Domainers don’t agree on much

by

Sometimes comments uncover more than just the initial topic. A perfect example is the weekend banter with regards to Kevin Murphy’s comment about the sale of Hatred.com.

After that there were some back and forth replies on Twitter and around the blogosphere.

Ali Zandi went back and forth with Murphy and I think Ali won that back and forth on Twitter. For whatever reason when asked to explain his comment better, Murphy really just used semantics in my opinion.

Jun 24

Replying to

An investor makes a nice sale and your choice words are “rip off”? C’mon dude. What?

1 reply 6 likes

The choice of words is perfectly valid.

1 reply 1 like

Oh yea? How so? Everyone who invests in domains and sells them for a profit is ripping people off? Why does anyone invest in anything then?

1 reply 2 likes

I didn’t say any of that.

1 reply 2 likes

Then if that’s not what you meant, the choice of wording was poor. Whether you see it or not.

1 reply 2 likes

People in this business sometimes find enemies where there are none. I don’t know why.

1 reply 1 like

Enemy? You get called out when you are in the wrong – that’s how it works. Humble yourself bro.

1 reply 2 likes

I’ll gladly admit to being wrong, when I am wrong. What did I do wrong?

1 reply 1 like

New conversation

“Ripping off” is synonymous with thieving and has a negative connotation. It spreads negative perceptions about domain investing.

1 reply 4 likes

I disagree. Think about when in your life you said something was a “rip off”. Did you usually mean it was theft, or just expensive?

1 reply 1 like

Does that not still carry a negative connotation?

1 reply 2 likes

Often, yes it does. But it the buyer is Milo, who gives a…?

1 reply 1 like

I don’t know the buyer, bro. Only thing that matters is how sales are publicly treated as it is important to the growth of our industry.

1 reply 5 likes

You don’t know what the context of my original tweet was?

1 reply 1 like

Exactly my point. Imagine how many others don’t and the assumptions they’ll make the next time they’re quoted prices on a high value asset.

1 reply 2 likes

Hopefully they’re not an anti-racist charity, they might get quoted a price $38,000 higher than a domainer would 🙂

1 reply 1 like

New conversation

Do you, bro.

1 reply 2 likes

Do you?

1 reply 1 like

“Do what you feel is best for you, in short, do you.”

1 reply 1 like

🙂

Now there were some other people who tweeted at Murphy, the founder of this blog Mike Berkens tweeted the following:

Kevin if your not a registrar or registry then you’re a domain investor who like any other investor looks to buy low & sell high #whatwedo

Shane Cultra tweeted:

Kevin, you really should pick a different industry to write about if you are going to mock large sales. Even though your write real nice like

The person who sold the domain went back and forth with Murphy as well:

You can follow the whole convo stream here

In his daily picks post Shane Cultra wrote about the incident and included the following:

I can’t speak for everyone but I certainly feel uncomfortable having someone who writes and represents our industry telling the world via twitter that you’ve paid too much for a domain. It’s bad for the industry, its bad for business.

I also cannot speak for everyone, and I understand where Shane is coming from, I never thought of anyone else as representing me or anyone I know in this business.

While I agree if GoDaddy had a rampant fraud issue that might portray the overall business of domain names in a bad light.

But the opinion of a domain blogger, IMO, again opinion, represents themselves, no one else, if they make friends great, but they are really representing no one but themselves in the end.

Let’s take one more look at the initial tweet, Murphy got 7 likes, one of them by Domain Name Wire, a far more popular blog than Domain Incite.

So do people in and out of the industry believe that Andrew agrees with Murphy and the seller ripped Milo off?

In any context of the word, since it seems everyone wants to interpret “ripped off” in their own way.

I know that liking on social media can sometimes be foggy as there is no other button to click and convey a bit of a different sentiment.

In this case I would take a like to convey agreement with the notion of rip off, in one way or another.

What about Namestats, Mark Levine, I love Emojis? They all liked the tweet. If someone sells an emoji domain for $10,000 will that be a rip off?

Should several industry participants like a tweet that says it was a rip off?

Murphy has every right to believe what he wants, just like others have the right to think that it’s a misguided statement.

And newsflash, everyone who comments on blogs and posts on forums is not a pro domainer, they are anti selling for large amounts. Some domain investors are self-loathing, some people spend a lot of time in the industry just to troll.

We are not all on the same team, no matter how hard some try to convince others we are. We may share some common goals in a broad sense, like UDRP reform or Verisign’s .com contract, but there are many subjects where we stand alone.

That’s just my opinion I could be wrong. (homage to Dennis Miller)

About Raymond Hackney

Raymond is a writer, domain trader and consultant based in Pennsylvania. Raymond is the founder of 3Character.com and TLDInvestors.com.

Comments

    • A says

      I don’t screw around on twatter, so I missed this.

      I would say it is big news that people who write in this so-called industry think selling for profit is ripping someone off.

      Thanks Michael for posting this.

    • Joseph Peterson says

      One of top 5 best informed domain industry bloggers. That’s who.

      Kevin mainly writes about topics at the registrar / registry / ICANN level. His blog, DomainIncite, is less focused on resale. So it’s not surprising that many domainers are unfamiliar with his work. Nevertheless, you all ought to read him more regularly.

      • VR says

        I was being facetious, his blog is nothing special if you think he is top 5, may God have mercy on your soul.

        • A says

          Was that a Billy Madison reference ? love it, and I agree he is not top 5 just one of his buddies trying to talk him up. When I read Mr. peterson’s comment I threw up my dinner.

  4. Ronald Smith says

    great article Raymond, as a hobbyist there are certainly many in the biz I would rather not stand with. Congrats to the seller as that is a nice piece of change.

  5. Nomads says

    Everyone missed the point of that dude’s comment on Twitter.
    “Green with envy” is the appropriate term that comes to mind!!!!!
    Good on the seller to get the maximum possible amount for his name.
    We are all in this to make profit not to make friends and anyone commenting otherwise is just lying.

  6. George Kirikos says

    I don’t think you can necessarily count “Likes” (or even retweets) as agreement with a tweet’s content. I sometimes use “Like” as a simple way of bookmarking an interesting tweet, to come back to it later.

    • Raymond Hackney says

      That’s why I wrote a little something to that effect George. I think when you like something like that it tends to be more that you are in favor of the opinion. Retweet would be the better way to bookmark IMO.

      • George Kirikos says

        Personally, I don’t use “retweet” to bookmark (I use “Like”), because “retweet” would put the tweet into the timeline of everyone who follows me. So, “like” is less invasive.

        Although, Twitter now seems to even put “likes” into other people’s timelines, when there’s not much new content, so things do get blurry.

        They need to add a “bookmark” function!

        • A says

          You think all 8 people liked that to bookmark it, that’s the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. thx u

          • George Kirikos says

            I didn’t say anything about ‘all 8 people’. I simply suggested that a fraction of users might be using ‘like’ as a bookmarking function, as that’s how I use “like”. You’d have to ask those 8 people how they felt about the content of the tweet. (I didn’t “like” or “retweet” Kevin’s tweet at all)

            Go look at any news story (e.g. someone dies, someone is murdered, a fire, a natural disaster, etc.), and you’ll see a mixture of retweets and likes. I think you can safely assume that those who use the “like” button for an article about a fire or a murder aren’t necessarily saying that they’re in favour of that fire or murder!! Same for the retweets, they’re not necessarily endorsements, they can mean “here’s an interesting story that others who follow me might want to read about.”

            As Ray wrote, it’s foggy, so one shouldn’t let one’s own thoughts try to make sense of a retweet/like — just ask the person, if you care to know more.

            What’s most clear is if someone “quote tweets”, and adds their own unique content/viewpoint.

    • Raymond Hackney says

      It can happen, I get what George is saying, I do it sometimes but I use the retweet. I would worry if I liked a tweet that says someone ripped someone off, that other people would think that I agreed with that sentiment.

  9. Richard Dynas says

    All I did was sell a domain name and I wanted to share how I did it so others could do the same. Period.
    There is no monetary gain for me in any way announcing the sale. I wanted to help others so Shane and I decided to do a story. In fact, this may hurt me now.

  10. Rick Schwartz says

    Kevin Murphy has a very low regard for domainers. He covers our industry to make money. So if anybody is ripping anybody off…

    Just look at his story about me a couple of weeks ago. He’s not in journalist. He’s an agenda driven blogger. Nothing more. Nothing less. He knows nothing about dormins.

    He is driven by the jealousy and hatred of domainers. All you have to do is read his stories and his choice of adjectives. He is not a journalist imho

    FAKE NEWS!!

    • Rick Schwartz says

      Just as a follow up…
      Everyone was offered this domain name including myself and Berkens and we all passed on it. This is an industry of opportunities and missed opportunities.

      Congrats!

    • adam says

      “He is driven by the jealousy and hatred of domainers.”
      So, you are saying he should have bought the domain, right ? 😉

      I’ll sell you ihatedomainers.com for $12k

      • Rick Schwartz says

        Not at all. He’s not a domainer.

        I don’t know how you can read that into it. But I am saying all the domainers in the industry including me and Mike passed up on a domain that could’ve easily been turned quickly. There’s no doubt or question about it. It’s called reality. They didn’t pay $150K for .whatever.

        And all those that keep whining about the biz keep missing opportunities because they chase shiny objects. things that happened yesterday not things that happen tomorrow. Your domain you posted is a perfect example.

        He offered the domain on my Twitter thread many times. We all passed. Then he went out and had a grand slam homerun. Kudos! Isn’t that the name of the business? Should be a lesson to folks.

        I passed because it was a negative connotation. But as i repeat many times ,domains come up for value one need one project one desire at a time. It will not change going forward it will only get more so.

        The actual gold rush is over. Now the thing that remains is the gold and that will likely trade for the rest of our life times.

  11. Eric Borgos says

    Hatred.com is a 1 word domain that valuate.com says is worth $52,000 , so the $150,000 does not seem that crazy to me. 90% of the big domain sales I read about are at prices at least 10 times what I think the domain is worth. Think of all of Rick Schwartz’s big sales. Some of those are 100 times what I think the domain should sell for. Personally, I think hatred.com should sell for $5,000-$20,000, but a “ripoff” would apply more to something where you can buy the same thing a lot cheaper somewhere else, or he buyer does not get what they wanted and are unhappy with it. Hatred.com is a one of a kind domain (the plural “Hatreds.com” does not make sense, and the landing page for Hate.com says it is for sale for “only $351,183.00 USD”), so if that is the lowest price the buyer could get Hatred.com for and they are happy, I don’t see any problem with it.

      • Eric Borgos says

        I meant more like iReport.com which Rick sold for $750,000. I probably would have sold it for $7,500. But I can see how it could be worth $750,000 to CNN (the buyer).

  12. John Berryhill says

    I believe Kevin’s intent is being misconstrued.

    Taken from the perspective, which I assume correct, that Kevin is not a fan of Mr. Yiannopoulos, then I believe his comment was probably directed more toward a celebration of the incremental impoverishment of Mr. Yiannopoulos, rather than any sort of insult directed toward the domain registrant.

    In other words, it was more like “Thanks for emptying $138,000 from Yiannopoulos’ bank account” – a commentary more about the buyer than the seller.

    • A says

      All due respect Mr.Berryhill, I think that sounds weak, but you gave Murphy a way out.

      I read the tweets back and forth with Mr.Zandi, Mr.Murphy could have said exactly what you said about Milo and that it was sarcasm directed towards Milo.

      You stand with Mr.Murphy that’s your right, I think most will stand against on this particular tweet.

      Thanks for all you do in the biz.

    • Joseph Peterson says

      @John Berryhill,

      Exactly. I was just about to drag my carcass into the comments section to make the same point. Here we go again, I thought: Time to be a contrarian. Fortunately you beat me to the punch.

      Americans are great at righteous indignation. Not so good at detecting British subtext. Kevin’s comment was obviously a dig at Milo. The seller is to be congratulated for ripping off that putrescent celebrity. As inane as he is, Milo is himself British; so he would have interpreted Kevin’s remark correctly.

      It’s perfectly fine to sell a domain for a price above market value. When the buyer agrees, then nobody has been cheated. Kevin Murphy would presumably agree with this.

      At the same time, you guys have forgotten what a “ripoff” is. When I pay $5 for soda in a movie theater, then I let myself get ripped off. If I want the drink, then I pay for it; and I laugh at myself for getting ripped off. Does this imply somebody cheated me? No.

      This is the way all of you use the phrase in your ordinary lives. Milo was a lazy negotiator and let himself be ripped off in the very same way. How so? These 2 facts: (1) He paid more than necessary (because the seller would have settled for less); and (2) He can’t recoup more than a tiny fraction of the purchase price by reselling this domain – ever. So what? Maybe the movie soda is worth it to him.

      The seller did his job by aiming high. He cheated nobody.

      Milo let himself get ripped off by being a slovenly negotiator. Those of us who dislike the fellow will cheer.

      • Loudon says

        Was it a rip off? Let’s see what Milo does with Hatred.com. He may of been willing to pay double, in which case who got ripped? KM may assume most folks share his “hatred” of Milo… probably wrong again. “Hatred – the anger of the weak” Alphonse Daudet

        • Joseph Peterson says

          @Loudon,

          Daudet’s quip is very turn-the-other-cheeky. Personally, I swat mosquitos, though I suppose they deserve more love.

          It doesn’t really matter what Milo does with Hatred.com later on. If he paid more than the customary rate AND more than he needed to pay to get the domain, then his purchase price was a ripoff. Even if he sells for a profit tomorrow, it doesn’t matter. We’re measuring relative to what the buyer could otherwise have paid at the time.

          “KM may assume most folks share his ‘hatred’ of Milo”

          Pretty sure he knows some people have bad taste.

          • Loudon says

            @joseph peterson
            Oh yes the ‘customary” rate for domain names – darn that slipped my mind again! You say that even if Milo makes a bundle using hatred.com and also sells it for double what he paid, he still got ripped off?…. okay if you say so. But killing mosquitos?.. I gotta let that one go.
            KM wants to THINK that he ripped off Milo and could not wait to brag about it. That is all there is to it… weak indeed.

          • Joseph Peterson says

            @Loudon,

            What’s so hard to understand?

            First, the seller offers the domain to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Quote: “I threw $50,000 at them and he balked”.

            Next, the seller offers the same domain to Milo. Quote: “I figure,what the hell – I tell him $250,000”.

            Did market value go up by a factor of 5 in between? Does being turned down by promising buyers cause value to go up?

            Come on, guys! I know domainers worship money and hate it when somebody looks askance at Profit. But what would you call this in ordinary life if not a ripoff? Domainers here are saying that any price – no matter how high – is fair or even a good deal, as long the buyer chooses to buy. Which is utter nonsense.

            On Monday you see X for sale at $250, and you haggle down to $150. Then you learn that it had been listed for $50 by the same vendor the day before! Under those circumstances, if you can’t laugh at yourself for getting ripped off, then have I got a deal for you!

  13. Tasha Kidd says

    Regardless of somebody’s political/personal feelings of the buyer, or of the seller, it is a wholesale disservice to investors and sheer ignorance to use the word ripoff in describing this sale in a public platform. The underlying justification is that myopic machine valuations set the standard for value of a domain name. These serve their purpose but do not take into account the value of a new customer in the industry it represents, nor the cost of acquisition of that customer without the domain. There are other business factors that auto appraisals simply do not take into account. This is one of two self-defeating flaws surrounding the domain community, the other being the myopic view, once again, that prices set by list brokers reflect a domains value. In fact, it only sets a domain’s value in the easy-button market among wholesale buyers. It is the equivalent of a realtor who has one open house, invites mostly other realtors and brokers, and then tells the seller to lower the price. It has its place, but have eyes wide open for who the target market is, vs. the steeper climb of true end users.

    If you approach domain names and likely buyers from the perspective of businesses and industries (vs. domain group think) of what that domain name could mean in the marketplace to differentiate and dominate in a category and to be the perceived leader in that category, especially when that category is competitive and the stakes are worth $billions, then the auto-appraisals quickly become a very useful set of training wheels for newbies, but no more than a minor tool in the toolbox for veterans. I routinely sell keyword domains for thousands to hundred thousands of PERCENTAGE points above auto appraisal valuations. If you understand business and approach buyers from a win-win scenario, you can do it too. But you have to get out of the “domainer” penalty box and into the real world in your mindset and in your business valuations. In this case, Milo Y. has a great domain and Richard Dynas did a great job packaging it as an asset to Milo’s purposes in the marketplace. Note that Richard did this despite what everybody else said. This is the sign of a leader, not a lemming. If you still want to rely on auto appraisals, I’d be happy to sell you Unforgivable.com ~ Tasha Kidd, CorporationDomains.com @CorporationDom

      • Tasha Kidd says

        A sales pitch, it was not. The last sentence was a reference to the absurdity of many machine valuations. The issue I was making is where does one get the information that goes into making a valuation in the first place. In order to draw a conclusion that a sale was a “ripoff” one has to have factors that establish the perceived value. My point was that there are factors related to industries and business metrics that often seem to fall completely out of the radar of many domainers. Machine valuations have their place, but they are a myopic localized radar and miss some big factors that make domain value to end users far exceed typical machine valuations.

  14. John says

    I’m not buying the out JB just handed him. Is anyone else? Knowing a remark like that is likely to inflict damage on domainers and domaining rather than anything else is not exactly not a no-brainer, to use a double negative. And a remark like that was doubly negative – for domainers and domaining. No one taking it that way is at fault for being unable to perceive the exquisite subtlety of sarcasm that is just not there either.

  15. steve says

    Super sale.

    Richard comments:
    “So I was shopping the name out of boredom one day. I had it on Namepros I think for 12K and was getting nothing. I think someone offered me $3,000 and I had a bunch of people tell me it wasn’t worth anything. I always liked the name and thought it had potential. Luckily, I am not a scared seller, I don’t have to sell names to make a living.”

    This is so common on Namepros.com. I submitted some crypto .com domains in response to a Buyer Request. The party informed me they were not premium crypto .com names, so they weren’t worth much. Maybe $200 each maximum. $800 total.

    I contacted an end-user and sold the 4 crypto domains for $12 K. one week later.

    Has anyone ever sold a domain on Namepros for a decent price? I know this place has been considered a pond for bottom feeders, and to unload domains to newbies.

    Lesson: If you have a good domain, put some research in and contact possible end-users. All they can do is say no. On Namepros, they may say “yes”, but it will usually be well below valuation, based on what I’ve heard and my own experiences there. It’s more suited to those who need fast cash — when having to under-sell an asset,.

    Bravo to the Seller.

    Per the Buyer — I understand his character is not exactly stellar. But you can’t control what he does with the URL.

    Great sale. Move on.

  17. Mike Lucas says

    When I played Professional Baseball, there were jealous types like Kevin Murphy everywhere, who never played the game but stood in the background writing about hate all day long. There are some people in the “game” and then there are some people outside the game criticizing like Kevin Murphy!

      • Mike Lucas says

        Yes Kevin I did, I only made it to Double-A ball. We rode on long bus rides and stayed in bad hotels, the money wasn’t good, food was bad. The domain industry is much easier than that:-)

  18. Richard says

    Nope – it’s over already – now I’m not domainer famous anymore- back to trying to sell average names

  19. Mike Lucas says

    Kevin,

    I don’t know you and maybe your a great guy in real life. But everyday we get buyers lowballing us, buyers who don’t pay, registrars like Uniregistry trying to scam us on price 2000% price increase, in additional all the UDRP filed that are not justified that cost us money, lot’s of people making this business difficult enough, that is why your story which I didn’t even read, hit a nerve with so many people.

    • Kevin Murphy says

      Hi Mike,

      I am actually a lovely guy, thanks for being the first person to acknowledge that as a possibility in this otherwise horrible comment thread!

      Out of curiosity, I’m interested to know why you just accused Uniregistry of “scamming” people with price increases.

      By “scamming” do you mean that Uniregistry is breaking the law? Are you accusing them of theft? Are you saying you are a socialist because you disagree with Uniregistry’s right to make a profit? Do you hate domainers? Are you driven by an unspecified agenda roughly related to hating domainers?

      I received all of those accusations and more today for using the word “rip-off” in a tweet.

      You just called one of the most powerful men in the domain name industry a “scammer”. Fortunately for you, Frank is nice guy and not insane, so you are perfectly safe. 🙂

      Kev

      • Mike Lucas says

        Kevin, I have known Frank since 2005, even visited him in Cayman Islands 2x. We are friends in fact. However, Frank was doing some things that was unethical and was called out on in my many people including myself. Regarding Frank being a powerful guy, I beat in 15-2 in basketball 1 on 1, didn’t look too powerful to me(lol) But he is a nice guy!

        • Kevin Murphy says

          Sounds like you are a nice guy and an ethical domainer.

          Would you ever communicate with an anti-racist charity and threaten to sell a domain to the KKK unless they gave you $50,000?

          Ethical?

          • Mike Lucas says

            I wouldn’t Kevin, that is how I was raised and that is how I am raising my 4 kids.

          • Joseph Peterson says

            New domainers often forget themselves in their eagerness to get a sale. This does paint the seller in a bad light. But I think I know where he’s coming from. He was thinking of sales pitches he could use to close a sale. One of the most common is to point out that a competitor could end up owning the domain and use it for a diametrically opposed purpose.

            It’s actually really far-fetched to think that the KKK would brand itself with Hatred.com. Bigots don’t usually refer to themselves as bigots. So the sales pitch fell flat. He probably burned his bridges with that nonprofit by going that route.

            But this doesn’t necessarily mean he was going to offer to sell to the KKK. Domains are usually listed on marketplaces where the buyer’s identity cannot be determined. Buyer brokers are often used as intermediaries. So pointing out there is a risk of entity X buying a domain does not imply that the current owner is going to pitch it to entity X.

  21. Mark says

    Looks to me the OP used a bad choice of words but isn’t crazy about Milo and it was more of a congrats for making a big sale on the domain. And for getting top dollar from Milo.

      • John says

        Nonsense, as I already pointed out above. The person who handed you your out to “rehabilitate” you is sometimes fond of talking about what most “normal people” would recognize or some variation thereof. And not only most but any normal person would take it exactly as most and nearly all people already took it.

        So what is “terrifying” is how you don’t see that and didn’t see that when you posted.

        Now there is a really simple and clear way for you to put your money where your mouth is and make an effort to fix the damage, however, the very real damage.

        Now that you have been made aware of not only how it personally can and may now already do harm to the seller himself, www . thedomains . com/2017/06/26/domainers-dont-agree-much/#comment-221878, as well as to the industry in general, which means all of us, all you have to do is edit your post. And yes, that means in a truly adequate and unequivocal way with no game playing.

        • Joseph Peterson says

          John, you’re mistaken here.

          “Give this domainer a big hand for ripping off Milo Yiannopoulos to the tune of $138,000”

          Kevin said it. But I’ll say it too. Bravo!

          • John says

            Hi Joseph – I can’t say for sure what his intention was, and for all I know he did not really intend any slam against the seller or industry in general just as suggested. But then again, maybe he really did. Rick Schwartz seems pretty convinced of something there, and even if Kevin Murphy did not intend it, I’m still concerned about how it appears and came out, and how it would come across to most people at least here in the US if not also far beyond. For all I know he did not intend such a thing, but for all I know it could also be a case of “both/and” instead of “either/or,” as in he intended what is said about the buyer as claimed, but also took the opportunity to do something similar toward the industry as well using the example of the seller. I definitely feel that no matter how you slice it the other side of that kind of double edged remark is still going to have a harmful effect upon people and “things” even if it was never intended, at least in this great big country. I haven’t always been completely fond of everything Frank Schilling has done either, for instance, but when someone so casually and matter-of-factly accused him of engaging in fraud over at DotWeekly a while ago I felt that was also a huge red flag of potential harm to the industry and immediately took steps to have it addressed, which it was. Maybe this could be just a case of cultural idiom gone awry, but I do feel it is important for all of us for the line to be edited.

          • Joseph Peterson says

            @John,

            I understand why domainers are sensitive about this. We’re often accused of exploiting people merely because we offer domains for sale on the aftermarket. When our profit margin on a particular domain is sizeable, some onlookers dismiss us as parasites. We’ve all been subjected to so much public misunderstanding in this area that we ought to be aware of our own thin skin.

            Kevin Murphy has been writing about the domain industry for many many years. I ask you, is it plausible that he really views domainer profit as illegitimate or unethical? People who are steeped in this industry tend to have a better understanding of the aftermarket than that. So, you must admit, it would be bizarre if this interpretation of his comments were correct. It’s more likely that a bunch of domainers – all hypersensitive to being accused of ripping people off – heard a wolf yowl and started a stampede.

            We all use the word “ripoff” in a casual way. It doesn’t imply any wrongdoing. It only implies a price way above the market rate. And EVERYBODY here – 100% of you – know that the price paid for Hatred.com is a fluke and an outlier. If someone asked your brother to pay that, you’d say, “Don’t even think about it. 6 figures for this domain is a ripoff.” That doesn’t impugn the seller’s character. It’s just a statement about where the price fits relative to resale value.

            If somebody buys a house for 10 times market value, then that’s a ripoff. If they could have bought it for 1/5th what they paid, then they let themselves get ripped off. Maybe it’s their dream home, and they’ll live there contentedly forever. Fine. If asked to imagine Milo Yiannopoulos’s digital dream home, I’d say Hatred.com is the sort of shabby shock value that fits him like a glove. Nevertheless, the price he paid is a ripoff. Resale value is a small fraction of that at best. And I’m sure the seller would have taken a much smaller offer.

            “Maybe this could be just a case of cultural idiom gone awry, but I do feel it is important for all of us for the line to be edited.”

            In general, I would support the right of any individual to speak freely. What Kevin has said is perfectly fine. Milo has said far worse things (as attention whores are wont to do), but even he deserves the right to speak without censorship from a disapproving crowd.

            I really wish domainers weren’t so easily stampeded. Kevin Murphy is an industry journalist, and he ought to be accorded some benefit of the doubt. Even if his meaning isn’t apparent to everyone, can’t this community go 1 day without tarring and feathering somebody?

