DL Sale: paydaylender.co.uk (300 GBP)

[websaway]

No real thoughts on it, as I'm not going to watch an hour long interview :lol:

I still think true category killer emd's have a great value - what I'm saying is an utter scam today is the 4 and 5 word turds being flung around.

There is a world of difference between swapping your actual site to a paydayloans.co.uk or carloans.com.au, and suggesting someone set up 100's of landers on every single shit emd they can get their hands on.

I think your long post was great and valuable grist for the mill.
However the post above does seem to contradict the carinsurance.co.uk
point that you make in that post as to it's current value.

 

[Retired_Member42]

I think your long post was great and valuable grist for the mill.
However the post above does seem to contradict the carinsurance.co.uk
point that you make in that post as to it's current value.

I think the point he was making that "car insurance" as a keyword is a bit too specific to have a brand built around. As he pointed out, lots of insurance companies offer home, car, life insurance etc so a real company building out carinsurance.co.uk would be losing a huge chunk of the market in doing so. As has been said many times, you're not going to rank a thin affiliate site in this niche so investing in such a domain for that angle would be useless also. Taking these two things into account, I can understand why he doesn't see the value in it.

However, keyword domains which encompass everything your company could offer (short of branching out into other niches completely) will still have great value. MobilePhones.co.uk, Laptops.co.uk, WebHosting.co.uk, SEO.co.uk, Marketing.co.uk etc

 

[Retired_Member38]

I think your long post was great and valuable grist for the mill.
However the post above does seem to contradict the carinsurance.co.uk
point that you make in that post as to it's current value.

CarInsurance is a bit of a funny one really, its an outlying example and doesn't fit in with many of the general things I've posted about.

I can't think of a single actual insurer who deals in car insurance alone. I don't think there is any, I might be wrong though.

Every major brand is spending an absolute fortune promoting their brand further. It would make no sense at all for Aviva or Axa to harm that branding front and build a standalone site on carinsurance.co.uk

Likewise with PPC, they want their own brand getting seen. Plus even if carinsurance.co.uk got a slightly higher quality score, their own brand would end up getting a better CTR as its a trusted brand that people have heard of.

An affiliate building out carinsurance.co.uk in 2014 is a non starter. Its just never going to rank.

So genuine question here, feel free to answer this anyone. If no end users are interested in buying it, and no affiliates can run a business from it, where is the actual value?

To me, its only actual value is selling it on to some other sucker. I think too many domainers forget that at the end of each chain of sales and flips, there needs to be a person willing and able to develop the domain into a real website, and make money from it. If that person doesn't exist, the domain is worthless.

I wouldn't take carinsurance.co.uk for free, if I had to use my own time and money to develop it, and wasn't allowed to sell it.

 

[archibel]

So genuine question here, feel free to answer this anyone. If no end users are interested in buying it, and no affiliates can run a business from it, where is the actual value?
QUOTE]

I think the value is in the hands of a broker such as esure. They successfully created the brand Shiela's Wheels from scratch which isn't just car insurance...it's gender specific car insurance. I could see someone like this with deep advertising pockets being interested because it is a great domain for advertising recall. (I've used contactlenses.co.uk for years without second thought simply because it's easy to recall & type the domain.)

The owner must be choking on his cornflakes reading about the £10M income he has lost...I have no idea, maybe this is correct. But it's not just about revenue; if the domain/site was generating significant business, then it could well have become a target for someone like Compare, MoneySupermarket etc for REALLY silly money.

I don't know what the owner paid for it, but it clearly still has a value which is different to each person/company. For myself, it would be £50K and I'd be happy to sit on it hoping to sell for 10x what I paid but knowing it probably wouldn't achieve this in my lifetime. (Then when I'm propping up the daisies, one of my daughters will let it drop!)

 

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

MoneySupermarket

They must have approached him to buy it at some point looking at other domains they have, seems like he said no.

 

[mojoco]

They must have approached him to buy it at some point looking at other domains they have, seems like he said no.

Fairly sure that the stable of premium domains they bought were existing lead generation sites, they were not pure domain sales.

 

[retired_member34]

I could see someone like this with deep advertising pockets being interested because it is a great domain for advertising recall. (I've used contactlenses.co.uk for years without second thought simply because it's easy to recall & type the domain.)

I think this is where most domainers, because we are so focused on domain names (and I include myself in this), differ from the rest of the public, at least according to most of the advertising industry. Most marketing types will state the exact opposite to this, the general consensus is that the use of generic words makes it harder to recall, not easier.

If you accept this argument then the only reason left for using an EMD is PPC, which have already been argued as being a red herring.

 

[websaway]

A lot of their best names came as part of their acquisition of Financial Services Net (mortgages.co.uk, savings.co.uk etc..). They paid £9m for the company.

+ lifeinsurance homeinsurance

seems like a good deal, even now.

 

[AssetDomains]

A lot of their best names came as part of their acquisition of Financial Services Net (mortgages.co.uk, savings.co.uk etc..). They paid £9m for the company.

Anyone else thinks its nuts that they don't point these to the relevant section of there website.
Or are they looking for someone to make an offer on them

 

[SkinnerSkinner is verified member.]

