WebQuest started a thread at Namepros that is picking up steam fast. The topic is on people bidding on their own names at NameJet.
Once in awhile I see people bidding on their own domains at NJ. I would think it would be frowned upon.
Today’s seems more obvious than normal. Or am I missing something here?
Airlinejobs.com owned by Andy Booth at Booth.com and high bidder is BQDNcom (James Booth).
3 bids down we see Boothcom as a bidder.
Same thing with MovieZone.com. Owned by Andy Booth in which he currently appears to be the high bidder.
High Bid: $2,475 USD by boothcom
They actually won their own domain airplanesforsale.com. Im guessing it didnt get as high as they wanted so needed to protect it.
Bidder Amount Date
bqdncom $2,001 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
boothcom $1,950 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
Members are demanding answers from NameJet and want to know what’s going on. To be clear no one has replied from either NameJet or the Booth’s. No details are known and this might be a misunderstanding, either way we will keep you updated.
*UPDATE 3:03 Jonathan Tenenbaum commented on Namepros:
Hi all – Thanks for the heads-up. We are currently investigating this matter. We obviously do not condone any kind of shill bidding on NameJet, so we take this very seriously. I will post an update when I have one. Thanks again.
-JT
AndyBooth followed:
Actually, you will find they are listed by another seller. I moved these domains on. How is this disgraceful? James is bidding because he wants these names (formerly owned by me) at those prices. I am bidding on these names (formerly owned by me), because it’s for a price I would buy it back for, IE for less than I let them go to begin with. It isn’t shill bidding, as evidenced by buying AirplanesforSale.com. Find something better to complain about.
Thank U for posting, I never go on that site. This is bad if true.
Whoa!!!
stop the press!!
Really no news at all..
Look at bidders like hkdn that always seem to know the exact reserve price… Give me a break.
Same regarding the Booth accounts. Your brother wants to buy a domain that you own? Well pick up the goddamn phone for christ sake. You tell us you rather would sell it through NJ and pay 15% commission instead of dealing with him directly? Sure…
>>>Your brother wants to buy a domain that you own? Well pick up the goddamn phone for christ sake.<> You tell us you rather would sell it through NJ and pay 15% commission instead of dealing with him directly? Sure…<<<
I can't comprehend this
Well said Richard.
Booth Brothers are funny.
>>>Your brother wants to buy a domain that you own? Well pick up the goddamn phone for christ sake.<<>> You tell us you rather would sell it through NJ and pay 15% commission instead of dealing with him directly? Sure…<<<
I can't comprehend this.
>>>Your brother wants to buy a domain that you own? Well pick up the goddamn phone for christ sake.<<
I concur
>> You tell us you rather would sell it through NJ and pay 15% commission instead of dealing with him directly? Sure…<<<
I can't comprehend this
If a domain is listed for sale with no reserve I actually don’t see the problem with an owner bidding for the domain. In a state tax auction or any other type of asset forfeiture auction it is standard that creditors or prior owners would be bidding in the auction right up against other unrelated bidders.
As long as they have to pay cold hard cash to buy the name back like everyone else, then where is the problem? They are creating no economic damage. In fact it is just another form of “reserve” pricing and actually is more economically accurate and beneficial to the market.
With a reserve auction, nobody wins if the auction doesn’t hit reserve. You do not even get an accurate picture of the market value of the asset because the bids don’t mean ANYTHING until they are over the reserve. At least with a no-reserve auction where the owner is allowed to bid, you have real economic advantage and productivity. The owner must authentically create a value threshold. If owner buys it back, the auction house still gets their commission creating economic benefit. The market gets a true picture of the value of the asset. And the owner re-acquires the asset that they value higher than the market does.
When you have any deal for ANYTHING and you have a bonafide buyer and a seller at the table then one of them will walk away with the property and one will walk away with the money but BOTH the property and money are on the table and up for grabs by either party. Read that again because its important. If the “Seller” doesn’t accept the offer from the buyer than, in essence, they have just paid whatever price the buyer offered to buy their own property back. Quite literally, there is no buyer and no seller, there are only two parties (or more in the case of an auction) who assign value to a particular piece of property. One party has money (or other consideration) and one party has the property. At that exact moment in time, you have two parties who each need to decide if they value the offered money or the property higher. One walks away with the property and one with the money. Its really that simple.
Example:
Lets say that we put Murphy.com for sale in auction or in a straight listing and we receive an offer of $150,000 for the domain. We have have only two options and outcomes:
1. We accept the offer, transfer the domain and walk away with $150,000
2. “Buy” the domain for $150,000 ourselves (by turning down the bonafide offer of $150k)
This may not be immediately obvious to most folks but every time you say “NO” to an offer, what you did was buy your asset or property or contract for whatever the offer price was that you turned down.
If an auction has a reserve price and the owner is bidding below the reserve price then that is a totally different story. I actually don’t necessarily see the issue with an owner bidding below the reserve either just to create “momentum” in the auction, but since the domain can not be sold below the reserve anyhow, it is not financially harming anyone involved. But I fully understand that this practice is more controversial and does create some false illusion of the value of the asset in the event it does not sell.
