<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Best 4 Letter Domain Names: CVCV .com Brand Builders</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:58:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: whatever</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5997</link>
		<dc:creator>whatever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5997</guid>
		<description>The whole business of buying and selling domain names is built on a retarded idea in the first place. CVCV, VCVC, LLLL, it hardly matters. The biggest websites out there seem to do fine with 6, 7, or even (gasp!) 8 whole letters - google, myspace, youtube, twitter, facebook, wikipedia, blogger, wordpress, etc., etc. etc... hell, even hotchickswithdouchebags.com probably does as well - or better - with their 23-letter domain name than it would with, say, rija.com.


Personally, I&#039;ll be glad when this whole &quot;domain speculation&quot; industry is completely dead. A normal, not-rich person can&#039;t even find a freaking domain name anymore because every name they can think of (even ones that completely suck) has been taken already. Just today, for example, I was thinking that it would be fun to build a website that made fun of twitter (because, you know, twitter is retarded), and I checked to see if &quot;twittard.com&quot; had already been taken. I knew it would be, and of course it was. Of course, nobody will ever do anything with it, because the idiot who bought it doesn&#039;t have an actual idea to develope it, and no one (especially me) is going to pay some rediculous price for it. So it&#039;ll sit there and sit there, unused, just like 97% of all the other domain names...


Hmmm... I wonder if &quot;twitterisforidiotsandretards.com is already taken... I&#039;ll go check now.


HEY! IT&#039;S STILL AVAILABLE! Freaking AMAZING!!!


I hate you all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole business of buying and selling domain names is built on a retarded idea in the first place. CVCV, VCVC, LLLL, it hardly matters. The biggest websites out there seem to do fine with 6, 7, or even (gasp!) 8 whole letters &#8211; google, myspace, youtube, twitter, facebook, wikipedia, blogger, wordpress, etc., etc. etc&#8230; hell, even hotchickswithdouchebags.com probably does as well &#8211; or better &#8211; with their 23-letter domain name than it would with, say, rija.com.</p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;ll be glad when this whole &#8220;domain speculation&#8221; industry is completely dead. A normal, not-rich person can&#8217;t even find a freaking domain name anymore because every name they can think of (even ones that completely suck) has been taken already. Just today, for example, I was thinking that it would be fun to build a website that made fun of twitter (because, you know, twitter is retarded), and I checked to see if &#8220;twittard.com&#8221; had already been taken. I knew it would be, and of course it was. Of course, nobody will ever do anything with it, because the idiot who bought it doesn&#8217;t have an actual idea to develope it, and no one (especially me) is going to pay some rediculous price for it. So it&#8217;ll sit there and sit there, unused, just like 97% of all the other domain names&#8230;</p>
<p>Hmmm&#8230; I wonder if &#8220;twitterisforidiotsandretards.com is already taken&#8230; I&#8217;ll go check now.</p>
<p>HEY! IT&#8217;S STILL AVAILABLE! Freaking AMAZING!!!</p>
<p>I hate you all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh P</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5978</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5978</guid>
		<description>Agreed.  If you do choose to invest in LLLL&#039;s (which I don&#039;t recommend, though they might hold water in the very long term), CVCV&#039;s are the way to go.  You&#039;re destined to make substantially more money holding 5 CVCV&#039;s than 100 LLLL&#039;s that are triple-premiums or inferior.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed.  If you do choose to invest in LLLL&#8217;s (which I don&#8217;t recommend, though they might hold water in the very long term), CVCV&#8217;s are the way to go.  You&#8217;re destined to make substantially more money holding 5 CVCV&#8217;s than 100 LLLL&#8217;s that are triple-premiums or inferior.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie Zoch</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5977</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie Zoch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5977</guid>
		<description>You make some strong points Joshua. This post was more about LLLL&#039;s and why I think CVCV&#039;s are the best to invest in. Random LLLL&#039;s are nearly always used for an Acronym. CVCV&#039;s are used to build a Brand in the majority of cases. I agree that Keyword domains are clearly the over all best investments, but for LLLL&#039;s, CVCV&#039;s are. One other main point that I wanted to be clear, it&#039;s very likely with a CVCV that No (zero) Trademarks are in place. This can be a very big deal as many common terms (keyword domains) hold Trademarks for wide ranges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You make some strong points Joshua. This post was more about LLLL&#8217;s and why I think CVCV&#8217;s are the best to invest in. Random LLLL&#8217;s are nearly always used for an Acronym. CVCV&#8217;s are used to build a Brand in the majority of cases. I agree that Keyword domains are clearly the over all best investments, but for LLLL&#8217;s, CVCV&#8217;s are. One other main point that I wanted to be clear, it&#8217;s very likely with a CVCV that No (zero) Trademarks are in place. This can be a very big deal as many common terms (keyword domains) hold Trademarks for wide ranges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh P</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5976</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5976</guid>
		<description>I view CVCV.com domains as more &quot;domainer-type&quot; names.

