I see that I saved rather than sent this, earlier, so I'll add this response
now.
Chuck raises some very good points. If one's target customers want
"premium" names, then we have not, while playing within the rules, been as
effective as we think a company built to go after premium names should be.
On the other hand, our experience has borne out the view that most of the
customers around the world, with most of the money, I might add, do not
consider 3-character names "premium" for their purposes. Here you have in a
nutshell the basic distinction between threads used on behalf of speculators
and threads used on behalf of the other 95% of the market.
In serving the latter, we have been both profitable and effective. Indeed,
we have sent numerous missives to customers telling them they're not likely
to have much luck with us if they're intent on 3-character names, or if they
"back-order" live websites (for example, we've returned people's money after
watching them order SnapBacks on "microsoft.com").
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:48 PM
To: Cameron Powell; Mason Cole
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ATTN: Resellers -- input requested on domain name
back-ordering
You have access to data which I do not, so I do not dispute your quoted
success rate. However, my personal experience with SnapNames includes over
60 failed SnapBack reservations (domain names which were released but
registered by other registrars), and two SnapBacks which initially
succeeded, but were subsequently lost in the peculiar delete/re-register
process of moving them from the capturing registrar to my selected
registrar. In addition, in an email dated May 25 in response to my SnapBack
order, Nelson Brady of SnapNames stated "Just to let you know: we have a
reasonable chance at most of these names, but the reselling registrars
throw so much power at getting 3 char .com names we almost never get them
currently." I do not hold any of this against SnapNames, as refunds were
given as per the guarantee in effect at the time. But I stand by my
estimate in regard to "the most actively pursued names". You may attribute
my experience to the fact that some registrars have not played by the rules
in the past, and you may believe that Verisign has fixed all that now, but
pardon me if I remain skeptical.
As for customers coming back for more, well, hope springs eternal. I am
still a SnapNames customer, even though my successes there have been
relatively few. I think it may be the best shot an average person has at
getting an expired name for a low price, assuming they can get the SnapBack
slot. But I think the chance of getting a truly premium name via SnapNames
is very slim. Maybe someone will make a list of some of the best names
being dropped on Thursday, and check the acquiring registrars to see who has
the "best chance in the industry" when it comes to the high dollar domains .
Revenue per click through is not the primary criterion I use in deciding
what to offer. (If it was, I would probably be engaged in a much sleazier
business.) I think performance is very much relevant for any service I am
considering recommending to my customers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mason Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: ATTN: Resellers -- input requested on domain name back-ordering
> Re: Comments of Chuck Hatcher
>
> Our success rate. Chuck Hatcher estimates that our success rate is "near
> 0%" for the most actively pursued names, to "near 100% for names that
only
> one person in the world wants." Both the premises and conclusions here
are
> incorrect, but, because our revenue per click-through speaks for itself,
> they are also not relevant to whether SnapNames is good business. Here's
> why.
>
> Our overall success rate prior to the moratorium on drops was running at
76%
> (a number that will only improve as more registrars add their power to our
> consortium). Regardless of how much demand there is for any particular
> name, you can only charge for the name once (as Mr. Hatcher noted) and we
do
> get most of those we charge for. If we weren't successful in answering
the
> demand (the premise of Mr. Hatcher's first conclusion), then our customers
> wouldn't keep coming back and spending money on our services. But they
do.
> And our highly responsive legally-trained customer service personnel are
> uniformly praised, both directly to us and in chat rooms. Meanwhile, our
> partners profit enormously.
>
> As Mr. Hatcher also noted, the SnapBack(tm) slots do fill up and we only
> take one order for each name. Just so. As in initial registrations,
> back-orders are first-come, first-served, and we are extremely confident
> that this will be the form of the solution chosen by the Registry and
ICANN
> as the only fair and workable solution. Based on our substantial
> conversations with opinion leaders in the industry, NameWinner-type
auctions
> for a few will not be in the running. We discuss reasons for this in our
> most recent "State of the Domain" (subscribe for free:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
>
> Mr. Hatcher continues with the insightful observation that: "Any time a
> product is priced at substantially less than its true (or perceived)
market
> value, someone will step up and remedy the situation." We agree. Who
will
> step up? NameWinner? No. They don't track total demand for all names;
> instead, they gather a few pros to bid on an accordingly small number of
> names. They also have the very short notice of a few days to do so. It's
> not scaleable to more than these few people in the know, nor scaleable by
> more than a few registrars -- how many sophisticated speculators are there
> in the world? On the other hand, if it's long-term auction capability
> you're looking for, only SnapNames and its partners are tracking *all*
> customer demand for all names in order to capitalize on their market
value.
> We collect buyer demand data through our SnapShot(tm) service on partners
> sites all over the world, and only we can have true auctions, with all
> relevant bidders present, rather than the few professionals brought
together
> by NameWinner at the last minute.
>
> (I note also that the NameWinners, acting alone, will become increasingly
> less successful over time even if, as they allegedly informed their
> customers in advance of this drop, they bend Registry rules to
participate.
> Moreover, most if not all NameWinner customers are ours as well;
speculators
> hedge their bets. We're the way to diversify your risks.)
>
> Will customers be misled into thinking they have a better chance than they
> do? Not if you manage their expectations. We don't promise to get names.
> We promise the best chance in the industry, and on that we deliver. Will
> they be frustrated because they can't get a back-order because it's taken?
> No more frustrated than they already are on your sites, when they want a
> name but it's already registered. There's no inherent distinction between
> the two, and yet you've lived with the latter for some time now, at modest
> margins.
>
>
> Cameron Powell
> VP of Business Development and General Counsel
> SnapNames
> 115 NW First Avenue
> Suite 300
> Portland, OR 97209
> (503) 219-9990 x229
> (503) 274-9749 fax
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Connecting Registrars and their Customers to the Secondary Market in
Domain
> Names
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:42 PM
> To: Mason Cole
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: ATTN: Resellers -- input requested on domain name
> back-ordering
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Mason Cole wrote:
> > Dear TUCOWS Reseller:
> >
> > Several substantive conversations with TUCOWS' Elliot Noss and Tim
Denton,
> > specifically about the changing nature of registration services demand,
> have
> > developed into working ideas about what SnapNames can bring to
registrars
> > and their resellers to increase conversion rates. TUCOWS has asked us
to
> > forward our thinking and seek your input.
>
>
> Not the kind of discussion you're after, but I would like to know
>
> a) Why this is not on biz-ops rather than discuss-list
> b) How snapback avoids abusing the registry, but can still scale to
> the volume you need to remain a viable company.
> (and simply spreading the load across various registrars does not
> count as avoiding abuse, as it won't scale)
>
>
> --
> John Payne http://sackheads.org/jpayne/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954
> To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