Outside of the domain industry it is common practice that an owner would be able to bid for their own asset in lieu of setting a reserve. If they buy the property back they still have to pay the full commission to the auction house or broker. Again, that is real money paid and keep in mind that if they had let the #2 bidder win, that would have been money in their pocket. So the price paid is actually HIGHER than anyone else would have paid because they are paying the purchase price (opportunity cost) PLUS the auction commission (actual out of pocket cash). If that makes any sense…
So while I’m sure my post will cause controversy, I must say, I think it is silly to worry about owners bidding on their own domains in either scenario. The only ones you need to worry about are the auction houses themselves and making sure there is no INTERNAL shill bidding (like Halvarez).
Wait you are trying to say, you tell NameJet to auction your name that you already own, example.com
I am high bidder at $10,000 and it’s cool for you to bid on your own name and drive me up to $50,000 then you are out and I pay $50,000.
Wow this whole industry should go away, this is insane logic.
Benefical to the market == to the auction company that is hosting the auction
Very nice Drew. Except what you are describing is fraud.
Remind me to not deal with you in case I forget.
Thanks
At Godaddy, if you let your own domain expire, before it’s deleted, Godaddy could put it up for auction, and you can participate and bid, and win your own domain.
I don’t endorse the practice alleged above, but I’m in support of platforms allowing owners to bid.
As a matter of fact, I suggested to François of Domaining to innovate and introduce it on his CAX market back in 2010, and thought it was not a good idea, and I dropped it.
Hopefully, he will remember and confirm.
Or if you know what you are doing, you just log into your godaddy account, unlock the domain and email the transfer auth code to yourself and transfer into another registrar instead of all that bidding nonsense.
LOL, I do not remember but it’s possible because if someone will ask to allow this feature in CAX I will probably respond the same today, NO. It’s crazy because I find so logical what Andrew suggest but at the same time, I admit it will look so strange to see the bid of the owner on his own auction, without say it could be considered as fraud in some countries. Now I know the practice to ask a friend to place a bid on his auction is very common in all marketplaces. It’s simply the same practice, but more secretive and without the wow.
To
Francois Carrillo
Message body
Great, thanks bye…You’re a great guy…hopefully I’ll bring you another idea very soon, that is legal…ciao
— On Sun, 8/1/10, Francois Carrillo wrote:
From: Francois Carrillo
Subject: Re: An Idea for you, Francois
To: “eclubdirectv”
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 4:26 AM
Like all the names in auctions it will be automatically promoted in domaining.com and his daily newsletter without any additional cost.
2010/8/1 eclubdirectv
Ahhhh it’s not legal! That explains why it’s not done….oh well.
Anyways, I have one of my domains SugarCane.Co on auction at Sedo, is there a way you can help me publicize it so it can sell for a reasonable sum? Right now it’s on got one bid at under $200, I will appreciate it if you can get it on Domaining.Com, I will give you 3% of whatever it sells above the $200, I know you don’t need the money :-), will you do that for me??
— On Sun, 8/1/10, Francois Carrillo wrote:
From: Francois Carrillo
Subject: Re: An Idea for you, Francois
To: “eclubdirectv”
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 4:16 AM
LOL
Yes :)))
And it’s good to finish to the jail 🙂
2010/8/1 eclubdirectv
I don’t know how possible it is…
BUT it will probably be a good Idea if you let Domain Sellers be able to bid on their own domains if you allow them to list their Domains starting at $1…. that may bring a lot of bidding and activity to your site. If a seller feels the bid is too low by a seller, he (she) can bid above the buyers bid… what do you think? Is it a stupid idea :)?
— On Sun, 8/1/10, Francois Carrillo wrote:
From: Francois Carrillo
Subject: Re: An Idea for you, Francois
To: “eclubdirectv”
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 4:02 AM
Tell me.
2010/8/1 eclubdirectv
Hello Francois,
I had an idea for your BargainDomains.com… are you there?
Godaddy should not be allowed to auction domains that they do not own,if you win the auction then you have to pay them and then if the current owner does not pay the fine to get the domain out of redemption, that is when you get it, but if the previous owner pay the redemption fine fee then you don’t get the domain that you won in auction and spent time and money to win, they got your money for a week at minimum (they can do whatever they want with your money during that week, I mean, I could buy and sell a domain in that period with that money) and then you even have to wait for them to return your money, For me, that is fraud, if an individual does that everybody would be screaming at the forums SCAMMER!!, but Godaddy does it and nobody does nothing….
It’s the MOST unfair thing in the world! Even the United Nations should help make ICANN STOP it! Registrars should not be able to sell domains above registration prices, and most certainly should not covet and take expiring/expired domains, sell them and keep the proceeds; the Registrant gets nothing.
As a matter of fact, Godaddy and other Registrars should be made to refund every dime they’ve ever made from selling expired/expiring domains.
Kostas is 100% right, that’s fraud 101.
