http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/30/yellowpages-paid-385-million-for-ypcom-bargain/ International technology news, business & culture Fri, 25 May 2012 09:13:20 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/30/yellowpages-paid-385-million-for-ypcom-bargain/#comment-374141 NAV.no among the most expensice domaintransfers ever? — Christoph Schmitz Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:03:02 +0000 http://thenextweb.com/?p=9269#comment-374141 [...] The Next Web reported on the 30st of december that Yellow Pages paid 3.85 million dollars for YP.com (via Techcrunch). What caught my attention was a list derived from Royal Pingdom, a post from august 2007 with the most expensive Domaintransfers ever. And on that list: NAV.no apparently sold for 718.000 dollars. (WTF!?!?!). Some research (Gooooogle) pointed me to a blogpost saying that the price was 3,5 million Norwegian Kroner at the time and not 4,9 as it would be with today’s currency rates. The domain was bought from 2 architects who had been using the domain. The price apparently included this: -    Costs for a new Website: 1 mill -    Risk of losing contracts 1. mill -    Costs of printing new merchandise (cards and such) 1.5 mill [...] [...] The Next Web reported on the 30st of december that Yellow Pages paid 3.85 million dollars for YP.com (via Techcrunch). What caught my attention was a list derived from Royal Pingdom, a post from august 2007 with the most expensive Domaintransfers ever. And on that list: NAV.no apparently sold for 718.000 dollars. (WTF!?!?!). Some research (Gooooogle) pointed me to a blogpost saying that the price was 3,5 million Norwegian Kroner at the time and not 4,9 as it would be with today’s currency rates. The domain was bought from 2 architects who had been using the domain. The price apparently included this: -    Costs for a new Website: 1 mill -    Risk of losing contracts 1. mill -    Costs of printing new merchandise (cards and such) 1.5 mill [...]

]]> http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/30/yellowpages-paid-385-million-for-ypcom-bargain/#comment-374140 Το YP.com πουλήθηκε για $3.85 εκατομμύρια | jooblers.gr Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:38:16 +0000 http://thenextweb.com/?p=9269#comment-374140 [...] [via] Tags: AT&T, yellowpages, yp.com [...] [...] [via] Tags: AT&T, yellowpages, yp.com [...]

]]> http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/30/yellowpages-paid-385-million-for-ypcom-bargain/#comment-374139 Zee M Kane Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:38:11 +0000 http://thenextweb.com/?p=9269#comment-374139 Hi there PanMan, you're quite right - I should have made it more clear. To be honest however, it was meant to be sarcasm. How you calculate the value of a domain is still anyone's guess - so the "bargain..." was meant to reflect that unknowingness...which is kinda why I didn't mention it. Hi there PanMan, you’re quite right – I should have made it more clear. To be honest however, it was meant to be sarcasm. How you calculate the value of a domain is still anyone’s guess – so the “bargain…” was meant to reflect that unknowingness…which is kinda why I didn’t mention it.

]]> http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/30/yellowpages-paid-385-million-for-ypcom-bargain/#comment-374138 PanMan Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:33:40 +0000 http://thenextweb.com/?p=9269#comment-374138 So, some company buys the 4th most expensive domain name ever. Without a existing strong brand (it's clear they want to link it to YellowPages, and it's a nice short name, but it's no brand YET, not something everybody recognizes). You guys call it a bargain, but somehow COMPLETELY fail to explain, or even mention, in the article WHY it's such a bargain? What's wrong here? Don't you think it would make sense to at least explain the wording of your (quite controversial) title? So, some company buys the 4th most expensive domain name ever. Without a existing strong brand (it’s clear they want to link it to YellowPages, and it’s a nice short name, but it’s no brand YET, not something everybody recognizes).
You guys call it a bargain, but somehow COMPLETELY fail to explain, or even mention, in the article WHY it’s such a bargain? What’s wrong here? Don’t you think it would make sense to at least explain the wording of your (quite controversial) title?

]]>