×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sex.com is Going Down

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the pass-the-hat dept.

The Internet 124

nathanielinbrazil writes "A motion to dismiss the involuntary bankruptcy of Sex.com has been filed in a California court. Operational turmoil has put its owner in the doghouse with its creditors, who want to take over. 'It's the best domain in the world by far,' said Mike Mann, who has tried to keep the creditors at bay. Sex.com is estimated to be worth $100m. Let the games begin!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

124 comments

Um (5, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | about 4 years ago | (#31686182)

I always thought going down had been a big part of their strategy? :p

Re:Um (5, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | about 4 years ago | (#31686266)

Is sex still profitable on the net? How did these guys manage to mess up? It doesn't seem to take a genius to sell sex online.

Re:Um (2)

Aeros (668253) | about 4 years ago | (#31686434)

I just love how he thinks this is worth $100 million!

Re:Um (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#31686566)

"I just love how he thinks this is worth $100 million!"

I think he thinks if he says it enough times it will come true.

Ok Mike Mann, tap your heels together three times and say "Sex.com is worth $100 million... Sex.com is worth $100 million... Sex.com is worth $100 million..."

Re:Um (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | about 4 years ago | (#31687810)

"I just love how he thinks this is worth $100 million!"

I think he thinks if he says it enough times it will come true.

Like SCO/Darl McBride?

Re:Um (2, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | about 4 years ago | (#31689450)

"I just love how he thinks this is worth $100 million!" I think he thinks if he says it enough times it will come true. Ok Mike Mann, tap your heels together three times and say "Sex.com is worth $100 million... Sex.com is worth $100 million... Sex.com is worth $100 million..."

I'm sure that if he wasn't so anal about the price the growth prospects would be better.

Re:Um (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31686550)

How did these guys manage to mess up? It doesn't seem to take a genius to sell sex online.

You mean people actually pay for porn on the internet? C'mon, it's been available for free for as long as the internet has been around.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687422)

Mmmm...pixelated boobies!

Re:Um (1)

n30na (1525807) | about 4 years ago | (#31687938)

They'll pay for sex toys, though.

Re:Um (1)

xtracto (837672) | about 4 years ago | (#31688078)

And they'll also pay for "escorts" services and the like.

In fact, a GOOD escort services web page (say, for New York City or another big city) can improve the business quite a lot.

Re:Um (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31688432)

With the rise of Youtube-style content theft sites, the general inadequacy of the DMCA for small to medium business in the face of the volume of stolen content, and the global economic downturn showing us that Adult was not recession proof as was always assumed, the number of people paying has plummeted.

3 years ago it was a multibillion $$ industry. These days there are 4 or 5 major players actually selling content on credit-card members only sites, and all the 'free porn' sites [pornhub, redtube, tube8 etc] just sell 'Adult Dating' scams infested with Nigerian Princesses and worse.

This has already, interestingly enough, led to the total demise of fresh content production, and with no foreseeable change in the status quo the actual volume of porn produced will trickle to a near standstill. This is the argument Hollywood uses for their anti-piracy initiatives, but for them it's FUD as they have the forces of the FBI etc. behind them. For us it's reality, as no lawmaker is going to hang his political hat on the career suicide notion of supporting the US porn industry.

Source: I have worked for many years in the online Adult industry

Re:Um (1)

Jenming (37265) | about 4 years ago | (#31690232)

When the porn industry starts making movies like "The opening of misty beethoven" again i will start buying new porn.

Since '69 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31689512)

You mean people actually pay for porn on the internet? C'mon, it's been available for free for as long as the internet has been around.

The Internet's been around since '69 don'tcha know?

Re:Um (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#31686592)

What sex? A name like "sex.com" just isn't specific enough anymore. It's just like a department store trying to compete with small, specialty stores.

Would a serious skater buy a board at Wal-Mart?

If you want to sell sex on the Internet, target a specific market segment, with a domain like:

TeenLesbiansWithTripleHeadedDildoes.com, or

GranniesScatRompWithLordOfTheRingCharacters.com, or

CatholicSchoolTeachersAbusingSchoolKids.com . . .

. . . although, for the last one, you can get the real thing for free by attending church . . .

Re:Um (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687860)

Dude, you suck. NONE of those links work!

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686632)

Sex is pretty much not profitable any more.

There are a few sites making money by selling dating memberships, mostly tube sites like pornhub.com.
Niche sites also do ok. The rest don't do so well.

