😎 Does AI really understand brandable domains? (A pending delete drop catch story)

[Ricado]

A recent inquiry on one of my domains reminded me of a drop catch decision I made a few years ago.

When SonicMarx.com entered pending delete, I was watching it closely and manually registering alongside others, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, during that period, I asked both Gemini and ChatGPT for their opinions on the name.

Interestingly, both AI models gave almost identical feedback and advised against it.

Their reasoning was consistent:
“‘Marx’ carries strong ideological or political associations. This may introduce unnecessary risk and reduce the buyer pool. A more neutral name would be safer.”

From an AI perspective, brandable domains tend to be evaluated as a risk-avoidance problem.

This was not a backorder, and it wasn’t uncontested.
It was a typical pending delete situation, with multiple people watching and attempting to catch it.

What likely made the difference wasn’t speed or tooling, but how the name itself was interpreted.

From a domainer and brand-building perspective, I saw something different.

Based on my past experience with names like SonicMail and SkyMarx, my interpretation was:

• Sonic: speed, signal, impact
• Mar: a familiar shorthand for marketing and market thinking
• X: cross-over, experimentation, exponential growth

To me, SonicMarx was never about ideology.
It felt more like a name suggesting fast and disruptive market influence.

A few days ago, a non-tech startup reached out with an inquiry on this domain, which quietly validated that original decision to pursue it during the drop. What attracted them was the commercial energy of the name, not the political meaning AI had flagged.

This experience reinforced something I often see in pending delete decisions:

AI tools are helpful for highlighting obvious risks, but they tend to default to conservative pattern matching based on historical data.
Human buyers, however, often think in terms of future positioning, narrative, and differentiation.

Both AI and humans misjudge domains sometimes, but for very different reasons.

AI avoids risk.
Buyers sometimes invest in vision.

Just sharing this as a real pending delete example.
Curious how others here balance AI input with personal judgment when deciding whether to chase a name during a drop.

 

[Arko]

View attachment 12286​

A recent inquiry on one of my domains reminded me of a drop catch decision I made a few years ago.

When SonicMarx.com entered pending delete, I was watching it closely and manually registering alongside others, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, during that period, I asked both Gemini and ChatGPT for their opinions on the name.

Interestingly, both AI models gave almost identical feedback and advised against it.

Their reasoning was consistent:
“‘Marx’ carries strong ideological or political associations. This may introduce unnecessary risk and reduce the buyer pool. A more neutral name would be safer.”

From an AI perspective, brandable domains tend to be evaluated as a risk-avoidance problem.

This was not a backorder, and it wasn’t uncontested.
It was a typical pending delete situation, with multiple people watching and attempting to catch it.

What likely made the difference wasn’t speed or tooling, but how the name itself was interpreted.

From a domainer and brand-building perspective, I saw something different.

Based on my past experience with names like SonicMail and SkyMarx, my interpretation was:

• Sonic: speed, signal, impact
• Mar: a familiar shorthand for marketing and market thinking
• X: cross-over, experimentation, exponential growth

To me, SonicMarx was never about ideology.
It felt more like a name suggesting fast and disruptive market influence.

A few days ago, a non-tech startup reached out with an inquiry on this domain, which quietly validated that original decision to pursue it during the drop. What attracted them was the commercial energy of the name, not the political meaning AI had flagged.

This experience reinforced something I often see in pending delete decisions:

AI tools are helpful for highlighting obvious risks, but they tend to default to conservative pattern matching based on historical data.
Human buyers, however, often think in terms of future positioning, narrative, and differentiation.

Both AI and humans misjudge domains sometimes, but for very different reasons.

AI avoids risk.
Buyers sometimes invest in vision.

Just sharing this as a real pending delete example.
Curious how others here balance AI input with personal judgment when deciding whether to chase a name during a drop.

Excellent analysis, Ricado. Your 'SonicMarx' example perfectly captures the friction between algorithmic risk-avoidance and human brand-building vision.
It’s a great reminder that while AI tools are invaluable for identifying data-driven patterns, they often miss the 'emotional energy' and future-positioning that a startup founder looks for. Just as Gemini and ChatGPT flagged 'Marx' for political risk, an automated appraisal might flag 'Vylmo' for linguistic non-conformity—yet both overlook the visual symmetry and the high-tech, rhythmic feel that makes a brand memorable.
**As you rightly said, AI avoids risk, but buyers invest in vision. I’m positioning Vylmo for that specific buyer who sees beyond the CVCVC structure and recognizes a modern, disruptive identity.
Thanks for sharing this insight; it’s a masterclass in why the 'human element' remains the ultimate decider in this industry.

