In this industry we pretty much know each other, thanks to its structure and relatively small size.
I often meet other domain industry professionals, at local meetings or at larger gatherings such as domain conferences.
Connections are important to have, value and utilize in a mutually respectful yet efficient manner.
I often use domain brokers to engage in the acquisition or sale of domain assets from my portfolio. However, I do not appreciate the ‘barging in’ of brokers on behalf of others, particularly when the domain name in question displays a clear method of contacting me.
Quite often, I ask potential buyers to sign an indemnification agreement, before they even receive a quote for the domain. This helps me weed out potential ‘pests’ and others that do not want to commit to certain terms.
By being forced to quote prices on behalf of a third party brokerage, I can no longer use this disclaimer, nor do I have control over the sale. While I understand the need of brokerage houses to actively assist their clients, I flat out refuse to carry on an exchange via their channels.
The end result: A potential buyer that initially avoided establishing direct contact, will most likely contact me eventually. Perhaps they will also save money, having to skip brokerage fees; for me, it’s an easier, cleaner and more efficient way to manage my domain sales.
A valid perspective overall, but some people reading this might throw a few babies out with the bathwater.
Like you, I prefer direct negotiations – dealing with brokers ideally only when I have shaken hands with them in advance, asking them to sell something on my behalf.
However, I’m also a buyer’s broker (although mainly a domain investor). So I’m frequently the guy asking other domainers for price quotes and getting the silent treatment.
While it’s tempting to believe that ignoring the broker will result in a future offer directly from the owner, that’s often not the case. Many of my clients arrive with multiple name candidates. And they usually have deadlines associated with their projects. So when a particular domain owner doesn’t communicate, we simply buy from someone else who does.
Sometimes fair retail offers are rejected or ignored or fall between the cracks, and that money leaves the domain aftermarket forever. Typically a buyer will own a backup domain already or settles on one in a hurry when other doors shut. So it’s not uncommon to see an end user with an adequate budget nevertheless committing to a third-choice brand name and a hand-registered domain instead. And I’m not talking about lowball offers here.
Significant amounts of money are rebuffed by this industry due to unrealistic prices, negotiation delays, and owner silence. Frustrating to watch that. DNJournal ought to publish a chart of dead-end offers each week, simply to highlight the waste!
Some of that money does return later if the same domain or an alternative domain is purchased. However, my guess is that the majority of rejected dollars bounce only once; and that bounce is … away. What’s more, buyers who have a negative experience attempting to buy domains tell their acquaintances not to bother. I’ve had multiple conversations about this topic during the past week with people outside the industry, apologizing for my peers within it.
What I’d say is this: Some brokers are lazy go-betweens who send template messages, while others actually work to facilitate a deal. With experience in this industry, domain owners who receive inquiries via a broker can tell the difference quickly. But either way, communication can’t hurt much.
Voicing concerns and asking for steps to be taken should be fine. It’s the broker’s job to satisfy both parties and close the transaction. Some hoops can’t be jumped through, while others can. But discussion tends to move things forward, which is usually a win-win.
Some buyers will doggedly pursue a single domain for months and years. Many will be curious for a day or a week and then cross it off their list.
Hi Joseph – It’s clear that this is my position on the subject, and I try my best not to throw out any babies along with the bathwater. 😉
My refusal to utilize a broker for incoming offers definitely depends on any attached numbers.
Sometimes it’s not worth to acknowledge certain parameters that go along with responding to an offer – although I do tend to inform the broker we aren’t having an exchange via this route – without the other party identifying themselves and what potential claims they might have.
To me, it’s equally important to protect my assets as it is to negotiate and achieve a sale. For most inquiries that arrived through a broker, the follow up has been a direct contact by the other party later on – that’s my experience so far.
100% Same Mind as Acro…
There will always be another buyer – for a good name.
If you have a certain way you like to do things – stick with it.
You and I both know that 99.7 % of all inquires are just time wasters… we can see through to the ones worth engaging with…
~Patricia
I agree with Acro to work directly with buyers for many reasons. I want direct negotiations so I can build my own client list not the broker. Why contact a broker to deal with me if all information is available via Whois.
As buyer/investor, same thing I want direct negotiations with the seller for same reason.
I’m a digital asset broker working with Fortune 500 clients on the buyer side. Many of my clients don’t want to deal with sellers directly, bother with WHOIS, and all that. It’s all a murky world to them and they have better things to do like running a business or a corporation or a marketing department. They prefer to hire me as their broker to do it for them. We sort out in advance a budget for each domain name on a list of viable candidates/alternatives I create after some research and then we stick to those budgets. If you don’t engage with me as broker, I can tell you that they won’t be coming to you directly. They are too busy to be bothered to get involved themselves. They trust me to find a name that works for their needs within the established budget. There’s simply too many good alternative domain names on the list to be bought from other sellers who are willing to communicate and deal the buyer’s chosen broker.
Anon – Interesting argument. The truth is that ‘Fortune 500’ clients operate such functions internally when domains that match a planned brand or campaign are already taken. Examples include Microsoft, Amazon and others.
From my own experience, start-ups are the best clients to deal with, and have lead to many sizable sales. I am definitely more sympathetic towards a start-up with a reduced budget, than to a ‘Fortune 500’ that employs a strawman to acquire an asset on the cheap.
I treat every single inquiry as coming from an end-user, so your involvement would be scrutinized and blocked, unless the figures match my expected price. The argument about ‘having alternatives’ doesn’t fly with me; see: http://acro.net/blog/domains/domain-buyers-claiming-to-have-alternate-options/