George Kirikos spotted an SEC document showing that Vegas.com purchased LasVegas.com in 2005, for what could be up to a $90 Million Dollars.
“In June 2005 , VEGAS.com, LLC entered into an agreement for the purchase of LasVegas.com on the following terms:
The agreement specified that a $12,000,000, one-time payment be made upon execution of the agreement along with monthly payments of approximately $83,000 for 36 months, $125,000 for the next 60 months, and then $208,000 for the next 36 months.
Per the terms of the agreement, after June 30, 2016, following the 132 initial monthly payments, VEGAS.com, LLC in its sole discretion may terminate the agreement and forfeit the domain name.
If VEGAS.com, LLC chooses not to terminate the agreement, they will continue making the monthly payments of approximately $208,000 until June 30, 2040, at which time the seller will transfer the domain name to VEGAS.com, LLC without further payment or cost to VEGAS.com, LLC.
As of June 2005, the present value of the future payment obligations was determined to be approximately $12,264,000, using a discount rate of 6.25 percent.
The initial $12,000,000 payment has been capitalized and is being amortized over 35 years, which is the term of the agreement.
The present value of the future purchase obligation of approximately $12,264,000 was capitalized and is being amortized beginning July 2005 and ending June 2016, which is the period that VEGAS.com, LLC is legally bound by the agreement to continue making payments.
Subsequent to June 2016, the agreement will continue on a month to month basis until June 30, 2040, and all payments made will be recognized as an expense.””
Back in August, We reported that Vegas.com was sold for what could be over $38 million with $15.5 million cash but that transactions also had payment terms to Publicly traded Remark Media, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARK)
We will point out again as we did when the Vegas.com sale was announced that Remark Media, Inc. has a small market cap which of today is just $60 Million, well below the $126 Million is what it is obligated to pay for Vegas.com and LasVegas.com.
Remark Media, Inc has a 52 week trading Range of a low of $3.53 and a high of $5.50
Average daily volume (#M) for Remark is just 31,211 shares.
Remark Media, Inc. closed at $4.21 a share yesterday.
The domain name LasVegas.com is registered to Stephens Media, which was also the registered owner of the domain name back before 2005, the date of the “sale”.
LasVegas.com is registered at Network Solutions directly by Stephens Media.
LasVegas.com servers are Vegas.com.
Vegas.com current owner is Vegas.com, LLC, and the domain is registered through brand protection company MarkMonitor.com
Many suspected/knew that deals of this size happened…..it’s nice to find some public confirmation, for the doubters.
so from the title I conclude that lasvegas.com domain was sold for $90M
Jose: Less than $30 million has been paid so far. $60 million more to be paid, by 2040. If Vegas.com stop spaying in 2016, they’d give up the LasVegas.com domain.
Can someone confirm definitively if this was strictly domain or domain + website sale?
Yes, it’s just the domain; any use of pre-existing content is not covered by the monetary exchange, per this:
“In May 2005, the Company entered into a contract under which it agreed to pay $12,000,000 for exclusive right to use the domain name “LasVegas.com.” The contract term is 35 years. The Company is amortizing the domain name rights over 35 years. “
You are wrong, your “per this” is misleading and out of place, since that generic statement does not rule out that it can be a domain + business transaction.
You have to read the full agreement to see if it’s a domain-only deal or, as I think, it includes the business on it.
Would this qualify as the highest price ever for domain, or are there too many contingencies per loan payments, etc?
Also, what happened to privatejet.com, the previous highest sale? It appears an org nows owns the site.
When Gannett acquired the Cars.com business at an enterprise valuation of $2.5 billion, they valued the Cars.com domain name itself at $872 million. I consider that $872 million to be the highest domain name transaction.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/39899/000003989915000006/gci-20141228x10k.htm
(see pages 27, 55 of the SEC filing)
I don’t think so, as I’ve already explained here: http://domaingang.com/domain-news/cars-com-domain-was-valued-at-872-million-dollars/
On Feb 27, 2015, I’ve contacted Gannett CFO and IR manager (see below), but they didn’t reply to my questions, and that’s not a good sign …
From: Andrea Paladini [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
To: ‘jheinz@gannett.com’
Cc: ‘vharker@gannett.com’
Re: Cars.com acquisition
Dear Mr Heinz,
I’ve a quick question for you regarding the acquisition of the Cars.com business.