          • John says

            Hmm, it seems we have opened a bit of a can of worms here, Joseph, one we have opened before. 🙂

            Now I know you were a Navy man, and I think that’s really great. I wish I could have done something like that too. As I have alluded elsewhere, however, such as at onlinedomain . com/2017/05/04/domain-name-news/wishful-thinking-will-not-change-domain-names-used/#comment-184221, I too was once a real live nephew of our Uncle Sam working in his house, red, white and blue through and through. 🙂 That’s a long-winded way of trying to say that I tend to say what I mean and mean what I say.

            So with that in mind, is there any way I can convince you that I personally feel that $150k is perfectly reasonable for this domain? Not just the $150k, but also the $250k original ask. And not only do I think the $351k ask on hate.com is good and reasonable, but I think it’s really also a bit low, perhaps more than a bit, perhaps even much more. Also, the issue of ever being able to negotiate or pay a lower price or not depending on certain human variables is in my view not even relevant to what I think a domain is really reasonably worth.

            So it seems to me that the main can of worms you appear to have implicitly raised relates directly to one’s philosophy and convictions about the extremely unstable topic of “appraisal.” And it also appears that some of what you have said is implicitly conditioned by your own convictions about that, and your love of data, for instance. Ironically too, I even previously worked in IT before, especially involving data, and yet I have a very different view of this domain and of “appraisal.” Now I would guess you are perhaps thinking mainly of data when you speak so strongly about the value of this particular domain, as in data on the sales of other domains one might argue are “comparable,” etc. To make a long story short, if that is so then I just don’t feel the same way, and it’s not for nothing that I sold two nice long three word .com’s for over $21k just recently as mentioned at one of my links, while “Estibot” has them at pennies on the dollar, for instance, or that I agree with Rick Schwartz and others who think like him regarding “appraisal.”

            Now it is also ironic to me that you mention free speech and censorship too. Though no longer working in his house, I am still a real live nephew of our Uncle Sam, red, white and blue through and through. As such I most certainly not only love and fight the good fight regarding free speech, but I even came within an inch or so of filing a First Amendment federal lawsuit over free speech just fairly recently which I had never done before. So when I write what I write about Kevin Murphy’s post, I most definitely do not say that in a spirit or censorship or unmindfulness of the importance and beauty of free speech, not even within 50,000 miles of that, 1,000 for each state in this Land of the Free.

            Personally I certainly don’t want to tar and feather the man, but in my view the type of post involved is simply going to normally be taken by the general public exactly the way it was taken here already at least on one edge of a two-edged sword, resulting in potential needless and falsely based or unintended harm (assuming there really never was any such intent) to the industry and everyone involved including all of us.

          • Joseph Peterson says

            @John,

            Based on what you’ve said, there are a lot of tempting tangents I could take – about appraisals, about median versus max sale prices, about free speech, about crowd behavior, about domainer culture, etc.

            Or I could acknowledge that it’s midnight … and live to yakety-yak another day.

          • John says

            That works for me, Joseph. I could use a YouTube surfing break or dose of Law & Order myself. 🙂

          • John says

            I’m a nobody who posts anonymously behind a bear, Kevin. I’ve never been involved in any dispute, never gone to any conference, and have only ever explicitly publicized one sale, although I did mention this recently: http://www.domaininvesting.com/godaddy-launches-domain-investing-section-website/?replytocom=861704. Posting this way means people have to look at the substance instead of my name, and my substance proves that I’m not just a troll even when my form is a little bit (or more) displeased about something. Moreover, posting this way lends itself to feeling more willing to say a lot of things I believe often need to be said for which the absence of anonymity usually makes people reticent even if they wanted to. So that’s a good thing. Now even if you meant the headline as you say regarding the guy in question, unfortunately the way it came out still cuts both ways to any “normal” observer, as in both the guy in question and the seller and domainers/domaining in general, even if that was not intended. So I for one would certainly appreciate if you would edit it in light of that, and I would also suggest there is certainly no shame in doing so with that in mind.