Re:Um (1)

sjwest (948274) | about 4 years ago | (#31686732)

Title holders or category names in tld's are bad - accountant.com and consultant got used by email spammers and other crooks in my experience as a spammer hunter.

Never been to 'sex' either primarily because of the strange history of who 'owns' it, and that there are better sex sites out there.

business.com was another one - isnt that the one once owned by football team owner who now hates the internet ?

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686742)

How is it that everybody's forgotten that advertisement revenues are quite significant on high visibility (pun unintended) sites?

Re:Um (1)

h00manist (800926) | about 4 years ago | (#31686948)

How is it that everybody's forgotten that advertisement revenues are quite significant on high visibility (pun unintended) sites?

the guys at sex.com got addicted to expensive hookers and blow, so they hookers and drug dealers took them to court. Don't know if they will recover the blow and sex, it's all gone. But they will all enjoy the ride, it's part of their show.

Re:Um (1)

northernfrights (1653323) | about 4 years ago | (#31686822)

This is how:

We're hard at work on our website. We've got some great stuff in store for Sex.com for 2010, including:

-dating: get matched with sexy singles (and couples)
-classifieds: buy and sell merchandise, find work.

Sound like a $100million website to anyone?

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686942)

Yea, I think they haven't been going down enough.

$100,000,000 ? (2, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 4 years ago | (#31686200)

Hmmm, well - to my N-th generation offspring ( N > 3 ), "terraformation.com" is going to be worth a lot more than that...

ZERO$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31688112)

Now that you posted it here, somebody on /. is going to register it and give it to his N-th generation offspring. You just screwed your own plan.

One owner survived an assassination attempt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686214)

Or I vaguely remember reading that somewhere.

Sex kills. :P

Re:One owner survived an assassination attempt (1)

tkg (455770) | about 4 years ago | (#31687454)

Actually it's "speed kills", or in this case, premature ejaculation.

Let it begin! Let it begin! (1)

Moryath (553296) | about 4 years ago | (#31686218)

Let the games begin!

Let the jokes begin - starting with the article's double entendre headline! This should be more fun than the naming of Nintendo's Weewee!

Not worth that much i guess (5, Insightful)

thsoundman (1778564) | about 4 years ago | (#31686222)

If the domain is "so valuble" then why can't he sell it? Who the hell values these things? Granted it's a much clamored for domain but seriously... somthing is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay for the domain it's not worth 100 million.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (4, Informative)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | about 4 years ago | (#31686312)

I totally agree. And even if someone is crazy enough to pay that much for sex.com, he's gonna have to know how to make money out of it. With all [persiankitty.com] this [redtube.com] free [youporn.com] porn [bulldoglist.com] available on the net, anyone trying to make money out of porn will have more and more difficulties, except with VERY HARDCORE users who will always be willing to pay for higher quality videos, false interactions (sex chat) and all that stuff...

Re:Not worth that much i guess (2, Insightful)

thsoundman (1778564) | about 4 years ago | (#31686346)

Not to mention you can get full length videos on the net for free now. Porn isn't going to be etting any more popular. Granted it still makes a gargantun amount of money but I can't see much more growth potential. Until they can develop somthing like a holodeck they have already done everything... seriously... everything. Personally I can't see how anyone would pay that kind of money for a Non-Physical piece of property but then hey someone spent 250k on a virtual space station so what do I know :P

Re:Not worth that much i guess (2, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | about 4 years ago | (#31686710)

I can't see much more growth potential.

Check your e-mail, I'm sure you haven't tried all pills yet.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#31687124)

Beyond the growth of free stuff, and good old fashioned piracy, the value of generalist site names, even in classy TLDs, seems to have been basically destroyed by the rise of search engines that don't suck.

Back in the bad old days, when searching was seriously limited and not very good, having a URL (or AOL keyword, god help us all) that would be immediately obvious to a desperate n00b might well have had real value.

These days, though, you either know exactly where you are going, or you use your browser's search box as a kind of sloppy-natural-language-command-line thing and enter your hopes and wishes and questions with varying degrees of vagueness. Then, typically, the search engine does a pretty good job of figuring out what you want, and gives you some plausible options, no matter what their URLs are.

If anything, the truly "obvious" URLs are probably worth less than some of the weird ones, now. Upholding a trademark(without having to constantly append your .TLD in advertisements) is almost certainly easier if your company name/URL is some catchy nonsense word than if it is something that would have helped a n00b 10 or 15 years ago.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31688948)

Mod this one down, please. You have obviously no idea how the search engines work if you make such a claim.

If you google a popular keyword, you will almost always see keyword dot TLD in the top results. This is because Google assumes that a TLD with the keyword is about this topic, just like it has to assume that people googling Microsoft want to go to Microsoft.com.

This is also evident by the recent purchase of poker.org which went for $1,000,000 -- the most expensive .org ever.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31686560)

With all [persiankitty.com] this [redtube.com] free [youporn.com] porn [bulldoglist.com] available on the net

You left out alt.binaries ;)

Re:Not worth that much i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31688430)

ssssh!!! don't talk about usenet!

Re:Not worth that much i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687094)

It's such a huge market, though, that even all the free porn in the world doesn't hurt it. People still buy a lot of porn, where I live you can't really easily find any cds anymore. There used to be a lot of cds stores, nowadays there are a few in a mall here or there. Now, porn dvds are found in any magazine shop.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (3, Informative)

Archon-X (264195) | about 4 years ago | (#31688620)

I'm sorry, but like most people that don't work in the industry, you don't have a clue how it operates, the margins it runs, the advertising structures, etc etc.

The largest tube sites are either owned by the latest porn sites (brazzers, etc) - or make huge amounts from selling ad spots (Redtube: minimum 150k for a well placed 30 day spot). Guess what - they're 'making money out of porn' - just not in the older constructs of a paysite.

I personally dropped $125,000 on highly-niched domain a few months back, and we're already at 85% ROI. Interesting factoid: Both youporn and persiankitty, and hundreds more 'free porn sites' promote it, and make quite nice sums off it too.

In brief: Your understanding of how the market works even on a fundamental level is completely flawed.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (1, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | about 4 years ago | (#31686412)

I'd think you could make very good money by just selling advertising space on sex.com. Or running just about any kind of business whose target market has a smutty sense of humor. For example, start selling discounted college textbooks from a site called sex.com, throw in some gender-selectable eye candy, and students across North America will beat (off) a path to your door.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | about 4 years ago | (#31686552)

Then why don't you buy it? You seem to have a great business plan! But maybe the banks will tell you that they can "only" lend you 75% of the amount... Do you have 25,000,000$ at hand?

Re:Not worth that much i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686512)

A better question is why can't he get debtor in possession financing. What is needed in a situation like this is a pool of outside investors and a manager to "fix" the business issues and buy out the unsecured creditors at a discount, and move forward. porn is not going away any time soon, although the revenue model is changing and may be too difficult for anyone to manage.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687046)

The problem with sex.com: About 10 years ago, the domain name got transfered owner under "suspicious circumstances", which resulted in a lawsuit, which resulted in an injunction from the name from being used. The legal battle has raged on since (which is why if you go to sex.com you see it pretty much parked).

It's not that the name is worthless - it's that there's pretty much no content at the site, the legal battle is not over, and the owner has run out of money, which is why creditors want to take it over.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (1)

v1 (525388) | about 4 years ago | (#31689442)

last I heard on this, the domain owner had written signed request on file at his registrar to not transfer the domain unless he was there in person with valid IDs because so many people had tried to fraud the domain from him.

Then some yutz at the registrar let someone fax in a request for a transfer, and he had quite a fight to get it back, but got it back in surprisingly short order.

From there I didn't hear any further on it. You'd think that if that many people were that desperate to get their hands on it, it ought to be worth something. Maybe not 100 mil, but something. With all the banner revenue he has to be getting, I don't understand how he's broke. That should have been his meal-ticket for life. Maybe not extremely lucrative, but should have at least been a nice steady income forever.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687080)

Untrue, now in the US, health insurance is no longer bound by that rule, since we have to buy it regardless of price.

I really hope that gets struck down in court, mandating liability insurance is one thing (I can simply not drive on public roads), but this is just a terrible law. Not saying that what we had worked, but forcing people to buy something is just wrong.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31690264)

Wrong kind of teabagging in an article about sex.com.

Kindly STFU.

Re:Not worth that much i guess (1)

nathanielinbrazil (1774720) | about 4 years ago | (#31687138)

I understand that the only way a bankruptcy court would be involved is because another court had entered the fray. I suspect that another court had granted one of the lenders the right to auction off the SITE, including the domain name. It was scheduled and DOM files the Motion to Dismiss claiming he had both domestic and international bidders on a date certain. Whether or not the price makes sense, he will be compelled to demonstrate to the court that he indeed did have those potential buyers.

the best domain in the world? (5, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 years ago | (#31686268)

What about google.com? microsoft.com?