As reported on the table on page 55 of your last 10-K, out of the total acquisition price of over 1,831 mln USD, you have allocated to the item “indefinite-lived intangible assets” an amount in excess of 872 mln USD.
Typically, in your case, as stated on note 4, page 58 of the same 10-K, Indefinite-lived intangibles include Television Station FCC licenses, Mastheads and Trade Names.
Do you have a detailed breakdown of Trade Names figure as of end of Dec 2014?
How much of the purchase price has been allocated to (and therefore how much has been valued) the specific domain name Cars.com (only the domain)?
Where has the value attributed to the domain name Cars.com included? Under “Masthead and Tradenames”?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards.
You can keep “pumping” and inflating things, but that won’t make them become real …
As I’ve already said on DomainGang, on Feb 26, 2015, I don’t think so.
FYI, the 872.320 mln $ referred on page 55 of Gannet’s Form 10-K as “Indefinite-lived intangible assets” refer mainly to Mastheads and Trade Names (mainly trademarks), not only to the Cars.com domain, which is just a portion (probably a small portion) and which is likely included under Tradenames (usually this is the practice), please see note 4 on page 58.
Cars.com is a business which has other relevant intangibles apart from this domain name.
In Gannet’s case the item “Indefinite-lived intangible assets”, which are periodically subject to impairment test, includes Television station FCC licenses, Mastheads and trade names.
Therefore 872.320 mln $ is NOT the value attributed to the Cars.com domain.
A breakdown of the item “Mastheads and Tradenames” is not provided, so the value attributed to the domain has not been disclosed.
Table on page 55 represents the allocation of Cars.com business purchase price to the acquired assets and assumed liabilities.
Under the item “Indefinite-lived intangible assets”, which are only a part of Intangible Assets (which includes also Goodwill and Definite-lived intangible assets) the company includes Mastheads and Trade Names (mainly trademarks), and Television station FCC licenses, as you can see under Note 4 on page 58.
If you check note 4, page 58, you will see that the increase of the item “Mastheads and trade names” is almost entirely due to the acquisition of Cars.com business.
Included in the the item “Mastheads and trade names” you can find also the value attributed to Cars.com domain, which is only a part (I think a small part) of the 872 mln $, NOT the entire amount.
The item “trade names” includes both the value allocated to company trade names (trademarks) and the domain name/s, but trade names and domain names are not the same thing, they are considered and valued separately.
We contacted Gannett CFO and IR manager, but they didn’t reply so far, and IMHO that’s not a good sign …
You can keep “pushing” and inflating this stuff, but that’s is not gonna make it become real …
We’ll have to agree to disagree, then.
There are no other mastheads for Cars.com (i.e. cars.com doesn’t have publishing of periodical titles, i.e. magazines), just the domain name. There are no FCC licences or TV licenses in the cars.com deal (there were for the deals for Belo in late 2013 and London Broadcasting in mid-2014).
The paragraph that says “After the impairment testing date, we completed our acquisition of Cars.com and as a result recorded an indefinite-lived trade name valued at $872 million. As this trade name was recorded at fair value on the date of acquisition, any future declines in the fair value of the trade name would result in an impairment charge.”
Notice it uses “indefinite-lived trade name” in the SINGULAR (just 1, referencing Cars.com itself), not plural.
I’ve read that as well, on page 27.
I know there are no other Mastheads, FCC or TV licenses for Cars.com, you keep twisting my words on purpose …
As I said before, the item “trade names”, under “Indefinite-lived intangible assets”, includes both the value allocated to company trade names (brands, trademarks) and the domain name/s, but trade names and domain names are not the same thing.
