GOLD.CO.UK (The Best Gold domain in The UK)

[Bailey]

it's a very worthwhile domain at 1.5 -2.0 range - I am working outside the domains history -To just where the word 'Gold' sits within that market as a uk term - each to our own

 

[Bailey]

Ron jackson@ Dnjournal is a great guy - who takes his eye off the ball - one day he will look back and say "it was all in the palm of my hand"

You only need to look as his time away from Dnjournal to understand his belief in "I am"

Tut Tut

 

[newguy]

In a sense the more a company pays for this the better (for them, not just you). Paying £250,000 for GOLD.CO.UK would probably be worth a mint in free advertising, from the publicity of the sale alone. That's before you consider the type ins, the prestige of the name itself, the added value that it will bring to advertising campaigns etc.

 

[anthony]

Might be time Barry approached one of the companies listed in this FT article last night:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/455cefda-3874-11e0-959c-00144feabdc0.html

This article may not resolve for some, so it basically leads with...

The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against companies that buy gold online from consumers, resulting in two closing down and three changing their practices. With the price of gold rising, there has been a surge in companies that offer to buy gold jewellery. The consumer watchdog said it was keen to ensure that “these markets develop with an appropriate level of consumer protection”.
Three companies, CashMyGold, Cash4Gold and Postal Gold, said they would make changes to business practices after the inquiry. But two others, CashYourGoldNow and Money4Gold, ceased trading after the OFT probe...

They'd possibly be looking for a good name change to re-enter the market, what could be better than Gold.co.uk!

 

[markb]

In a sense the more a company pays for this the better (for them, not just you). Paying £250,000 for GOLD.CO.UK would probably be worth a mint in free advertising, from the publicity of the sale alone.

I dont agree with this statement at all. Paying £80k or £300k wont make much difference in free advertising for the buyer. A few more domainers may see the news if it fetched a good price, but it wont bring in any more customers for the buyer of the domain. If I was the buyer, I would rather buy the domain for £80k and then spend the rest of the money on a good tv and newspaper marketing campaign aimed at potential customers.

 

[newguy]

I dont agree with this statement at all. Paying £80k or £300k wont make much difference in free advertising for the buyer. A few more domainers may see the news if it fetched a good price, but it wont bring in any more customers for the buyer of the domain. If I was the buyer, I would rather buy the domain for £80k and then spend the rest of the money on a good tv and newspaper marketing campaign aimed at potential customers.

Wel, yes, perhaps I went a bit overboard with that. I was thinking along the lines of if they could manage to get this news into the mainstream. I agree that people aren't generally interested in the cost of domains. It's a domain with such impact and prestige though, that with media connections I'm sure that a really big sale to a 'cash for gold' company has tremendous potential in terms of column inches (Gold.co.uk goes for a mint etc), which is publicity you can't buy. I think there's be much more chance of that with a £100,000 name, than a sub £100,000 name.

Anyway, it seems that countless companies have failed to realise the value of this domain in the past, so in lowballing they miss out entirely on all aspects of the potential of gold.co.uk .

 

[markb]

It was on the news the other night about the various cash 4 gold websites and the fact that they needed to be monitored more closely, because trading standards had received hundreds of complaints from people who had sent their gold off to be valued, and when they asked for the gold back, they found out it had already been melted down before they told the companies they where happy to sell.


I would say this domain is more suitable to a company that deals in gold bullion for investers than one of those cash 4 gold websites with their tv adverts and jingles.

 

[newguy]

I would say this domain is more suitable to a company that deals in gold bullion for investers than one of those cash 4 gold websites with their tv adverts and jingles.

Who buys it, and who it's most suitable for may be two different things . Any of the aforementioned companies/industries could have owned this domain in a heartbeat, if the potential of it had dawned on them. I think people are coming around to its value though, and I expect this will go for a very serious amount sometime this year.

 

[websaway]

Who buys it, and who it's most suitable for may be two different things . Any of the aforementioned companies/industries could have owned this domain in a heartbeat, if the potential of it had dawned on them. I think people are coming around to its value though, and I expect this will go for a very serious amount sometime this year.

I'm surprised that there is only 40,000 google exact's. I would have thought it would be higher.

 

[essexboy]

Why would you expect higher exacts? Why would you search for the word gold? wouldn't you be more likely to search for "sell gold" or "scrap gold" etc..

And the companies that are already in the game have spent fortunes building their brands so they would have to start again with a new domain. If it's not an exact keyword search then surely you might as well register soggyplums.co.uk as it's going to be a brand building exercise imho.

 

[Frog]

I think Doug got far more mileage from paying £100k exactly than he'd have got from bargaining down to 95k... once it steps up to 6 figures its seen as a lot more. Whether the publicity was worth the difference in price is hard to say.

One domain that I think definitely benefited from this type of thought was poker.org - moreso given how hard it is to get natural links in that niche. Loads of blogs wrote about that deal closing for $1m - when I looked at it before they were getting a load of brilliant links from sites that probably wouldn't have cared otherwise. I think if they bargained that deal down to 950k it might have cost them more than 50k in the long run.