I'd point out that those sites have made substantially more money for their owners than sex.com. Just reading the stories about this domain, the theft, the international intrigue it makes me think it's the most nefarious domain on the network, but hardly the best one. It reminds me of the story of "the monkey's paw" and unfortunately that was fiction, this is reality.

Re:the best domain in the world? (1)

neoform (551705) | about 4 years ago | (#31686330)

google.com and microsoft.com are valuable only because of the businesses behind them. Sex.com by itself has far more intrinsic value. The only domain I'd value more than sex.com would be business.com.

Re:the best domain in the world? (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 years ago | (#31686404)

If you read the filing, the whole bankruptcy is around money invested for "building a website." If there is intrinsic value then just having people coming to a pic of a naked chic should be a great business model. Wait, that won't work, as evidenced by the bankruptcy.

Content is king, not the domain name.

Re:the best domain in the world? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#31686426)

I'm not sure any domain of the form $someword.com is intrinsically valuable when you can just type $someword into your favorite search engine.

Re:the best domain in the world? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687710)

What would you do with business.com? Why would anyone go there? Hmm, I feel like doing some "business" today. I don't have any specific kind of business in mind, I bet business.com has some interesting business that I could do, I'll go check that out.

Re:the best domain in the world? (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 4 years ago | (#31689884)

The only domain I'd value more than sex.com would be business.com.

Why? I don't think many people start their day by typing "business.com" into a browser. Maybe you could sell a few business socks [youtube.com] there, but not much more.

The most common strategy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686294)

Just like pizza.com, I bet a lot more people search google for sex than try sex.com... I mean, strictly hypothetically speaking.

Re:The most common strategy... (3, Insightful)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | about 4 years ago | (#31686336)

I agree this is probably the case now. It probably wasn't the case 15 years ago. I remember arbitrarily trying website.com when I wanted to find some information or subject matter when I was young.

rubbing peters to pay paul (1)

forgot_my_username (1553781) | about 4 years ago | (#31686360)

The most interesting part of the article is where Mike Mann, the guy who runs sex.com, said that he wanted to give all the proceeds to charity!

I know that there is a great joke there... but my brain is still in shock


--------
No one can do everything perfectly; mistakes happen. But we’re assassins: when we make mistakes, people live

It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#31686396)

But aren't domain names pretty irrelevant now in the Brave Google World?

The subset of people naive, dumb or drunk enough to just type "sex" in the url bar probably doesn't intersect in any meaningful way with people who own a credit card and are capable of typing in the number.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | about 4 years ago | (#31686442)

You make the incorrect assumption that it takes brains to own and/or use a credit card. In fact, the vast majority of CC users lack basic math skills and get entangled in unredeemable debt forever.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (0, Offtopic)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 years ago | (#31687098)

That's my situation. I'm having trouble killing my credit card, but I've just paid my last $300+ college bill and my last $150+ maintenance bill on my apartment for a prior issue. I'm also switching off my evil car insurance company because everyone quotes me $1000-$1500 lower per 6 months, for the same coverage! Good hands... with sticky fingers.

Mind you, I also have my 401(k) contributions set obscenely high, so I intentionally have a very harsh financial situation. My intent is to pay off my $18000 car loan, and my $1300 credit card, and have some $1200/mo of money a month. I'll sack some away, and... probably up my 401(k) again. I like being poor, I guess. I mean right now I'm shaking, I'm feeling the pain, and my $200/mo allowance is almost bankrupting me; but if I'm careful I'll make it... next time I'm paying for college up front out of savings though.

I might just buy another car. Pay my car under its trade-in (or market sale) value-- which is some $10000-$12000-- and find something used that passes a PPI to my satisfaction (suspension issues I can fix, minor brake system issues i.e. new master cylinder I can fix, etc) for around $4000. Wiggle my way out of $6000-$8000 of debt by plodding down $4000 head on. The extra $500/mo I'll have coming in will cover any minor repairs I may need, or an engine rebuild.

