My No Nonsense Responses to Forbes.com and the World. Updated

Morning Folks!!

I can't even describe the high as I began to read the Forbes.com article last night. Then without notice I got sucker punched when I was referred to as a "Domain Squatter".  I was more than outraged. I was body slammed but I was not knocked out.

I thought we had passed that point of jealousy. But I got thrown back right into 1996 and that forum about mobile home and real estate flipping. They removed my comments as fast as I could write them. My crime? Showing a new type of real estate that would provide them with more money and a quicker way to do business.

But the biggest surprise of all is that this was coming from Forbes.com. The leading Capitaistic publication in the world. Outragreous!  I am reading this and wondering whose agenda is this? What would motivate this? The contradictions make no sense. They did not just present 2 sides, they presented something that did not add up.

So while we have not come as far as I would have thought, hoped, dreamed, it is still 2 years 1 month and 3 days until that 20 year mark. The time I believed it would take to change how this medium is viewed and why the .com address would increase in value faster than any other asset class in the history of mankind. A bold premise! A crazy timeline. But it would take all those years to change the thinking. And as you see with that article, we still have work to do. And while we are on the threshold of 20 years, we are not there yet. The landing gear is not down. But we are in contact with the control tower. We are in the gravitational pull of where this is all heading.

The gTLD "Booster Rocket" is just that. A Booster Rocket. What that means is that it propels the main ship (.com) to the destination while the booster rocket part falls back to earth as we have seen over the past 50 years on TV with every launch.

 

Comment #1

Excuse me,
But I invested many millions of dollars into an uproven medium called the Internet and I am NOT a “Domain Squatter”! I may be a homesteader, a risk taker, a gambler, but not a squatter and you should update your article accordingly.

Is Donald Trump a land squatter?
Bet you call him that and you would hear from his people pretty fast.

It is called CAPITALISM and that is something that Forbes is supposed to champion!

When I bought Porno.com for $42,000 people thought I was insane. That is not squatting. That is pure capitalism.

 

Comment #2

Squatter: a person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building or unused land.

So PLEASE update your story as you are implying I have done something unlawful and that is damaging to my reputation. And it is not accurate!

Occupy Wall Street, THAT is what a squatter is. I am a capitalist. An opportunist. Something that I should not have to defend on FORBES.COM of all places!!

 

Comment #3

And when Steve Forbes himself came to talk to the DOMAIN INDUSTRY at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. domain conference I co-produce in 2007, he thought those that thought we were squatters were ignorant of what being an entrepreneur is all about.

btw, when I sold candy.com you failed to mention I still retain 10% of the company and get a 1.5% royalty for every item that goes out the door. That might be important information for your readers to know.

And yes I am a college dropout. That does not make me stupid. Last time I looked, I was in pretty good company. I even know what a squatter is and what a squatter isn’t.

I paid $750,000 for Property.com, how does that make me a squatter? That is outrageous coming from Forbes.com

I paid MANY millions for the domains I OWN! I outbid others just like some did last night. You just called them all squatters!

If I had domains with infringing trademarks that I was profiting from, then you would be on the right track. Generic domains like Candy.com, property.com and the 5998 others I own do not infringe on anyone.

 

Comment#4

I just saw the author is a a lawyer and journalist. And you would think she would know better than to refer to me in this disparaging and negative manner in an international publication like Forbes.com: “Domain name squatters like Schwartz”

NONSENSE!!

I bought domains LEGALLY, open to anyone and no other person on the planet wanted them out of 7 BILLION and it paid off. And will pay off for the rest of my life. Or I was the highest bidder. Neither of which would in any way, shape or form make me any more of a squatter than Donald Trump or any other property owner in the USA.

Ms. Jacobs, I am no squatter! I think you must correct and update the story and set the record straight.

 

Comment #5

And lastly,
Your entire article is based on false information you are giving your readers that the value of domain names are going down. Sorry, they are more like Manhattan Real Estate. Up, up, up.

Why don’t you tell them that the aftermarket on domains in 2013 broke ALL previous years sales records and we still have what may be the #1 month of the year to go?

