Subscribe to RSS Feed

04|29|2009 06:44 pm EDT

LIVE : Sells for $1.4 Million [Update: Video added]

by Adam Strong in Categories: Domain Auction

The domain name sold at the TRAFFIC auction tonight for $1.4 Million. The winning bidder seen on the video feed and reported by people at the show was Divyank Turakhia of

Tags: , , ,



April 29, 2009 @ 7:44 pm EDT

Quality name at an excellent price


April 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm EDT

I was expecting a much higher prize for this premium 2 letter domain…


April 29, 2009 @ 11:26 pm EDT for $1.4 Million — he could have bought this domain for less than $500k at previous auctions or by directly contacting the owner…but i guess directi has plenty of $$$$$$$ to throw around.
Good Luck and congrats to both buyer and seller!


April 30, 2009 @ 1:47 am EDT

Anunt, you are right. It is a touch odd but as the main sponsor, you want the best result to maximize your sponsorship dollars. So they get more than just name. But man, real question is: where can I find phone bidders? They are awesome!

[…] DNN reports the winning bidder of to be Divyank Turakhia whom I had the pleasure of meeting at DomainFest Hollywood last year. […]

[…] LIVE : Sells for $1.4 Million | Domain Name News DomainsNews.Net???????????? […]


April 30, 2009 @ 8:12 pm EDT

he also used it as an advertisement. people are gonna go to to see what it is all about, and to see if there is something good there or did he waste $1.4 million.

Ravi Venkatraman

May 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm EDT

AOL executives often refer to as

Beggars Liars Thieves.

May 2, 2009 @ 6:50 pm EDT

I thought it was a bit of a shill bid scenario.

Having said that, it only takes a really big player to come along and buy that up with the connected business for quite a bit more.

Personally I think that domain was worth about 200-350k. Nobody searches for ad by itself and Google is hardly going to promote a competing network on its SE results to any great degree (For the free traffic aspect).

So really, its just a branding play. Thats a lot of money just for a name. Webmasters look for returns not branding, The general public does not buy web advertising. So how does the branding pay off?

Adam Strong

May 3, 2009 @ 3:01 pm EDT

Online advertising is still growing and it’s currently only 8% of total ad spend, Beggars. It’s estimated to $50 million spent on online advertising.

Any leg up you can have in that market through branding is very valuable I reckon. Definitely not a “webmaster” play. This is a market-maker name and obviously a few were gunning for it. . . . not sure what the Directi team has up it’s sleeve though.

Online advertising still growing :



May 3, 2009 @ 4:32 pm EDT

I love to dance the beat of TRAFFIC video . It is radical.
Mr Schwartz seems to be dancing in his seat at 2:59. He must have made lots of money with his friend buying that name. Good news!

Beggars Liars Thieves.

May 4, 2009 @ 1:08 am EDT

Adam Strong

Sorry, I think you guys are way off target. Adsense didn’t become huge because of branding, it works on systems. That’s it’s differentiating factor. It has a core competency that others can’t replicate. That’s the barrier to entry from competitors, domain names don’t even enter into the equation.

If anyone can just pay a lot of money for a domain name and think they are somehow going to be successful then it’s just dreaming.

Google Yahoo MSN and all the rest have huge traffic which they in turn monetize. They could call their advertising programmes Lu la lar and it would still work. is a prime example, that’s a $1k domain at most!…. but it sold for how much??

Now if you paid 1.4m for a domain and then had a further 25-50m to build a network and do the real hard yards then I could start to believe that the investment was merited. But even then, you’d build a successful network and then scale up to a better name.

Adam Strong

May 4, 2009 @ 12:28 pm EDT

If you have a product and you launch it on a superior domain, the branding work becomes much easier and thus the cost of the domain can be justified.

Is it easier to brand or Lu la lar ? Pretty straight forward stuff.

I don’t disagree BLT. I’m just saying that having a superior domain helps propel a company forward to make a foothold in a market that is already dominated by other players who have either a superior product, brand recognition or any other number of advantages that a startup would encounter.

To take a quote from
“It is the perfect brand name to attract new customers and make them feel comfortable if they had not heard of us—which translates into a much higher customer acquisition rate.”

Beggars Liars Thieves.

May 4, 2009 @ 6:10 pm EDT


Yes, but ABCSearch is a really crappy name if I am honest, its about as “used cars salesman” as it gets. Most names would have been better.

Ok, let’s take that still did well because it had good systems and a business model. The name itself, 20-40k?

Online advertising will never truly been an absolute branding proposition as the end consumers of the service will never be the general public. The Publishers are sophisticated so they won’t be fooled by branding.

Now, you might get some yards with less sophisticated businesses who are venturing online, but I’d say those will be the hardest and most costly to service. That’s why the Google model works so well.

Anyway, time will tell. If they have plenty of cash and something that beats the competition (And can’t be replicated easily) then ok. But I think they paid $1m too much for that name.

Gheeze, I got a domain on the drop for $60 that I would as confidently use as that one for $1.4m.

Hmmm..I wonder how much paid for their URL. etc etc. At the end of the days its about systems, cost, service and value.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply