Drops today - August 2013

[BenWalker]

We have a plan on the chalkboard to start ending the auctions an hour early and then to allow extended bidding. We are waiting for the start of daylight savings to introduce this change to minimise confusion.

Can you guys consider reducing the space from 1 hour to perhaps 15 minutes?

I am a regular bidder on the drops and I simply don’t have the time to bid twice. Especially when I am at work. Im pretty sure most of the other users would feel the same way.

However by having a reduced gap, you guys still achieve the same results from a business perspective whilst minimizing the inconvenience to the users.

 

[findtim]

Can you guys consider reducing the space from 1 hour to perhaps 15 minutes?

I am a regular bidder on the drops and I simply don’t have the time to bid twice. Especially when I am at work. Im pretty sure most of the other users would feel the same way.

However by having a reduced gap, you guys still achieve the same results from a business perspective whilst minimizing the inconvenience to the users.

i think this deserves its own thread.

tim

 

[chris]

i think this deserves its own thread.

tim

Hi Tim, I've just created a new thread:

https://www.dntrade.com.au/netfleet-com-au/8145-ending-auctions-hour-early.html#post58470

 

[neddy]

This is like pulling teeth ...........

Your 48 hour comment has obviously confused me. Let's use bang.com.au as an actual example then (then are no privacy issues that I can think of here).

When did you receive confirmation of their fixed bid of $1972?

Was it up to 48 hours before the auction closed?

Or was it the same day? And if so, was it more than 30 minutes before the end of the auction?

I'm sure you can see where I'm heading with this. Did you have this bid in hand and then use it to reverse snipe the other 8 bidders?

These are fair questions aren't they?

Ok, you obviously haven't seen this post - or you've decided not to answer it.

That's fine - but in the interests of transparency and a level playing field for all, can you at least give the following commitment please:

In future, when you receive confirmation of a fixed bid from your "enduser", will you place it immediately on to the platform?

If you can give this assurance, then I will be happy (and I know others would be too). That way you will not be judged for sniping your regular bidders.

Just as a footnote, I would think by doing this that you would also be covering your arse with your enduser i.e they would have no cause for complaint
(as opposed to you putting it in at the death and them finding out later that they ended up paying another $1000 for it)! Who wants bad PR?

That's constructive isn't it?

 

[AnthonyP]

Ok, you obviously haven't seen this post - or you've decided not to answer it.

That's fine - but in the interests of transparency and a level playing field for all, can you at least give the following commitment please:

In future, when you receive confirmation of a fixed bid from your "enduser", will you place it immediately on to the platform?

If you can give this assurance, then I will be happy (and I know others would be too). That way you will not be judged for sniping your regular bidders.

Just as a footnote, I would think by doing this that you would also be covering your arse with your enduser i.e they would have no cause for complaint
(as opposed to you putting it in at the death and them finding out later that they ended up paying another $1000 for it)! Who wants bad PR?

That's constructive isn't it?

Sorry but I want to put the bid in with 13 - 30 seconds to go.
You have the option to use your proxy to get the domain if you want it.
Why should the fixed bid client be forced to play their hand early?

 

[neddy]

Sorry but I want to put the bid in with 13 - 30 seconds to go.
You have the option to use your proxy to get the domain if you want it.
Why should the fixed bid client be forced to play their hand early?

Thank you for your honest answer Anthony. We got there in the end.

So you obviously don't think your "end user" will be upset (or think that they been taken for a ride) if they learn that they paid $1000 more than they needed to?
I would have thought that would be human nature to feel that way. But I may be wrong.

Bearing in mind that we are just talking "drops / expired domains" here, I imagine that your core customer base are domainers / domain investors.

So what you are now saying is that Netfleet is going to occasionally compete against its own core customers (albeit on behalf of an enduser who hasn't registered their own bidding account)?

Is that right?

Once again, I hope that is a constructive question.

 

[johno69]

I wonder why AntiqueShop.com.au isn't on Netfleet.

 

[Ashman]

Why should the fixed bid client be forced to play their hand early?

So when you say 'fixed bid client' you really mean Netfleet right? Those terms seem interchangable in the context of bidding manipulation.

 

[AnthonyP]

Thank you for your honest answer Anthony. We got there in the end.

So you obviously don't think your "end user" will be upset (or think that they been taken for a ride) if they learn that they paid $1000 more than they needed to?
I would have thought that would be human nature to feel that way. But I may be wrong.

Bearing in mind that we are just talking "drops / expired domains" here, I imagine that your core customer base are domainers / domain investors.

So what you are now saying is that Netfleet is going to occasionally compete against its own core customers (albeit on behalf of an enduser who hasn't registered their own bidding account)?

Is that right?

Once again, I hope that is a constructive question.

Ned,

Our clients are happy they got the premium domain they where after and they know they paid a premium for the service. In the same way I'd believe your clients are happy once they purchase a domain from you.