In this case they say “trade name” (singular) on page 27 because it’s only the trade name related to Cars.com.
Let me repeat this again: Trade Names and Domain Names are NOT the same thing.
I think the carrying value of Cars.com domain is just a small portion of those 872 mln $, and it has been included together with Cars.com trade name, which represents the big portion of this item.
The Cars.com domain carrying value IMHO has been “merged” into the Trade Name item, since it’s not comparatively relevant.
Andrea: The tradename and the domain name *are* identical in this case, because the tradename *is* Cars.com.
They don’t have a tradename of “Google”, where that might be a billion dollar tradename, but the domain name Google.com is only worth a small fraction of it.
They don’t have a tradename of “Cars”, preventing anyone else from using “Cars”. Instead, their unique competitive advantage is in owning the Cars.com domain name, which they are *using* as their tradename (singular) and *that* domain name is what they are thus valuing at $872 million.
If you think there is anything else *other* than the Cars.com domain name that is contributing to the $872 million put into the “indefinite lived intangible assets” category, you’d have to spell it out. Remember that on page 55, there are *entirely separate* categories for the Cars.com deal for *other* intangibles (i.e. customer relationships = $789.54 million, internally developed technology = $69.5 million, etc.). The $872 million is for the tradename/domain name Cars.com, imho, and nothing else. If you go back to page 27, there’s nothing else that fits (and it has to be “indefinite lived, too), because there are no mastheads (that’s for magazines) and no FCC licenses (that’s for TV stations).
Thank you for breakdown.
My bad. Privatejet.com resolves to the charter company.
you were right it did resolve to NBAA.ORG or National Business Aviation Association website, but recently its an active website is there on PrivateJet.com.
Guess what Mini Private Jet is the category and will revolutionize the entry-level jet market. Check it out here,
http://www.businessinsider.in/Take-a-closer-look-at-Hondas-revolutionary-mini-private-jet/articleshow/48475147.cms
MiniPrivateJet.com ******* domain, ain’t it?
Steve
If you go for a pure domain sale the industry has long relied on Ron Jackson to keep the list of public sales.
Its only because Vegas.com, LLC was acquired or being acquired by a public company is why we are learning about this transaction from 10 years ago
We can argue about some of these sales as to whether they were basically domain sales even though there may have been a site or a small business around it
insurance.com also comes to mind
CarInsurance.com ($49.7 million) went for more than Insurance.com.
Michael
Thanks. I agree – Ron Jackson’s lists of sales seem to be the best.
Of course, there are lots of “private sales”, even acquisitions by shell companies or holding companies set up by Fortune 50 companies. This happens quite a bit.
We’re seeing fewer publicly disclosed domain acquisitions by public companies. Or maybe these companies are pulling back with domain buying.
For all of you lucky cats with the LLL. and NNN.com portfolios, enjoy the good times which may last for quite a while. Lots of investors in China, with lots of capital.
If cars.com was valued at $872 million,I wonder how much Pharmacy.com deal was?!!!
People will disagree about what fraction of a high 8 or 9-figure valuation pertains strictly to the domain name. Arguably, other intangible assets might be included.
Yet we all agree that domains such as LasVegas.com and Cars.com would command 7 or 8 figures in today’s market – as an assured minimum. Whatever your interpretation of the additional value, it’s notable how such extra value collects around premium domain names. Whether they’re the direct cause or the catalyst, they bring value.
@ George Kirikos:
In this and in some other cases involving online businesses, a tradename can be also identified in a domain name, but that does NOT mean they are the same thing.
A Tradename (e.g. trademark, brands) is typically developed over many years and it generates cash flows (from a business), it brings value to the company.
A domain name, considered stand-alone, without any business on it, does not generate this type and magnitude of value, cash flow wise (if any).
Cars.com is for them like a brand, a trademark, because it generates value coming from the business on it.
But that does not mean the domain alone has been valued 872 mln $ … that’s a crass and misleading statement, a lie, a manipulation of reality …
It’s the business on it which makes Cars.com a tradename, because the domain is used as a brand, and the bulk of its value comes from the fact there is a cash flow generating business on it, not from the domain name itself, considered stand-alone.
That’s why Indefinite lived assets are tested for impairment and why their value is based on specific cash flow, rates and other macro and micro assumptions, which can vary anytime.
@Andrea,
Clearly you disagree with George Kirikos’s interpretation. But is it necessary to call him a liar?
“[T]hat’s a crass and misleading statement, a lie, a manipulation of reality …”
Joseph,
No offense, but let’s call things with their name … 🙂
“A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false.”
In this case IMHO his statement is at least misleading, a manipulation of facts.
Not so, at all. Perhaps you resort to name calling, because you’ve been stumped when challenged to identify what other asset the $872 million figure applies to. See above:
“f you think there is anything else *other* than the Cars.com domain name that is contributing to the $872 million put into the “indefinite lived intangible assets” category, you’d have to spell it out.”
George,
I suggest you to read again what I wrote, since I’ve nothing to add.
I’ve already mentioned what is included in that 872 mln $ figure.
I’m out with this, good luck with it!
Andrea: If you’re referencing your statement “A domain name, considered stand-alone, without any business on it, does not generate this type and magnitude of value, cash flow wise (if any).” that is clearly wrong.
A domain name, on its own, of course generates ZERO income. By your argument, domain names are worthless, in terms of net present value of their cash flows — they’re just like baseball cards, with no business value based on cash flow.
But, that’s obviously an *incorrect* and *incomplete* appraisal methodology. Go read up on the relief from royalty method of domain name valuation, and you’ll realize why you’re wrong.
Where I think you’ve made a mistake is that you fail to realize that part of a proper domain name valuation *does* consider the “highest and best use”, and not just the “worst use.” For example, an acre of land might generate $100,000/yr as a parking lot. If you discount the value of $100,000/yr as an annuity, the NPV might be something like $2 million (depends on interest rates, etc.). However, that same acre of land might be located in Manhattan, where it could be used for an office tower! Here, the “highest and best use” (building a skyscraper on that acre of land) might lead to a valuation by a property developer of that same plot of land (NPV of the office tower rents, subtracting the cost of erecting the building, minus taxes, etc.) of $200 million (or 100 times what the land is worth if it was *restricted* to *only* being used as a parking lot).
So, for Cars.com, sure, if it was a parked domain name, it might only make $100,000/yr, and attaching a multiplier to it, might be worth $2 million on that basis.
But, that’s not how you properly value a domain name, at all. Just like you would in real estate, you would ask yourself “How much is this domain name worth to the person who would value it the most, and who could extract the most from using it?” That person would operate it as part of a large business, and the “extra profit” generated through the use of that domain name would be maximized by that operator. They could either pay you that “extra profit” via a royalty (i.e. consistent with the relief from royalty approach), or they could pay you a lump sum value which, if you negotiate properly, would be the exact same amount.
Here, Cars.com (Gannett) already owns the domain name. They *are* the highest and best use. They’re not going to value the domain name as if it was a parked page. They’re going to value the domain name’s excess contribution to their business. And that’s what they’ve done, when they’ve determined that the excess contribution to their business is $872 million.
Even if the Cars.com domain name was owned by somebody else, as a parked page, they shouldn’t be valuing it as just a parked page. Just like a parking lot owner wouldn’t value their land as a parking lot (they’d value it like an office developer!), the domain owner should be valuing it just like Gannett did, i.e. discounted present value of excess earnings to the *highest and best END USER* (with that end user not being themselves, if it was just parked).
Andrea: From page 55 of the SEC filing re: Cars.com:
“On Oct. 1, 2014, we acquired the remaining 73% interest in Cars.com (formerly known as Classified Ventures, LLC) for $1.83 billion. ”
In other words, 100% of the company was worth $2.5 Billion. Only the cars.com domain name was valued at $872 million.
