- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 373
- Reaction score
- 5
I wanted to share my recent experience with SAW.com because I believe it raises important questions about its domain acceptance and brokerage onboarding process.
To keep the discussion focused on SAW's business practices rather than the domain itself, I won't be identifying it. I've owned this generic .com since the '90s, and it represents a major commercial industry with very broad applicability and a substantial number of logical end users.
Recently, I was contacted by Darryl Lopes of SAW.com. Over the course of our discussions, we agreed on pricing, reserve, and ceiling, and Darryl prepared a detailed marketing report outlining his sales strategy. He then presented me with SAW's exclusive brokerage agreement, which I reviewed, signed, and returned.
Shortly thereafter, I received an email from Jeffrey Gabriel informing me that SAW would not be representing the domain. In that same email, Jeffrey commented that his decision would "probably make Darryl mad." He also indicated that he did not believe the domain justified the marketing effort involved, while expressing hope that I would prove him wrong someday.
I believe Jeffrey should have allowed Darryl the opportunity to prove him wrong.
SAW's agreement includes a one-week opt-out provision. If the brokerage relationship isn't working as expected, SAW already has the contractual ability to end it. Instead, shortly after I signed and returned the agreement, I was informed that SAW would not be representing the domain.
To me, it also raised the question of how much confidence SAW places in the judgment of one of its own industry-leading brokers.
To be clear, I have no issue with a brokerage deciding not to represent a domain. Every brokerage has that right.
My concern is the process. Why invest significant time and resources evaluating an opportunity, negotiating terms, preparing a marketing strategy, and asking a client to sign an exclusive brokerage agreement only to end the engagement before the broker ever had the opportunity to market the domain?
After receiving Jeffrey's email, I sent two follow-up emails seeking clarification. Jeffrey Gabriel replied once, but my remaining questions were left unanswered. Darryl Lopes never responded, and my final email to both Jeffrey and Darryl also received no reply.
As a NamePros PRO member who has been active in this community for over 20 years, I found the entire experience particularly disappointing and unprofessional. The lack of communication after everything that happened is one of the primary reasons I'm sharing this experience with the NamePros community.
I hope SAW will take this feedback constructively and review its process and communications so future clients aren't left with the same needless frustration.
Thank you for reading.
Eric Verona
To keep the discussion focused on SAW's business practices rather than the domain itself, I won't be identifying it. I've owned this generic .com since the '90s, and it represents a major commercial industry with very broad applicability and a substantial number of logical end users.
Recently, I was contacted by Darryl Lopes of SAW.com. Over the course of our discussions, we agreed on pricing, reserve, and ceiling, and Darryl prepared a detailed marketing report outlining his sales strategy. He then presented me with SAW's exclusive brokerage agreement, which I reviewed, signed, and returned.
Shortly thereafter, I received an email from Jeffrey Gabriel informing me that SAW would not be representing the domain. In that same email, Jeffrey commented that his decision would "probably make Darryl mad." He also indicated that he did not believe the domain justified the marketing effort involved, while expressing hope that I would prove him wrong someday.
I believe Jeffrey should have allowed Darryl the opportunity to prove him wrong.
SAW's agreement includes a one-week opt-out provision. If the brokerage relationship isn't working as expected, SAW already has the contractual ability to end it. Instead, shortly after I signed and returned the agreement, I was informed that SAW would not be representing the domain.
To me, it also raised the question of how much confidence SAW places in the judgment of one of its own industry-leading brokers.
To be clear, I have no issue with a brokerage deciding not to represent a domain. Every brokerage has that right.
My concern is the process. Why invest significant time and resources evaluating an opportunity, negotiating terms, preparing a marketing strategy, and asking a client to sign an exclusive brokerage agreement only to end the engagement before the broker ever had the opportunity to market the domain?
After receiving Jeffrey's email, I sent two follow-up emails seeking clarification. Jeffrey Gabriel replied once, but my remaining questions were left unanswered. Darryl Lopes never responded, and my final email to both Jeffrey and Darryl also received no reply.
As a NamePros PRO member who has been active in this community for over 20 years, I found the entire experience particularly disappointing and unprofessional. The lack of communication after everything that happened is one of the primary reasons I'm sharing this experience with the NamePros community.
I hope SAW will take this feedback constructively and review its process and communications so future clients aren't left with the same needless frustration.
Thank you for reading.
Eric Verona