Tell them that while the housing market was crashing that generic dotcom domain names were going up or fairly stable. That everyday many people are making loads of money by buying and selling domains like they flip real estate and are not squatters nor are they squatting. They are doing what has been done for HUNDREDS of years.

Tell them how all the hotel chains missed Hotels.com and how they have to pay millions a year to get reservations that they could have had first and FREE had they or anyone in their employment had the foresight to figure it out. They failed!

 

Comment #6

Thank you for taking out the reference about me being a squatter from your article.

I would like to point out one last fact.

According to Escrow.com at last Months T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Domain Industry Event, at least 2/3 of ALL domain sales are not reported by DNJournal.com. Most high value deals are never reported because of non-disclosure agreement.

Agreements that I have refused to sign over the years so that the REAL story about domain name investing could and would be told.

So the larger the sale, the less chance it would be public unless they are a public company and even then there are easy ways to hide what was paid.

In 2003 when I sold men.com for $1.3MM it made the news around the world. Was on CNN. Was everywhere. Fast forward to today and my $1.35 Million sale last month was hardly mentioned. Million dollar sales are common place with domains reported or not.

Today it is the $15MM-$20MM that would get the focus but again, according to Escrow.com just last month, those sales this year have not been made public. However since Escrow.com handles the transactions for many large deals, they do know and with some arm twisting, they shared with our audience.

.Com is the largest, most important and most powerful franchise the world has ever known. That is what should be covered. That a few letters with a .com tells folks anywhere in the world exactly how to contact you in various forms. It is the lifeline of most every business on the planet today. I have watched it grow from less than 5% to critical mass.

The ignorance by Madison Ave and Corp America during this time has been stunning! The misinformation even more so.

When I was born 60 years ago all the land was bought and I had no money. 500 years of squatters I guess! But the Internet gave real estate an entire new dimension. An entire new chance. I saw that parallel and I acted on it.

There is still plenty of opportunity in domain investing and I buy domains nearly every day of the week. Maybe I should go register IamNotaSquatter.com

The one thing I would hope comes from this….a real article about the important of domains based on facts that allows your readers to see what Steve Forbes himself saw when he spoke to our small but blossoming industry in 2007.

His video is somewhere on the targetedtraffic.com site so you can see EXACTLY what Steve Forbes himself believes about the legitimacy of what we do. And my 1999 erealestate.com is still in tact so you can measure just how many things I got right all those years ago.

 

Comment #7

Here is a short clip of Steve Forbes talking to or industry in 2007 along with a few others like Tom Gardner of the Motley Fool. Terry Jones of Travelocity.com and Kayak.

http://www.youtube.com/v/sQiAakhD03I?autoplay=1&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&playerapiid=ytplayer

 

Comment #8

“A pleasure to be around REAL entrepreneurs.”

A Direct quote from Steve Forbes as he addressed the Domain Industry during T.R.A.F.F.I.C. 2007 at the Westin Hotel in Hollywood, Florida.

 

Comment #9

And if the value of .com domains is going down, please explain how Procter and Gamble was CONVICTED of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as indicated on HallofShame.com.

Take a look how these companies would RISK their reputations to STEAL a domain and not PAY for a domain.

Landrover/Jaguar too.

http://www.hallofshame.com

 

Comment #10

@Deborah
“Investors need to understand the huge risks of buying this highly illiquid asset.”

The house I own next door has been on the market since 2010. How liquid is that? 177 feet direct Intracoastal and 4500 ft. house, $2.18MM. Where is my buyer? The appraisal is higher than my asking price. Matter of fact, my asking price is land only and the remodeled house is free. So where is my liquidity there? Since I don’t NEED to sell, I can wait for the market to come to me. But liquid??

Folks that NEED to be liquid should have cash and stock. You don’t by real estate to be liquid. You don’t buy domains to be liquid. You buy to develop in the future or to hold until you want. It’s an investment and as a rule investments are less than liquid. If I invest in a start-up, how liquid is that?? Is there a cashier I can cash in whenever I want?

I am sorry, but your misconceotions of our industry is stunning. Mike Berkens left a comment with a very in depth article he wrote about this article on TheDomains.com. You really need to read it. I don’t agree with all of what he says, but there is no disagreement with over $1 Billion be invested in expanding this channel right now before we even get to advertising.

I would like to invite you to be my guest at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. in May at the Bellagio. I want you to see first hand what this industry is about. Talk to the men and women who range from age from 20-75. They come from over a dozen different countries and come from all types of different backgrounds.

You will find rag to riches stories that will make you cry.

If you wrote about the “Land Barons” you would look and treat us differently. Take a look at Forbes.com own article on land barons and then justify how you write about us.

Respect for one group, but you can’t see we are the land baron’s of this century? Really?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/ted-turner-john-malone-emmerson-business-billionaires-land.html

And the reason I bought so many millions of dollars of REAL real estate was that without concrete examples to point to, few would believe the success many have enjoyed.

This IS the real estate of the future and so may have flunked when it comes to understanding that.

Just name me one item in the history of mankind that increased in value faster than the domain name asset? PLEASE, name me one! Been asking for 18 years. Nobody has been able to answer that.

Gold took THOUSANDS of years to reach $1000/ounce.

 

Comment #11

btw,
Here is the link to the article I cited above from TheDomains.

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/11/23/the-only-thing-forbes-com-missed-about-the-domain-name-industry-is-the-billion-dollars-coming-into-it/

@Deborah, he took you to the wood shed. He did it with facts. It is hard to believe you read that and did not change how you view things. Or all these pretty respectful comments. Each making very strong points that will go unanswered.

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/11/23/the-only-thing-forbes-com-missed-about-the-domain-name-industry-is-the-billion-dollars-coming-into-it/

This is not new to us. We have been subjected to this type of thing for many years. But I think it is you and Forbes.com that NOW has an opportunity to change that.

With your editors, please go read and research the comments left. Factual comments. Not on emotion. Fact. And to be honest, that seems what reporting is coming down to Fact based vs emotion based. Personally I am guilty of both. But I am not a professional journalist either.

I do want to thank you for not censoring any of the comments. BRAVO!

I made a list yesterday of the 9 comments I left here in response.

http://www.ricksblog.com/2013/11/nonsense-responses-forbes-com-world/

And while we may joust, we do appreciate your article. Your readers and investors will decide. Thank you!!

 

Comment #12

Excuse me, I was the HARASSEE in that Saveme.com case. A 3rd party tried to STEAL my domain name by ABUSING the system and they got CAUGHT!

So today, these folks have to live with the consequences of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and being caught and labeled by a 3 member panel.

Otherwise known as stealing. They were convicted of that by the presiding panel on the link you provided. There have only been a few dozen such cases EVER on the Internet.

And from that, you get this:

http://www.ricksblog.com/2012/06/marcio-mello-chaves-labled-a-reverse-domain-hijacker-in-savemecom-case/

And you get this:

http://www.hallofshame.com/about/

The “law firm” seems like it knowingly engaged in the reverse domain hijacking and they get to share the honor in their actions. All factual. Let the next law firm know that if they engage in this and drive the GETAWAY CAR, that they too get listed on HallofShame.com.

And tell why they should not? I am listening. Did the law firm ever disavow their actions? Apologize for their actions? Explain what they did wrong so they won’t do it again?

They never said a word in how many YEARS?? Not a single one of them have. That would take this thing called “Courage” and that is in short supply.


 

In Conclusion

I always look at these events as an opportunity. An opportunity to circulate the truth and facts about what we do and the things we have learned that few know. This could be our biggest opportunity yet and our job is to speak out and hope it hits the ears of the informed. But first we have to set the record straight!

Rick Schwartz



66 thoughts on “My No Nonsense Responses to Forbes.com and the World. Updated

  1. Scott Alliy

    To paraphrase a Mitt Romney, “the author is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts” Thanks for setting the record straight about the state of the domain industry.

    Reply
  2. Harry L Shields

    Rick, Well written response. It’s sad that you even had to defend yourself to such a publication. I noticed what seemed to be jealousy that the writer had not entered into the domain arena soon enough. I believe that you defended the entire industry with this post…Thanks

    Reply
  3. UFO

    I think the whole article was prejudicially loaded. Even the way it reads about you going into the workforce rather than continuing on at school. ‘drop out’ ‘commission based seller of furniture’ ‘domain squatter’.

