Geographic Domain Names

Finding Affiliate Partners for Websites

One of the primary reasons I chose to re-design Lowell.com was to change my approach to advertising sales. At the moment, the sales process is manual, and advertisers cannot sign up without contacting me. Big mistake. I am not a great sales person when it comes to advertising, and I don’t like making cold calls or sending emails. As a result, I only have a few advertisers on the site.

With the new site (which I hope to launch within 2 weeks), advertisers will be able to create and pay for directory listings manually in the Yellow Pages, although the more expensive banners will still be generated by me. I’ve had considerable interest in Yellow Pages listings, and I expect the revenue from listings to pay for the re-design within just a few months.

Although I have a few local advertisers (including the Courtyard by Marriott), I want to add some affiliate banners as well (including a new prominent 728×90 spot and 250×250 spot). Finding appropriate affiliate programs is a bit of a challenge because of the broad nature of Lowell.com, but I want to share a few things that I am doing, hopefully starting a bit of a discussion.

Here are a few things I am considering when selecting affiliates from Linkshare:

  • Does the affiliate compete with current local advertisers (like hotels or photography)?
  • What companies are running advertisements on competing websites?
  • What is the commission rate and length of time for cookies?
  • Is there local brand recognition?
  • Will the banners look good on the site?

I think the biggest thing for me will be testing. Since Lowell.com gets between 15,000 – 20,000 unique visitors a month now (despite not being updated in 2 months), there is enough traffic to test different banners. I plan to rotate affiliate banners, testing CTR/Revenue with different banner offers, as well as Adsense.

I know Adsense generates revenue as I have it in select spots on the current site, but I also know it leaves money on the table. I want to see if I can find compelling offers that will blow Adsense out of the water. I don’t know if it will be possible, but I am going to test it.

One thing I do know is that direct ad sales will be the most profitable banner advertising. I hope to be able to fully replace affiliate banners and Adsense banners within a few months. However, I am not counting on that since I don’t have a sales representative yet. In the meantime, I will be doing a lot of testing.

Have you run affiliate banners on a general interest website (like Lowell.com), and if so, what has your experience been?

=========

Please help me raise funds for the Ronald McDonald House

Advice to Boston Globe Regarding Boston.com Domain Registration

I sent an email to several officials with the Boston Globe today, as I am considering the sale of a number of Massachusetts city .com domain names. One of the contacts I emailed is a Vice President at the company, and his email address is listed as the Whois contact. For some reason, this particular email address bounced, and the email was returned to me as undeliverable.

At the moment, Boston.com isn’t set to expire until June of 2012. I would imagine they have the name set to auto-renew with a credit card on file, but that isn’t always failproof. One problem they may have as the date gets closer is that as of 2004, the domain name was still to expire in 2012, meaning that they haven’t had to renew Boston.com for several years.

When June of 2012 comes around, the domain registrar will likely automatically email the Whois contact reminder notices to renew the domain name, and those could possibly bounce. In addition, if the credit card on file has since expired, they may not have a payment method on file to pay for the domain name – and they possibly wouldn’t even receive a notice until it’s too late.

Now, it’s unlikely this will happen, but it’s something the management at the Boston Globe (and maybe its New York Times parent company) should look into before it’s too late.

Oh… and if anyone from the Boston Globe happens to read this, I would consider selling Hingham.com, Harwich.com, Abington.com, Norwell.com, Mashpee.com, WestNewbury.com, and Topsfield.com.   I’d also love to chat about doing something with Lowell.com and Newburyport.com.

Larry Fischer and Leland Hardy Featured in New York Daily News Article

I woke up to a Google News alert this morning with the title “Three Businessmen Quick to Jump on City Domain Names.” I nervously awaited as the site opened, fearing a negative article about owning city .com domain names.

The article interviewed and discussed Leland Hardy who owns NewYork.com, Larry Fischer who owns Queens.com with Ari Goldberger, and Kevin Cahill who owns StatenIsland.com. Although there isn’t anything really groundbreaking in the article, it was interesting to note that Cahill became a real estate agent as a result of owning StatenIsland.com, and he said he’s made $100,000 from the site.

It’s always interesting to see articles like this appear in the general news.

“Are Geodomains Worth Less in Light of UDRP Decision?”

Shortly after Mike Berkens posted his article about the Hayward.com UDRP decision going against the domain owner, I received an email asking me, “are Geodomains Worth Less in Light of the Hayward.com UDRP Decision“? In my opinion, the quick answer is that city .com names are almost certainly not worth less and some general (non-legal) feedback is below.

Just like almost every other dictionary word/term has a corresponding trademark owned by a company, geographic locations also share their meaning with companies that have marks. For instance, an apple is a fruit and a generic term, but Apple is also a trademarked brand owned by a computer company. In the case of Hayward.com, Hayward is a city in the state of California, but it is also a term used by a pool company.

If I owned Apple.com, I could certainly sell apple juice, apple pies, and apples. However, if I started selling computer parts, cell phones, or even music, Apple Computer would probably sue me or file a UDRP. Unfortunately for the owner of Hayward.com, when he parked it, the name allegedly had “links offering or leading to pages with links offering goods or services that are competitive with the goods and services offered by Complainant under its HAYWARD Trademark.”