Or, in other words, take away that Cars.com domain name, and the entire business drops by $872 million in value. Do you think they could simply copy what’s on Cars.com now, move it to FKJHGHKJHKHJHG.biz, and the value of the company would be the same?
Go read up on the “relief from royalty method” of domain name valuation (which is what was applied here). Essentially, if they didn’t own the Cars.com domain name, $872 million represents the net present value of the royalties that they would have to pay to the domain name in order to have use of that domain in their business. Or, in other words, they save $872 million in royalties, because they own the domain name.
So, they could operate from FKJHGHKJHKHJHG.biz, and pay no royalties. Their business would suffer. Or, they could operate from Cars.com — the enhanced cash flow from operating via Cars.com is worth $872 million today (i.e. net present value), compared to the alternative.
It’s just like the added value from folks owning Star Wars-branded lunch boxes. They can sell the plain lunch box for $4, or sell it with a Star Wars logo for $15, paying Disney some big royalties. In this case, though, the “royalties” that would come from the domain name are being kept internally.
If we go back to the LasVegas.com deal, you can look at all those external payments (from Vegas.com to the owners of LasVegas.com) as royalties. The sum of those royalties, in nominal terms (not discounted by interest rates) was $90 million.
Furthermore, for Cars.com, the domain name and tradename are identical *and* (more importantly) INSEPERABLE. Can you imagine a scenario where they don’t own the cars.com domain name, but use a “trade name” of Cars.com? That’d be silly! They’d be sending all their traffic to a competitor!
Just to add to this, the $872 million for the Cars.com domain name is based on the same analysis used when the Cloud.com domain name was valued at $18 million:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/877890/000087789011000094/R38.htm
(even spelled out, Cloud.Com [Member] | Domain Name [Member] Identifiable intangible assets purchased)
or the various Bankrate.com domain name valuations, covered in this very blog by Mike.
http://www.thedomains.com/2011/08/23/looks-like-bankrate-com-is-a-huge-domainer-spending-over-90-million-in-domains/
among other reported deals. Cars.com is exactly the same, except the magnitude is obviously higher.
Andrea
I doubt there is anyone in the domain space that has gone through more SEC filing than George and when it comes to such matters my money is on Mr. Kirikos.
Just to reply to you, Mike, since as I’ve said I’m out with this topic.
Be sure that there are many other skilled people, outside the domain space, who have gone through more financial reports and material than your friend.
And there are many different worlds outside the domain space.
That said, you can put your money where you prefer.
Time will tell.
Have a nice we! 🙂
A moron who is too self-absorbed and uninformed to recognize how little she really knows…
For those who still believe in the value of automated domain name appraisals, Estibot puts a value on LasVegas.com of $231,000. LOL The *monthly* payments alone are nearly that level, and of course the owners got $12 million up front, 10 years ago!
That is indeed a classic George!
George, your interpretation and explanation of LasVegas.com, and Cars.com has been wonderful to read. Thank you for your efforts. Even old time original domainers can learn something new.
There’s a saying in the aircraft pilot world and I believe it translates across many industies, professions and life in general.
NO pilot, not even the most experienced of pilots should feel they are immune from learning something new on every flight. THAT is what makes a good pilot…continuing to learn and enhance your skill set until the day you stop flying.
Same ideology can be said for other professions especially the relatively new (20+ years) profession of domaining.
Thanks again.
Liz H.
DomainPalooza
George priceless
Vegas.com estibot has at $1.1 million
373.com which i have turned 10 offers in the last year in the $400K-$499K range down as wells as offer in the past 3 months at $500K, $510K, $530K and $537K all from different buyers is valued at $31K
Why does anybody still support estibot.com? namely namejet.?
Andrea
I would say George is not a “friend” i don’t think I have even met him, but I have seen his work product over the years, so yes in the domain space there is no one I know who has found more info in SECO docs relating to domains than George so I respect his work product.
“”outside the domain space, who have gone through more financial reports and material than your friend””
I’m sure there are a ton of people, but none of these seem to given the domain community much info about domain sales or purchases.
