Blog Sales At Sitepoint. Example no.1
In my last post, I explained why I feel that buying off sitepoint has become so deadly dull these days. So here is the first example of a recent blog buying experience we have had-:
Okay, we really, really wanted this one. It was listed at sitepoint here with a fairly low starting bid. While it was listed as PR0, it had some fabulous backlinks- including from Digg’s frontpage, Scobleizer, Lifehacker, Wired and other mayor websites. Just a backlinks and a future pagerank check showed us that Bob’s your uncle!! A nicely customized design and short, slick, unique widgets. A perfect match for our own more content-heavy Bloggy Widgets.
So we waited and waited….two minutes to go. The current high bid was $1,001. So we put in the suggested bid of $1,050 (that’s us- “saloschin”). What happens? The auction extends for 4 more hours, automatically. We monitor it. Phew! We still won the bidding- got the email from sitepoint and take the “seller has not yet chosen to accept your bid” as just the usual red tape stuff. Hang on. We don’t hear from the seller- so we message them. And then we get the reply saying “sorry…site already sold to the previous bidder..”.
Now this was all wrong! Firstly, the previous bidder was “private” but had his username revealed to us in the message from the seller. A certain “Problogging”. Damn! We know that one. No less than the former owner of this blog, David Krug. Of all people to be pipped at the post by!! And beaten by a bid of $1,001- lower than ours? Weird!
Did we get a fair shot at winning the site? No. The seller should have indicated that a higher bid had been offered prior, giving us the chance to again increase our bid. How much did the seller actually get? Supposedly $1,001. That’s what it says. How much were we prepared to pay? Approx. $3,500. The seller sure didn’t get that.
In conclusion, neither the seller nor the buyer’s best interests were served by this auction. We didn’t get a fair chance to obtain the site and the seller didn’t get the opportunity to get the highest price that he could. And the whole thing was a rather annoying, frustrating “cloak and dagger” experience that left a bad taste in the mouth. Sitepoint’s policies, while clearly well-intentioned, are actually creating a fundamental lack of transparency- which cannot be good for trade.
Plus, where was the fun? If we’d known that “Problogging” was bidding against us- hell, we’d have paid double just for the fun of it!
And as a follow-up, I’m wondering if the blog sale even went through? Checking the “who is” on the domain now and it seems to still be with the old seller. I don’t know why this is, but what I do know is that such an experience will not serve sitepoint well, long-term- with the potential to lose both buyers and sellers. The current sales lack so much of the articulation and banter of the olden days- and I’m wondering if this will also give sitepoint less “search phrases” to be linked with- enquiries from the SEs in mind, and thus bring down their performance- at least in the marketplace. Time will tell!
[tags]sitepoint, widgetoko, lifehacker, wired, bloggy widgets, widgets, online auctions, david krug, problogging, digg, scobleizer[/tags]
Good write-up! I look forward to reading the other ones.
I’m keen to hear your thoughts on how you would address issues brought up in this post & the previous one, within the framework of our current auction system.
As you point out, we can’t force the seller to honor the highest bid. This makes sense because a seller might prefer to deal with someone who:
1.) They’ve dealt with in the past
2.) Is in their country
3.) Has a good reputation in the forums
4.) Has agreed to sign a contract and a non-compete
5.) Has agreed to use Escrow
6.) Is ready to proceed with the sale on a quicker timeline
etc.
Because selling a business is about more than just price, sellers have absolute and final discretion about whom they want to conduct business with.
Auction holders have told us that they want the ability to consider all factors going into a transaction – not just the price, so we’ve given them the ability to reject any bid.
In this instance, the extra $49 bid increment might have taken a backseat to other considerations the seller might have had. Of course, it also means the seller missed out on an additional $2000
Matt Mickiewicz said this on November 24, 2006 4:35 am
Matt- thanks again for responding.
Two things strike me as I read your response. Firstly, it again seems to me that your primary concern is, as you put it: “auction holders have told us that they want the ability to consider all factors going into a transaction.” But what have “auction bidders” told you? As I write these posts from the latter’s point of view. Should an auction marketplace not represent equal fairness to both parties?
Secondly, the phrase “selling a business” that you write is important- as it means full disclosure, full transparency and legal accountability. Surely sitepoint’s ultimate job is not just as a “broker”- but as an institution with “teeth” should anyone play dirty.
In the example I gave here with widgetoko, I’m pretty sure that none of these points applied-:
1.) They’ve dealt with in the past
2.) Is in their country
3.) Has a good reputation in the forums
4.) Has agreed to sign a contract and a non-compete
5.) Has agreed to use Escrow
6.) Is ready to proceed with the sale on a quicker timeline
I might be wrong, but I’m 99% sure of this.
Without blowing my trumpet too much I hope, whenever I have bid at any online auction- including sitepoint, I have paid within 24 hours and have never backed out.
Anyway, I’ll leave the rest of my ranting for the future posts! And I’ll add some contructive suggestions….
Mosey said this on November 24, 2006 1:11 pm