We stopped doing business with Drew Rosener longtime ago … guess why … 🙂
Finally that big can of worms has been opened …
Shill bidding is a form of WIRE FRAUD, so I’d suggest to contact the FBI, and considering also a Class Action.
What I see from NP thread confirms my suspects, as I mentioned in a post on OnlineDomain talking about it a few moths ago.
Nothing new under the sun … price manipulation is widespread on NJ …
In case someone didn’t noticed that, Oliver Hoger, the Booth bros and Drew Rosener are “business friends”, and Rosener new company has been formed by the same company in Gibraltar …
A few words to the wise … 🙂
So disappointing.
Long winded justification of shill bidding doesn’t make it right.
Drew, have you ever bid on your own auctions at NameJet?
Cannot lose sight of the fact that shill bidding is illegal. (Shill bidding was included in the definition of criminal fraud in the 2006 Fraud Act.)
I would point out that contrary to what Rosener suggests, the MOST damage from shill bidding occurs when there is no reserve because that is when every bid made has a real impact on the actual price at which someone might end up having to pay for the auctioned item. In fact, shill bidding by the domain owner UNDERMINES the entire “no reserve” auction process and allows the owner to manipulate the price higher.
As far as auctions where the owner NO LONGER OWNS the item being auctioned, lost it at foreclosure, seizure, forfeiture, etc. well – that’s not shill bidding, and has no relevance to this discussion, certainly not as ammunition to propose that owners should be allowed to shill bid! (BUT, I would point out that even there there might be an ethical question. For example most insurance companies do not allow a previous owner to buy back an asset that was forfeited until after it is back in the open market.)
Andrew you are saying it’s ok to bid on your own names driving prices up? WOW
Really doesn’t make any sense imo.
If you put a domain (or any other good) that you own up for auction, you are indicating that you want to sell it. If you suddenly end up in that very auction, bidding up your own domain (directly or indirectly via proxy bidders) you are manipulating that auction process and you make it a farce for any honest bidder involved. Ebay has blocked hundred of thousands accounts in the past for that very behaviour. I really hope NJ will react here.
Don’t forget: Even if a domain auction has a reserve, the owner knows that reserve and can bid accordingly. That insider information gives him an advantage over any other bidder involved in the auction. It is just a no go.
Richard – read what I actually wrote. I said that if there is NO RESERVE then I think the practice of an owner bidding for their own domain should be allowed. I think it creates a more efficient and more perfectly priced market.
Sure, everyone would rather get something CHEAPER. But that doesn’t make it right. If an owner values the name higher than the market then they buy the name back. If the market values the name higher than the owner then the domain sells.
I think we should just do away with reserves entirely and FORCE owners to bid for their own names if they don’t’ want them to sell below a certain price.
But again, I’m posting all this as a thought exercise and hoping to encourage constructive conversation around the topic. My #1 priority and focus in the domain industry has always been liquidity and pricing and how to perfect both in domain names. If we were able to fix liquidity and pricing then domain values go to the moon. Perfect pricing through a mechanism as I have described, I believe, would go a long way towards solving both of these hurdles.
Andrew am I missing something? If I tell Jonathan to put Jozie.com on NameJet I wanted to sell it, if I see you sitting there at $200 and I jump your bid and you bid back, it’s cool for me to do this until you are at a price I like?
I like your ideas on better liquidity and pricing. On Namepros where you can be creative some of the more exotic auction types were things I suggested.
One I suggested that Eric did not approve was a buy back option, on Namepros you can only run no reserve auctions. I thought well if I auction x and it goes to $200 say, well below what I hoped, as a buyback option, I have the option to not complete the sale and pay the high bidder 10% of their high bid. Would you think something like that could be interesting?
As far as I understand, unless it is a ‘forced sale’ auction (some of what Andrew is referring to), if the seller wants to bid, that must be disclosed to all bidders beforehand with most types of offline auctions.
The problem is that it becomes very difficult to draw the line between the situation Andrew is describing and whether someone is artificially trying to increase the auction price or the desirability of the auction. Ebay doesn’t allow it for obvious reasons & neither should NameJet, imo.
The integrity of a marketplace gets lost and most bidders will not want to continue to participate knowing that a seller can bid up their auctions at any time.
How is that any different than simply participating in a free and open auction with no reserve?
If the price is below a price you are willing to sell at, then you become the buyer and buy it back. You have to pay the auction commission of 10% – 15% (sometimes higher) and you hvae to pay the opportunity cost of the money you did NOT receive if you let the #2 bidder win.
This is nothing new. This is how MOST asset auctions work outside of domains!
An open and free market will dictate the price of an asset and by NOT allowing the owner to participate you are actually artificially influencing the value and market price of an asset. An owner’s participation in an auction is a clear signal to the market and other auction participants of value.
Corporate stock buybacks are essentially the same mechanism. The company thinks the market is under valuing their stock (assets) and so they buy it back for the benefit of other shareholders. If the market valued the stock higher than the company wouldn’t buy back shares. Its a market corrective mechanism. It SHOULD be allowed. You are creating a false market by not allowing it in fact.