Domainers love CVCV&#039;s because of they&#039;re rare and memorable, their wholesale market values are relatively easy to determine (hence they&#039;re &quot;liquidate-able&quot;), and they visually stand out like hotcakes in drop lists.  Also, popular drop list analysis tools (DRT, FreshDrop.net, etc.) can weed these out using algorithms any competent programmer could code up in about 15 minutes.  For all these reasons, I feel certain that of of all categories (except random LLLL.com&#039;s and CCC.com&#039;s), CVCV.com&#039;s are bid the highest relative to the probability they will sell to endusers down the line.

Yes, one could point to many instances of high-profile CVCV purchases (hulu.com, Kiva.com, etc.), and I&#039;m sure that some bulk LLLL.com portfolio holders sell several CVCV.com&#039;s to endusers every year.  But bear in mind that MOST endusers who purchase CVCV.com&#039;s are newly VC-backed startups whose CEO or marketing director thinks that your CVCV.com simply &quot;sounds cool&quot;.  Because of this new venture-backing, CVCV.com&#039;s often sell for a lot when they do, but all signs indicate they are highly, HIGHLY speculative investments for domainers targeting endusers, and I&#039;d only recommend domainers with 6+ figure liquid budgets (probably less than 0.01% of us) even consider investing in them.  If you examine the 69 sales Jamie mentioned (itself an extremely small quantity relative to the total number of CVCV.com combos), you&#039;ll find nearly all to be domainer-to-domainer flips.

Keyword domains present much better bang for the domainer&#039;s buck.  Over the past six months I have flipped over 150 keyword .com&#039;s to endusers for profit out of maybe 600 I&#039;ve acquired within that frame.  While keyword .com domain sales are statistically LESS LIKELY to make headlines because the vast majority of keyword .com sales ring up at $2500 or less, a VASTLY HIGHER percentage of well-advised keyword .com &amp; .net domains sell to endusers each year.  Interesting duality, isn&#039;t it?  90%+ of domain acquisitions occur by established companies able to draw a straight line from your domain to its revenue potential via savings in PPC capital attained by conversion of sponsored search listings to organic listings.  Keyword domains corresponding to a product or service offered by 4+ established companies are, by this very fact, enduser-type domains.  And as we all know, enduser sales offer the highest ROI of any flip type.

Invest in keyword domains if you&#039;re looking to covert within the next 3 years.  Offer your Tafu.com to and enduser for $15,000 and you&#039;ll have a tough time justifying why they should opt for your CVCV.com over Wafu.com, being offered by its owner for a mere $5,000.

All this being said, I think that enduser acquisition activity will pick up slightly over the next several years as web 2.0 services continue to heat up.  But look for CVCV.com prices to crash by around 50-80% at some point before the year 2013 for much the same reason single and double-premiums LLLL.com prices did.