@Andrea
I’ve read your posts — quite informative, and up-to-date. And you certainly add great value with these posts.
But no reason to disparage George, someone whom I know only via his posts. He’s pretty well-known in the industry as someone who does his homework on transactions.
Not to dismiss your suppositions, but it would be better for all to get the facts, rather than casting insults . No offense intended. I realize we all can get passionate with our comments, etc.
Thanx, all, for the interesting conversation!
Great work George, awesome! You could make a book with all these discoveries you have made, how you found them etc…A
I appreciate George’s research as well and the time invested in digging up some very interesting details.
Please post the names of the brokers on these deals. 😉
Thanks for the professional level of reporting !
there are factual errors in your article. Remark Media has zero further obligations for Vegas.com. Please call the company to validate. Repeat there are critical errors in your article.
I think “high_return” is confused. Remark Media bought Vegas.com LLC (the company) outright, and that deal closed last week. There are no more obligations with regards to that acquisition of the company.
Vegas.com LLC (the company) owns the Vegas.com domain name free and clear (they bought it in the 1990s). As for the LasVegas.com domain name, they have a deal to purchase it, extending until 2040, as per the terms posted in the article above, straight from the SEC filings. There are obligations until 2016. If Vegas.com LLC keeps paying past 2016, they can own the domain name LasVegas.com in 2040 (once all the payments have been made).
@Kirikos:
You keep twisting my words and mixing things, this time about domain valuation or pretending to teach me something (thanks, but I know the royalty method), but you won’t go anywhere with those tactics.
As I said before, I think Cars.com domain carrying value has been “merged” into the TradeNames item, since it’s not comparatively relevant.
A notable example which clearly proves you are wrong can be found in Priceline last 10-K (FY 2014), pag. 98.
As many know, Priceline is a huge listed online travel business, which, among others, owns Booking.com.
Booking.com, a pure online player based on a great generic domain, so fully comparable for the purpose in question, is way bigger than Cars.com in terms of revenue and also in terms of worldwide brand power/recognition.
Also in this case, “domain names and tradenames are identical *and* (more importantly) INSEPARABLE.”
But luckily (and correctly, kudos to the company) Priceline provides a detailed breakdown of those intangibles.
Well, if you check how Intangible Assets, ex goodwill, are classified and valued, you would see that the Gross Carrying Value of the item “Internet domain names” is only approx 42 mln USD, i.e. 2.5% of the Gross Carrying Value of TradeNames, which is 1,674 mln USD.
And the Gross Carrying Value of the item “Internet domain names” was less then 2 mln USD in 2010.
Bear in mind that Priceline purchased Booking.com in 2005.
This gives you an example of the magnitude of Domain Names value vs TradeNames value for this type of pure online business based on strong Domains like Booking.com and a few others.
These are facts, straight to the point, not propaganda, pump-and-dump or manipulation of reality … but truth hurts … (especially those people with vested interests …) …
Yawn
Cars.com has made a SEC filing (see top of page 80) which demonstrates I was correct:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1683606/000119312517167603/d553683ds1.htm
“Indefinite Lived Intangible. In connection with our acquisition by Parent, we have an intangible asset with an indefinite life associated with the Cars.com trade name. This asset represented 34% of our total assets at December 31, 2016.”
The Cars.com trade name *is* the Cars.com domain name.
Did you need 1 year and a half to prove nothing? … IMHO you are still wrong.
The mentioned 872.3 mln USD represent the amount of Cars.com business purchase price allocated to the item “intangible assets with an indefinite life”, which also includes “Trade Names”.
When they say “an intangible asset with an indefinite life associated with our Cars.com trade name” this gives the (wrong) impression that they are referring only to the domain name, but I think they are actually referring to an all-inclusive, collective “Trade Name” item under which they have grouped together all trade names items. Under “Trade names” are typically included both the value allocated to company trade names (trademarks) and to domain name/s. The absence in the balance sheet of any other Indefinite-lived intangible, particularly Trademarks, fully confirms and supports my view.
