Forbes Covers Alex Tabibi - Smart Domainer, Building his Biz Two by Two

Colin Pape sends link:

http://www.forbes.com:80/entrepreneurs/2007/07/05/google-yahoo-pets-ent-manage-cx_ll_0705tabibi.html

Mr. Tabibi has masterfully demonstrated how the right names coupled with a little bit of development, elbow grease and passion can elevate a simple bucket of generic domains to a "real company" of substance, value, cash-flow and profit.

What I like about this guy is he seems to have no illusions of his own business grandeur..  He has the right names and those names are helping to make him look very, very smart. He knows it and doesn't seem to be shy about it.

Quote: ""We got something for $150,000," says Tabibi, barely suppressing a chuckle. "If they had wanted $5 million, I would have done it in a blink of an eye.""

This quote really says it all and speaks to the value proposition of owning generic defensible domain names for paid-search and development.

Christian Kalled and Monte Cahn also quoted in the piece.

Comments

[IPTV]

Nice!

What else can one say?

More than nice!!!...LOL

Best,
Dan

[Gordon]

I'm a litttle confused why he prefers the singular.

In my mind bikes.com is much better than bike.com - what does everyone else think?

***FS*** Agree agree.

[Snoopy]

"I'm a litttle confused why he prefers the singular.

In my mind bikes.com is much better than bike.com - what does everyone else think?"

I agree, I'm never understood why he only seems to buy singular names. Personally for product type names I think the plurals are generally stronger.

***FS*** Somebody else mentioned that.. I actually prefer plurals in certain circumstances.. Although singulars are often perceived to be more powerful and authoritative in certain circles.

[Mac McAdams]

Anyone know what the $150,000 bargain was? He could have gotten half of chocolate.com for that. (another great purchase)

[Leon]

"litttle confused why he prefers the singular."

There are more singular names available
to buy than plural, and of course plurals are MUCH MORE expensive.

[Snoopy]

"Although singulars are often perceived to be more powerful and authoritative in certain circles."

Yes. I think especially so for brand names. eg cat.com could be a suitable name for all sorts of co's that having nothing to do with the animal, like the current owner. For a site selling cat products though I'd say cats.com is a much better name.

[Tad Crazy]

That singular thing is just weird. He would be worth twice if he had the plurals instead. When people want birds or info on birds they type in birds.com not bird.com.

***FS*** Agree agree.. man, lots of comments on this. :)

[Jack]

Plurals. Hands down. Not even close.

[Steven]

From the article....

Another variable is whether the name is a single word or a phrase. Single words are worth more-- Garden.com, for example, will come up in searches for garden, garden tool, garden hose, garden tractors, garden furniture and so forth, making it more valuable than any one of those phrases.

I can see what he is saying...gardens tools, gardens hoses, or even dog collars vs dogs collars. The plural does not have the same useage. From a SEO perspective it should be better and allows more uses for what he is doing. In these instances, the singular would be better suited for his particular needs.

[MedinaWA]

Very nice story! Looks like there are more and more stories like this one popping up everyday. This is great for the industry as a whole.

[CK]

.com is not the Cadillac of the domain space. It is the Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Pontiac, Buick, and Saab. .net is the Saturn and all other options combined are the Daewoo. .mobi is the Oldsmobile.

***FS*** Even I like the Olds with a hurst shifter or an old 442, but there are so few of those.. I agree, steer clear of this space and you should make money in a more certain way.

[Tad Crazy]

One reason this guy doesn't have the plurals is because he couldn't steal them.

Lest anyone forget, this is the loser that tried to reverse domain hijack dogs.com with a bogus UDRP.

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/93681.htm

I don't want to revive the karma discussion but this guy must have bad karma!

***FS*** WoW!! I didn't know that.. If 'true' then I suddenly do not like him as much.

[IPTV]

Just a thought...

So please do not start throwing darts at me.

I do not know were Mr. Tabibi is originally from.

But could it be a somewhat of a...

translation/definition/language/misinterpretation?

I know he is a smart guy...and this is very doubtfully...but sometimes things happen.

Mr. Tabibi...has success I can only dream of...

But I too think in a lot of the domain name examples given...I would rather own the "plural".

But maybe that's why I am not as successful as I should be.

Peace,
Dan

[Gordon]

Pets.com, Inc. has no active Web site at DOGS.COM. Instead, customers who type DOGS.COM are redirected to its PETS.COM Web site. The Complainant contends that once there, the URL is “refreshed”such that DOGS.COM disappears and the customer’s “back” button is disabled. Customers seeking DOG.COM who mistakenly type DOGS.COM reach the wrong site and get stuck there. Dog.com, Inc. has received complaints from customers when this occurs.

***FS*** That sounds like a bullshit claim .. I'd aggressively defend and countersue to conclusion for damages if that was mine. Generic names are the right of anyone to own.. this guy doesn't sound like a straight shooter to me if he's trying to unseat the registrant of another generic.

[Snoopy]

It is just awful to see UDRP's like that.

From the dates it looks like it was filed in 2000, is this the same owner on dog.com now?, I think the article said he started in 2002 and dog.com looked to have changed owners in 2004? It appear is may be a different owner.

***FS*** Y'know .. the interesting thing is that in the early days of UDRP this kind of reverse domain hijacking effort was seen to ba an acceptable form of name acquisition.. but it gives an insight into the heart and mind of the party bringing the action.. I see it as a deceitful way to gain your names.