According to an email from Above.com‘s Steve Baik, his company brokered the sale of Supernatural.com for $215,888. Simon Saleem brokered the domain name on behalf of the seller. The buyer appears to have been represented by CSC, and the domain name Whois registration is currently protected by CSC. As such, the buyer of the domain name is unknown for now. The domain name does not yet resolve.
I did not personally verify the sale, but I would imagine it will be reported to DNJournal and Ron Jackson will verify the sale price.
Once Ron verifies the sale and includes it in his weekly public domain name sales report, it will likely be the second largest sale of the year already. Sharjil Saleem and Ali Rajpoot sold DXB.com for $220,000 in a sale that was reported last week. Mike Mann’s sale of CryptoWorld.com for $194,888 will likely be the third largest sale of 2018. Had this sale closed in 2017, it would have been one of the 25 largest sales of the year.
It looks like 2018 is already off to a fast start.
SuperNatural.com was sold by Sedo in 2007 for $125,000.
Nice find – thanks!
That 2007 sale is reported on Namebio as well.
IMHO the buyer is probably Warner Bros, producer of the “Supernatural” American television series.
If confirmed, great price, congrats to the seller! 🙂
Ughh. Sorry but I’m not impressed. This should’ve gone for 7-figures. And it should be Supernatural.com being a one worder.
Yes, it’s one word, and that is not a great price.
I know why Elliot wrote it as two words, too.
If your guess is because I copied and pasted that directly from the email I was sent, then you would be correct. I suspect you have a different theory though so I would love to read why you “know why Elliot wrote it as two words.”
You seem like someone who would want proof, so here you go
Finally, I changed how it appears, because probably to your great surprise, I couldn’t care less either way.
Lol, you made me laugh. Yes, when I make a statement like that I am certainly engaging in a little humor and not really claiming to literally “know” for sure. But I certainly had a hunch that could have easily been on the money, especially given my history in life of being right so often (as in, also acknowledged as such) that it can get to be quite a burden, lol.
My “hunch” was going to be that you simply will not “repent” of what I have decried before about the obsessive and industry harming unbalanced dogma and endless chanting about “short, short, short” to the point that subconsciously in your mind “Supernatural” must be two words because, doggonit, it’s clearly just too long to be respected as a proper nice short one-word domain.
Nice to see my humorously conceived hunch was going to be wrong this time (or are there any traces of that in the recesses of your mind regardless, ay?) ;), but with a lot of the serious “preaching” I have seen over the past few years about this topic it has definitely been that ridiculous at times.
I do think shorter is better, but it’s not like I am going to write ButterScotch.com. I did not even think about supernatural being one word or two when I wrote the article.
Elliot, I believe you, honest, though it would not surprise me if there were some of those subconscious traces regardless. Your words would clearly also tend to support that. As for what you were thinking, that is why I said “subconsciously.” 😉 My hunches are rarely that simplistic, otherwise I doubt my history would be as I described.
Regarding “short,” by the way, I did not know you had replied yet and was just coming back to add that I’ve decided to raise the price of one of my best domains which happens to be “short” that I alluded to in the Poker.com thread a little while ago from “not very far from $50 million” to $50 million. 😉
“I do think shorter is better, but its not like I am going to write ButterScotch.com.”
Sadly, however, that still is too simplistic, although it could be a lot worse had you not qualified with ButterScotch.com. That is also why I added “unbalanced” re all the dogma, however.
By the way, I have certainly never said short is bad and will be the first to talk about how valuable the best of the short most certainly are.
The more balanced truth is:
Short is often better. Short is often also “usually” better. One may even wish to push the word “generally,” perhaps.
But “long, and longer” is also often better while short is worse. And long and longer are often also “just as” (valuable) compared to many which are both short and good.
ButterScotch.com is a weak example, so let’s up the ante a bit.
Staples.com, for example – worth a fortune now for obvious reasons, but only because a fortune in resources was spent to brand and make it that way. So nice and short – but by itself not worth much at all compared to MANY far better and MUCH longer domains. And of course there would also be many other examples that are only 4 letters, sometimes 3.
“Domainers” need more “empathy” – with the real world, with end users. They need to stop thinking only like domainers looking to flip – and make no mistake, whether it’s a quick cheap sale, five or six figures, or a multi-million dollar long negotiated agreement, the mentality can often be the same as “flip.” They need to start thinking more in terms of the real world value to an end user party or enterprise, and it’s not rocket science either, but just “real appraisal 101” – what can be done with a domain with “best use,” how much revenue, profit and market share can it (very) realistically lead to, what kind of practical cache with the public does it represent, etc. That’s why for example, $3 million for a domain like Loans.com, although it may have appeared to perhaps be good at the time (hard to believe, though), was one of the biggest downright “steals” of the century. So much so that BOA executives must roll on the floor writhing in laughter every single day. That’s also why, for example, I can still show you a nice looong three word .com that is realistically worth easily 9 figures if I was willing to point it out, among other things…
(In light of recent sales reports, correction: change “sometimes 3” to “often 3.”)
Simon Saleem another employee uniregistry failed to retain in 2017, lost a lot of good brokers last year.
There is often great turnover in sales jobs at companies in every industry. Up until a few years ago, many of the best known domain brokers got their starts at Sedo (Jeff Gabriel, Tessa Holcomb, Ryan Colby, Matt Rosebrook….etc. I am sure I am missing a bunch).
…And speaking of prices for great .coms which are “not good” and how “domainers” need to develop more empathy and revise harmful thinking: Can.com for only $155k? Does it get any more ridiculous than that? That has to be a joke report, right?