shopping.com sold for $600million BECAUSE they rebranded from dealtime.com which floundered for years BEFORE rebranding

http://frankschilling.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/scott-austin-do.html#comments
[[.....]]

June 27, 2007
"And You Want to Be My Latex Salesman..." - Scott Austin Doesn't Quite Get It

Dan sends link to Scott Austin's column...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/names-now-elusive-cash-some/story.aspx?guid=%7BF9C03C2F%2D15F1%2D4F9F%2DA791%2D8BB8851EFEB0%7D

I can't believe this guys writes for a business news outlet,
he misquotes cybersquatting and gives these web 2.0 guys way too easy a pass.

[[.....]]

Domain names are the most significant thing of value behind many Internet companies.
Hotels.com <--- it's about the name, not Diller. [[[[[[[[[ 'the edittor notes : ::::: ''Diller'' 's the 1 in the top management of the group which owns Hotels.com ]]]]]]]]] CheapTickets.com <--- It was a huge natural search term "before"
it was a brand.
Shopping.com<--- sold for 600 million
because they rebranded from 'dealtime.com'
(which floundered for years before rebranding).
I could go on and on.

[[.....]]

Comments

[[.....]]

Well I can tell you that your message GOT through.
Dow Jones-Telerate found it's way to my post, and then clicked on the link to yours,
after searching for "scott austin"
on Google (blogsearch)
where I with my blogger[[.com]] platform advantage are #1
[[[[[[[[[ 'the edittor notes : :::::
blogger[[.com]]'s o'[of]
my dear((;oyes-real-very-dear-in-term-o'-stocksprice;)) google
]]]]]]]]]
;--^),
but you can't miss the Frank headline
"Scott Austin Doesn't Quite Get It15 hours ago by Frank Schilling " a couple down
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22scott%20austin%22&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
btw,
blogsearch is a google secret weapon
(maybe not so much any more.. but they've changed the location twice)
Posted by: owen frager June 27, 2007 at 04:22 PM
[[[[[[[[[ 'the edittor notes : :::::
this post by My Dear Sir Own Frager may seem a little bit off topic ,
but ,
still do i list here just4fun;--^),
]]]]]]]]]
;--^),

[[.....]]

Wow Frank -- your comments are normally insightful, but this post was just plain lame.

You clearly show you're out of touch with Silicon Valley and didn't get the point of the column ... Scott is saying that many good Web start-ups with good ideas AREN'T spending as much money on domain addresses these days. Whether or not that's smart is another story.

Many venture-backed Internet companies with great tech are dreaming up words that don't exist to avoid paying a domainer like yourself big bucks. This isn't true with every start-up, but if you ask a lot of us entrepreneurs around, it's certainly a trend. Venture capitalists usually fund the technology and people, not the domain name.

As Scott says, there are some new cases of VC-BACKED companies that have recently formed around a domain name like back during the tech boom...what has healthcare.com and education.com done over the years bouncing around between owners? Jack squat.
Need a good business model to be a shopping.com, not just a domain name.

Simply put, seems you didn't quite get it.

-Daniel

***FS*** He incorrectly uses the term "cybersquatted".. so he doesn't "quite" get it. That's a derogatory (and incorrect) term in this story's context. I made that clear at the top of my post, everybody else seemed to agree.

Posted by: Daniel June 27, 2007 at 09:23 PM

Daniel,

healthcare.com and education.com have bounced around do nothing
and their vlaue just keeps going up.
And this is because all the smart healthcare companines and schools in this country and around the world do not yet see the value in them NOW.
Just because they do not see the value themselves...does not mean the value is not there.
When they finally do see the value and no how to "unlock" it...its going to cost them 5x-30x more for them...and they still will be getting a deal...just not as good of a deal as now.
___

""Many venture-backed Internet companies with great tech are dreaming up words that don't exist to avoid paying a domainer like yourself big bucks. This isn't true with every start-up, but if you ask a lot of us entrepreneurs around, it's certainly a trend. Venture capitalists usually fund the technology and people, not the domain name.""
__

Frank's not missing anything...this is 1000% backwords thinking on their part.
It like they are putting one quarter into the slot machine
...instead of putting the max of 5 quarters in
...when the jackpot is hit
...they are screwing themselves on the "payoff"
...by only having one quater in the machine.

one quarter= bad domain
five quaters= good domain
__

""As Scott says, there are some new cases of VC-BACKED companies that have recently formed around a domain name like back during the tech boom...what has healthcare.com and education.com done over the years bouncing around between owners? Jack squat. Need a good business model to be a shopping.com, not just a domain name.""
__

This is "forward thinking" because, unlike the "tech bust" of 2000...
there were no "sound business" models back then.
Today, sound internet and domain business models are popping up all over the place and will only excelerate.
I agree you need both...
[[[[[[[[[ 'the edittor notes : :::::
v[we] do 100.000% agree ,
even our this blog's xxx.xxx% 4[for] generic domains ,
but ,
v'rnt[we-are-not] blindly ,
v will-n-WILL apply this very approach in our own net projet
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
and today,
business models are becoming very sound
which is making good domains even more valuable...
which there are only a limited supply of
.
Peace,Dan

Posted by: Dan June 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Sorry...forgot spell-check in my last post. I have a bit of disability... when it comes to sentence structure and spelling and a couple of other things. What are you going do?...LOL

Peace,Dan

Posted by: Dan June 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

[[.....]]