    I can spot these types a mile off.

    Reply
  4. Brad Miller

    When you register domain names as speculative investments, or for use in generating revenues from type-in traffic, to build or develop niche websites, or to build your own marketplace of valuable domain names and brands, its not squatting, there is purpose behind it. There is hard work behind it. There is insight and genius behind it. Domain names have inherent value, the market is telling the story everyday, and although the market is still in its infancy, often illiquid, and often difficult to predict and price accurately, it is developing, and will continue to develop as long as domainers, who are the market makers of this emerging market, are allowed to operate freely. Those who can best value, acquire and develop these assets will have success. For those who are willing to put in the hard work to understand all the fundamentals of what makes a domain name valuable, and who can best apply this understanding to participating in the market, there is much opportunity. This lady certainly had a full cup of animosity for breakfast. I think there are a lot of people out there like her, who see the high dollar sales, and would rather bash the early pioneers in the market, than pick up a shovel and do some digging, when there is plenty of gold left to be dug.

    Reply
    1. Scott Alliy

      Very well said Danny, Sports winners are exalted domain investment winners are vilified? Thought we have gotten past worrying about what others are doing? If they change their tune I know where they might find some domain assets they can use to start their portfolio and domain investment future ;-)

      Reply
  5. mARTIN

    I went to law school Rick is this idiot is typical of the jealous stupid idiot girls that go to law school.

    She looks down on you and it is so apparent it is disgusting.

    She views you through her moral prism of righteousness and comes to the conclusion you are Ron Jeremy skeevy type.

    If I were you and I saw her again..id punch her in the face,

    Reply
  6. Brad Miller

    mARTIN, with that education of yours, you’d think you may have picked up a communications course somewhere along the line. I think we all agree the lady has a short-sighted view of the industry, but you certainly have some animosity of your own to work out. Have a coke and a smile pal.

    Reply
  7. UFO

    @Brad

    I can understand mArtins animosity; it’s far too prevalent the type of ‘beating down on people’ by those whom think they should be in a better financial position because of their class and education.

    This perhaps is one of the reasons why I like the internet so much, you are judged by your words only.

    Nb: ‘punch in the face’ is just social media talk, it’s like a Tom and Jerry cartoon, an over dramatisation for entertainment purposes.

    Reply
  8. BullS

    Congrats- she just ruined her reputation.
    Unreliable journalism.
    Suggest she attends one of the domain conferences and educate herself in the industry and talk to the fine folks like us.

    Get the facts Ma’aam

    Reply
  9. krishna

    Rick, drag them to court. This should be the last ridiculous article ever published in a major publication.

    Otherwise, we may see more such articles from idiots.

    Reply
  10. Brad Miller

    @UFO, I hear you, and I’m sure mARTIN let his emotions get the best of him, Ive certainly done it too, but he too is judged just as she is by words, and to attack stupid idiot law school girls in general, and to be offensive in a violent manner, is maybe not the best choice of words to express disdain for the writer and the article. Anyway, I don’t judge anybody, nobodies perfect, everybody has something to learn. I picked up the same tone from Deborah Jacobs as everybody else, and this lady clearly doesn’t get it, like so many others, but like Rick said in his post, this is a great opportunity to help educate the greater public who may still harbor the same resentment and ignorance expressed in the Forbes piece, let’s do it with a little class.

    Reply
  11. NEIL

    Good morning, Rick
    The glass is half full.
    You are in Forbes, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Abraham Lincoln and Buffett…
    Megawesome.com!
    Still available the party at the Soiree.me Restaurant…

    Reply
  12. Aaron Strong

    This is big media at it’s best. They continue to distort the facts. This woman is about as disgusting as it gets. They can’t stick to the facts so they make the facts up. It is time HallofShame has a place for this woman and other reporters and bloggers who continue to distort the facts. Journalists should be held to much higher standards regarding the facts, it is time to roast this journalist.

    Reply
  13. eh

    Rick, nice response. You should send it to the editor of Forbes.
    To be fair, she should let you post your response on her blog.

    I think the author simply represents the ignorance of the masses concerning domain names. I don’t believe their is any malice, she even suggests that she should have got some, meaning, she should have “squatted”.

    She, like most, need to be educated about domain name investments. Then she will be able to write a more informed and accurate piece that can benefit her readers and the domain industry.
    She is no different than those that inquire about a name and after you quote them a price for your domain name, their brain gets blown and shaken, they think about that moment in time. when they should have registered the name, realize its gone, forever, they look at you like you are at fault, and then call you names.

    Reply
  14. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    If you just pause, this article deserves a belly roll laugh. You need to consider the lack of stature and expertise this lady displays about the facts. This is nothing more than a mercenary scribes assignment to regurgitate the party lines propoganda.

    I assure you she has no grasp nor qualification to make comments on Strategic Market Analysis.

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  15. Robbie

    Deals that happen privately in escrow do not need to be reported, nor is there much advantage to reporting them, if you are not in the space, many a deals have been done this way. I worked in SV in the 90’s lots of guys working in the space, grabbed some nice 2/3L, and one word brands, and held them. They got some nice offers, and sold them quietly, and privately. The article sounded like it was searching for something negative, but the bottom line is, if you have a great one word .com, you are looking at 100K and more from the right buyer.

    Even the guys that did grab some great names in the day, are kicking themselves for not getting more. Forbes is always talking about Risk and Reward, and about finding opportunity before it happens, and then this NEWBIE journalist goes and bad mouths the guy who actually stepped up, and put his money where his mouth is. Go Figure

    Reply
  16. UFO

    Wow, I have done enough searching and review now to see that the Ovation.com case should never have been lost at the UDRP to the complainant and should have been appealed over procedural irregularity.

    Namely that WIPO recommended specifically that bad faith had to be shown at registration AND in use, and ICANN has incorporated that into at registration AND currently.

    Hence, an complainant without rights at the time of registration is the same as a domainer with rights at registration and is OUTSIDE the scope of the UDRP and subject to the judicial system.

    http://www.stellarspace.com/blog/bad-faith-udrp-and-domainers/

    Hence, ALL complaints should be struck out the time of application unless they can evidence rights at initial registration.

    Reply
  17. Andrea Paladini

    Rick,
    She simply doesn’t know what she’s trying to talk about.
    The amazing thing is that, being a lawyer, she should know that cyber squatting implies unlawful acts and behaviors.
    Overall, therefore, I can agree with your reaction.
    The only thing I didn’t like in your answer was when you said “Occupy Wall Street, THAT is what a squatter is.”
    Well, remember that those are people fighting for their (and our) rights, protesting against a financial system which, instead of supporting the development of the real economy, as it was since the very beginning, well before the USA were born, and how still should be, is currently eating into it.
    From generating value, a vast part of finance has moved to “extract value” from the real economy, generating, among other things, growing social inequalities and wealth distribution. Capitalism/finance without regulations generates only a “sick”, “rotten” and corrupt society.
    I’d suggest to read, for example, something by Michael Hudson, a US professor of Economics, to understand what I’m talking about.
    Next time please use a different example to identify a “squatter”, like those who, on purpose, register TM names, or other really fitting examples.

    Reply
  18. Robbie

    Even the Government acknowledges Patent & TM TROLLS are killing innovation in this Country. Let’s get back to building a stronger country, and instead of wasting time in courtrooms pointing fingers.

    Reply
  19. DrDomainer

    I bet if she could go back in time
    she would be stuck to a computer 24/7 buying domains.

    Something tells me she is going to regret her article without researching this industry.

    Look at what happened to Marcio Mello Chaves.

    Reply
  20. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    This particular piece of propoganda is a many faceted attempt at subverting domain name values through the media belt.. It missed few opportunities to denegrate and give an image of retreating Domain Name Valutions. The Media Manipulation of .COM Franchise Names continues.