As also confirmed by other big online ventures, as for ex. Booking.com, part of Priceline, value allocated to Trademarks is significantly greater than that attributed to domain names, which typically represents a small portion of Indefinite-lived intangibles, also when TMs and domain name coincide.
Moreover, the fact that the domain name/s correspond/s to the Trademark/s does not mean that the domain name is worth that, but actually it means that a significant value is attributed to it only because is considered as a Trademark.
Many can read financial reports, but interpreting their wording, understanding why they are using a certain wording, why they are writing something in a certain way rather than in another, understanding if and why they are omitting something, some details, on purpose, is a totally different story …
Good luck. 🙂
Andrea: Did you actually even bother to *read* the *new* filing? It is a new filing because CARS.com plans to start trading as a public company.
They use the singular, both on page 80, and on page F-13, specifically referencing Cars.com, not some collection of assets.
Furthermore, that stands separate from any other “trade names”, e.g. on page F-13, they specifically refer to “Trade name—DealerRater.com” as a separate asset that they are amortizing over 12 years (unlike Cars.com, which isn’t amortizing). On page F-12, they also *separately* reference Goodwill.
Anyone can go check the USPTO.gov website — when you write “….but actually it means that a significant value is attributed to it only because is considered as a Trademark” that’s wrong, because there *is* no registered TM for Cars.com itself (besides a couple of dead ones), since it’s generic for the category. Any other TMs they might own would have limited or no value, compared to the Cars.com domain name itself. Even if they did get a registered TM for the term “Cars.com” in some obscure jurisdiction (as some companies do), clearly the value is still all attributable to the domain name itself, since it is identical to the mark (i.e. the mark is to protect the domain name, not the other way around).
Could they be valuing the domain, George, in light of the funds they have spent advertising it? If a company spends $1 billion advertising a website then that obviously increases the value of the domain for anyone who subsequently purchases it, apart from any other assets which might be sold with it. But you can’t legitimately compare the value of a domain, after it’s been advertised, with domains which haven’t been advertised.
I’m not sure why folks have a hard time believing that Cars.com can’t be worth ten times more than LasVegas.com?
Or consider Shoes.com that went for $9 million. Compare the global shoes market, and the global advertising market for cars. Is it hard to believe that Cars.com isn’t worth 100x Shoes.com?
Actually, Andrea, your interpretation of the aforementioned filing is incorrect. Mr. Kirikos is right.
Perhaps less snark and more insight would serve you well.
What you still don’t get, after 1 year and a half, is that the Tradename “Cars.com”, to which the IPO filing clearly refers, is considered both as a tradename (Trademark, brand) and as a domain name, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned in my previous posts here.
The Tradename “Cars.com” has two components in it, one is the “domain name” component and the other is the “Trademark/Brand” component.
The value allocated to the “Trademark/Brand” component is significantly, by many times, higher than the value allocated to the “domain name” component.
In this case, unlike what many other listed companies do (as in my example regarding Priceline with Booking.com), the company has decided to merge the two components and not to provide a breakdown of them.
That is why they are referring to it as “Tradename” (singular) and not “Tradenames” (plural).
As I’ve already said, many can read financial reports, but interpreting their wording and what’s behind it, is a totally different story …
Cheers. 🙂
Adding a smiling emoji at the end of each comment doesn’t make you less of an arse, or smarter…quite likely, much the opposite.
i’m with Andrea Paladini. Cars.com is the trademark and the connection with cars.com domains we could say is “accidental”. the value placed is on the brand “cars.com” not the domain “cars.com”.
Andrea great insight, along the lines pot is currently booming
In Vegas, so any domain names dealing with pot should & will command a
higher premium. Just a thought.
Mr. Michael Berkens,
I own the domain http://www.bookiemaps.com, similar to weedmaps.com except for a the gaming industry.
This site could also be used for bookings, tours, accommodations in gaming cities.
It would also include a blog that follows the world most fortune gambler.
I’ve been approached several times by a party that wants to purchase this site from me.
How can I get an agent to help me sell this for top dollar?