CatchDomains.co.uk catching prices lowered

[Systreg]

Catches were starting at £35 on my CatchDomains.co.uk drop catching site, but I've just dropped the starting price for catches to £21. This lower price will last from now until the end of Jun 2018, prices will then increase to £27 and stay at that price.

 

[Systreg]

Three domains caught for £21 since Friday, and there are plenty of names on drop lists that are well worth booking at this price.

 

[Systreg]

Just a note, I made the decision to close a clients account tonight, nothing personal against them, It was just that they book a lot of domains, as many as 3 or 4 on some days, which will obviously affect my ability to catch domains for them, or my other clients. As an example, there were currently 68 bookings, of which 50 were for the account I closed.

There's no benefit to having one client taking up multiple slots, all it means is I'll have multiple domains loaded each day for them and other clients, plus any I have reserved, and with so many polling, it makes the system uncompetitive, so for that reason, I had to close their account.

This is just to let people know, there's no point signing up to the catch service if you're going to be booking multiple domains every day, that's not workable and nobody catches anything that way.

 

[lazarus]

Yes going for 2 at once is almost always a fruitless exercise even if they are marginally contested.

 

[RobM]

Why would you lower prices to encourage people to backorder lots of domains they wouldn't normally (and hopefully not contested) then refuse to chase lots of domains? That seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely it would make more sense to increase your prices to cut out 'non-contested' domain orders?

 

[Systreg]

Your missing the point, it was one client booking multiple domains, all of which were highly contested backlink domains booked at all catchers, which clearly affects the catching ability for all other clients. It was like running a personal catch service for one person, and other clients weren't getting a look in.

The lower price isn't solely to do with getting more bookings, it's also to see if it's worth continuing, as the catch service has to be profitable, and if not, I'll close and go back to catching for myself. Successful catches have been low recently, and I haven't seen any increase in bookings since lowering the price, but after only catching 1 domain in May, there have been 4 catches so far in the first week of June at £21, not sure if that's coincidence or not.

Why would you lower prices to encourage people to backorder lots of domains they wouldn't normally (and hopefully not contested) then refuse to chase lots of domains?

I'm not refusing to chase lots of domains, it's lots of domains booked by one person!

Even if lowering prices did encourage some people to book domains they might not normally book, and if they're (hopefully not contested), would that be a bad thing? Wouldn't it make more sense to be chasing lesser contested (if they were) names, rather than domains booked at multiple catchers, more chance of a catch that way.

There are different client types, admittedly, they're mostly domainers, but also clients like I had early on that were after brandable names that seemed to be mostly non/less contested, and I caught quite a lot of those. People like that might be encouraged to book a domain if they see a low catch price in the £2x's, rather than £45 or £50, and if it's a non/lesser contested name, all the better.

Even amongst domainers, there are some who will pay a lower amount for what might be a lesser contested domain, where they might otherwise not want to pay £35 or more and load it for themselves instead. For example, someone could have 3 names they're after on any given day, maybe load 2 or just the best name of the day for themselves, and book the least contested 2nd or 3rd name, I've done that myself countless times.

Surely it would make more sense to increase your prices to cut out 'non-contested' domain orders?

Why would someone increase prices to cut out possible "non-contested" domain orders? Non contested names would be the best ones to have loaded, as you're more likely to catch one of those, not sure why you'd want to cut those out, shame more weren't contested as much

I did think about increasing prices, but saw no benefit in it.

 

[RobM]

If one person books ten domains or ten people book the same domains does it matter? I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve - you either want more domains booked (thus lowering chances on contested names but giving you domains that probably won't be booked elsewhere) or you want less domains booked (thus giving you more chance on contested domains). Being that the vast majority of names aren't booked I can understand lowering prices to tempt people into booking them. However lowering prices and then refusing someone booking a lot of domains really doesn't make any sense. Anyway don't take my comments personally just I don't think you can run a public system using the mentality of a lottery high value catch. All you appear to be doing is lowering your potential income but also wanting to lower chances of catching by having less to chase (more contested) for £21 per catch.

Basically I'm not saying what I think you should do but this is what will happen in a public model:

Lower prices - more people will book more domains - lower chance of catching contested domains but potentially higher 'bulk' sales.
Higher prices - less people will book domains - higher chance of catching contested domains but potentially lower 'bulk' sales.

Which one of the above does lowering price and then stopping people booking domains fall into?

 

[Systreg]

I wasn't expecting a conversation. I don't think there's much else to add, that I didn't say in post #3, which was just a note to anyone thinking of booking multiple domains.

Other than that, yes, it does matter to me if 1 person booked 10 domains or 10 people booked 1 domain each, because the service is for everyone, I'm not running it just for one person.

I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve

Not really trying to achirve anything, other than make it fairer for everyone booking, rather than just one person having the lions share of bookings and DAC quota thrown at their domains, and as above, I'm looking to see if it's worth continuing with the service.

Basically I'm not saying what I think you should do but this is what will happen in a public model:

Lower prices - more people will book more domains - lower chance of catching contested domains but potentially higher 'bulk' sales.

Higher prices - less people will book domains - higher chance of catching contested domains but potentially lower 'bulk' sales.

I don't consider things like that, but given the choice, I'd prefer to catch a number of domains for £21, rather than a once in a blue moon catch for £500 on heavily contested names, nothing more to say really.

 

[meslam123]

I don't want to interface with the post, but from what I saw, the way Systreg is doing getting more people to backorder domains which considered "non-contested" is the right thing rather than the usual backordered domains which will be mainly booked in every possible public catching service reducing the chances of getting enough successful catches to keep up the service

 

[RobM]

Ok fair enough.