          • John says

            Well it sure took you long enough to take another failed swipe at me this time, but that is a rather curiously both weak and extreme misrepresentation of what I have written here even for you. Your standing with industry luminaries and surface reputation can only go so far when you encounter someone you can’t push around with your usual nastiness… But secretly I must say I did love the time you suggested my fingers were stained with Cheetos, that was delicious. 😉

  22. David Carter says

    I post using my real name and I can’t believe I’ve just read all of this thread. My head hurts and I don’t even agree or disagree with anybody, except to say that it never pays to make it personal…

  23. Shane Cultra says

    All of this crazy nonsense could have been avoided if Kevin merely tweeted something to the effect of “evidently my tweet didn’t come out right to the US readers. Congratulations Richard on a great sale. Glad you took Milo’s money” I now get what he meant. Not smart or British enough to understand 🙂

      • Richard Dynas says

        I still think you’re a GIANT dickhead! How dare you try to make me beg you to retract a statement most people took as offensive. We wouldn’t be here if you would had just sucked it up and did the right thing. Instead, you told me you wouldn’t do that unless I asked nicely – you are a piece of garbage – stay overseas

        • Le Croix says

          Correct, Richard. Just because John Berryhill wants to be Benny Hill to his Monty Pthyon, means nothing to the rest of the world. Cultra summed it up perfectly.

      • John says

        Well I would hope so. As an observer from across the pond it still seems rather unBritish to me in 2017 in the same way many things here can sometimes be described as unAmerican. But you can still put your money where your mouth is for the good of all as I mentioned above. And I even already asked you nicely up there. 😉

    • John says

      Well said Shane Cultra. And I still can’t believe you weren’t embarrassed to admit you might be running for only three whole hours over at Elliot’s place. 😉

  25. VR says

    @Josephpeterson Don’t hate the hustle, the seller did what it took to get a sale. That’s his job.

      • Joseph Peterson says

        @Richard,

        So if sellers are trying to make money, I guess it’s impossible for any high price to be a ripoff. That’s what you’re saying, right?

        As long as somebody pays, then the price is a great price. And it’s heresy for anybody to question it. Even if the buyer paid 3 times or 30 times more than he had to. Even if the price he paid is way above what other people are paying.

        Ludicrous logic.

    • Joseph Peterson says

      @VR,

      There’s no problem with the seller maximizing his profit. I’ve already said so. More power to him!

      At the same time, there’s no problem with calling the selling price for Hatred.com a ripoff. It definitely IS a ripoff relative to where the market is at today AND relative to the price the same buyer could have gotten from the same seller. Obviously, he could have cut his price down to 1/3 or less of what he paid; but the buyer was clueless.

      Maybe this distinction is too subtle. I’ll try to explain what I’m driving at 1 more time: A “Ripoff” doesn’t necessarily imply cheating. A “Ripoff” can simply imply overpaying. It’s a reflection of market prices not seller behavior.

      • Hans says

        I think there is a problem calling it a rip-off in public. Makes the seller, who did nothing wrong look bad.

        This sale shows again like many other sales that only .com works!!!

      • Jon Schultz says

        The buyer “could have cut his price down to 1/3 or less of what he paid”? Probably. But if he counter-offered when given the price of $150,000 he would have been taking a chance of losing the domain. I remember an Afternic auction in 2005 when the bidding was around $10,500 and there was a buy-it-now price around $20,000. I decided the domain was easily worth $20,000 to me so I simply took it at the buy-it-now price so there would be no chance that someone else would. I subsequently turned down a $40,000 offer and believe I will eventually sell for considerably more. So I don’t think Mr. Yiannopoulos was necessarily foolish in accepting the $150,000 offer and I wouldn’t call it a rip-off or even a bad deal. It all depends on how he is able to use the domain to his advantage and whether a domain he could have purchased less expensively would have conferred enough benefit to make it a preferable purchase. Considering how much money is spent and donated in the field of politics (not to mention other considerations) he may end up being very happy with his purchase, despite what he now knows.

  26. Stephen Douglas says

    I greatly respect John Berryhill, Esq. I would ask him this question about the interpretation of the word “ripoff”, and if it implies directly to a “crime”. If so, it’s a good case for defamation, and libel per se, and possible intentional interference with business for the person on the receiving end of “ripoff”. Is it true that people can have their opinion and call people names like “idiot” and “moron” (not that anyone has ever uttered those words in my direction *cough*, but to accuse them publicly of a crime when no crime was committed, is that a defamatory statement? A better statement would have been, “he paid too much for the domain”. That’s an opinion, and protected under free speech and several other constitutional points.

    My opinion as a broker is that whatever the buyer pays, in an honest deal, capitalism is fair game, as Berkens says, “buy low and sell high”. I wouldn’t have blinked if Hatred.com sold for $250,000. Someone had a reason to want that domain bad enough and had enough moola to pay for it. What say ye, sir?