Why the Forbes.com Article is PHONY and is FALSE!

Morning Folks!!

I am going to take a moment to completely show that the Forbes.com article was FALSE! Not only is it false as I started to write about here, unless it is corrected, we know they could care less about FACTS! And today we have facts. I think Berkens may have covered it here on his take about this misleading and FALSE article when he took the author to the woodshed.

So, the FACT of the matter is the article revolves around this table below to show how domain values are going down. Well this table is FALSE! It is a lie. It is not factual. Let's start with the #1 VacationRentals.com for $35 Million. They bought a BUSINESS for $35 million. They did not buy a DOMAIN for $35 Million. Now it would be good for us if in fact it was a $35 million domain sale. But it was not. It is FALSE. I have PROOF. So I EXPECT Forbes.com and Ms. Jacobs to set the reord straight. Unless PROPAGANDA is their new way of reporting.

10-domain-names-table-300x285

Here is the QUOTE from the seller of the BUSINESS:

Hi Rick,

What's interesting to me is Jeff and I owned vacationrentals.com and we did sell it But, it was not just a domain name but a full on business earning revenue daily.

We built the business and ran it for 4-5 years with our partners from media insights until we sold it to Home Away.

The article makes it sound like vacationrentals.com was just a domain name. They forgot to mention we built it up and worked very hard for years on it and it was making around 3 million before we sold it.  Amazing how they can write an article without the knowledge needed to write it.

Don Orr

iventure

So the entire premise of her "Article" is built on a false foundation.  It's a FAKE!!!

Lazy? Agenda driven? Short of time? I don't know and I DON'T CARE!

What I do know is if she does not CHOOSE to set the record straight and write an article that is based on FACT, then Forbes.com has been marginalized. It show Forbes.com does not care about SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT! It spreads false information to fit an agenda. That is called "propaganda". Not very cool for a Capitalistic publication.

I believe if Steve Forbes saw this he would be SHOCKED!

Now, let's go to Insure.com.

NO! Let's not.

Let Ms. Jacobs do the research she should have done FIRST and then take another stab at getting it right. I am not paid for this, she is.

I have invited her to be at TRAFFIC as my guest. I have invited her to set the record straight and take responsibility for the sloppy and FALSE article based on anything other than FACT! Sorry, but she has done a great disservice to Forbes and the way to fix that is to fix it.

We really appreciate her looking at our industry, but please, me asking a Senior Editor for Forbes.com to set the record straight is not too much to ask. Like I said, we had a cordial conversation, but she got her facts wrong.

Now I don't have as much ink as Forbes.com, but I can certainly use the ink I have to circulate the FACTS and call out somebody that should know to do a better job. And I have. And I will continue until I see FACTS!

Ms. Jacobs, I can give you Mr. Orr's email addy and you can check yourself. Do FACTS matter with Forbes is the only question? You have a duty to set the record straight on behalf of the company that pays you or "Phony" is the keyword.

To quote Mr. Orr, "Amazing how they can write an article without the knowledge needed to write it."

and btw, had Forbes spent a few minutes digging they would have discovered that more 7 figure domain name sales have been done in the second half of 2013 than any other 6 month period in history. Matter of FACT, more than some previous years in total and combined. And those are just the KNOWN sales. Maybe call Escrow.com and ask them about the unreported ones.

You don't have to write what I want or even agree, but if you want to restore your credibility as a journalist and not harm the company you are a Senior Editor for, then you must at least stand back and ask if you have been objective given all your misinformation in the story that many have taken you to task over.

I am passing along this blog post to the actual editor of Forbes as well. The editor is also responsible for those under him/her to hold their ther editors to a higher standard than this! I expect more from Forbes and so should they!

Rick Schwartz




15 thoughts on “Why the Forbes.com Article is PHONY and is FALSE!

  1. Joshua

    If Mike Berkens took Ms.Jacobs to the woodshed, you just bent Forbes over your knee. Great read!
    Happy holidays to everybody!

    Reply
  2. Magoogle

    It would not be the first time I have found their (Forbes.com) credibility at risk.
    I think it does need to be pointed out that their online publishing editors are not the same standard used in print world so it is the online biz that is more like a blog or sensationalized media.

    Reply
  3. Robbie

    Don’t sweat it anyone reading that dribble could read between the lines, and see that was a poorly written article. Journalism is not what it used to be, there is no accountability for one’s statements. It was a sad article at best, and with the amount of information out there today, it was nothing more than few scanned thru google search cut, and pastes at best.