Just my 2 cents.
NOTE: i have to leave in a few minutes so I will no longer be responding until tomorrow most likely.
I read what you actually wrote and it still doesn’t make any sense to me.
My statement was relating to auction WITHOUT a reserve. I just added the last paragraph to point out why an auction WITH a reserve would give the owner an unfair advantage if he takes part in that auction.
“I think it creates a more efficient and more perfectly priced market.”
Au contraire. It artificially inflates prices by injecting or at least showing a liquidity that is just fake because it is provided by the owner of the asset. I think we can agree to disagree here. Shill bidding or bidding on your own names contributes nothing to price discovery and therefore nothing of value to the industry.
Here’s ebay’s take on that topic
http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-To-Identify-Shill-Bidding-Techniques-And-Avoid-Them-/10000000009884612/g.html
If the owner is willing to pay a higher price than the other participants than THAT PRICE is the real value. No inflation, no “bidding up”, they are bidding what they believe to be the value of the asset being sold. Ian is right, I’m referring to a “forced sale” auction situation which is essentially what any No reserve auction is as long as the seller does NOT have the opportunity to negate the sale. They are paying a real value to buy the name. That value is actually HIGHER than what the 2nd highest bidder would have paid. (price paid by owner if they win = 2nd highest bid + auction commission).
I think the same as Andrew.
There is no cure for stupid.
I will not argue, it look likes you know a lot about.
it’s why Blockchain is needed to create a transparent platform with understandable rules , i mean auctions that allow shill bidding must write it on a BIG banner , you know like on cigarettes packs : the bidder is very likely to bid on his own auction…
Yes, Namejet should have a disclaimer under each auction if that is actually allowed on their platform.
IF namejet ALLOWS this, that will be the END of namejet.
Nothing worse than shill bidding in a domain auction when only the shills know.
It’s INEXCUSABLE!!
NameJet Terms of service since November 2016:
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Terms.aspx
Section (5) Listing & Selling:
Paragraph (4): 5.4 Fraud. Without limiting any other remedies, NameJet may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect that you (by conviction, settlement, insurance or escrow investigation, or otherwise) have engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with our Site.
Is shill bidding on your own domains fraud? This is a question NameJet should answer ASAP.
Legal Definition of Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.
I believe Rosener is proposing an innovative process going forward, not endorsing a shill budding, but a change in policy. Not secret, but disclosed and allowed by platforms. He articulated the benefits well.
But we are not talking about shill bidding. We are talking about openly allowing a domain owner to bid on their own domain in auction which has NO RESERVE. Level playing field.
Right on!
The Domain King gets it!
No matter how Mr. Rosener tries to justify it, shill bidding is a MAJOR black eye on this industry!
How many times do expiring domains that pick up a bid or two at auction have a sort of spam bidder or two bidding to the moon to try to inflate the perceived value of the domain?
Then before anyone is forced to pay anything, the domain gets renewed by the prior owner.
Surely this happens every single day.
I know I saw an obvious case of it about a month ago, where a .net allegedly went for more than the associated .com’s buy it now price was set at. Then the auction winner never paid, second bidder gets sent second chance option link, but really that doesn’t even matter as the domain is then renewed & will then go through the same exact process the following year.
I suggested to François of Domaining to innovate and introduce it on his CAX market back in 2010, and he thought it was not a good idea, and I dropped it.
Hopefully, he will remember and confirm.
Whether Andrew is right or not, Andy stated this is not the case. He says he does not own the domains in question. The whois prior to auction ending reflects he does.
Yes, that is an entirely other issue that clearly needs to be resolved.
My point is more a matter of best practices and a thought exercise in industry norms. I think the rules should be changed to create a MORE transparent and MORE efficient market. NO reserve auctions with owners participation (in an open way, not shill bidding) would create a MORE perfect market.
I wholeheartedly agree and think your proposal would encourage more people to auction domains that they want to sell. People hesitate to sell now because setting a reserve price is difficult. If it’s too low you could lose a valuable asset way below its actual market value if the auction doesn’t get enough publicity or if it ends on a weekend or a day with distracting news or some event happens in the life of the person(s) who would have bid the highest in the closing moments. And if the reserve is too high then the domain simply won’t sell and listing a domain over and over with gradually diminishing reserves is likely to turn off buyers who were initially interested and wastes everyone’s time and energy.
I think your proposal is the best solution and hope the various auction houses will consider it. Thanks for taking the time to share.
You must be outta your mind. Best solution? Please tell me this is a parody website. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lololololo
Come on VR
Sip some of the newgtld koolaide
The business model that made bidding to lose cool and profitable
Drew and domenclature have simply brought that idea home to dot com
Bidding on your own auctions is fun!
@Ian agree
@Andrew well aware of stock buybacks that was my seafood, (my background) I don’t see it as apples to apples. First the board votes on a buyback, two more people benefit than just the owner.
If I list a domain on NameJet and I can get a $200 buyer up to $2,000 by bidding against them, I win, and they got a little screwed. If I win the auction well I pay NameJet so they can send me 85 to 90 % of it back.
