Subscribe to RSS Feed

03|05|2009 05:17 pm EDT

DomainConsultant.com Announces ‘Domain Madness’ Auction & Contest

by Chad Kettner in Categories: Domain Auction

dc_logo5DomainConsultant.com, who has worked with Aftermarket.com on several live auctions, announced today that it will be holding its first online domain name auction. The auction touted as ‘Domain Madness’ will be held from March 25th-31st.

The company told DNN in a statement that the inventory is being chosen privately and will feature premium domains at all price points.

The auction will also include a contest modeled after the popular March Madness basketball tournament. Participants will enter their picks for what domains will sell in a “tournament bracket” format, the winning contestant will receive $1000 in prize money. No purchase is necessary to take part.

More details to follow. Visit DomainConsultant.com for details.

Tags: ,

10 Comments

ActNow

March 5, 2009 @ 9:21 pm EDT

Under full disclosure, don’t you think it is wise to mention that one of the owners of DNN is also an owner of DomainConsultant?

“Here is a list of some of the current DomainConsultant analysts:
Adam Strong”

“DomainConsultant.com is run and managed by its founding core of Fiol, Strong and Schilling.”

http://domainconsultant.com/analysts.php

Frank Michlick

March 6, 2009 @ 9:42 am EDT

@ActNow: I would imagine that it was just an oversight, as you will see that it normally was mentioned in the articles that featured DomainConsultant. Thank you for pointing it out.

Borat

March 6, 2009 @ 8:18 pm EDT

Frank,

That’s a horrible oversight – just horrible and all integrity has been lost. Adam Strong is a horrible person for posting this information without a disclosure. I pay good money to visit this site and expect completely unbiased information. I don’t care whether there’s a domain auction or not, I care about full disclosures and integrity. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!!!!!!! I can’t use enough exclamation points to express my HORROR at this HORRIBLE oversight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank goodness ActNow was able to shed light on this oversight. He is my saviour and a GOOD man for looking out for our best interests.

I certainly hope Adam was punished for this. I for one recommend that when he posts anything again where he has a friend, colleague, co-worker, family member, acquaintance, family member of an acquaintance – or if he ever heard of the person a future news article is about, he should disclaim it – with large asterisks. I mean 24pt asterisks. This is just horrible.

Donna Mahony

March 6, 2009 @ 11:55 pm EDT

Adams association with DomainConsultant.com is well known in the industry and clearly stated on the website. What’s the big deal here?

Borat

March 7, 2009 @ 2:52 pm EDT

Donna, Donna, Donna,

The big deal is that ActNow wouldn’t have anything better to do if it wasn’t for this HORRIBLE non-disclosure. I slept better last night knowing that ActNow was looking out for the domain industry’s best interests (well that and the fact that I had a 6 pack of Sam Adams Lager (*Full Disclosure, I own stock in Boston Beer Company)).

Imagine for a second if ActNow didn’t say something. I might have actually bid on a domain auction as a result of a conflict of interest here on DNN. I also might have submitted 1,000 of my .mobi, .info, and .biz domain names with the hopes of making it to DNN’s auction – I mean Adam Strong’s auction – I mean DomainConsultant’s auction.

This tragedy was avoided because of ActNow’s diligence, and I commend him.

ActNow

March 9, 2009 @ 12:36 pm EDT

Borat,
“I slept better last night knowing that ActNow was looking out for the domain industry’s best interests”

That is good to hear. You are welcome.

Donna,
“Adams association with DomainConsultant.com is well known in the industry”

Poor assumption.
Just because some of us live and breathe domains and try to stay on top of what is happening does not mean that the average DNN visitor feels that way.
I would speculate that only 10-20% of the average DNN viewer would know that Adam S. is associated with both companies.

Donna Mahony

March 9, 2009 @ 12:47 pm EDT

@ActNow
You quoted one half of my sentence. The other part said “and clearly stated on the website.” So what’s your point?

Adam Strong

March 9, 2009 @ 10:28 pm EDT

Richard Meyer (aka ActNow)
I’ll go ahead and address you here since you already brought this up on my website rather than direct like I would have preferred and expected of most people.

Neglecting to post a disclaimer was not intentional. Chad is a freelancer for DNN, which happens to be owned by Frank and myself. Chad posted the article from a release provided by Domain Consultant CEO Miguel Fiol. Chad has knowledge of the connection or would even think to do this as he has never been in that position before.

Interestingly, we have always done disclaimers previously. I figured that some people that like to come up with conspiracy theories or take shots at others would think that not talking about my connection would mean I was up to something nefarious.

The articles we post generally are fact-based though, so I’m not really sure how necessary or important it really is in most cases, but I figured it couldn’t hurt. If they are opinion pieces, it’s fairly clear when we’re doing a review or opinion piece. Typically, we even use the services we’re talking about.

I am happy to continue to place disclaimers on everything we write and will continue this practice, but I’m curious now with all this talk about the subject. Is this something that is necessary? Did what Chad wrote become biased by the fact that the guy who hired him is a minority partner in another company that he wrote about?

I couldn’t imagine anyone that reads DNN or this article feels that we’re reporting news and info inaccurately or with a bias, but if that is the case I would like to hear it. I appreciate any and all feedback.

At this time, it appears from the comments that only 1 person cares about disclaimers, but I’ll leave the floor open to discuss.

fizz

March 13, 2009 @ 8:18 am EDT

Adam, I really enjoy reading DNN. My 0.02 is that although it may appear to be overkill in some instances – such as the article above – I would prefer to see full disclosure in the news items I read. The simple addition of these few words at the end is a courtesy to the reader and rather than detracting from the article, adds an element of trust.

michele

March 17, 2009 @ 6:12 am EDT

the comments made me nearly spill my coffee!

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply