So there is an article out today on Forbes written by
Mr. Pontefract is the CEO of The Pontefract Group, a company that helps people become better at leadership. A best-selling author of OPEN TO THINK, THE PURPOSE EFFECT & FLAT ARMY.
So he starts off talking about how he went out on his own in late 2018 to start his own firm. He was happy to find he could get his name in .com, thankfully no “squatter” had taken the name.
Dan however wished he could have launched with .inc, not the most popular extension in the history of the Internet, but .inc.
Dan also lamented about his books,
After seven years of writing and publishing three books, I realized I purchased over 40 domain names. Why?
Coming up with unique book titles ending with a .com domain name is hard. So many phrases are already taken. There are so many squatters, too. Once I had what might be the title of a book I’d scurry over to a domain registry service, do a search, and usually get thwarted. If it were available, however, I’d purchase it instantly, just in case. (I guess I’m a squatter, too.)
It’s interesting he throws the squatter label around so frequently. Dan if there was no trademark infringement, you were just a domain registrant.
A friend told Dan about .inc and he is now very happy, he writes,
The likelihood of squatters sitting on your desired domain name is going to become a thing of the past, particularly because the fee is $2000/year. The other good news that the .inc team offers are funky benefits. From a free GlobeNewswire press release to a free year of QuickBooks to 20% of your WeWork rent, there are great perks available.
Well enjoy paying $2,000 a year for a domain name when you could have achieved the same success for $10, or an aftermarket one time purchase of say a few thousand dollars and then $10 a year.
I wish Dan success and longevity but I am not sure he is spending wisely at $2,000 a year.
How many books does he have to sell to cover the cost of the domain renewal each year for (.inc)? Maybe, 200 or so. His next book title, “How to lose $2,000 or more per Year on Pigeon Shit domains”. Oh, Rick Schwartz is probably already writing that book.
We need guys like Dan. Dan hustles, writes books, and promotes himself. Dan earns a living… and then spends thousands of that on domains that he believes in.
Dan helps the economy march along.
Go Dan, go.
Who cares about this idiot Dan Pontefart?
So when you care about a TLD, you ask for people’s help on stopping its price increase. And when you don’t care about a TLD, you insult people who use it? That’s selfish, isn’t it? I suggest that you be broad-minded and desist from insulting people so that you don’t lose your professionalism.
Domain Investors: We blow this type of maligning off at our own peril Being called a squatter is not legitimate or appropriate in a mainstream business publication and we can’t allow it to stand. Take the time to click on Corrections at the bottom of the web page. An email pops up in outlook that can send to Forbes. Changing people’s perceptions of domainers matters. Please email Forbes and tell them that domain ownership is a legitimate business. Domain investors are real entrepreneurs, like all others who read Forbes magazine. Millions of people around the world register domains to hold and they are not cybersquatters. Forbes has allowed a factual error to be published on its website that harms domain investors. And being called a squatter is borderline libelous. It is not right to throw around terms like that. We need to weigh in and ask for the article to be amended:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2019/05/07/if-you-are-incorporated-and-playing-domain-name-roulette-consider-this-new-option/#5f777df12987
Email to Corrections@Forbes.com
Report Correction: Dan Pontefract
Reporting Correction for:
Title: If You Are Incorporated And Playing Domain Name Roulette Consider This New Option
Author: Dan Pontefract
URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2019/05/07/if-you-are-incorporated-and-playing-domain-name-roulette-consider-this-new-option/
—
Your Name:
Correction Request:
His money!!
Oh well, good for the economy and good for everyone EXCEPT him….
“Mr. Pontefract is the CEO of The Pontefract Group, a company that helps people become better at leadership”
The person that really need help is HIM.
I find the term squatter offensive.
The writer Dan, perhaps, is well advised in researching the truth of cyber-squatting.
Cyber-Squatting is registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.
All of the 800 + names that I own are names I researched and invented. They are now, my property.
I OWN THE PROPERTY! I INVENTED THE “LAND”, THE PROPERTY and anyone calling me a squatter needs a punch in the face.
Robert McLean
I bet I could divert a lot of traffic from his “dotinc” website if I set up a site on pontefractionincdotcom and there would be nothing illegal about it.
What I want to know is who the he ll squatted on that car, that house, that parking spot and that last chocolate sprinkled Dunkin donuts he wanted for cripes sake? Is their no more opportunity for the guy who wants everything to have it anymore ?
Further, isn’t it entirely possible that this was a paid article used as part of a PR campaign timed to the rollout of the dot inc extension, courtesy of the Dot inc PR machine? Malign dot com and domainers and tout their handy solution, a $2,000 a year extension, using a “real” and “independent” entrepreneur as the mouthpiece? Hmm…
Dan is a bookshelf squatter.
It is just PR mumbo jumbo, likely written by the .inc registry because the .inc registry like to use “squatter” all the time. Little doubt he got a free registration so he’s is up to 41 now.
Which is pretty funny since the registry is run by Shayan Rostam who is formerly of .XYZ
It’s marketing 101. Make it really expensive and some people will feel like they have to have it. If it was only $50 or less then Beyonce and Taylor Swift probably wouldn’t even consider it or know it exists.
(Otherwise known as “smoke and mirrors.”)
What bullshit.
First, this is not an article in Forbes magazine. It’s a blog post on the Forbes site. Big difference.
But it is such a transparently stupid paid-for puff piece, that I really question the intelligence of those behind it.
Take a look at this crap written for gullible people:
“In the case of The Pontefract Group, I went straight to searching for a .com version. Thankfully it wasn’t taken—nor was anyone squatting on it—so I was able to capture it. But it sure would have been nice to have launched it with .inc at the end of it. My new business, after all, was incorporated.”
Uh-huh, sure. His news business was “incorporated” as “The Pontrefact Group”. So, did he register ThePontrefactGroup.com? Nope.
Did he register PontrefactGroup.com? Nope.
Did he register Pontrefact.com? Nope.
In fact, all of those logical choices for his company are, as of this post, unregistered.
As linked at the bottom of his article, his primary (and only apparent) domain name is DanPontrefact.com , which is not the name of his vaunted “incorporated” business. It’s his personal name.
His story doesn’t hold up to the most basic scrutiny. It is stupid stuff for stupid people.
How dumb does the .inc registry think you are to believe this is anything other than a piece of paid-for PR shite?
Minor correction: The article implies he formed his company in 2018 and then set about registering domain names. The problem is that he didn’t do that. He had registered several domain names back in 2016, and does not use a single one of them corresponding to his company name. Instead, ThePontefractGroup dotcom merely forwards to his personal name domain name.
And to cap it off, he goes on about how “.inc” shows one is “incorporated” and then he says he is moving to “leadership.inc” which is not the name of his corporation either.
I’m 100 percent certain that this “article” on Forbes is a PAID post for .INC. The question is really just how much they paid this contributor for the post. As many have pointed out, there are a lot of flaws in the whole thing, which is a dead giveaway that it’s a paid post (an ad).
Forbes “contributors” are actually not real journalists, they’re people like you and me that got approved to write an article. If anyone’s interested, I have several contacts that can get you a link on Forbes or even a paid post like this one.
My post is stuck in moderation, because I used domain names in it apparently.
But, yes, it is obviously a dishonest paid-for piece by .inc.. He goes through all of this hand-wringing about registering a name for his “incorporated” company in .com, but no version of his company name is actually registered as a domain name in .com. As linked at the end of the article, the domain name he uses is his FirstnameLastname dotcom.
Disingenuous stupidity.
Minor correction:
s/registered/used/
The point is that he claims he formed his company in 2018 and then set off looking for a domain name. But ThePontefractGroup dotcom was registered in 2016. It, and PontefractGroup dotcom merely forward to his personal name domain DanPontefract dotcom.
But after all that bullshit about being “incorporated”, he says he is going to rebrand to “leadership.inc” which does not correspond to the name of any corporation he runs.
Either he is stupid, or he thinks you are.
Raymond, if you want a real story here, check in with the FTC on undisclosed “influencer advertising”:
“The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a “material connection” between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.”
I am actually aware of it John, and Forbes has a real problem it seems, I found a great article here
https://theoutline.com/post/2563/how-brands-secretly-buy-their-way-into-forbes-fast-company-and-huffpost-stories?zd=1&zi=ycg5md2l
It’s very risky not to include “sponsored post” because like you say the FTC can hit you back.
The whole thing does seem fishy. And unfortunately these guys felt the need to malign domain investors by using the term cybersquatters. For my part, I wrote Forbes using the “request a correction” tab under the Pontrefact article/post. Domain owners would be well served to go on the offensive in situations like this and others like the RCC udrp, together as a group, to have our voices heard and push back against this type of nonsense.
That is an outright waste of money I guess.
If it worth it to him…no issues. let’s see how it will be sustained.