In light of this alone, I really don’t think city .com domain name values are impacted. I can only think of a few that are parked right now, and for the most part, the parked domain names are only parked while awaiting development. I don’t think a lack of development should be construed as bad faith, although a number of UDRP cases have determined that non development and non use can be a strike against the domain owner.

In my opinion, this decision is poor since PPC pages can accidentally show advertising that may infringe on another company’s mark, but I don’t think that necessarily means it was done in bad faith. I know the owner owns other geodomain names, and I don’t believe he intended to monetize it based on another company’s trademark. I do think this case should make geodomain owners cognizant of the fact that parking can put their domain names at greater risk, but I don’t believe it impacts the value (just try buying some city .com names and see the responses you get if you send a low ball offer).

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one thing that really bothers me in this decision. According to the discussion from the panelists:

Respondent purchased the domain name <hayward.com> for USD$20,000 and was attempting to sell it for at least USD$100,000.   These figures would seem to indicate that Respondent saw some value in this domain name for reasons other than its existence as the name of the city of Hayward, California – with a population of only about 150,000 people, according to the city’s website at http://user.govoutreach.com/hayward/faq.php?cid=10774 – and for purposes other than as a PPC parking page (which, in the normal course, would not be expected to earn a return to justify such a rich investment).

I paid a lot more than $20,000 for a smaller city .com domain name. In fact, I bought and/or sold 4 geodomain names for over $50,000 (two of them for significantly more) in the last 18 months. There is considerable value in geodomain names, especially when they are developed. My primary concern is that these UDRP panelists made an opinion that does not appear to be based on facts or public comparables.

Would I have paid $20,000 for Hayward.com for a city website? Probably. In fact, I sold a comparable California city .com domain name (just under 150,000 residents) for over $65,000. Similarly, my company owns Burbank.com and I previously turned down a cash offer of over $110,000 for it, and Burbank, California is a city with just over 100,000 residents.

I don’t see how UDRP panelists can say that the owner could not expect to return the rich investment of $20,000 for Hayward.com, and more importantly, I don’t think it’s appropriate for panelists to make valuation estimations. In this case, it seems to me that their valuation of city .com domain names is flawed.

Burbank.com Partnership Announced

In July, I blogged about the City in a Box platform offered by Fred Mercaldo and his team at Scottsdale.com. A few people asked me if I would be willing to use the platform on one of my websites. I can finally answer that question today.

One of the reasons I flew out to California for Domain Fest was to finalize a couple of deals that have been pending. I am happy to announce that one of the deals has been finalized, and I will be engaging in a marketing/content partnership with Scottsdale.com (see press release below).

Scottsdale.com is one of my favorite developed geodomain names, and I have always admired Fred Mercaldo’s team. They have a great sales staff, and they are clearly experts when it comes to geodomain development and monetization. I am very lucky to be able to work with them on one of my more valuable domain assets.

I’ve known Fred since the Geodomain Expo in Chicago, and I am excited to be working with him on this project.

=====

Silver Internet Ventures, LLC Announces Partnership with Scottsdale.com, LLC

Companies agree to marketing, advertising, and content distribution partnership for Burbank.com using City in a Box platform

SANTA MONICA, CA (January 26, 2010) – Silver Internet Ventures, LLC and Scottsdale.com, LLC announce a marketing, advertising, and content distribution partnership on Burbank.com, a domain name owned and operated by Silver Internet Ventures. The new website will be built on Scottsdale.com’s proprietary City in a Box platform, and the sales and marketing team at Scottsdale.com will manage sales and content on the website.

“In the year and a half the company has owned Burbank.com, traffic has grown from a few hundred visitors a month to several thousand,” said Elliot J. Silver of Silver Internet Ventures. “As a result of living across the country, it’s been difficult to manage content and ad sales. The Scottsdale.com team has a great sales staff, and they will serve the Burbank market in ways I can’t. This partnership is something I am excited about, and I look forward to working with the Scottsdale.com team.”

“We are very excited to take on the Burbank.com project.   Personally, I have spent a significant amount of time there over the years, and have a pretty good feel about the city and what it has to offer. Billed as the “Media Capital of the World”, it truly is a hub of the entertainment industry, but it is neighborhoods too, and home to over 100,000 PLUS people,” said Fred Mercaldo, of Scottsdale.com.   “We are pleased to be Elliot’s choice to both develop and monetize his Burbank.com asset, and we will exceed his expectations!”

Mercaldo continued, “we will do our best to make Burbank.com a resource that the locals will come to rely on, along with providing visitors a robust site for planning their studio and entertainment industry visits.   Our ‘City In A Box’ software solution is a perfect fit for this site, and we will be announcing a major initiative within the week that will detail our aggressive growth plans for over 30 GeoDomain markets in the US.   Examples of our software can be reviewed at sites such as Palermo.com, Chandler.com, Sunnyvale.com, and more.”