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Appreciate the perspective.
I agree that algorithms often miss visual rhythm and brand feel.

As for CVCVC, there’s a generally accepted standard, so I wouldn’t personally put Vylmo in that category, despite its visual balance.

 

[Arko]

Well said, Ricado. Visual rhythm often speaks louder than linguistic labels to the right founder. I've officially lowered the BIN to $4,900 with a 10-month payment plan to match that 'market reality' we discussed. Cheers for the feedback!

@Arko
Appreciate the perspective.
I agree that algorithms often miss visual rhythm and brand feel.

As for CVCVC, there’s a generally accepted standard, so I wouldn’t personally put Vylmo in that category, despite its visual balance.

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Instead of spending too much time trying to explain or justify a single domain, it’s often more productive to spend that time looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

If you’re genuinely interested in CVCVC domains, I need to be very clear about one thing.

Every day, thousands of 5-letter .com domains drop, and many of them do fit the CVCVC structure. But not every CVCVC has value, and structure alone does not make a brandable domain investable.

A brand is not just about visual design. It also needs to be spoken, remembered, and passed along.

With 4L domains, even if they’re not pronounceable, spelling them out letter by letter can still work.
Once you move to 5 letters or more, if a name cannot be pronounced naturally, its practical value drops significantly.

If you’re interested in 5L domains, here are a few examples I randomly picked from today’s pending delete list that technically qualify as CVCVC:

• DEVIP
• FIBAZ
• HASOF
• JAHOZ
• RONUB
• SUBOF
• TIGUX
• VOBAD
• VIXOC

Do all of these have investment value?
That’s the real question the market answers, not the structure.

One more practical note.

Among these examples, DEVIP is the only one I would personally recommend.

It works as a single brand and can be read in multiple ways: De-Vip, De-V-I-P, or Dev-I-P, depending on how it’s positioned. That flexibility matters when you’re actually introducing a name to an end user.

DEVIP is registered in 15 TLDs and is an aged domain (15.20 years). With a bit of luck, it can be caught for under $100. Even with competition, it’s usually only a few hundred dollars.

That’s what I’d call investor-grade value.

Everyone has their own values and investment strategies.
DEVIP is a name I would actively pursue.
If Vylmo were to drop, it wouldn’t meet my minimum threshold even at registration cost.

 

[Arko]

I hear you, Ricado. I appreciate the deep dive into the 'investor-grade' criteria. It’s clear we have different strategies: you're looking for established metrics and liquid structures, while I'm betting more on the branding 'vibe' for specific tech niches.
Different paths for different outcomes. Thanks for the masterclass on CVCVC liquidity

@Arko
Instead of spending too much time trying to explain or justify a single domain, it’s often more productive to spend that time looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

If you’re genuinely interested in CVCVC domains, I need to be very clear about one thing.

Every day, thousands of 5-letter .com domains drop, and many of them do fit the CVCVC structure. But not every CVCVC has value, and structure alone does not make a brandable domain investable.

A brand is not just about visual design. It also needs to be spoken, remembered, and passed along.

With 4L domains, even if they’re not pronounceable, spelling them out letter by letter can still work.
Once you move to 5 letters or more, if a name cannot be pronounced naturally, its practical value drops significantly.

If you’re interested in 5L domains, here are a few examples I randomly picked from today’s pending delete list that technically qualify as CVCVC:

• DEVIP
• FIBAZ
• HASOF
• JAHOZ
• RONUB
• SUBOF
• TIGUX
• VOBAD
• VIXOC

Do all of these have investment value?
That’s the real question the market answers, not the structure.

One more practical note.

Among these examples, DEVIP is the only one I would personally recommend.

It works as a single brand and can be read in multiple ways: De-Vip, De-V-I-P, or Dev-I-P, depending on how it’s positioned. That flexibility matters when you’re actually introducing a name to an end user.

DEVIP is registered in 15 TLDs and is an aged domain (15.20 years). With a bit of luck, it can be caught for under $100. Even with competition, it’s usually only a few hundred dollars.

That’s what I’d call investor-grade value.

Everyone has their own values and investment strategies.
DEVIP is a name I would actively pursue.
If Vylmo were to drop, it wouldn’t meet my minimum threshold even at registration cost.

!

 

[Ricado]

@Arko
Fair enough.
Different strategies, different risk profiles.
Appreciate the discussion.

 

[DropWizard.com]

View attachment 12286​

A recent inquiry on one of my domains reminded me of a drop catch decision I made a few years ago.

When SonicMarx.com entered pending delete, I was watching it closely and manually registering alongside others, just like everyone else.

Out of curiosity, during that period, I asked both Gemini and ChatGPT for their opinions on the name.

Interestingly, both AI models gave almost identical feedback and advised against it.

Their reasoning was consistent:
“‘Marx’ carries strong ideological or political associations. This may introduce unnecessary risk and reduce the buyer pool. A more neutral name would be safer.”

From an AI perspective, brandable domains tend to be evaluated as a risk-avoidance problem.

This was not a backorder, and it wasn’t uncontested.
It was a typical pending delete situation, with multiple people watching and attempting to catch it.

What likely made the difference wasn’t speed or tooling, but how the name itself was interpreted.

From a domainer and brand-building perspective, I saw something different.

Based on my past experience with names like SonicMail and SkyMarx, my interpretation was:

• Sonic: speed, signal, impact
• Mar: a familiar shorthand for marketing and market thinking
• X: cross-over, experimentation, exponential growth

To me, SonicMarx was never about ideology.
It felt more like a name suggesting fast and disruptive market influence.

A few days ago, a non-tech startup reached out with an inquiry on this domain, which quietly validated that original decision to pursue it during the drop. What attracted them was the commercial energy of the name, not the political meaning AI had flagged.

This experience reinforced something I often see in pending delete decisions:

AI tools are helpful for highlighting obvious risks, but they tend to default to conservative pattern matching based on historical data.
Human buyers, however, often think in terms of future positioning, narrative, and differentiation.

Both AI and humans misjudge domains sometimes, but for very different reasons.

AI avoids risk.
Buyers sometimes invest in vision.

Just sharing this as a real pending delete example.
Curious how others here balance AI input with personal judgment when deciding whether to chase a name during a drop.

I don't use AI except as a research indicator. But the TERM MARX in the name has a bad connotation for a lot of older people, and that's why I'd avoid it.

Secondly, this industry's fascination with the term "BRANDABLE" is ludicrous. I doubt any of you have the multi-millions of dollars required to get the public's attention for " BRANDING."
"SOMEBODY WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SPEND WILL WAKE UP ONE MORNING AND JUST HAVE TO HAVE MY DOMAIN."
All of these domains seem to depend on the "Lightning Strikes" philosophy, something I used to see a lot of in my 25 years in the financial industry.
"I'LL RETIRE WHEN I WIN THE LOTTERY"
'"I'LL BUY LIFE INSURANCE WHEN I GET SICK"
"I'LL START SAVING FOR RETIREMENT WHEN I GET OLD"
NO!
You'd be better off actually buying a domain that means something in the real world. Otherwise, it's a waste of money.
The brandable ones you see are being SOLD by professional salespeople, and that will come back to haunt the industry when a lot of them will fail.
I've seen more trends in this industry. Where are they? Number domains? I sold a handful? Casino domains? Same thing. Trends come and go and you need to be careful not to get caught with a portfolio of losers.
JMO

 

[leonidleonid is verified member.]

I’ve used AI to verify multiple NameSilo expired domains over many months now. It has a solid database of past sales and is capable of researching things, but at the moment it’s not nearly good enough, at least for my needs.

That said, I have another question: what’s the difference between AI and a free appraisal? Which one does a better job for your current domain example?

 

[Ricado]

@DropWizard.com
I actually agree with this point quite a lot.

A name doesn’t become a brand just because we call it brandable.

What really matters is whether the name already means something in the real world, or at least carries a story that people can immediately grasp.

That’s also how I personally evaluate so-called brandable domains.

The question isn’t “Can I explain this name if I try hard enough?”

It’s “Does this name explain itself, or invite a story, without effort?”

Not long ago, I saw a post on LinkedIn where a founder shared an interesting experience.

He spent over $3,000 on a “creative” brand name. Customers couldn’t pronounce it, and even his own team struggled with it.

Eventually, he registered a different name for $9.99. It was much longer, over 10 characters, but it was pronounceable, meaningful, and instantly understandable.

