Was Musics.com A Good Buy At $76,000?

by Morgan on November 18, 2013

Last week I wrote about the Musics.com auction over at Go Daddy. While I think that Music.com is an absolutely stellar category-killer I don’t see Musics.com a a $76,000 domain or to be honest even a $50,000 domain. If the new buyer happens to be a business that already brands itself around the term “musics” I could see this being a good buy for their main site.

That’s about the only case I see this as a good investment. I just don’t think we’ll see this sell for $100,000 or $150,000 next year or ten years from now. While I see Car.com and Cars.com as both being category-killers I don’t see Music.com and Musics.com in the same light. So IMO the buyer overpaid by quite a bit for this name.

What do you think? Was Musics.com a good buy at $76,000? Comment and let your voice be heard!

{ 18 comments… add one }

rj November 18, 2013, 8:43 pm

1) Musics.com went from $5k to $50k in one day DAYS before the auction ended..
2) There were improbable jumps in the bidding progression $10k straight to $30k?

Someone’s playing a joke or it’s fraud…no way 2-3 parties bid like that on a domain. No way. I’ve been around long enough to know when I see something highly irregular.

That transaction is not closing.

Reply
Donnym November 18, 2013, 8:54 pm

Will be interesting to see if the follows through. The prior owner still has time to renew and I am sure will be contacted by a so called 3rd party. If you think about you could bid yourself up on this name to 1.5 million then just renew it if you owned it.

Donny

Reply
Ian November 18, 2013, 9:27 pm

Too strange for my taste… It’s like owning deers.com, offsprings.com, sheeps.com, etc.

Reply
Leonard Britt November 18, 2013, 9:37 pm

I think Musics.com would be an OK buy at $100. I guess it is short, brandable and .COM but other than that I don’t comprehend the logic of spending that sort of cash on a name that screams “this is a mistake.”

Reply
Domenclature.com November 18, 2013, 10:01 pm

I truly believe that ICANN licensed Registrars should not be allowed to sell aftermarket names; the conflict of interest, and potential exposure to shenanigans, is immense. If the goal of ICANN is protection of consumers, and making names clean, Registrars should be limited to name registrations ONLY, period. Leave domaining to domainers.

Reply
Nick November 19, 2013, 3:31 am

@rj: Has happened to me all to often, a few times on Go Daddy and on Sedo as well. Its as if 2 bidders conspire to screw up someone’s auction on purpose. And these fraudulent bidders get to walk away unscathed.

Reply
Frank November 19, 2013, 4:48 am

What is the sense in bidding for a domain that the previous owner – mind you, one holding on to it for 16 years – can renew in a glimpse? Isn’t this just a publicity stunt by that very owner – Mr. Terry James from Cyber Songs?

Reply
Dinho Santana www.portfolio2000.com November 19, 2013, 5:20 am

My subversive text:

“People of *non-english* language countries(third world) enjoys to visit
domains with ‘english words’ seeking cheap prices in
products and services”

MUSIC”S” is excellent!!!

Reply
Bob L November 19, 2013, 6:03 am

The bidding on this domain doesn’t seem natural… Or, both bidders have a gambler at the helm whose brain wouldn’t let them lose this bet.

A plural that isn’t a natural word does not make sense. Musics just doesn’t cut it. Disagree? Name one solid example where it has worked. You are better off making up your own “simple to say and spell” word and running with that.

Reply
brand November 19, 2013, 8:39 am

@ Ian.. lmao.
Its not even proper english, its like saying…sheet musics.
But it did surprise me when i appraised it.
The thing is, lets see if go daddy even gets paid for that domain, this industry works off the honor system doing deals on a hand shake and the days of taking a persons word that they will pay are over.
I thought i sold a domain of mine until it sat over at escrow.com waiting for buyers payment day after day, of course the person never paid.
If they call domains and websites internet property then they should treat it as such and get a 10% down payment before the transaction is to proceed. If the person then defaults, cancels out, they lose the deposit.
I bet we see musics.com back in the auction section again soon…lol

Reply
Igor Mironyuk November 19, 2013, 10:44 am

Domain name Musics.com may be is not very good name, but how long discussion about it. Even second post about musics.com

Reply
RJ November 19, 2013, 10:51 am

final price is already knocked down to $56,000….looks like they established that the last couple of bids were fraudulent…I say the most of the bidding was

Reply
John Poole November 19, 2013, 2:15 pm

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It all DEPENDS on who the real buyer is (assuming this is a legitimate sale), their resources, plans and “need” for the domain name. For a “domain investor” $76,000 for that domain name is probably not a “good investment.” But for the right “end user” the domain name might be worth even more.

Reply
Joe November 19, 2013, 5:12 pm

Many times I read post from other domaining that when registering a new domain name do not forget singular and plural.

That is good if whenever the keyword from singular to plural have the same value in search of global users and USA …….. but if not equal value in one of the two best left one which no value here is what to learn from many post.

I plan to buy in the singular or plural as the first to have a value of user demand, the second eventually so will always have that approaches the plural of the domain in the direction of the market niche that is right.

But $ 75,000 is a lot of money for this domain in my opinion, I’m with Morgan, because I see only three, four letters or numbers pay the same amount or more, and be more valid than Musics the only problem I see with this domain is that it must compete with Music, in time and see what happens.

Reply
Morgan November 19, 2013, 7:00 pm

Really great comments here and awesome to see everyone chime in and share their opinions. I have to agree with @rj, after digging into the bidding history it does look a bit suspicious. I just don’t understand why you would bid up by such a high amount when you don’t have to…

Reply
Picas November 19, 2013, 7:19 pm

So from now on …I should think twice before telling someone that his domain is really a worst crap of craps …

Reply
Joe November 20, 2013, 5:42 pm

@ Brand. Because this last affirmation ?

Reply
rj November 22, 2013, 9:31 am

wow..looks like the deal went through..the buyer is a fairly active domineer..come across his name before.

Reply