Quote: "Sources suggest that Microsoft could put as much as $300 million to $500 million into Facebook for a 5% stake"
If this valuation is true then generic domain names (as a whole) are wayyyy too cheap today.
This entry was posted by Frank Schilling on Monday, September 24th, 2007 at 10:12 PM and is filed under
Domain Names (Domains). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Interesting blog, not sure I understand the correlation, though. Facebook.com only became insanely valuable when something useful was built on top of it.
I couldn’t agree more. While Facebook is a nice site, it isn’t worth half a billion in my opinion.
The 23 years old founder started the site 3 1/2 years ago and already turned down a $1B buyout offer from Yahoo last year.
Your right, the future looks really good for generic domains.
What’s the correlation?
$500M for 5%? Now dats alah of money, mang.
http://www.moniker.com has posted their auction list for the Miami auction. Frank, what do you think of the general quality of domains on their list? I have seen better ones on Sedo or GoDaddy! I am not exactly excited about this auction…
If I were selling to Microsoft, it would either be everything or nothing.
Yes, Frank. Please share your math with us. I just wrote a piece on branding generic domains — but I’m just a small time hack compared to guys like you.
Why do you say generic domains are too cheap?
Do tell!
Harry
Branding Generic Domains (Part 2)
DALLAS, TX – A Dallas-based reader of my previous post on generic domains posted this follow up:I just wish I had read this when I set up my domain name 4 years ago. In a small business, you just have
Just like a domain name the company is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Even though some domain names do not get much natural click through traffic, the core domain name itself is very valuable if it is easy to spell, easy to remember and is either geo targeted or retail targeted. Example: californialoans.com,or californiainsurance.com I would pay well over 100k-250k for either of those names if i was an insurance agent or loan officer but if it was payperclick i would not. In facebook they have a shi* load of ads they can advertise with no middle man microsoft would be the distributor and would get 100% of profit. In payperclick have to many middle men, Just like the youtube deal google will be the main distributor of ads no middle men. Its worth it to a google or yahoo, or even google but no to anyone else if you dont have a plateform to distribute ads..
Just my take on it