That name ended up working far better in practice.

To me, that says a lot.
If a name constantly needs explanation, it’s already working against you.

A good name doesn’t need defending, it needs using.

 

[Ricado]

@leonid
In practice, most free appraisal tools and AI appraisals work in very similar ways. They’re all estimating value based on historical sales data and predefined parameters. The main difference is that each platform uses different datasets, weightings, and models, so the numbers naturally vary.

Personally, I mostly reference two AI-based appraisals: Atom and GoDaddy.

From my experience, the realistic end-user retail price often falls somewhere between those two ranges.

One important observation: when GoDaddy Brokerage is involved, their initial broker price usually does not exceed their own automated appraisal.

For example, I have a domain appraised at around $24,000 on Atom, while GoDaddy’s appraisal is roughly $7,400. The first price suggested by GoDaddy Brokerage came in at $3,500, well below their own estimate.

Beyond AI appraisals, since we’re talking about brandable domains, I also use AI differently, not just for pricing, but for simulated market testing and brand narrative exploration. That helps me gauge how a name might be perceived, explained, or positioned, rather than relying purely on numerical scores.

 

[Ricado]

Interestingly, DEVIP did attract quite a bit of attention. It was ultimately caught by DropCatch, with 17 backorders placed.

I should be clear that I didn’t place any backorders myself.

Out of roughly a thousand 5-letter domains dropping that day, DEVIP was the only one I felt had genuine market potential. However, its strong signals also meant a higher acquisition cost, which pushed it outside my investment range.

That’s a trade-off I’m comfortable with.

For me, disciplined investing is as much about knowing what not to chase as it is about spotting quality.

 

[DropWizard.com]

@leonid
In practice, most free appraisal tools and AI appraisals work in very similar ways. They’re all estimating value based on historical sales data and predefined parameters. The main difference is that each platform uses different datasets, weightings, and models, so the numbers naturally vary.

Personally, I mostly reference two AI-based appraisals: Atom and GoDaddy.

From my experience, the realistic end-user retail price often falls somewhere between those two ranges.

One important observation: when GoDaddy Brokerage is involved, their initial broker price usually does not exceed their own automated appraisal.

For example, I have a domain appraised at around $24,000 on Atom, while GoDaddy’s appraisal is roughly $7,400. The first price suggested by GoDaddy Brokerage came in at $3,500, well below their own estimate.

Beyond AI appraisals, since we’re talking about brandable domains, I also use AI differently, not just for pricing, but for simulated market testing and brand narrative exploration. That helps me gauge how a name might be perceived, explained, or positioned, rather than relying purely on numerical scores.

I recently closed our Afternic account, despite doing business with them since 1998, when they were a domain chatroom. Reason: showing GoDaddy appraisals that had no relation to market value, and worry that would prejudice the potential customers against a real-world price.
I posted about this on another thread, but how do you go from a $400,000 appraisal (not totally realistic, but definitely in the $xxx,xxx range) to $1200?
I believe GoDaddy is just trying to produce an ongoing revenue stream of low-ball buy-it-now offers that cash-poor domainers are likely to accept.
They're not likely to change without industry pressure, and I don't want our domains tainted by fake information.

 

[Ricado]

I believe GoDaddy is just trying to produce an ongoing revenue stream of low-ball buy-it-now offers that cash-poor domainers are likely to accept.

100% agree!

That said, I don’t think this mindset is unique to GoDaddy.
In practice, most marketplaces operate this way, especially on the auction side. Whether it’s Sedo, Atom, or Afternic, the incentive is largely the same: faster turnover means faster commissions.

It’s also not just about appraisal systems.
From my personal experience, GoDaddy Brokerage pricing tends to come in on the low side as well. I’ve had a domain that received multiple offers above $10,000, yet GoDaddy’s broker suggested an initial price of $3,500. The intent seems fairly clear: close the deal quickly.

Because of that, I mainly use GoDaddy and Atom appraisals as reference points, not as absolute truth. For brandable domains, especially in the $X,XXX range, my BIN pricing usually ends up somewhere between those two estimates.

When listing on Atom, even after passing Premium review, if the suggested price is under $10,000, you can manually adjust it up to $10,000. In most cases, I simply keep the suggested price. It’s not perfect, but it’s also not worth spending excessive time over-optimizing pricing.

At the end of the day, appraisals help frame expectations, but they don’t replace judgment, positioning, or patience.