Raymond, I’m truly shocked that you don’t understand the premise of what I’m saying.
If you are the owner and you get a $200 buyer up to $2,000 then NOBODY GOT SCREWED!!! You didn’t put a gun to the head of the buyer and force him to buy the domain for $2,000! He willingly and freely bid $2,000 because he believes the domain is worth at least $2,000 or more. Yes, he is probably not happy he didn’t get a massive discount on the domain. But he didn’t get screwed, he paid the actual market value. If one or more parties is willing to pay more than he would have lost. Its really that simple.
I am saying that Andrew because I think they would be pissed that the owner bid against them. I agree if they wanted it and felt the price was fair, no one forced them. Screwed might have been the wrong word, but I don’t think a lot of people would be happy.
Bidding against the owner
“I don’t think a lot of people would be happy”
Lolololo lololo
Master of the understatement
Why do you think Ebay doesn’t allow users to bid on their own auctions?
I totally agree with you. It makes total sense. However, as a bidder I personally don’t like that kind of behaviour and it is also against NJ rules. I don’t want to be part of a bidding war because it seems that the name is “popular”. This can make people think that the name is worth a lot more money that they think. Remeber the 6N bubble craze?
“He paid the actual market value”
Are you kidding me
Grade 5 hat have been the best 3 years of your life
That’s called Price Manipulation, which distorts the price formation in a free market situation, and it’s a fraud, a crime.
FYI, opportunity cost, tax auctions and your other examples are all wrong and not comparable …
Yours it’s not free market 101, it’s fraud 101, shame on you.
Statistically stock buybacks are mostly put in place at market tops or at the end of business cycles. Activist investors force the board to buy back stocks in order to boost their profits. Apple had to issue bonds to buy back stocks because their cash is offshore. Completely different topic really.
Right way different. Only participated in about 100 and handled the buyback on the institutional side for two utility companies.
Once upon a time US listed corps were prohibited from buying back their own stock on open market.
All grey area imo as domain investors are typically not institutional or accredited investors. Yet domain investors on average are more sophisticated than majority of ebay users.
c o l l u s i o n?
Benefiting from inside information…
smells a bit like the halvarez-gate in here…
If it’s permissible in their T.O.S… c’est la vie
but if not in the T.O.S… I don’t think Andrew’s argument will hold in court.
pending real legal opinion:)
Sounds like some of you are having a philosophical discussion on the best way to sell a domain but remember in the context of an existing platform like Namejet there are TOS that govern the conduct of all users. You can’t place your own rules on someones platform.
Start your own
I concur, and any venue that allowed this I would definitely not use.
Brad
I’m not seeing anything in their Terms of Use regarding bidding on one’s own auctions. If someone finds it, please post it.
There is this blanket statement on fraud:
“NameJet may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect that you (by conviction, settlement, insurance or escrow investigation, or otherwise) have engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with our Site.”
Also, there is this excerpt from a letter sent out by NameJet after the SnapNames Halvarez scandal in 2009:
“We have security procedures and policies in place that monitor all activities to ensure that “shill” bidding does not occur. Further, employees are strictly barred from bidding on auctions and NameJet has both internal and external monitoring to ensure all security procedures are enforced. These procedures were developed and are maintained by two of the world’s largest and most trusted registrars.”
NameJet Terms of service since November 2016:
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Terms.aspx
Section (5) Listing & Selling:
Paragraph (4): 5.4 Fraud. Without limiting any other remedies, NameJet may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect that you (by conviction, settlement, insurance or escrow investigation, or otherwise) have engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with our Site.
Is shill bidding on your own domains fraud? This is a question NameJet should answer ASAP.
Legal Definition of Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.
This is NOT ok! This is NONSENSE!!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!
lol
The owner of a property participating in the auction as a bidder !!
That’s fraud folks!
Hello?
Plain and simple, short and sweet and if true at NameJet, then perhaps systemic industry wide.
tisk, tisk, tisk
Yep.
Plain and simple I feel it is absolutely wrong for an owner or a “friend” of the owner to bid on a domain at auction. Anything that effects the natural flow of the auction is wrong. Jonathan of Namejet and I have talked about this many many times over the last year and I felt like he takes this kind of stuff very seriously. He is probably tired of me pointing things out that I thought looked off. But I don’t scan the lists and only notice names I’m bidding on. I missed the Booth stuff because they weren’t in my wheelhouse.
Drew is a good friend and I trust him as much as anyone in this industry, but in this case I can’t agree. I can’t see any reason to bid on your own names. I have a choice to bid or not bid but this business is tough enough competing against other investors, I don’t need the owner and/or his friends working the auction as well.
Congrats Shane, welcome back to the domain bubble.
You are right, there is no reason to bid on your own domain names, on any marketplace. That is price manipulation, reserve or no reserve.
Also, some of these “supposedly” smart domainers bid on their own domain auctions on NameJet, with user ID handles that can be seen online. Not smart.