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  21. Domain Name Promos

    I kind of skimmed through the article, but I couldn’t find anything negative about domain investing, or even a reference to “domain squatting.” Did she edit the article after you responded?

    Reply
  22. Domenclature.com

    Time out!

    The lady did one thing egregiously wrong: she called Rick Schwartz, and by extension all domain name investors, squatters. To that, a correction, as she did, is NOT enough; she will have to write an article explaining the difference between a “squatter”, and legitimate investments, plus an apology. If she doesn’t, all legal options should be on the table, including setting up a fund to deal with this.

    However, we appreciate her interest, and article. She doesn’t have to have a certain opinion; we are in the ocean now. If that’s the way the main stream media sees us, then I only blame Schwartz. and the leaders in the pond for it.

    It’s past time we drop the gang mentality. It’s time to open the industry to market forces, demand and supply, not just who is a good chap, who owns a blog, and who is great to have a beer with. Stupid elitism, and private forum gossips must give way to what is true or false, what works, how does the end user benefit from names, and so on…

    Again, great job Schwartz for standing up for everybody.

    Reply
  23. AlanR

    The online edition can be edited so the question is, is there a printed version out there? No way to edit it if it’s already at the news stands by now.

    Reply
  24. UFO

    DeborahJacobs.com Creation Date: 16-SEP-2005

    If she’d be more proactive back in 2005 she could have bought say 58.com for $26,000 USD (source dnjournal.com http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/2005-expanded-ytd.htm). That now is valued by estibot at $238,000 USD

    Perhaps someone should run all the dnjournal sales of the past through estibot now and see how they’ve all skyrocketed.

    Some 2005 reported sales: Herbal.com 25k. Weights.com 25k. 74.com 17.5k. Let.com 15k.

    Reply
  25. Jeff Schneider

    Rick, only visionaries like yourself see what you see. How can we expect a decent representation of our Industries truths from an inexperienced Wall Street Trainee. Expecting a Wall Street trained author to understand the Strategic complexities of .COM Profit Centers is a tall order.
    What Wall Street fails to understand, is that Top .COM Franchises are exclusive one of a kind conduits, to the worlds digital currency transactions, that are currently growing exponentially, with each passing day. There is no other Asset Class that can match these capabilities. JAS 11/23/13

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  26. Matthew Crowder

    The author is clueless to label you a cybersquatter but Anson is a complete moron to say meta tags have any weight, much less more than the domain name. Doesn’t Forbes fact check these articles? Yes, dilution may be coming for generics but she doesn’t even mention brand-name .com’s which are a whole other ballgame.

    Reply
  27. NEIL

    Shame on Mrs. ERRONEOUS to think like that about investing/reinvesting!
    Is that Forbes.com, or forbes.northkorea?

    Reply
  28. Jeff Schneider

    Matthew / R. E. = ” Doesn’t Forbes fact check these articles? ”

    Absolutely, all major Media Publications have Editors approvals. Now the next question might be why would they let an article chock full of misrepresentations like this go out? We are not talking about the Squatter portion but the other many flagrant misrepresentations aimed at convincing their readers and constituants that .COM franchises valuations have been steadily going down?
    The Medias agenda is to suppress .COM Franchise values. Why ? Because they and their constituency connections , dont own and control a lot of the most powerfull .COM franchises still available. This is simply Market manipulation by talking the market down and creating a favorable soft environment, to pick off these remainining .COM franchises at favorable low prices.

    Reply
    1. Rick Schwartz

      Much of the entire .whatever thing is about control.
      When media does not have control they try and kill it.
      They did it with the entire Internet in 2000.
      They did it with Facebook last year.
      FEAR and CONTROL is what drives all this.
      With .com, Google is not in control.
      NBC, CBS, ABC are not in control.
      The Newspapers haved already lost control.
      Magazines in print are fewer and less important.
      Before the Internet we had to swallow that shit.
      Today, we get to sound off and spit that crap out once we determine it is crap.
      Again, that is losing control.

      Reply
  29. Tony Sheehy

    I can’t remember the name of the auction house she visited to witness the auctions she is so disparaging about, but I do remember their domain name. HA.com. Two-letter domains losing their value? Enough said.

