Berkens’ $1k->$50k Flip; First Names as Investment; .XYZ Plummet?; Brands vs. Keywords

29 Responses to “Berkens’ $1k->$50k Flip; First Names as Investment; .XYZ Plummet?; Brands vs. Keywords”

1. syedmairaj says:

   September 29, 2015 at 11:00 PM

   Congrats Mike…!!!

   i am working for a bank in a tech dept, until 2 years i don’t know much about domains and its strength, one of my friend started his first web directory biz in UAE and from there i started getting interest in websites and domain biz, i start spending my free time daily to catch dropping domains initially i started buying crab domains and lost few bucks, i successfully sold my first DOT COM is YEPBOX.com for $ 500.

   Reply
2. Zac Zarev says:

   July 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM

   Thanks to all the sherpas and Michael for another great show!

   Reply
3. John says:

   June 23, 2015 at 7:04 PM

   “House passes bill giving Congress more say in Internet transition”

   https://thehill.com/policy/technology/245912-house-passes-bill-giving-itself-more-oversight-over-domain-transition

   Reply
4. Michael says:

   June 15, 2015 at 9:09 AM

   Congrats Mike on the great flip. It would be great to hear Mike talk about the actual negotiation. How does he convince a company to fork over that amount of cash?

   Reply
5. Dennis T says:

   June 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM

   Thank you again gentlemen, it was a great show this week.

   Cheers.

   Reply
6. KC says:

   June 13, 2015 at 1:16 AM

   A bit late in asking a question. Did you say the furniture company rebranded from FurnitureRental.com to Aarons.com? Wayback Machine shows the company has been using Aarons.com since at least 2011.

   Reply
   1. Michael Cyger says:

      June 14, 2015 at 9:37 PM

      No, we didn’t. We were just discussing the “brandable” first name versus a exact match keyword domain…pros and cons.

      Reply
7. albert says:

   June 12, 2015 at 1:37 PM

   Hi Mike:

   I wonder what the Sherpas’ think about Net Neutrality?

   I know politics is not something that’s talked about on your shows, but it is interesting to have their (and your) take.

   Thanks again guys.

   Reply
8. John says:

   June 12, 2015 at 8:14 AM

   We’ve all been around a while, around the block a few times, and this isn’t our first rodeo.

   We all saw what was used to sell us on the last invasion of Iraq. But it’s certainly not one side of the aisle that practices those kinds of “sales” techniques. The two sides are two sides of the same coin, but fortunately some good things happen here and there regardless, like the creation of the Internet to begin with (thanks, Al Gore).

   We all know about “stay on message” and repeating things over and over like a mantra to get one’s way and convince people of the truth of something.

   As far as I’m concerned, this “nonsense” about the threat of the splintering or “balkanizing” of the Internet if others don’t get their way and the US doesn’t agree to surrender and do something stupid is simply more of the same – a way of selling people on it.

   Unfortunately, however, it seems to have mostly worked as compared to Net neutrality, and there is also the advantage of people being generally unaware and uninformed about what it’s all really about this time and even what “ICANN” and “IANA” is for that matter.

   Even if the threat or bluff is eventually carried out to any degree whatsoever, which can be done now or at any time anyway, like there really won’t be a way preserved to interface and communicate with other networks when everyone around the world has the shared incentive of worldwide money and commerce, and want access to each other’s economies and markets? Please…

   What’s going on and being pushed regarding the “transition” is nothing but “appeasement” all over again, only this time it’s not Neville Chamberlain doing it but some of Uncle Sam’s misguided nephews.

   Bluff or not, and I suspect that it primarily is, let them threaten, and let them bluff. That is part of life. And the solution is never to just capitulate – certainly not for “political correctness” – and do something hasty, rash and monumentally stupid and harmful not only to one’s national interests but moreover to the real interests of the entire world.

   It certainly isn’t broken, but some are about to fix what isn’t broken and break it for real.