 

[ian]

I get the moral stand-point, but putting aside not wishing for one client to book so many, if it were the other way around, and many clients were booking single domains, aren't you still suffering the same position of 'watering down' your chances of catching? Ultimately reducing your fee (which is great) makes it worthwhile for your clients to book domains they otherwise wouldn't consider worth it at double that price, thereby creating a system where you have more bookings on any given day, so the same issue of limited quota, regardless of whether it is for the few, or the masses.

The only way you can limit the number of domains you chase, so you have the opportunity of catching the top domains of the domain, would be to increase your price, rather than reduce it. I suspect most domains being booked are seo related, that perhaps are worth a punt at ~£20, but not at ~£50.

As said though, I get what you are saying, and I'm sure you don't wish to debate it further, you were just making a point which I respect.

 

[Systreg]

This is my last reply on this matter, so nobody should waste their time replying, as I wont be.

Just to clarify one thing first, Rob mentioned this lowering my potential income, well, I'm really not bothered about making a big income off this, it's not always about the money or making loads of money. The only income I need from the system is that it pays for itself to make it worth my time continuing to use it, anything else is just pocket money.

When I started this catcher, the plan was to use it as a free way to pay for domain renewals. I was hoping to average 4 catches per month, that would generate £140 per month, - £30 for the catcher rental, - £20 for 4 x domain registrations, - 4 x £5 catch credits to be replaced, leaving about £70, which would be used for domain renewals. If I caught more than 4 per month, that would be a bonus, who wouldn't not like to catch loads more, but it's not an expectation.

putting aside not wishing for one client to book so many, if it were the other way around, and many clients were booking single domains, aren't you still suffering the same position of 'watering down' your chances of catching?

No, that's an assumption people might make, but nobody knows the figures to make that assumption, this isn't a service with loads of people making bookings, let me give some examples so that people have a clearer view.

The catcher has been running for 8 months, during that time, 60 domains have been caught for 18 clients, of those caught, 26 were for just 2 of the 18 clients, leaving 34 catches for the other 16 clients.

There are 90 client accounts, of those, 65 have added their registrant info to be able to book domains, but of those 65, there are probably only around 10 who make regular bookings.

So, when people say that clients will be watering things down by booking loads of domains, that isn't going to happen, unless a lot of those 65 clients suddenly start booking domains, unlikely.

What does water down chances of catching is when individuals book too many domains, if one client books for 3 or 4 backlink domains on any day, those are highly contested names, and that lessens the chances of catching names for them, and it lessens the chance of catching for other clients, and also for any I load for myself.

I'd prefer it if people didn't bother booking backlink names at all, to me they're a waste of DAC, people might as well not book them, as they'll be booked at a dozen other catchers, they just waste DAC and your unlikely to catch any. Maybe I should delete all accounts who book backlink names until people get the message, now there's a thought, end of story as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ian]

Totally understand your position; I know you won't wish to reply, but I wonder if dropping your fee down has resulted in more backlink back orders from the said individual? Only you'll know. If it has, perhaps that in itself has resulted in this issue? Cause and effect. Higher fee, less likely clients will gamble on the value of most backlink domains. Interesting topic though.

 

[Systreg]

One last reply, no, lowering the fee didn't result in more backlink names being booked, they batch book a load every month, and did the same a couple of days ago, which was about 10 days since the price was lowered. No more replies now

 

[meslam123]

Sorry for replying but i want to add something, the same client who was loading my closed public service with dozens of backlink domains which result in no successful catches in my system for nearly 1 month and I didn't have the time to check that, as i was busy in my work but after checking it was frustrating

 

[ian]

Sorry for replying but i want to add something, the same client who was loading my closed public service with dozens of backlink domains which result in no successful catches in my system for nearly 1 month and I didn't have the time to check that, as i was busy in my work but after checking it was frustrating

I'm missing something. Isn't that the point, that regardless of whether it is one client or dozens, it is designed to allow as many bookings as possible for you to chase. If it creates a circumstance where you are assigning so little quota to chasing that it isn't efficient, then surely a way in which the system can limit the number of bookings per day would work better (especially on a fixed price catch solution). The public catchers seem to pick up a reasonable amount of less contested domains, so surely your system would be no different; yes it won't catch the contested domains, but does that matter on a fixed price? Have you considered the dbcatch approach, which has tiered pricing which I assume means they prioritise some over others.

(sorry to keep this thread alive, just a genuine interest in how different operators approach this issue)

 

[meslam123]

I'm missing something. Isn't that the point, that regardless of whether it is one client or dozens, it is designed to allow as many bookings as possible for you to chase. If it creates a circumstance where you are assigning so little quota to chasing that it isn't efficient, then surely a way in which the system can limit the number of bookings per day would work better (especially on a fixed price catch solution). The public catchers seem to pick up a reasonable amount of less contested domains, so surely your system would be no different; yes it won't catch the contested domains, but does that matter on a fixed price?

(sorry to keep this thread alive, just a genuine interest in how different operators approach this issue)

Yes, i have recommended limiting the number of bookorders per day to Rob before closing the service as it's the most logic idea get in my mind to fix this situation.

Have you considered the dbcatch approach, which has tiered pricing which I assume means they prioritise some over others.

Yes I have thought about it, but it will need more code employing from Rob's side and most public catchers that use Domainview public catching system prefer auction type setup so i can't ask for myself, specially considering rob charging low for the service.

ian any more discussion through PM to respect Systreg request to end the conversation

 

[ian]

ian any more discussion through PM to respect Systreg request to end the conversation

Yes, you are right, hadn't realised it was originally Kev's thread. In any case, his pricing is very favorable and certainly everyone should use when they require a booking.