I am almost certain that “technically” you can bid on your own domains. you can “visit” own auctions and the backorder button looks active.. The only thing that seems to block people from doing this is the NameJet terms and conditions.. Lazy webmasters?
Hi Andrew, I understand your theory that allowing the owner to bid on a no reserve auction creates the most perfectly priced market. It’s clear you have given this a lot of thought.
What is against your model is that in an auction environment a major piece of information that bidders use to assess the value of an asset is ‘DO OTHERS THINK THE SAME’.
It helps to validate or give confidence for them to bid higher. Now if the other bidder is the owner most would feel they are being duped, because of owners often over value their own assets and therefore winning against the owner means you have more chance of falling prey to the winner’s curse i.e. paying over market value because of incomplete information.
There is no doubt, owners bidding incognito achieves the highest auction prices. Does that truly mean perfectly priced market? No, and here is why: you sacrifice the good will of the auction platform once it becomes clear the auction house is allowing owners to bid and therefore long term, bidders lose confidence and stop bidding in fear they are bidding against the owner. Initially, prices fetched will be higher but as soon as the full information is known to other bidders they will be more circumspect in fear of the winners curse and loss of trust in the auction house.
well said
One thing NameJet could do is allow people to bid on their own names to ensure that they don’t sell too cheap because of some anomaly, but with each bid the word (SELLER) would appear next to their handle. Then everything would be transparent and buyers would have no reason to feel they are being cheated. That would be much better for sellers than having to decide whether to set a reserve and, if so, how much, and it would be better for buyers as well because more people would put more and better quality domains up for sale.
From Wikipedia:
“Shills, or ‘potted plants’, are sometimes employed in auctions. Driving prices up with phony bids, they seek to provoke a bidding war among other participants. Often they are told by the seller precisely how high to bid, as the seller actually pays the price (to himself, of course) if the item does not sell, losing only the auction fees.
“In his book Fake: Forgery, Lies, & eBay, Kenneth Walton describes how he and his cohorts placed shill bids on hundreds of eBay auctions over the course of a year. Walton and his associates were charged and convicted of fraud by the United States Attorney for their eBay shill bidding.”
Domain owners and their associates should not be allowed to bid especially without disclosure. Seems that to make an informed bid on NJ you have to magically know their bidding handle.
That driver that only hits the gas when another car is attempting to pass is creating economic loss by causing the overtaking vehicle to reach a speed much higher than what they originally figured was enough.
Forcing another driver to 80mph knowing they could have naturally passed at 65 and saying, “Let’s find out how valuable it is to this motorist to get ahead of me by creating some momentum, the fuel economy makes a little extra and we both get to where we’re going quicker, even though a minute ago I was content cruising at a slower speed with everyone behind me.”
Be open and apply a bumper sticker saying, ” I nail it for passers”.
There is a persistent stench surrounding this discussion. Shill clicking of AdSense ads, is that a thing? Any remote acceptance of shill bidding on a domain name auction or any other auction is fraud. If it quacks like a duck…
Having friends a family click on AdSense ads is probably responsible for the complete collapse of any reasonable parking revenue.
Exposed shill bidding on NameJet is probably only the tip of the iceberg for the domain name business.
Fake registration numbers for the new gTLD’s seems then to be at the root of a complete distortion of facts, akin to the systemic ‘Wild West’ mentality of the domain name business, still, as a whole.
Brokers that rationalize fraud at whatever degree, do in part, because of skin in the game.
Artificially inflating auction prices with shill bidding can not be tolerated, ever, case closed.
Not sure what to think as I see both sides…
The party who mentioned bidding on your own names is one of namejets biggest private auctioners, have they been using this practice under another entity if they feel so strongly for it when prices are under market value?
I really do not understand how a seller can bid on their own auction, it is the purpose of an marketplace to set the price for such asset, sellers are conflicted, and attached, and always feel their asset is worth more.
At least now we know Andrew Rosener bids on his own names. 🙂
From ABC News:
“Self-bidding, known as shill bidding or shilling, is forbidden by eBay rules and is generally illegal in the traditional auction world. Participation in a bidding ring would be a violation of federal statutes prohibiting mail fraud and wire fraud. Each count carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and $1 million in fines.
“Peter Toren, who worked as a federal prosecutor specializing in cybercrime for seven years until going into private law in 1998, equates shill-bidding to attempts by Wall Street deviants to spread rumors to drive up the price of penny stocks.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99300&page=1
Exactly, hope it will be JAIL TIME for those guys.
Just awful when one of the supposed experts of domaining advocates and supports shill bidding.
With all due respect, Tony, I think that’s very closed minded. Andrew wasn’t supporting efforts to drive up the price of a domain by attempts to fool people into thinking there is more demand for it than there is, he’s simply saying that sellers should have a right to express their own genuine demand for a domain they are selling after an auction has begun. Just as buyers have a right to increase their bids at the last minute, so the seller should have a right to increase the reserve (or simply bid, non-anonymously, if there is no reserve). Imagine if after you placed a proxy bid in an auction, you weren’t allowed to increase it.
Why would the seller not just renew the domain for $8.99 rather than bid (potentially) thousands for it?