Trust me, a stream of $4000 of tune-ups and minor repairs of aging not-yet-dead parts is way better than a $4000 loan; you can sit on the minor repairs while you bank a few grand as a cash buffer, and the bank won't come after you. You want that cash buffer to handle EMERGENCY repairs-- things that are just broken, or that will force other systems to fail i.e. any exhaust system issue (if the cat clogs, it'll damage your engine, EGR, oxygen sensor... and if the EGR or O2 sensors go, they'll damage each other and the cat). Non-essential maintenance i.e. "I'd like to replace all the brake lines, they're 15 years and 150,000 miles old but they work just fine" can wait a few months.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (1)

Archon-X (264195) | about 4 years ago | (#31688322)

Woops! Wrong window, I thought was my blog that noone read. My bad.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (4, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | about 4 years ago | (#31686514)

The intersection of those two sets is huge. I staff a corporate help desk and I talk to dozens of people a week who don't know the difference between the URL field and the search field.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#31687376)

Not that this helps their confusion; but browsers are increasingly conflating the two as well, probably because they know that customer service(and low support costs) is easier to achieve through pandering than through education.

In any fairly recent FF, for instance, if you just enter a single word or phrase, obviously not a URL, in the URL field, it interprets that as a search query, and dumps you to the page of whatever search engine is registered as default, with that query already run for you. I believe Chrome does the same thing, only your search provider is always google, and I'm assuming that IE will start doing the same thing sooner or later, if it hasn't already. I can't speak for Opera, Safari, and suchlike.

It is unfortunate that many people have substantial difficultly with making basic abstract distinctions, I suspect that their lives would be better for it; but browser fields are really not a very important case. In the vast majority of cases, and the overwhelming majority of cases generated by n00bs, the string entered into the field is pretty obviously either a URL or just a bunch of words. It isn't rocket surgery to distinguish between the two, and load the URL as normal, and feed the just a bunch of words to some search engine.

The ability to understand abstract distinctions, even on a low level, construct useful working models of complex systems, and so forth, are extremely valuable skills, and people's interactions with software show, frequently, either how bad people are at those, or how awful the software is; but it isn't at all clear that the distinction between the URL field and the search filed is actually a useful one. In the vast majority of cases, it is fairly easy to algorithmically infer the user's intent, and "do the right thing" and, for the power users and their corner cases, it won't kill anybody to have a configurable "Interpret URLs strictly, and have a separate box for search queries" option somewhere, or even just a command line style set of switches that you can use in the single input field.

In conqueror, for instance, there are a whole bunch of short default prefixes, and it is easy for the user to define more. "gg:test", for example, does a google search for "test". "ggl:test" is equivalent to using "I'm feeling lucky" when google searching for test. "wp:" would do a wikipedia search, "uspto:" searches the U.S. patend database, and so forth. There are dozens by default, and it is trivial to configure more.

Since the n00bs are confused by the distinction; but the distinction is not really necessary in most cases, we really ought to collapse it. For power uses, separate boxes and tabbing and shift-tabbing around are clumsy, a few simple, terse text commands, with substantial depth for those who want it, are the way to go.

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 4 years ago | (#31687826)

Just FYI, I see or hear* the opposite far more often: people typing simple URLs into the search field, whether it's the one in the corner next to the URL field, or even the one found on their home page (Google, MSN, Yahoo). I don't have the data at hand, but a nontrivial amount of searches on those sites are for fully qualified domain names.

*Typical example:
Me on the phone: "Please type example dot com in the address field, hit Enter, and look for the ____ icon in the upper right corner."
User: "I don't see that icon."
(A few probing questions later)
Me: "Is there a Google logo in the upper left corner?"
User: "Yes."

Re:It might have been valuable back in 1998 or so (1)

De Lemming (227104) | about 4 years ago | (#31686626)

And even typing "sex" in the url bar won't bring you to sex.com. By default, IE will do a Bing search, Chrome will do a Google search, and Firefox will simply try to connect to the "sex" domain, which will fail (unless you have a web server named sex on your internal network).

Thought that domain name hype was over (3, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 4 years ago | (#31686398)

Surely we've moved on from this?
Is not getting a high ranking in search engine responses more important these days?
For example, I just typed 'sex' into my browser address line, (Firefox and with Google default search), and it took me straight to 'pornhub.com' (NSFW!)

I don't go there (2, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 years ago | (#31686402)

Anyone out there who actually makes it a habit to go to sex.com? Frankly I've never heard of them since the big sale however many years ago that was. And who goes to business.com? Sure, they're generic keywords with .com behind them, but honestly where's the value in a name?