It is a reality that the volume of expired domain sales was in a decline which started in February 2012 and which has only stabilised recently (You can see this in our "Expired Domains Total Sales Last 36 Months " graphs). The reality of this is that we needed to diversify our sales channel from relying purely on expired domains and domain investors.
We introduced the Aftermarket auctions and eventually even merged this with the expired auctions to give it maximum exposure.
We introduced the Netfleet Assisted Sales process to the Domain Catalogue to help streamline the sales process.
We started telemarketing to end users.
This diversification still accounts for much less than half our total income so our core business is still selling expired domains to domain investors.

It does cause me concern whenever there is a conflict with a domain investor. Hopefully the fixed bid option is better than the buy now option. The odds of an end user personally conflicting with any one client is still quite low but I have to face the reality that we cannot rely solely on servicing the expired market and that this is going to make me unpopular on this forum.

I also apologise for calling you a forum troll and accusing you of bumping a thread to get attention.

 

[AnthonyP]

I wonder why AntiqueShop.com.au isn't on Netfleet.

We have an issue with our auction server, the disks got mounted in read only mode after an outage and this affected today's listings.

 

[neddy]

Ned,

Our clients are happy they got the premium domain they where after and they know they paid a premium for the service. In the same way I'd believe your clients are happy once they purchase a domain from you.

It is a reality that the volume of expired domain sales was in a decline which started in February 2012 and which has only stabilised recently (You can see this in our "Expired Domains Total Sales Last 36 Months " graphs). The reality of this is that we needed to diversify our sales channel from relying purely on expired domains and domain investors.
We introduced the Aftermarket auctions and eventually even merged this with the expired auctions to give it maximum exposure.
We introduced the Netfleet Assisted Sales process to the Domain Catalogue to help streamline the sales process.
We started telemarketing to end users.
This diversification still accounts for much less than half our total income so our core business is still selling expired domains to domain investors.

It does cause me concern whenever there is a conflict with a domain investor. Hopefully the fixed bid option is better than the buy now option. The odds of an end user personally conflicting with any one client is still quite low but I have to face the reality that we cannot rely solely on servicing the expired market and that this is going to make me unpopular on this forum.

I also apologise for calling you a forum troll and accusing you of bumping a thread to get attention.

Firstly, thank you for the apology. I appreciate it - and I'll lay off you now.

Just kidding on the last bit of that sentence though.

We all appreciate that NF has to make more money - and certainly don't begrudge you that. But surely there has to be a better way whereby you don't have
a conflict of interest with your core customer base.

By your own admission, you snipe bid within the last 30 seconds for a non Netfleet account holder with a "fixed bid".

So these are the issues from a variety of perspectives:

1. I imagine the enduser has a set budget. If you're sniping right at the end, what difference does it make if you put in a proxy bid rather than a fixed one?
   
   
2. Number 1 was a rhetorical question because we all know the answer. A fixed bid makes NF their coin. A proxy bid probably gets the fixed bid customer
   a huge saving (and makes them even happier); but NF don't make as much money.
   
   
3. Now comes the conflict of interest / potential insider trading situation. This is what concerns me the most - and should concern every other registered bidder.
   Your approach to endusers is obviously very bullish, and I imagine you tell them they have a good chance of picking up a domain if they bid your "suggested price".
   
   So let's imagine a couple of hypothetical situations.
   
   a. You've nominated a price of $2000 thinking this would be more than sufficient. But one of your regular core customers really likes that domain also, and has put a
   proxy bid in for exactly the same amount. You can see this in the system. What do you do? Do you get egg on your face with the enduser and let the core customer
   win it? Or do you bid another $10 to ensure your enduser gets it (because it is going to be a good business model that you can advertise to other endusers)?
   
   b. Ditto above scenario, but this time you see there is a proxy bid of $2500 in the system. Do you ring the enduser and tell him he's going to lose it unless he pays more?
   
   Honestly Anthony, there has to be a better way. You have inside knowledge. That's ethics 101. This will ultimately hurt Netfleet.

Please engage me as your PR consultant - I will even do it for free. You need to understand that there is not a light at the end of the tunnel - it is a train with its lights on coming your way.
.

 

[Ashman]

Honestly Anthony, there has to be a better way. You have inside knowledge. That's ethics 101. This will ultimately hurt Netfleet.

How loud do people have to say this before auDA step in and make a decision about Netfleet's bid manipulation.

 

[AnthonyP]

3. a) Your highly unlikely hypothetical situation would result in the domainer getting it.

b) I've said it before, no call back.

These are very extreme hypothetical situations you are outlining but I will raise your concerns with the shareholders.

 

[Ashman]

3. a) Your highly unlikely hypothetical situation would result in the domainer getting it.