    Reply
  30. Mike

    Congratulations, Rick, for such a serein and well-documented response! What the domain industry would be without you?

    Reply
  31. Altaf

    Rick,
    It is sad that Forbes.com said so. Why don’t open a law suite for defaming you?
    They come down and ask for apology soon, I bet.
    Any way,none is above criticism. The more you are criticized, the more popular you become. What you write here is enough. Why don’t you take up the matter with Mr. Forbes himself? He will be ashamed with shame for publishing such a ugly nonsense article about you. We are with you.Gratefully,

    Reply
  32. Pat w

    Your response letter is a masterpiece Rick — And with a wealth of valuable info and True facts details – timelines & history on the present – past & future for the Domain Name Business and why and why not certain things happening…
    I have to agree with Altaf (above) that Steve Forbes would love to see this great report on Real Facts on the “2013” status of details for the Domain Business… Steve Forbes standards are extremely high and i am sure he would be very upset with this very amateur “Bogus Report” on the “Domain Name Business” being printed in his First Class Business Magazine…

    Reply
  33. J. Mahoney

    That may have been the single most mis informed poorly written article that I have ever read. Did anyone catch the part where the ‘expert’ was taking about the new extensions like .net, .org, and .info? I’m not genius, but if you have 20 pairs of faux leather shoes and one pair is a genuine Mauri croc skin it’s that special pair that stands out. The same analogy is lent to .com. The only good thing that came out of this article is the demonstration that the world is still vastly blind to the domain market.

    Reply
  34. Brian

    It would be somewhat comical if Mitt Romney was the actual originator of that quote since he was one of the greatest violators of that principle, but the actual source of that line was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    Reply
  35. logivo

    The article is really really outrageous.
    This is a Classy and Perfect reply to a really silly article. I don’t know what the author of the article has against Domain industry in general.
    I am amazed by your quick and extensive reply. Your reply stands out for in support of all domain investors.
    Also, I see that it has had an immediate effect.
    They have removed the “domain squatter” phrase…

    Reply
  36. domo sapiens

    When I read the ‘original’ article the first thing it was very clear was her angry hateful spiteful venomous tone, this lady has some major Issues, either she has a “hidden agenda” or she let her hateful disposition set the tone, I am not buying the “she is mis-informed” theory… she has plenty of experience for that to happen, this is ‘Forbes’ nt the National Enquirer…
    Funny how some of the New gTLD snake oil salesmen are using the article to spin-off as free propaganda for their cause (they need all the help they can get)…
    Rick, perhaps you can ask for a transcript of your phone conversation with her,
    I am glad you didn’t “popped a vein” and remain calmed, the fact that she edited more than once (if I am not mistaken) proves you right…

    Reply
  37. joeenglish

    I am shocked that a publication like Forbes would have an article like this in their magazine. I don’t know if Steve Forbes overseas everything that goes into his magazine but if he doesn’t HE SHOULD !!
    This article reads straight out of Lenin, if you ask me, just like the Wall Street occupiers. Go out in the world and earn some money, or create something maybe they should be watching Shark Tank instead of reading what the celebs are doing.

    Happy Thanks Giving
    Richard

    Reply
  38. Jeff Edelman

    I thought you did such a great job with your responses. By responding with a series of well written responses that centered on facts, I think you represented the industry really well. And it is a master stroke to invite her and Forbes to TRAFFIC.

    Reply
  39. Marcia Lynn

    I agree with Adam. There should be a place to read about these ignorant people who claim to be experts in a field they know nothing about.

    Reply
  40. Pat hd

    I suggest to demand a public apology.. If its refused, open a law suit. If a collective law suit is needed (as the whole industry players are mispresented) I am willing to join force by signing (admittedly, just a small budgeted domainer–but as a german living in Egypt it might help to internationalise the case).Wishing and believing all will go greater in future, more than ever. Thank you for reading and thanks for sharing the article. I always enjoy learning from this blog. Its the best!!

    Reply
  41. albert

    WOW!!!
    Let me get this straight, she honestly believes a two word domain sells for 35 million dollars without some business behind it?

    Theres’ reporting for you.