Re:I don't go there (2, Insightful)

thsoundman (1778564) | about 4 years ago | (#31686484)

The names themselves don't have any value, at least i don't think so, I rarely go to direct web addresses anymore. You could have website: www.xyzilovepennies123.com/blah and it wouldn't matter as long as you showed up in the first page of google results.

Re:I don't go there (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | about 4 years ago | (#31687064)

You go right ahead and handle your finances from http://www.geocities.com/westealyourmoney/2q38948234.php [geocities.com]. As for myself, I'd prefer using paypal.com.

Re:I don't go there (1)

Zorque (894011) | about 4 years ago | (#31687206)

Paypal is another of the companies using non-generic domains. If it was "money.com" or something, you'd have a point, but it's a catchy moniker instead.

Re:I don't go there (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#31686506)

For that matter are there *any* generic keyword domains that have any use whatsoever?

Re:I don't go there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31688338)

weather.com is a decent weather site.

Timing Is Everything (2, Funny)

DynaSoar (714234) | about 4 years ago | (#31686496)

Since this appears to be real, it's a darn good thing the article was posted today. Had it come out 1 day later, nobody would believe the story was anything but an excuse for the headline.

Re:Timing Is Everything (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 4 years ago | (#31686652)

It is April fools day in some parts of the world now.

Re:Timing Is Everything (2, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | about 4 years ago | (#31688208)

It is April fools day in some parts of the world now.

Fortunately it isn't in the US yet, and I'm on vacation tomorrow and so will get to miss the boring tired old /. April 1st dementia that wasn't very funny the first time and has become vastly less funny as it gets repeated without variation or originality year after year after year.

Best domain how? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31686838)

If this is such a valuable domain, why is it that no one has been able to do anything profitable with it, other than trade it around? Even if he doesn't think he can get a fair price for it at auction right now, surely he could call someone up and say "For $X/month, we can point this domain at your site, and I can stay out of bankruptcy."

Re:Best domain how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687364)

Because the people who were running the "site" are shysters who just wanted to steal investors' money and not do any work.

Glen Quagmire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31687414)

Giggity...

Bungle (1)

Archon-X (264195) | about 4 years ago | (#31688092)

This domain has been bungled every single time someone has owned it.
Either
a) corporate types get hold of if, and having no clue about the adult industry, make it a banner farm, or
b) Shady types get it and use it to suck Capital Investors dry.

Meanwhile on the rest of the internet, the pornographers are making more money of standard domains than one could ever hope to off sex.com
How do you make bank off 100M in a 5 year plan?

Search.com (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 4 years ago | (#31688846)

search.com > google.com
video.com > hulu.com and youtube.com
shopping.com > amazon.com

Honestly, having a common dictionary word as your domain name was assumed to be the key to internet success in the mid 90's, but haven't we moved on since then?

Branding, type in traffic, seo juice... (1)

canadian_in_beijing (1234768) | about 4 years ago | (#31688914)

Why is it important? First have a look at Coke... their brand is worth millions if not billions. Same thing goes with domains and sex.com is on of the highest searched keywords ever on the intertet. Average Monthly Searches: 513,360,000 Average Cost Per Click: $0.51 USD. I happen to have a few domains with type in traffic and it's usually 0.5-3% type in traffic of the average searches. So with sex.com you are looking at large monthly checks from just type in traffic. Not everyone uses search engines to visit websites, and when returning to websites they will most likely type the domain in the address bar. People like to develop sites that have memorable, easy to type in, and easy to say domains (word of mouth). Sex.com is lots easier to remember compared to asianchicksgettingnailed.com. Website owners want customers to return and sex.com is one of the easiest and shortest sex names out there. Also getting top search engine rankings with Google, Bing, etc is lots easier if you have the keyword in your domain (not all cases but in highly competitive markets it will help). I don't think the domain is worth $100m but if properly developed it could be pulling in that amount of profit every year. My guess is a sale around $10m.

Just $100m ? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 years ago | (#31689472)

Are they insane?

Sex.com is worth billions A bid for $100 million would be sort of a joke, an insult.

When you consider the number of visitors who will go there just due to the name, now, and the exponentially growing number of people who will visit the domain at times in the future (due to the increasing internet population)...

Not to mention the branding opportunities.

Although, I suppose at the end of the day, it can only be sold for as much as someone is actually willing to pay for it, regardless of its actual intrinsic value.

Its owner must've done something pretty bad if they went bankrupt while holding such a prized jewel though....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...