« Sahar Sends a Trifecta of Post Topics | Main | Oversee's Lawrence Ng wins E&Y 'Entrepreneur of the Year' 2007 »

June 29, 2007


Michael W.

Sad. 3 steps forward, 2 steps back I guess. What chance to turn things around, to think of the potential.

***FS*** Certainly takes the wind out of one's sails.. I'm just stunned that they really don't get it.. Will it be 2030 and people still don't get it? Is this business really that hard?

Craig B from Vancouver

Hi Frank:

Just heard about your blog and have enjoyed your perspective the few times I've stopped in. Congrats on your business success and young family.

You're definitely right - the author is lost. It's kind of funny how tech industry topics can be so incorrectly summarized in the media without most people having a clue.

To me this story appears to be more ignorance than intentional "Wag the Dog" behavior. Definitely agree - lost.

Don m

That person who wrote that article is just pissed off because his smart buddies created real stories on there blogs and loaded them google ads. He is probably stuck or forced to write an article a day for his boss. Now his blogger buddies--- they get to choose what they want to write and get paid with no one looking over their shoulder.

The generation of ads will be Vlogs it will surpass blogs in 2 years. Maybe this guy will writing a new article then stating that people take cheap pictures and put their logo on them to make money, and how wrong it is. He better look ahead because vlogs are going to take over. This is America, and domain land is cheap right now maybe we should all pitch in and get him horriblearticleswrittenin2007.com


This is why the domain industry as a whole should spend a whole lot more time holding "domain education conferences" for reporters,advertising industries, marketing firms etc...

Spend a year doing this... and instead of moniker selling 11M+ domains at auction, it will sell 150M+ in domains at the same auction a year from now.

If we do not spend some time "educating the powers to be"...it may be until 2030 before reporters and end-users like this "ever get it".

In the case of 98%+ of these type articles...they think they really know...but in reality they don't. And it all comes down to a "bad or no education" on the subject. Same with all the articles that misuse a lot of "domain related terms"...like "cybersquatting."

Some people maybe can wait until 2030...LOL...I am not one of them.

But, I am sure everyone in the domain business small or large would agree the faster these people get it...the better for everyone.

I only have staying power for maybe 3-6 years...if I have to read to many things like this again over the next year...i don't know.

Good grief...

Everyone have a good weekend.


BTW: Makes you wonder what else in the NY Times is not accurate...LOL


The sunny side... when mainstream media doesn't get it could just mean that an industry is in its infancy. Far, far from a maniac bubble... which may also mean the TRAFFIC biddings we just saw may have just been peanuts compared to what we may see in... 2030, when the NYT starts bidding millions to buildup their online space with representative generics. One day, this industry will be in everybody's mouth, in all magazine covers and in USA today and the enquirer. And while the UPS man buys his domains in between deliveries some others will be unloading and becoming lighter.

The more they bash a stock, the more opportunities to buy it in the cheap.

Ed Keay-Smith

Frank it just goes to show that a little information (and in this case very little correct information!) can be very dangerous.

If the general public what to realy undestand what the domain market is all about they should read your blog not that type of misinformed dribble.

My 8 year old daughter could have writen a better article on the subject based on just the info she gets from sitting on my lap at the PC.

Get you facts straight people!

Ed keay-Smith

daniel rueda

hopefully they will buy business.com tear it down and rebuild. and we domainers can forgive and forget. the appreciation would push my porfolio in to the billions. Fellow domaineers lets all join hands pray together.

David Wrixon (aka Rubber%

The Internet and Internet based advertising is in the process of burying the conventional mainstream commercial press. You can hardly expect them to be supportive!

Ravi Venkatraman

I just rephrased NYTimes article.
"One of the less reputable sectors of the Internet economy that has been growing rapidly is online journalism.
So called journalist write for the likes of nytimes.com and blog.nytimes.com .
They fill these sites with factually incorrect 'misinformation' and serve colorful ads, getting paid for every click.
The even tag these articles as 'online markting, online advertising'.
This game has morphed into what is know as journalism arbitrage, filling the page with just enough content that it will actually be found by search engines, and in turn attract users who simply see ads and click again to get somewhere useful."

If these so called journalist had researched their topic, they could have turned into Domain Enterpreneurs and would have been richer by $15,000

***FS*** Ha, well said Ravi :)

Andrew Johnson

To be fair to the NYTimes, the story is under their blogs section. Every news site should be adding disclaimers to their blogs, or even be spinning them off on to a seperate site.

As for the author, there is a reason why she's working as a journalist rather than running a profitable business, or at the very least writing for a site she owns.

I got thrown off by these very same types of stories for years. Until 2003 the only thing I ever heard about domain name investing was registering celebrity names. In the past, this type of reporting made the industry a lot less competative than it could have been.


"This paragraph is the worst piece of reporting I have ever read in the New York Times. It's factually incorrect, confuses vernacular and just basically misinforms. "

I guess you must have missed those Judith Millar WMD propaganda articles then? :^)

***FS*** Ha! I stand corrected.


I think this wasn't the reporter trying to color things negatively. That's giving the reporter too much credit. More likely, they didn't do much research and one source spun the story this way, leading them to just go with what they said.

owen frager

Frank you know you are having impact when the NY Times addresses your concerns directly:

and added link to main article you reference above

Of course this opens a pandora's box through the comments section (see my blog for example)

***FS*** Your never going to win everyone over Owen. There will always be folks who view things in a way you don't agree with. It was good of Saul to make a go at correcting.

owen frager

Frank you know you are having impact when the NY Times addresses your concerns directly:

and added link to main article you reference above

Of course this opens a pandora's box through the comments section (see my blog for example)

The comments to this entry are closed.