« Internet Brands in $100mm IPO | Main | USA Today Rediscovers the Domain Name Industry »

July 21, 2007



Stay away from the dark side, Luke. It'll all end in tears.

steven c. emery

your not dreaming. somebody is gonna do exactly what you said. who ever owns the most unique family of web properties will be a major if not dominate player in space.
They all must be strategic, vertical, keyphrase, top level, location based market.
my 1200+ portfolio will be virtually impossible to compete with and i did not dream that. any challengers? alli alli income free! time to sit at the table gentlemen, mashup the lots and declare a winner of "King of Location." (owner of the net)The MVP of Domaining. I will ask the question again: Who has the greatest domain portfolio ever created? the most valuable vertical land in cyberblah?

MonsterLocator.com....Its Alive!

Todd Mintz

Imagine how much money Wikipedia would make if they did this...of course, they lack the vision...

Looking forward to seeing your keynote next month.


WoW! I've seen the light for portfolios. Thanks for dreaming out loud.


Gotta play the skeptic here.

1. SportsScores.com does nothing for their primary brand. Ie it would be ince, but the core point is - how does it help the primary FOX Sports brand?

2. They strengthen their competition this way. If people expect sports scores at sportsscores.com, they will extend this behaviour to other domains. Domains they may not own.

Again - I've been advocating the mashup of such content for a long time (especially in the self-interest of local) - I just don't think someone with such damn strong brands would be interested in diluting it this way.

***FS*** I think you were right to think along this line Ahmed.. Better to sidle up to the disruptive technology and utilize to your advantage than to turn your back on it based on principle (brand issues).

Faisal Premji

Frank....I hope you haven't given up on an long-term *independent* existence for keyword domains.

The direct consumer connection that keyword domains possess is far too valuable to be relegated to the annals of a media corporation's asset list.

The real value multiplier is independence from influence....

everyone wants what they can't have :)

***FS*** Good point sir... it was just a dream.. "do do do do do do do do " *twilight zone music*

Ed - Michigan

Frank....maybe you need a "Rumcake" before bed-e-bye, and good thing we travel certain dreams alone...and not all of them with our spouse !!

And...in the states we have "tri-fold" billboards. Soon some of the " DOMAINITES " will probably team up and upon type in of:
BEVERAGECUP.com see a split tri-fold or quad-screen of
HEALTHSTATISTIC.com all on 1 type in.
Works for CBS outdoors?
Or revolving pages of 3 or 4 domains....with 1 type-in...
( PS - What a gorgeous day in Michigan !! )

***FS*** Beautiful!.. Enjoy sir. Big concepts


""how could Newscorp or another media content house elevate it's Internet presence and exert control over Google by injecting itself as a domain name network owner/sub-syndicator and marrying content to each and every page load?""

Now, this is what I am kinda talking about...


By moving 'control' from Google to Newscorp and a few other media conglomerates...

We (domain address asset holders) are still not taking ALL the power for ourselves...this scenario, just lets other third party(s)' take control of a major part of the Internet other than Google.


We (domain address asset holders) would surly make a lot of money...but still we would only be getting a very small fraction of the 'total' value our assets and we would be giving up "permeate" control of the Internet to these companies....

Why is this worse than what Google controls?

Because Googles control is not and has not and will not be permanent...

Why?, because they do not own or control 99% of the domains in this world.

If Newscorp and a few other media conglomerates buy up billions and billions of dollars of all the best domains in the world....their control over the Internet WILL be permanent.

I do not like being 'subservient' to Google...now we would all have to bow down 3-4 top media companies in addition to Google?

No thanks!

The Internet is like the universe...Vast

In our universe...the most valuable commodity is 'air'...for us on planet earth anyway.

In OUR vast Internet universe...the most valuable commodity is 'domain address assets'...for us on planet earth anyway

You would not want 3-5 media companies and Google...controlling all the 'air' in our world?

Why do we think its a good idea that the same companies control the 'air' of the Internet? For a little money?

In reality...'Domain address asset holders' have all the control of the 'air' that allows the vast Internet to breath. We have unwittingly in the past 10 years given that control to the major SE's.

I say all of us not be so anxious to give these 3-5 huge media conglomerates and a few other huge company's like MS for example..."permanent" control of the Internet...

Not yet anyway...not at least until a group of us band together and take back "rightful" control of the Internet for ourselves.

Whats going to happen in the next 50 years or so? Who do we want controlling our 'air' on the Internet?

I only know one think for sure...This control is now and has always been in OUR hands...we just have to exercise this control.

Al gore want s to save planet earth...fine...I want a group of us to save 'planet Internet" from the control of just a few.

A little 'idealistic'...maybe.

I am just saying...the 'active' domain asset industry is only really about 7 years old...lets NOT throw the "baby out with the bath water"

Just some more 'food for thought'

Frank...I hope this post gives you sweet dreams tonight and not 'nightmares"...LOL


Elliot Silver

"it suddenly occurred to me that I had already signed a deal to be sold to a less strategic company for hundreds of millions of dollars less than Rupert was offering.."

Congrats! :-)

***FS*** Again.. just a dream.. "do do do do do do do do" *twilight zone*

The comments to this entry are closed.