Evergreen Introduces “The One” Domain Newsletter

28

Evergreen.com, the domain name consultancy and brokerage founded by Jen Sale and Adam Strong, introduced a new domain name newsletter today. Dubbed, The One, this domain name-focused newsletter will be solely devoted to one word .com domain names.

From the newsletter I received today:

We are happy to announce the launch of our newsletter – The One. As the name suggests, we will be focusing on ‘one’ word domain names, including new listings, sales, analytics, case studies, news and much more.

Our goal is to share something different, interesting and beneficial to our readers. We have chosen a monthly schedule to deliver content that is relevant and won’t contribute to the noise. We welcome any feedback and will continually aim to improve each issue.

We hope The One. will be a welcome addition to your inbox.

The newsletter combines one word .com domain name listings with news about one word .com domain names. There is also some intel about one word .com domain name sales that occurred in the last month, courtesy of NameBio.

From what I can tell, the newsletter will be delivered monthly, at the end of each month.

I am a big fan of one word .com domain names – both as a buyer and a seller. Knowing that Evergreen.com has a strong list of buyers, I listed one of my domain names for sale in this month’s newsletter (Docket.com). There are some other great names listed as well, including Trainer.com, Threat.com, Magical.com, and Gleam.com.

Update: Here’s a link to the Mailchimp newsletter subscription form if you would like to subscribe.

28 COMMENTS

  1. Congrats to Adam and Jen. I love the concept and subscribed to their mailing list, but their web site needs a map, compass and divining rod to find anything. Nothing would be more effective than simply putting some of those one word dotCOMs on their front page.

  2. This will be a great opportunity to point out when certain multi-word domains are better and more valuable than the one word examples, like the examples of FastLane.com and ExpressLane.com Rick Schwartz recently gave vs. Lane.com (which is actually very dull, awkward and boring and has definite “radio test” issues, i.e. Lane.com).

    • “This will be a great opportunity to point out when certain multi-word domains ”

      This is a newsletter for one word .com domain names, so I don’t think so.

          • You really have no idea, Elliot? 🙂 How about, if a particular highlighted domain appears to be an interesting enough example, you just refer to it publicly here and there and let the chips fall where they may. Or as Rick Schwartz might be inclined to describe it, planting seeds.

          • How about, you know perfectly well what I’m talking about? Refer to it publicly? Blogs, like this one, forums, maybe even conferences occasionally if one is so inclined? And if evergreen.com ever has a comment feature, all the better. You certainly make no secret of your own bias about great and exalted one word .com’s, so how can you double down with a straight face on not having a clue about what I’m talking about. I was just about to show you before I saw that, however. So it can start now:

            “There are some other great names listed as well, including Trainer.com, Threat.com, Magical.com, and Gleam.com.”

            Okay, those are certainly nice, though “Gleam” is the weakest of the bunch. By itself it’s fairly passe, a bit archaic, vague, not really evocative or exciting by itself. In fact, a bit awkward by itself, and some are going to have a spelling issue with it (“gleem”). “Gleaming” is much better and more familiar for end users. And I would suggest, two four word “gleam” .coms are actually much more familiar to people and evocative and alluring, and both are available to register (maybe Mann will get them): GleamInYourEye.com, GleamInYourEyes.com.
            Perhaps I’ll wind up regretting showing that here some day. (You’re welcome, whoever you are.) Honestly, it would certainly be nice to have Gleam.com, but it’s only marginally more appealing than the object of my (and Rick’s) recent comments about Lane.com. If people are going to be excited about this domain just because it’s one word and “short,” however, I would say they are deluded. Honestly, to some degree and in some important senses Gleam.com kind of even sucks in the big picture, relatively speaking. It seems like it should be great, but it’s not. To an end user it would tend to be nothing but a very expensive branding gamble. Unless of course you’re already “lucky” enough to have “gleam” brand owners who want it badly enough, which might mean a good payday, but not necessarily a great domain. It could be used for a detergent or soap product by a big conglomerate, however, in which case maybe you win a jackpot. And maybe Gleam.io will want to cough up the big bucks, but that still doesn’t make it a good domain, and maybe they won’t. One could be waiting a long time to cash in on a domain like that as a seller, and it might never happen. If one were to buy it now as an “investment” and pay thousands for it, they would just be buying a very expensive lottery ticket with very dubious prospects if existing brand owners are not willing to cough up a gleaming pile of ROI.