The new Burbank.com website will be launched by April 15, 2010. Companies who are interested in advertising on the new website should email the sales team at sales@burbank.com. A representative will contact you shortly.

Tom Rask on the UDRP Process

Nat Cohen had a fantastic article about the UDRP process on Larry Fischer’s blog the other day, and it’s a “must read” for anyone that invests in domain names. The article has spawned discussions in private about UDRP defense and prevention, and it has been interesting to learn how other domain owners cope with this potential threat.

I received an email this morning from Tom Rask, of Logical Sites, whose company owns and operates websites on geodomain names including Sunnyvale.com, Sheboygan.com, Kenosha.com, and EurekaSprings.com. Tom offered some unique insight and advice, and with his permission and encouragement, I have posted the contents of his email below.

The basic problems with UDRP process are:

  1. It is a quasi-judicial process, not a judicial process.
  2. There is no accountability for WIPO or for the panelists.
  3. You can assert the fluffiest of common-law TM rights with impunity
  4. There is no monetary compensation for you if the opponent asserts an overly broad scope of use of their TM. They can “give it a whirl”, something they could not do so cheaply and with such impunity in a real TM court case.

———

Illuminating example: a few years ago, I lost a UDRP case that I knew I was going to lose. I had registered wwwxyz.com, where xyz was the name of European multinational with over 100 K employees. I had good reason to want to really jerk xyz’s chain, reasons that don’t matter for the purpose of this discussion.

So I decided to be totally over the top. Luckily for me, the WIPO case administrator made clear procedural errors, so I had occasion to suggest to him and his boss that perhaps “he should return to his native Norway, where unions can be counted on to protect the incompetent”. When WIPO did not offer me an avenue of appeal for mishandling the case, I said that it is no coincidence that corrupt organization like the IOC and WIPO are both located in Switzerland because they know they are safe there. In the US, they would be prosecuted under the RICO act. “Switzerland:” I said “high mountains, low morals”.

I had a lot of fun and inflicted many, many manhours on my opponent, who probably wished they had just bought the damn name instead. I suspect that WIPO has me on a blacklist….:-)

So I lost, and the Panelist wrote this at the end of his decision “Finally, the Panel cannot leave this case without commenting on the behaviour of the Respondent, which has been a disgrace, a grotesque abuse of this administrative proceeding”.

I e-mailed the Panelist (an experienced UK TM attorney) and said: yes, exactly. I was abusing the process, and if I had done that in a court of law, the judge would not have allowed it. The Panelist told me that he had taken my case seriously, as he does all cases, and that he spent 70 hours on the case. I apologized for that.

The Panelist and became friends via e-mail. He agreed that it is a problem that there are no sanctions: no sanctions if WIPO or similar orgs don’t follow the rules, no sanctions against the kind of roiling rancor I had engaged in. And no sanctions if a Panelist just decided to suck up to his perceived big money trademark interests. So it can become a Wild West Circus very quickly.

———–

So what should you do if you get hit with a UDRP?

  1. See if you and your opponent can agree on a Panelist. In scania.mobi, my opponent incredibly agreed to my suggestion of using Diane Cabell as the sole Panelist. She is a very fairminded corporate counsel for Creative Commons (a great org) and formerly of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Had she decide against me, I would have still felt it was fair.
  2. If you cannot agree, you can do what Nat did (in the LomaLinda.com UDRP): a 3-member Panel. But this is risky. You can still lose 2-1 by getting two people like Richard Page on the Panel. If you lose and then go to court, the judge may take the approach “why should I overturn WIPO”….even though a WIPO UDRP decision is not a judicial decision.
  3. If your name is actually important to you, consider filing in federal court in order to stop the UDRP process. Federal court is very expensive. Bad PR is also very expensive and your opponent will know that, too. Once the court case has been filed, asserting abuse on your opponent’s part, then you can talk to them. Now they know that you are mounting a vigorous defense.

————–

Nat won 2-1, and that is great. But my point is: he could just as easily have lost 2-1.
UDRP is a crapshoot that is best avoided.
I have also noticed that lawyers usually do no better at UDRP than mere mortals.
This is a not a slam against lawyers, just a reflection of the animal that UDRP is.

If you get hit with a UDRP case, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

Recent Posts

Have a Real Presence Online When Selling Domain Names

0
When it comes to selling domain names via outbound marketing, credibility is very important. If a prospective buyer receives an unsolicited and unexpected email...

2021 vs 2025 – % of .coms in my Portfolio

1
I don't closely track the percentage of domain extensions in my portfolio. I could have 75% .com or I could have 99% .com domain...

Nominations Open for 2026 ICA Awards

0
The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is now accepting nominations for two domain investing community awards. Domain investors may now submit their nominations for the...

Bodis Gives Performance Update After Google Parked Domain Opt-Out

3
Bodis sent an update to customers yesterday about recent performance impacts related to pay per click parking revenue. The company attributed the decline to...

Glad This Sale Wasn’t an LTO

0
Sometimes, the most obvious use for a particular domain name is in a manner that would either be offensive, controversial, or negative. This will...