   Reply
9. elevator says:

   June 12, 2015 at 12:28 AM

   Mike! i know your interviews are always good; but please give us the transcript so that some of us who do not have good streaming facility to enjoy your interviews via reading here in some part of Africa.
   Thanks and Cheers.

   Reply
   1. Michael Cyger says:

      June 15, 2015 at 9:23 AM

      Hi Elevator,

      We only do transcripts on one-on-one interviews. It’s too much work for our transcriber to do the show when people are talking over each other, which typically happens with a panel of 3 people.

      Sorry we couldn’t help you out.

      You can download the audio of the program so you can listen at your own pace and be able to rewind, or listen on Stitcher.com and slow down the program. Do you think that might help somewhat?

      Best,
      Michael

      Reply
10. Adam says:

    June 12, 2015 at 12:10 AM

    Hi Mike.
    There’s a good deal of first name .com sales data referenced in this post and how the frequency ties to the sale prices : https://namebio.com/blog/what-is-a-first-name-domain-worth/

    Reply
    1. Michael Cyger says:

       June 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM

       Great resource!

       Reply
11. John says:

    June 12, 2015 at 12:10 AM

    I really enjoyed this panel vid just now. Did skip through some of it, but sat through a lot of it as well, perhaps most.

    First of all, regarding this line of argument “they,” i.e. the pundits and apologists, put out there about the terrible danger of the Internet being split or (love this one) “balkanized” if the US doesn’t surrender – this nonsense has been out there basically since day 1 of the push for the change. It is what it is:

    BULL SPIT.

    As in, either not exactly likely by a thousand miles, or conversely, if so, so what.

    Now Michael Berkins added a nice long overdue dose of common sense on that score, too. While our illustrious host Mr. Cyger, whose view against the transition I certainly appreciated, indicated he hadn’t seen the “give up or we’ll break up” argument before recently that I’ve seen them selling all along, this video was the first time I’ve personally ever seen someone articulate something so simply commonsensical – that China, Russia and whoever can do that little breakup routine any time they want with or without US oversight any time they don’t get their way or have not been able to exert or insinuate their own influence and control. HELLO?

    Moreover, hasn’t anyone eating this particular reason they’ve been feeding us ever considered that there’s a really good chance the threat and warning is nothing but a:

    BLUFF?

    Just spent some quality time on poker tonight before this video myself.

    Like the major players on the world scene really want to cut themselves off from the US market and economy that way? Like they couldn’t have already if they’d really wanted to? But even if they ever did want to, it only brings us back to what Mike Berkens said, that little dose of plain common sense.

    So the Left was right about Net neutrality and they’re dead wrong about this. The Right was dead wrong about Net neutrality and they’re right about this. And just as Net neutrality really transcended all notion of party, partisanship and ideology in importance and significance, so does this issue of the fate and state of the Internet. Anyone who thinks it would be safe being cast adrift and “transitioned” away from all last trace of oversight by the place of its birth simply hasn’t been living in this world unless under a rock.

    Reply
12. John says:

    June 11, 2015 at 10:26 PM

    The transition should not happen and should never even have been considered, and here are some of the main reasons why:

    1. “As White House Abandons Internet, Bipartisan Consensus to Intervene Develops”

    https://humanevents.com/2015/06/02/as-white-house-abandons-internet-bipartisan-consensus-to-intervene-develops/

    2. “Dangerous Transfer […]”

    https://aclj.org/united-nations/dangerous-transfer-the-presidents-icann-internet-problem

    Reply
13. KC says:

    June 11, 2015 at 5:21 PM

    Great show and very informative, especially the part on brandable vs EMD. Where can I find the link Mike said that he would post regarding the TV commercial by Aaron’s Furniture? Thanks.

    Reply
    1. Michael Cyger says:

       June 11, 2015 at 5:33 PM

       Thanks, KC. Great to see you on here.