            The others I really like, so I would never use them as examples, though certainly one could find multi-word domains more valuable than them, though not ones that incorporate their respective words.

    • P.S. Speaking of the radio test issue for that one, btw, I literally got someone into a new Epik account last year with a domain that had exactly that – a radio test issue vis a vis “lane.”

      • Are you lying Snoopy? You’ve certainly been around long enough to see how I have often raised the issue of length vs. quality and addressed the mistaken religious fanatic self-serving zero sum game dogma about that. You should read what R. Schwartz and M. Linton has to say related to that topic lately too. But to answer your question, no, but I do have a number of nice ones. I like one word domains as much as anyone, probably even more than those who lie about the matter.

  3. Gleam.com is an excellent name, John has no idea what he is talking about comparing it with available 4 word names.

    It is going to have endusers knocking and John’s nonsense about how it “kind of even sucks” will keep him in the poor house.

    • No, it will likely some have brand owners wanting it, and none too happy about it either. And I see the cleaning angle is in use already, no surprise.

      My entire life, I don’t think I ever once heard anyone even use “gleam” in conversation here in the US – EXCEPT maybe a time or two in the phrase I mentioned that’s available. But generally people virtually never even use that word in conversation. If you asked people “what do you think about gleam or gleam.com?” they would have no idea what you mean and would probably even ask you to spell it. On occasion someone might ask, “do you mean the word gleam as in g-l-e-a-m?” If you said “what do you think about gleaming or gleaming.com?” they would at least know what word you are referring to with no uncertainty about spelling. When I put “gleam” into Google there are a total of ZERO results on page 1 that even pertain to that actual use of the word itself, except for a few predictable dictionary entries. At the bottom of page 1 is the same regarding the suggested search links, with only one even hinting at its status as a real word, “gleam sentence.”

      I’m not reply for your sake or to invite more of your nastiness, but for the sake of the readers, the cause, and “truth in domaining.”

      People here in the US would recognize the phrase “gleam in your eye(s)” though.

    • And “the poor house” is the risk for those getting over excited about this one and wasting thousands on it as an “investment” thinking it’s so good. You can let an end user buy it, but if you pour your own money into it then be prepared to make no “gleaming pile of ROI.” And “gleaming pile of ROI” would also resonate in the minds of an American audience (can’t speak for other countries).

    • But on the bright side, it’s certainly “brandable” and could be made great. Cosmetics, name of a music group, jewelry, etc. It’s just not a “sure thing” like an ice.com. See I’m not so mean, ay? 😉

      • Gleam.com and Ice.com are very similar style names (brand style names), it is just that one is worth 100x the other. Doesn’t mean either will produce a better ROI.

        The last seller of ice.com probably made a loss after commissions so it is hardly a sure thing. The lost millions more developing it. The owner prior to that lost $50million+ on their Ice.com venture.

        • There is no similarity between gleam.com and ice.com, they are not in the same league at all for all the thoughtful reasons I have added here. “Ice” is also known and familiar for some or all of its major brandable uses. “Gleam” is just a gleam in someone’s wishful thinking eye.
          “Sure thing” means the domain itself is born a superstar and is certainly to be extremely valuable no matter what. It doesn’t mean the humans involved are guaranteed to do well or more importantly that Divine Providence will allow any specific holders to.

    • So the moral of the story is:

      While great singers are born and not made, with domain names, some domains are born great, while others can still be made great.

Leave a Reply