CreditCard.net sold for $138,000

[tetrapak]

If it where me i would never have sold it, i would have been making more than $6k per month from it. it was sold cheap.

It's easier said than done. Credit card niche has awful big competition, you've got to invest a lot to be able to gain traffic / revenue. I think it was a very good price for both.

 

[james2002]

Congrats.

 

[Theo]

Yinan was very kind to provide me with an exclusive interview on the sale

 

[silentg]

TechCrunch also wrote about the sale > http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/26/australian-company-buys-creditcard-net-for-138000/

 

[katherine]

TechCrunch also wrote about the sale > http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/26/australian-company-buys-creditcard-net-for-138000/

And always the same old anti-domainer blabber - some people will never learn :asleep:

 

[grcorp]

A comment on the techcrunch article...

Ahh... A normal domain name can be purchased for less than $30 a year. The reason Roland had to pay so much for it was because of domain squatters. People who buy up domain names they think people are going to want, just like creditcard.net.
These domain squatters are just modern day scammers and should be stopped.

If he thought about what he said, maybe he might realize that Owntag "thought" that someday creditcard.net would be worth a lot of money. And since someone was willing to pay $138k for it, it looks like he thought correctly!

I'm really getting fed up with this misuse of the term "squatter".

 

[David G]

dot nets are goood!

Disagree, a percentage of its traffic will go to the .com version and to make it worse .net domains get basically no typeins.

Seller somehow achieved a significantly higher price than expected in view of the major negativiy from it being a dot-net domain. In addition, the singular appears not nearly as good as the plural, at least imo.

 

[silentg]

Disagree, a percentage of its traffic will go to the .com version and to make it worse .net domains get basically no typeins.

Seller somehow achieved a significantly higher price than expected in view of the major negativiy from it being a dot-net domain. In addition, the singular appears not nearly as good as the plural, at least imo.

What you're saying is only true for parked .net domains. If a .net is developed then it can get good amount or higher traffic than the .com domain.

 

[stuff]

What you're saying is only true for parked .net domains. If a .net is developed then it can get good amount or higher traffic than the .com domain.

no no, you will always lose traffic to the .com
question is can you live with it
Example: one idiot sees creditcard.net ad in TV, the time it takes him to go to the computer he types creditcard.com to the browser

 

[katherine]

question is can you live with it

I guess you can when the combo is so strong (like in the present case) that it more than offsets the extension.

 

[grcorp]

question is can you live with it

It's a good problem to have with a name like creditcard.net.

Edit: Gah. I typed the plural. I guess this goes to show that this is one of those keywords that is very easy to get plural confused.

 

[Gerry]

What you're saying is only true for parked .net domains. If a .net is developed then it can get good amount or higher traffic than the .com domain.

Case in point:

PreventHeartAttacks dot net, number one on Google out of over 7 million results. Minimal traffic as a parked domain. Now, traffic daily in the hundreds and yesterday I enjoyed a 45% CTR in adsense.


If the .com is parked, am I losing traffic to a parked name or is the dot com losing traffic to me because it offers no value to the consumer? Otherwise, where is increase in traffic to my site coming from?

 

[David G]

Case in point: PreventHeartAttacks dot net, number one on Google out of over 7 million results.

hmmmm.... I only get 10% of that number with the exact 3 words http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=8b39c7b95b72b1c1&biw=1432&bih=714

BTW, you are in fact losing direct navigation traffic to the .com even if parked.

 

[dcristo]

The argument of losing traffic to the .com is total nonsense obv.

 

[David G]

The argument of losing traffic to the .com is total nonsense obv.

The real nonsense is that you would say that.

 

[dcristo]

The real nonsense is that you would say that.

What % of traffic do you think you're losing to the .com and how much more would the .com be worth? Do you have experience with owning .com's that have benefited from other extensions being developed to know?

IMO you are looking at it the wrong way. The amount of type in traffic you are getting is irrelevant for an established site its such a small percentage of total traffic, although in this industry the traffic would certainly be valuable. If the developed .net is sending a boat load of traffic to the .com its because they are doing something right. I'd take that kinda success any day of the week over any potential loss of traffic that is likely insignificant in the scheme of things anyway.

 

[Gerry]

hmmmm.... I only get 10% of that number with the exact 3 words http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=8b39c7b95b72b1c1&biw=1432&bih=714

BTW, you are in fact losing direct navigation traffic to the .com even if parked.

A consumer is very unlikely to add quotes to searches.

Even if they do, being in the top spot of over 7 million Broad Searches AND the top spot for exact is quite comfortable position to be in.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

I'd take that kinda success any day of the week over any potential loss of traffic that is likely insignificant in the scheme of things anyway.

That is precisely how I see it. If my traffic jumps exponentially, most likely it is search engine traffic.

That traffic (for me) did not exist until recently (according to my parking stats). Nor the revenue.

But I am confident that, as a whole, that traffic did exist and was going somewhere because of the search terms.

Now, where ever that traffic was going is no longer going there, even if it was the dot com.

In that sense, I am stealing traffic by having a site and having that site rank so high.

 

[David G]

A consumer is very unlikely to add quotes to searches. .

Of course that is correct but the quotes tell us how many times that exact term is used on webpages to judge its online use and popularity but the way you do it is basically worthless since it's based on any of the 3 individual words and 1000s of misc terms containing one or more of the words.

 

[Gerry]

Okay, so I have a worthless domain and a worthless site that no one will ever find.

Just a false positive ranking number one of broad searches and ranking number one of exact searches.

End of conversation.

Did not intend to derail this great sale announcement.

 

[David G]

I never implied or said that. Your site is actually a good one with a nice design and very good content, and the domain name has excellent keywords. Was only referring to the important Google results being less than stated and the less desirable net extension. Please stop twisting what was said or meant.

I just dont like dot-net nearly as much as .com or .org with dot-org working significantly better vs .net for health & disease names. In fact, I just tried to reg preventheartattacks.org but was taken years ago.

The main problem with .net is not that they don't do well in search (they do OK) it is they simply get basically zero typein traffic vs dot-org which can get good typeins, especially with disease and health names.

Okay, so I have a worthless domain and a worthless site that no one will ever find.

Just a false positive ranking number one of broad searches and ranking number one of exact searches.

End of conversation.

Did not intend to derail this great sale announcement.