Or were they blocking someone doing as Monkey said with the EMD bonus from taking a chunk outta their pocket ?

Anyone else thinks its nuts that they don't point these to the relevant section of there website.
Or are they looking for someone to make an offer on them

 

[ChrisMM]

Or were they blocking someone doing as Monkey said with the EMD bonus from taking a chunk outta their pocket ?

That's a very good point.

 

[AssetDomains]

Or were they blocking someone doing as Monkey said with the EMD bonus from taking a chunk outta their pocket ?

I'm sure that's why they bought them but now they have them is it crazy that they just resolve to blank pages.

I know type in is not was it was but I would think something like mortgages.co.uk would get some type in traffic

 

[Retired_Member38]

I'm sure that's why they bought them but now they have them is it crazy that they just resolve to blank pages.

I know type in is not was it was but I would think something like mortgages.co.uk would get some type in traffic

I haven't checked, but given the age of all of those sites it wouldn't be a surprise at all if some of them had a pretty horrific back link profile. Perhaps they're not forwarding and/or linked to the main site to avoid passing any penalty to it. Or being seen as crappy doorway pages. MSM break the rules in a lot of places and really deserved to be penalised to be honest... they might have decided its not worth pushing it on this single issue as one penalty could bring the whole house of cards down.

The owner must be choking on his cornflakes reading about the £10M income he has lost...I have no idea, maybe this is correct. But it's not just about revenue; if the domain/site was generating significant business, then it could well have become a target for someone like Compare, MoneySupermarket etc for REALLY silly money.

My numbers were very very rough.... but there is no way the number lost could be less than £5m. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it turned out to be 8 figures, and the first number there might not even be a 1.

I don't think you can really say if it were generating significant business it'd become a target though... you can say the exact same about a £1-10k generic domain with the same traffic.

 

[retired_member34]

I wouldn't take carinsurance.co.uk for free.

This message really is hard to get through, or is it that it is still not accepted?

A lot of their best names came as part of their acquisition of Financial Services Net (mortgages.co.uk, savings.co.uk etc..). They paid £9m for the company.

+ lifeinsurance homeinsurance

seems like a good deal, even now.

 

[retired_member34]

This is what MSM themselves have to say about the purchase of FSN domains, in 2013:

At the end of 2012, the Group has again assessed the expected trading performance of FSN, taking into account the impact of the lower importance that direct match domain names now have in natural search algorithms. Consequently the Group has recognised an impairment charge of £4.4m in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income in relation to its intangible assets, being the net book value of those assets as at the end of 2012.

(my bolding).

To paraphrase, they recognised in 2012 that the value of the domains, that already had been written down a certain amount, needed to be written off entirely at that time.

 

[websaway]

I think this is where most domainers, because we are so focused on domain names (and I include myself in this), differ from the rest of the public, at least according to most of the advertising industry. Most marketing types will state the exact opposite to this, the general consensus is that the use of generic words makes it harder to recall, not easier.

If you accept this argument then the only reason left for using an EMD is PPC, which have already been argued as being a red herring.

So if the worlds largest drink company were starting out today, their new brand name would have easier recall than the generic word "DRINK"

I can't see that.

 

[archibel]

This is what MSM themselves have to say about the purchase of FSN domains, in 2013:

(my bolding).

To paraphrase, they recognised in 2012 that the value of the domains, that already had been written down a certain amount, needed to be written off entirely at that time.

Interesting. Their valuation policy is as follows:

Within FSN, the main market related intangible assets are the domain names which FSN owns. These assets were valued using an income-based approach, namely, the royalty savings method, which estimates the royalty which the Group would have to pay a third party to use the domain names if it did not own them, typically as a percentage of the revenue earned from the domain names during their useful economic life of 10 years.

Clearing, the "revenue earning potential" drove the initial capitalization value and subsequent write-off...which is a strange model to use given (as far as I'm aware) MSN never attempted to leverage these domains to generate income using their "exact match" benefit.

The cost of buying/leasing domains hasn't noticeably decreased since the FSN acquisition date. So arguably they could still be on the balance sheet at the acquisition value.

 

[DaveP]

The cost of buying/leasing domains hasn't noticeably decreased..

Lol thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

 

[retired_member34]

Interesting. Their valuation policy is as follows:

Within FSN, the main market related intangible assets are the domain names which FSN owns. These assets were valued using an income-based approach, namely, the royalty savings method, which estimates the royalty which the Group would have to pay a third party to use the domain names if it did not own them, typically as a percentage of the revenue earned from the domain names during their useful economic life of 10 years.

It went on to state

The Group estimated revenue based on the most recent 3 year forecasts

Clearing, the "revenue earning potential" drove the initial capitalization value and subsequent write-off...which is a strange model to use given (as far as I'm aware) MSN never attempted to leverage these domains to generate income using their "exact match" benefit.

Archive.org shows sites on mortgages.co.uk both before and after the purchase of FSN, in fact there there was a site on it at the time of the report. The revenues tanked, I assume.

 

[DaveP]

Monkey and Sean are correct, anyone saying otherwise should realise greed got the better of them and they held on to something far longer than they should.