       This is the link: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/73yB/aarons-aarons-com

       Reply
14. Andy Brier says:

    June 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM

    Just listened to your show (interesting and informative as usual!) regards .xyz and numbers and thought I could help clear up some of the confusion. Namestat has similar numbers to Kevin Murphy and we’ve also seen drops from the zone files recently (see https://namestat.org/xyz). Only today .Berlin dropped 36k from the free domains that were given away last year on the 16th-18th June (https://namestat.org/berlin). The domains leave the zone when they expire or have no nameservers, these are the figures NameStat, DomainIncite and other zone stats sites use. NTLDstats uses the zones to feed their stats but don’t remove domains when they leave the zone. They remove them when the’ve deleted and are available to re-register. So there’s a lag between services that track the zones and show expired domains dropping (from the zone) and those that track the domains and show deleted domains dropping. The delay between expiry and delete is usually around 35 days (30 for redemption and 5 for pending delete). You’ll see a delay similar to this between Namestat and NTLDstats for dropping domains.

    The question then becomes, who is right? Well that depends on your point of view:)

    Thanks again for such a great show!

    Andy
    namestat.org

    Reply
15. Xavier Lemay says:

    June 11, 2015 at 8:34 AM

    Merci énormément pour votre bon travail!

    Xavier

    Reply
16. Jason.tv says:

    June 11, 2015 at 8:12 AM

    Hey Page thanks for the mention! Perhaps you were thinking of justin.tv but I’ll take the mention anyway lol! Thanks to all!

    Jason.tv

    Reply
17. Eric says:

    June 11, 2015 at 7:37 AM

    The bottom line with ICANN is that there is too much at stake to cede control the way they want.

    Reply
18. Noor Manji says:

    June 11, 2015 at 6:03 AM

    Great show again….thank you all.

    Noor

    Reply
19. David says:

    June 11, 2015 at 5:14 AM

    Thanks all. Great discussion and congrats with that awesome flip Michael Berkens.

    Reply
20. adi says:

    June 11, 2015 at 3:06 AM

    This sale is very nice, but I think its worth remembering that Mike Berkens owns over 75,000 domains and with so many names his chances are incomparably bigger than 99% domainers ever have. Its like comparing one shot to 75000 shots at a target or like small local shops to Walmart.
    To sum up, it is very difficult to say how good Mike really is.
    I really admire domainairs who are doing well with 200-1000 domains – they are real masters and motivation for thers and for me. I really hope dear Michael Cyger that I will see more people like these here instead of ones who come only to advertise their products and services.

    Reply
    1. Eric says:

       June 11, 2015 at 8:11 AM

       The sale in this instance was recently acquired so in reality anyone could have bought it, You do make a valid point however, that owning 75k domains gives him a better chance, but he’s also paying for that privilege. There is insight to be gained from them but I wouldn’t mind seeing it mixed up a bit with what you mention.

       Reply
       1. adi says:

          June 11, 2015 at 10:44 AM

          I have only said if you or I or any other domain investor owned 75K domains and would not make good sales then had to be very stupid.

          “The sale in this instance was recently acquired so in reality anyone could have bought it,.”
          If you look deeper – not really. This time it has worked as he had chances/shots with his man domains. And I am sure it did not work with most Michael`s domains (even though Michael was paying 6 figures for a domain in the past).

          Reply
          1. Eric says:

             June 11, 2015 at 5:47 PM

             I’m quite certain he knows what he’s doing otherwise he wouldn’t own 75k domains!

             Reply
          2. Logan says:

             June 13, 2015 at 2:25 PM

             I was bidding against Berkins in that DropCatch auction for TheStores.com but folded around $1,000. If I had beat him, they would have come to me instead of Berkins. Then, it would be a matter of how I get them to $50,000, which Berkins did. What we want to know is how he got them to pay that number.

             Reply
21. Bobby says:

    June 11, 2015 at 1:50 AM

    Michael,

    Thanks for having my question on the show! Even having it discussed publicly like that will hopefully dissuade some people from practicing that unethical behavior.

    Really appreciate it.

    Reply