I believe Tony’s comment was about domain auctions in general, not auctions for expiring domains at GoDaddy.
If they bid it to the moon (without any intent to pay) they can see what they other bidder’s max bid is. And then they can renew it for $8.99 anyhow.
Rather than deciding which domains are worth keeping in isolation they can let other bidders flag the ones worth keeping. And then if anyone records that transaction value it sets a perceived floor value on the name while costing the current owner literally nothing.
I wish rosner would stf up
I am so glad I’m not married to that blowhard
If I had to listen to his gums flapping everyday for the next number of years I think I’d kill myself
Rosner please please stop talking
Your words are meaningless
I have said it before………SpinDoctor.Domains is available to register
mr roaener
If an owner of a domain puts that domain name up for auction
Bids in the auction
In fact wins the auction
Who gets the money
Lolol
This guy is a purported “leader” in the domain space
Fraud farce and fathead
My sense is Andrew Rosener is playing Devil’s Advocate, fueling debate and deflecting focus from the Booth boys.
In the real world, the success that Andrew Rosener has earned is won largely with a high degree of professionalism, hard work, and integrity.
Andrew Rosener is as smart and business savvy as there is in the domain name business. While he may come across as possibly arrogant, make no mistake you don’t last long in any business if honesty and integrity aren’t cornerstones.
Personal attacks are uncalled for.
You appear to have no sense
Can you imagine if you where bidding on a Ferrari 250 GTO at a Bonhams or Sotheby’s Auto auction and the person next to you keep bidding it up because they owned it and knew you wanted it, but that owner knew the reserve price. Would that be fair?
If you needed a life saving drug would it be fair for the pharmacist to charge you and extra 500% because he knew you had to have it? Would this be letting the market decide on what the fair value is for the drug , or taking advantage of a situation through manipulation.
If it was a non reserve it is still wrong. It does not create liquidity it creates anger as shown in the comments. I predict the TOS will change in 48 hours.
In regards to a domain owner bidding on their own names, the thing I think is being overlooked, is that the dn owner bidding on their own names ‘does know’ the reserve of a no-reserve auction. It is the costs they have into the domain up to that point. So if one puts a domain up for ‘no-reserve’ auction that they paid $10,000 for, by bidding on it up till it gets to the $10,000 area, they are forcing other interested bidders to increase their bids to that price. Then, for that owner to keep bidding beyond that point (unless the intent is to push other bidders to outbid them?), seems wacky, as they are then hoping to buy their own domain from themselves for more than they have into it originally ($10,000). So, are we to accept that that domain owner would want ‘their own domain’ so bad they would be willing to keep on bidding and be willing to pay $30,000 for a domain they paid $10,000 for? Seems far fetched. So, in reality, what would be the point to bid on your own name when one ‘knows’ the no-reserve (their costs), other than to try to get bids up to at least past that ‘known’ no-reserve?? I just don’t see how this is a ‘free market’ situation, when one bids on something that they ‘do know’ the reserve of, in a no-reserve auction
I once attended an offline real estate auction where we weren’t told anything about a reserve so I think everyone assumed it was NR.
The bidders fought against each other with the owner of the property standing there watching. When it was done the auctioneer looked at him and said “Is that enough?” and the owner said no. The bidders didn’t go any further and that was it. Auction over. No sale. He could have said yes and had a deal. I’m guessing he still paid the auctioneer a certain fee.
If you start it 0 and you don’t know if you’re going to be getting a great deal or have the owner negate the deal, would you bid anyway ?
Keep the owner out of the bidding. It just leaves way too much room for trouble.
Andrew, did you ever bid on your own domains at NJ, directly or indirectly?
It’s disturbing to see so many people publicly make justification for shill bidding…it gives one an almost surreal feeling when reading some of these comments
at least they were honest to write about it , interesting to see if it will impact the industry , i believe it’s one of the hottest topics on thedomains.com website in 2017.
Hahahahah the domain industry is getting worse by the day
https://www.thedomains.com/2011/01/31/history-does-repeat-itself-historia-com-hits-the-auction-block-at-namejet-1-year-after-it-sold-for-over-40k/
“but felt there was a fraud bidder who bumped the price, reported to namejet, but they did not want to sell at the last price before the “fraudster” was *envolved…”
(involved?)
“but felt there was a fraud bidder who bumped the price, reported to namejet, but they did not want to sell at the last price before the “fraudster” was *envolved…”
(*involved)
2011 https://www.thedomains.com/2011/01/31/history-does-repeat-itself-historia-com-hits-the-auction-block-at-namejet-1-year-after-it-sold-for-over-40k/
(sorry if double post)
If you are so worried about ending up selling your domain way too cheap then put a reserve price on it man, but you can’t bid on your own name just because you don’t want to sell it for the price that the domain is at, that is why RESERVE PRICE exists, to avoid this completely awfull and bad business practice.
Sorry @Andrew Rosener, I really think you are THE BEST BROKER out there and one of the most respected and trustworthy domainers, but I don’t agree with you on this one.
