenced (or will this be denied?) by my longtime and recent comments about “incestuous” domaining.  Go to TRAFFIC and see the changes for the better in domain conferences!

Either way, it only matters that this industry focuses on the right markets, brings in the right demographics, reaches out to the right people, works to present themselves legitimately and transparently, and ultimately… for all of us… those people at the end of our invitations will be excited and interested end users.

Cheers!