Whatever you may have thought about Tralliance before, you can now add "bad business people" to the list of adjectives. According to the Washington Post, Tralliance's Ron Andruff says that the amount of money the company would make from ads served by its search.travel service would be "miniscule." If Tralliance can't make big bucks off wildcard PPC in a newbie TLD, it doesn't deserve the delegation.
Here's the disconnect: the CEO of Tralliance's parent, TheGlobe.com, says that .TRAVEL is receiving "millions" of errors each day. Tralliance's CEO says that the company would make only a "miniscule" amount of money off of these "millions" of potential wildcard hits. You only need to know a little bit about pay-per-click revenue to know that you don't make a "miniscule" amount of money from "millions" of page views each day.
Rather than dissemble to the point that they look like fools, why don't the bright folks behind Tralliance simply come clean and admit the truth? Millions of dollars in advertising revenue can be realized by implementing a wildcard service, and you believe that no technical reason exists to prevent it. That's the debate we should have, but first Tralliance has to stop the spinning. There's nothing wrong with making money. The questions are whether the wildcard service presents technical issues or impairs the general user experience.
|
||||||
"Miniscule"
Comments
Re: "Miniscule"
by
Hack
on Wed 20 Sep 2006 10:19 AM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
It may not tally with the application to ICANN, but Cespedes told me specifically that if a user landed at search.travel through a mispelling or whatever, they would only see something along the lines of what .museum users see. That is, no ads.
In my CBR article I mention this, but perhaps I could have been clearer: "He said that search.travel would serve ads if directly navigated to, but not if the user arrived there by typing in a misspelled or non-existent domain." Whether that's true or not, I leave to the reader. |
||||||