How can a guy who supports shill bidding be respected and trustworthy
Only in domain land
This year rosener has revealed himself as both a bully and a fraud
There’s a reason eBay and other major auction houses have a built-in mechanism that prevents you from bidding on your own auctions.
Sometimes greed blinds even smart people.
Rosener’s argument is that it is not shill bidding if you change the rules and make it legalized shill bidding. It’s OK because it’s allowed in a few exceptions in business. Whatever increases the bottom line goes.
Who needs an auction when you can play the pricing “Shell Game” in a traditional sale directly with the seller?
Buyers use an auction to avoid negotiating with the seller.
Speaking of shell games, that’s what Quicken Loans is. They approve your refi in one hour online but then spend the next 6 weeks passing you from one employee to another trying to engineer a cash squeeze.
If Quickest.Loans said “We’re the QUICKEST” it should be considered totally unrelated to Quicken’s TM.
Is SEEK the owner of such domains, Media Options does business with all such parties involved, they sure have been vocal in this discussion…
Couldn’t tell you. Never dealt in used domains, just new domains. Every domain I’ve ever owned I hand registered myself then let drop, and at this point I will only register a .com if it has never been registered before.
sellers have to use auctions if they have more than one buyer or if the name is highly valuable, of course the limited duration of the auction is affecting the whole process …
Gibraltar, how many accounts does namejet have based there Jonothan? Could be your key
Andy and James Booth, your brother’s pick up the phone and call each other get the deal done. Your shill bidders both of you, been exposed, what a bunch of Moron’s you are.
@Rossner, your skating on “thin ice” as well. Your getting very close to getting your reputation destroyed as well.
Listen to Rick Schwartz, he is 100% right, and thanks for all you do Rick.
Before making false accusations regarding myself. Read the post. I had no part in this other than trying to buy some domains at good prices. I won AirplanesForSale.com and have sold it already. Have facts ”Your shill bidders both of you, been exposed, what a bunch of Moron’s you are.”
Hi everyone – Here is the post I just put on the NamePros thread. I wanted to place it here as well as to keep everyone updated. One thing I wanted to mention is that while I appreciate the philosophical discussion around whether owner bidding should be allowed in auctions – our position is clear in that it is never allowed on NameJet. Thanks all.
-Jonathan
GM, NameJet
—-
In an effort to keep everyone current as to where we stand on this matter, I wanted to share the following update. There have been some inaccuracies and misconceptions that have been brought forth by such a spirited discussion. And it would be a challenge to respond to all of them – therefore, I want to bring the discussion back to the heart of the matter.
As stated earlier, we take the issue of shill bidding on NameJet very seriously and we are conducting a thorough investigation, keeping in mind that the integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us. As I have said repeatedly, we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. We would never encourage, promote or otherwise be involved in any such thing and our position is clear – it is never allowed on NameJet!
In our current investigation certain auction activity has come to light that we deem questionable and a possible violation of our terms. This kind of activity is not acceptable to us and we are taking steps to deal with it. We have suspended several accounts while working through the information we have available.
I thank everyone for their patience as we work through these issues. Our goal is to best serve our customers and we are working hard to that effect.
Those accounts are live again, that didn’t take long, to many coincidences, profits before ethics
So after reading at Namepros, looks like the Booth brothers, Oliver Hoger, and even Andrew Rossner/Media Options might be in on this. I never done business with any of those guys, but it looks like some big things might be going down with this shill bidding ring.
Nathan – you and Andrea Sabatini are not only brain dead but Also guilty of Libel.
I have against my better judgment posted a response on NamePros against all the unwarranted accusations being thrown around against me.
https://www.namepros.com/threads/bidding-on-your-own-names-at-namejet.1030874/page-32#post-6268276
Andrew, your delusional and acting very paranoid and defensive. I never accused you of anything, read what I wrote again, maybe take a bong hit and relax.
Your done!
Cooked your own goose
If I could get close to you I’d stuff a pork sandwich down your throat
“There have been instances where we bid on a name we were selling without knowing”
Lolololo lololoololo
Ok OJ
Lolololo lolololo
Leading broker in the industry lololololo
Interesting that Namejet’s response says that shill bidding is not allowed, but never defines shill bidding, and does not say that bidding on your own domain, partner’s domain, friend’s domain, etc is forbidden. Is shill bidding whatever NJ feels like defining it as at any given moment?
So as of right now, we still do not have a definitive answer to who is HKDN?? This based on Oliver claiming he’s not behind the account HKDN? Well speak for yourself and vote on ShillGate.com in the poll.
Watching TheSopranos episode where Christopher Moltisanti slips a pack of matches under the scale at the deli then accuses the butcher of thumbing the scale. “Hey I saw that!” Before the puzzled butcher can reweigh the package, he gets rushed with, “Wrap it up, let’s go!”. The generated “liquidity”
materialized the following week when the discount was applied towards the purchase of an overpriced bracelet.
hear hear !
thugs and crooks rule the roost, ICANN is complicit and Wild West justifies maintenance of status quo