 |
What this all
encompassing term 'generic' misses though is a huge lot of devilish
detail. Generic to whom, for instance. One of the names we have sold was
dosh.com, which is not in common use by many Americans but a well known
word for money in the British Commonwealth. Valuing dosh.com is much
trickier than valuing cash.com, since 'cash' has much greater geographic
utility. |
 |
| |
The generic element
to domain pricing is linked to the fourth major valuation factor of 'Commercial
Size of the Industry'; for instance it is clear that the value of cars.com
is much larger than that of trucks.com. On face value this might seem the
easiest criteria to number crunch; just take the total industry worth and
you have a useful value indicator. Here the devil's detail is again with
the problematic term 'generic'. We suggest that a strong positive word like
road.com or even Amazon.com while maybe not of the multi-million value of
cars.com has a different type of utility to a cash rich car company. One
advantage road.com has is that you can expand your business into trucking
if you wish, whereas the advantage the word 'Amazon' has over either is
that it can build greater trademark equity for its company. All three are
'generic' Dot Coms but in different senses of the meaning of 'generic' and
with radically different limitations for their companies. Of course if you
are a small cash poor local car yard then cars.com is the most valuable
by far: You'd hardly have to spend any money on advertising considering
the number of people who would type this name directly into their browser
out of curiosity. Any valuation criteria should take such tricky things
into account. |
| |
Tricky things? ----> |
|
