Mark,

> > What do you think?
>
> Not much, of that line of reasoning.
>
> The starting assumption is that widgets.com.au is automatically 'better'
> than a less generic version of the same thing.  That's a wrong assumption.
> Generic names are less valuable than non-generic names, not more.
>
> That's why the company that has 'phone.com' stopped using it and changed
to
> 'openwave.com' - because they worked out that you can't successfully brand
a
> generic name.  Go to www.phone.com and you'll see.

Sorry but they have never opted to STOP using the name. On the contary the
name redirect to their site which would get hundreds if not thousands of
direct typeins. It's the generic name would be greatly responcible for the
successful website.

>
> And the Australian Cricket Board brands its site as:
>
>   Baggy Green - home of Australian Cricket
>
> and even then they re-direct to another name.  Try www.baggygreen.com.au
or
> www.acb.com.au and see how important (or not) they reckon a domain name
is,
> eh?
>
> You can't successfully brand a generic name.
>

Totally agree.. that's why they have the generic domain name and simply
redirect the traffic to their branded site.

> Gee, I mean, I'm really really sorry that I keep pointing out that all
those
> hype articles written over the years by clueless journos about 'how great
> generic names are' are a load of codswallop, but lets face it - generic
> names are crap.

Mostly the articles that you are talking about are 'codswallop' no one in
there right mind should brand an site a a generic name. They are just too
common and too well used (in most cases) to be associated with a specific
product. But generic names are definattly not 'CRAP' ...

Would you pass on sex.com or news.com if it was offered to you?

These generic names get direct targeted traffic, people do not have to think
in order to find books, toys, sex, cars, etc etc. It's an easy way to gain
market share on the net. Simple and effective.

>
> Hey, don't take my word for it - the proof is available on the internet.
If
> generic domain names were 'better' than non-generic names, then they would
> be over-represented in any list of successful web sites.  They ain't.
> They're virtually non-existent in any list of successful web sites.
>
>
>
> Amazon
> Yahoo
> CDNow
> NineMSM
>
> Not very generic, are they?

Not a all, it's their brand.. but these sites will have a listing of
hundreds if not thousands of domain names that all redirect to the branded
site and would bring in thousands of hits daily. Money for Jam if you use it
right.

Amazon is succesful... ????

One more example www.books.com (It may remain in the address bar but same
principle.) Barns and Noble would gain thousands of hits that are all
directed at books. People looking to order, purchase or find out infomation
and to get there they don't have to think just type.

Even a company like AOL can see the value in these names, take AOL key
words. The DOT TV corp sell generic names for $100,000 US to Millions.

>
> > they received the bad news that after they applied the domain
> > name 'widgets.com.au' had been placed on the list of GENERIC
> > names and was no longer available.  After that Anne and Dave
> > put their Internet plans on hold and have been
> > tossing around the idea of getting out of the industry.
>
> Yeah, I bet that's how the guys who started Yahoo worked.  I can just see
> them a decade ago sitting around saying:
>
>  "sorry guys, we couldn't get 'searchengine.com' so we might as well
abandon
> our plans.  A wacky name like Yahoo.com would never work - lets give up
now"
>

You can bet that they would have a Snap Back or other service on the domain
name if it ever droped.

One last think

How may hits due to miss spellings do you think that you are missing???.
Creativity is not everyones cup of tea and you are making people who want
you services think and use their head just to find you. I would hope that
you have applyed for applications.com.au.... or may be that's you plan..
make everyone esle think that are 'CRAP' and grab the best for your self.
<grin>

Regards,

Michael-Pappas.

>
> Regards, Mark
>
> Mark Hughes
> Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
> www.pplications.com.au
> +61 4 1374 3959
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Lin [mailto:nanchou&#167;hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:12
> > To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> > Subject: [DNS] thread.119
> >
> >
> > Hi
> > I am interested in the claims that the auction is the 'fairest way' to
> > dispose of the domain names and that the entity that 'values them
> > the most'
> > will be able to purchase them
> > So we understand what we are talking about here lets develop the
> > scenario of
> > two entities who will be bidding for the domain name 'widgets.com.au'.
> > Business 1 is a publicly listed company with assets of $35,000,000 and
> > yearly profit of $4,000,000. Widgets are a very small part of
> > their overall
> > business but they do own the business name: 'australian gidgets,
> > didgets,nidgets, fidgets and widgets service' which they obtained as a
> > result of taking over a smaller competitor. They have no plans to
> > purchase
> > 'widgets.com.au' but the web-development company they use
> > contacts them and
> > tells them it is available at auction. Although they can't see
> > any use for
> > it in the short-term their web-developer tells them that they can
> > just point
> > it to their company site and if they get it their competitors will not
be
> > able to use it. Not wanting to end up with egg on their face if a
> > competitor
> > gets 'widgets.com.au' they decide to allocate $10,000 to secure
> > the name at
> > auction.
> > Business 2 is a small family business named 'Anne and Dave's Complete
> > Widgets'. Anne and Dave specialise in widgets and pride
> > themselves on having
> > the widest range in Australia. They have a shop front but rely mainly on
> > mail orders for business. Business has been slow for a while and
> > some time
> > ago they became concerned about how the Internet would eat into their
> > mail-order business. Eighteen months ago they decided to develop
> > a website
> > and contacted a specialist who informed them that 'widgets.com.au' was
> > available for purchase and would make an excellent domain name.
> > After giving
> > the developer the go-ahead they received the bad news that after they
> > applied the domain name 'widgets.com.au' had been placed on the list of
> > GENERIC names and was no longer available.
> > After that Anne and Dave put their Internet plans on hold and have been
> > tossing around the idea of getting out of the industry. Anne and
> > Dave's only
> > assets are $250,000 equity in their family home and their business is
> > currently making a yearly profit of $50,000. Now the developer they
> > initially contacted about the web site contacts them and tells
> > them the name
> > 'widgets.com.au' is going up for auction. This makes Anne and Dave very
> > excited because this is a chance for them to stay in the industry
> > and build
> > a business for their future. They decide to allocate $5,000 for
> > the purchase
> > of the domain name.
> > Who values it more?
> > Business 1 was not really interested in the name and does not
> > intend to use
> > it but will buy it so a competitor will not be able to use it.
> > Business 2 have previously applied for the name when it was available
and
> > see the name as the key to the survival of their business.
> > Business 1 have allocated $10,000, or 0.03% of their total assets
> > and 0.25%
> > of their annual profit on purchasing the name.
> > Business 2 have allocated $5,000 or 2% of their total assets and 10% of
> > their annual profits to purchase the name.
> > What is the best social outcome?
> > Purchase by Business 1 will mean the widget business become more
> > centralised
> > and result in higher prices. Purchase by Business 2 will mean that the
> > people involved can remain with their business and the people of
> > Australia
> > can have a wider choice of widget retailers.
> > What is the best outcome in terms of the development of Internet
> > businesses
> > in Australia?
> > Purchase by Business 1 will mean the name will not be used, purchase by
> > Business 2 means the Internet business will become the focus of their
> > operations and increase the overall number of Internet businesses in
> > Australia.
> > (Purchase by Business 1 also brings substantial benefits to those
> > involved
> > in selecting and managing this style of auction disposal method
> > which I do
> > not intend to discuss here)
> > What is the final decision regarding the fairest way to dispose of
> > 'widgets.com.au'?
> > Organising the disposal so that Business 1, the company with the deepest
> > pockets, can buy it is seen as the 'fairest way' to dispose of
> > 'widgets.com.au'.
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.  (331 subscribers.)
>
>