Anthony hypothetical question:

Would your 'fixed bid client system' breach your existing user agreements with your client base?

 

[neddy]

How loud do people have to say this before auDA step in and make a decision about Netfleet's bid manipulation.

It has nothing to do with auDA.

It is Netfleet's business model, and I do not believe that as a Registrar they are contravening any auDA policies.

ACCC might be different though. If an enduser found out that they were given bum advice as to the value of a domain, and were influenced into spending a lot more than they needed to (fixed bid versus proxy), then there could be an issue. Particularly if there were a few complaints.

However, auDA is very susceptible to public perception and comment though. If there were a plethora of complaints about how expired domains were being dealt with, or this got into the public domain via mainstream news, then they could ultimately decide to regulate the process.

Just saying ........

 

[AnthonyP]

1

 

[sasha]

my personal opinion

i very rarely make a comment these days and I hope that netfleet doesn’t ban me for my view and opinion. Personally I don’t have an issue with Anthony as I always found him very helpful, professional and fantastic to deal with, however in this situation he has once again made the mistake that should not have been made in the first place, especially after the “eels.com.au” fiasco

There is nothing wrong if netfleet wants to get their people on the phone and sell domains to generate extra revenue, and since they have 10, 20 or 30 thousand domains listed on their site how about they get on the phone and sell some of these names; at least it’s an honest and transparent way of doing business. However using “auction” inside information to generate revenue and ripping off/overcharging an ignorant/uneducated end user is NOT honest and transparent.

It’s not relevant how much the ignorant/uneducated buyer was prepared to spend, even if it was $10,000, he should NOT have spend any more that $1 more than the second highest bid, however this obviously did not happen, and at the end of the day netfleet have simply ripped off / overcharged the ignorant/uneducated end user. Our industry already has a bad name as a result of this sort of behavior and will continue to do so until we are honest and transparent and with netfleet being a market leader the responsibility for “honesty and transparency” is their responsibility regardless of whether they like it or want it.

There is nothing anthony/netfleet can say otherwise to justify their wrongful actions. No matter how many analogies are brought forward by everyone and how many justifications are provided by anthony / netfleet, this whole issue is VERY simple for the reasons I have already stated – black and white actually.

Personally, I am hopeful that netfleet/anthony do the right thing this time and publicly ensure us (their loyal clients) to rectify these mistakes and ensure that this type of behavior/mistake/error does NOT happen again, I guess that’s their decision to make and hopefully this time around they will make the right one.

Sasha

 

[neddy]

1

Was that meant to be a +1 to my post?

You are not an idiot Anthony - far from it. I just think you are heading down the wrong track in pursuit of profit.

Profit at the expense of alienating your core customer base will ultimately be shown to be "fool's gold". Particularly when one day the worm turns and some other drop catcher becomes more competitive. It will happen - you did it to Drop - and someone will do it to you one day. Imho.

I have not complained to auDA or ACCC about this, and would never do so. I hope to change your direction by common sense and persuasion.

What I was trying to say was that other people outside of this forum (endusers) could complain if they felt that they had been mislead or something similar. That's what you need to be concerned about.

You've heard of "post purchase trauma" I suppose. You buy something and you're really happy, and then you start to get doubts about whether you should have bought it; or whether you paid too much. Next day you read online that you could of got the same thing for much less. That's when you head back to the retailer and try and get a price match - or simply try and return it.

Possible solution

I admire your ability to get endusers to spend. So why not take the trouble to help them open an account, and guide them how to bid initially? I'm sure they would rather do a proxy bid than a fixed bid; and you may not make as much money - but at least you would have brought an enduser to the auction room. Who knows how much they will spend? And you will have ensured a level playing field for all.

Please think about it.

Cheers, Ned

 

[AnthonyP]

Don't try to read too much into my 1... there is a rule that you have to type at least "1" character when editing ones comment.

I will take your concerns on board and I will discuss this with the team tomorrow.

We did try your suggested possible solution for almost a year and it did not work out well. The extended bidding might help solve this issue so maybe we can compromise there. Alternatively we could use just try fixed bidding with a fixed end time.

Anyway I will discuss it further and I am sure we can find a suitable transparent solution, so we can all get back to domaining.

 

[AnthonyP]

i very rarely make a comment these days and I hope that netfleet doesn’t ban me for my view and opinion. Personally I don’t have an issue with Anthony as I always found him very helpful, professional and fantastic to deal with, however in this situation he has once again made the mistake that should not have been made in the first place, especially after the “eels.com.au” fiasco

No one gets banned from Netfleet for having an opinion.
It is a well know fact that you can disagree with us all day long, take advantage of our super low renewal rates, send support tickets which get answered free of charge by the General Manager who has been doing this for close on 7 years now and not list the bulk of your domains with us and I'll still not ban you, in fact I'll probably call you and advise you that you forgot to renew a domain name.