    Reply
  42. Jeff Schneider

    albert = R. E. = ” WOW!!!
    Let me get this straight, she honestly believes a two word domain sells for 35 million dollars without some business behind it?

    This will happen repeatedly in the very near future. Count on it !

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  43. Altaf

    @Albert & Jeff,
    WoW! We keep crossed our fingers !!
    Best wishes & Good Luck for all domainers.
    Regards,

    Reply
  44. Paul Goulart

    Hi Rick;

    The media has and will continue to have a deadly disease. It is known as a Cement Mentality. This means their minds are all mixed up and permanently set. Remember, the hardest thing to open in the entire world is A Closed Mind. You response to her was excellent and fruitful…but keep in mind there will be more. The media has mucho power and with the dumbing down of America, many, many followers. Just read your copy of Thou Shall Prosper again and realize that you are also a rabbi to all of us who watch Domain Sherpa and especially the reviews. And btw, Thank You.

    Reply
  45. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    The roll up in .COM valuations contained within the non-disclosure Shadow Market, are not the metrics that the Street can quantify. Only the Smart Money on Wall Street are active in this phenomonon. The media are always the last indicators to flip positive on any unrecognized pricing mechanism.

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  46. NEIL

    Rick,
    I think Mrs. DJ should be invited in front of the JudgesBench.com…
    Nobody asked her for money or advise…she just abused her job description, taking advantage of a giant name, Forbes, to demolish 20 years of successful hard great working…

    Reply
  47. NEIL

    Rick,

    Good morning,
    I would want just to thank you for your time, help and great support.
    Thank You for showing everybody how to get wealthier and happier.
    Thank You for raising to high standards the Entrepreneurship Spirit.
    eTRAFFIC.me every year, and I will continue to invest in domain names.
    Thank You for teaching other people (17,100 visitors per day of your ricksblog.com), how to Think Big and Do Big.
    Happy Thanksgiving!
    Kind regards, Neil

    Reply
  48. Barry

    This flippant and ill-researched article by Deborah L.Jacobs reflects badly on Forbes, and leaves a question mark on the veracity on what was once a serious and highly regarded publication.

    I imagine the management if worth their ‘salt’ would be looking closely at her contribution to their publication. Red faces all round !

    Reply
  49. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    It is no secret to the smart money on Wall Street what is going on behind the stage with the .COM Shadow Market. This orchestrated markets pricing mechanism has concealed the values of 100s of top level .COM Franchise values going on 15+ years. This is a huge breaking story for some Media Maven to break. Will it be 60 minutes or Forbes that breaks this exclusive?

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  50. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    We felt the need to copy and paste A key professional nugget Michael Berkens released. Maybe Domainers will take this advice and stop selling key Strategic assets so cheaply. Here it is:

    R. E. = ” This is why we always tell people to disregard whom the buyer represents themselves to be and price the domain as they are dealing with the highest and best buyer.

    If you are you get the sale at the price the domain is worth and if your not then you just have the wrong buyer. ”

    Bravo, Michael for revealing this professional nugget we subscribe to !

    Gratefully, Jeff schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

    Reply
  51. Barry

    Thanks Jeff for reiterating that sage truism, it’s always valuable to be aware of such factors.

    Similarly I always like to look at things in the way that you haven’t lost a sale because the person was not going to buy in the first place, you can’t lose what you didn’t have !

    Reply
  52. Alex Zam

    No wonder why Rick is an authority in the domain industry, he defends it from people who knows very little about domains. On the other side, the article by Deborah Jacobs (from 11/22/13), doesn’t mention the word “squatter” anymore, probably it was edited to remove the misinterpretation or it was just written in a very light way by the publisher, happens all the time, with no bad intention. Even with Deborah’s mistakes and lack of domain-names knowledge, I believe her article was valuable to the industry and mainly to Rick since the wall street followers now have a better understanding of what is going-on from the correct source.

    PS, It’s ok to be passionate to defend your ideals; and when you are done, just relax and move on, we don’t want you to get a stroke or heart attack!

    Reply

My Blog is only as good as the Comments YOU post. Thank You!