    Reply
  4. Jeff schneider

    Hello Rick,

    Yes this article is chock full of missinformation to be sure. The points you are making are on reported sales. The really big story lies in the unreported sales that the shadow market is throwing off. This story will be released by a major media outlet shortly. Enjoy !

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

    Reply
  5. David Heard

    The Diane Rehm Show on NPR radio had a show yesterday about “sponsored content” – advertising masquerading as news. Forbes was mentioned as a leader in this area several times.

    From their website it appears Forbes has a program called “BrandVoice”:

    http://www.forbesmedia.com/brandvoice-2/
    … “BrandVoice is an innovative approach to integrating marketers’ content with Forbes’ editorial and users’ content — allowing marketers to demonstrate their thought leadership on the Forbes platform using the
    same tools as content creators…..”

    BrandVoice content is supposed to be identified, but there could be grey areas of influence. This article smells like it was paid for.

    Reply
  6. David Heard

    The Diane Rehm Show on NPR radio had a show yesterday about “sponsored content” – advertising masquerading as news. Forbes was mentioned as a leader in this area several times.

    From their website it appears Forbes has a program called “BrandVoice”
    :

    http://www.forbesmedia.com/brandvoice-2/

    “BrandVoice is an innovative approach to integrating marketers’ content with Forbes’ editorial and users’ content — allowing marketers to demonstrate their thought leadership on the Forbes platform using the
    same tools as content creators…..”

    BrandVoice content is supposed to be identified but there could be grey areas of influence. This article smells like it was paid for.

    Reply
  7. Jeff Schneider

    Hello Rick,

    The Ace in the deck (Startups) will explode with the advent of Cloud based problem solving capabilities. Now, literally, Garage based businesses have access to super computer capabilities. The cloud will be deluged with business startups, that will rain down the largest Online Business Expansion in history. JAS 12/4/13

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

    Reply
  8. Aaron Strong

    HallofShame needs a section for false reporting by media. Professional domain investing needs to become far and separate from cybersquatting and the media has to get this right. If I didn’t know better, I would conclude owning an undeveloped domain is cybersquatting, as the media continually suggests. Holding media to ethical standards is our choice and inherently vital to most or our success.

    Reply
  9. Jim Sickorez

    Ms. Jacobs should be working for TMZ or The Inquirer…Not Forbes…Her writing is not journalism, it’s Hearsay…God, I love to see her in action defending a client with her law degree and her painstaking hours of research…

    Happy Holidays to all!!

    Reply
  10. Average Joe

    Not surprised at all. Forbes is buddy-buddy with Fox News. Fair and balanced, my ass. They don’t care about facts. They care about their agenda and they’ll continue lie in order to spread their propaganda.

    Reply
  11. albert

    Yup, that was my comment about the business, not a simple domain name be sold for that much.

    Go figure.

    Reply
  12. I dont lurk I observe

    Hello rick.

    They erred but they will not want to bring it to their readers attention. BUT an option they may consider is to conduct an interview with you a succesful person that earns more than a good living utilizing the domain space To answer their questions in your own words.
    I think they will do it.

    Reply
  13. Barry

    Thanks Rick for carrying the baton and trying to help Ms Jacobs & Forbes produce a well-researched accurate article.

    Her article was I believe lazy & prejudicial journalism on what she may have presumed was a soft target.

    Reply
  14. Jeff schneider

    Hello Rick,

    Ms Jacobs, articles ink has barely dried and the heritage auction she has derided , has produced an outcome far different than she has portended. Her sponsors money has been wasted.

    Ms. Jacobs we think you may have a bright future finding more tech crunch type sponsors to continue your misguided illusions. Better yet inquire about Google SEO sponsored propoganda pieces, where your really bright grifting future may continue or you can come clean and write a future article telling the truth, its your choice. Just know that what you give you recieve.

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

    Reply
  15. Daniel

    Even if you ignore that faux pas, the key messsage of that article still is: neither are there any big sales in domains over the last 3 years, nor do businesses in future need great generic domain names. And that (the last of these 2 statements) is sth. to think about:

    - if you’re looking for books, you go to amazon.com
    - if you’re looking for suits, you go to macys.com or another big online-retailer
    - if you search sth you dont type in search.com but google.com

    The key point is: people who are looking for sth on the web either know at least one big company (like amazon for books) or they go to google and do a search.
    In my opinion, all these generic domains like bed.com don’t have that much value people think. Why should they? That was all in times before google, where search engines delivered shit and spam. New ventures or even big companies don’t take generic names. Facebook is Facebook and not socialnetwork.com and ebay is ebay and not auctions.com.

    Reply

Leave a Reply