*** NOTE: I don&#039;t place short dictionary domains (wife.com, sale.com, etc.) under the CVCV.com category because the lion&#039;s share of their value lies in word usage / commercial application, not the fact they&#039;re CVCV.coms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I view CVCV.com domains as more &#8220;domainer-type&#8221; names.</p>
<p>Domainers love CVCV&#8217;s because of they&#8217;re rare and memorable, their wholesale market values are relatively easy to determine (hence they&#8217;re &#8220;liquidate-able&#8221;), and they visually stand out like hotcakes in drop lists.  Also, popular drop list analysis tools (DRT, FreshDrop.net, etc.) can weed these out using algorithms any competent programmer could code up in about 15 minutes.  For all these reasons, I feel certain that of of all categories (except random LLLL.com&#8217;s and CCC.com&#8217;s), CVCV.com&#8217;s are bid the highest relative to the probability they will sell to endusers down the line.</p>
<p>Yes, one could point to many instances of high-profile CVCV purchases (hulu.com, Kiva.com, etc.), and I&#8217;m sure that some bulk LLLL.com portfolio holders sell several CVCV.com&#8217;s to endusers every year.  But bear in mind that MOST endusers who purchase CVCV.com&#8217;s are newly VC-backed startups whose CEO or marketing director thinks that your CVCV.com simply &#8220;sounds cool&#8221;.  Because of this new venture-backing, CVCV.com&#8217;s often sell for a lot when they do, but all signs indicate they are highly, HIGHLY speculative investments for domainers targeting endusers, and I&#8217;d only recommend domainers with 6+ figure liquid budgets (probably less than 0.01% of us) even consider investing in them.  If you examine the 69 sales Jamie mentioned (itself an extremely small quantity relative to the total number of CVCV.com combos), you&#8217;ll find nearly all to be domainer-to-domainer flips.</p>
<p>Keyword domains present much better bang for the domainer&#8217;s buck.  Over the past six months I have flipped over 150 keyword .com&#8217;s to endusers for profit out of maybe 600 I&#8217;ve acquired within that frame.  While keyword .com domain sales are statistically LESS LIKELY to make headlines because the vast majority of keyword .com sales ring up at $2500 or less, a VASTLY HIGHER percentage of well-advised keyword .com &amp; .net domains sell to endusers each year.  Interesting duality, isn&#8217;t it?  90%+ of domain acquisitions occur by established companies able to draw a straight line from your domain to its revenue potential via savings in PPC capital attained by conversion of sponsored search listings to organic listings.  Keyword domains corresponding to a product or service offered by 4+ established companies are, by this very fact, enduser-type domains.  And as we all know, enduser sales offer the highest ROI of any flip type.</p>
<p>Invest in keyword domains if you&#8217;re looking to covert within the next 3 years.  Offer your Tafu.com to and enduser for $15,000 and you&#8217;ll have a tough time justifying why they should opt for your CVCV.com over Wafu.com, being offered by its owner for a mere $5,000.</p>
<p>All this being said, I think that enduser acquisition activity will pick up slightly over the next several years as web 2.0 services continue to heat up.  But look for CVCV.com prices to crash by around 50-80% at some point before the year 2013 for much the same reason single and double-premiums LLLL.com prices did.</p>
<p>*** NOTE: I don&#8217;t place short dictionary domains (wife.com, sale.com, etc.) under the CVCV.com category because the lion&#8217;s share of their value lies in word usage / commercial application, not the fact they&#8217;re CVCV.coms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mntor</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5971</link>
		<dc:creator>mntor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5971</guid>
		<description>@spellman

If you are referring to CVCV.coms, i don&#039;t think they are going to drop anytime. There are only 10k odd CVCV.coms and many are already developed ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@spellman</p>
<p>If you are referring to CVCV.coms, i don&#8217;t think they are going to drop anytime. There are only 10k odd CVCV.coms and many are already developed ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spellman</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5967</link>
		<dc:creator>spellman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5967</guid>
		<description>50 people get to rich but tens of thousands will drop and drop again bcause they wont be sold for shit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>50 people get to rich but tens of thousands will drop and drop again bcause they wont be sold for shit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie Zoch</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5966</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie Zoch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5966</guid>
		<description>@ Reece,
Thank you. Yes it seems domainers often announce search results in the wrong way (I myself had in the past until I started developing). I think most domainers that announce High search results do it in a way to say &quot;It&#039;s a popular term&quot; but to really see if a term is popular, it needs to be one word (or made up words like CVCV&#039;s) or for two word or high combo&#039;s &quot; &quot; needs to be included to get the Real search results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Reece,<br />
Thank you. Yes it seems domainers often announce search results in the wrong way (I myself had in the past until I started developing). I think most domainers that announce High search results do it in a way to say &#8220;It&#8217;s a popular term&#8221; but to really see if a term is popular, it needs to be one word (or made up words like CVCV&#8217;s) or for two word or high combo&#8217;s &#8221; &#8221; needs to be included to get the Real search results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie Zoch</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5965</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie Zoch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:10:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5965</guid>
		<description>@Fizz
That is correct. Sony is not a CVCV. It&#039;s pronounceable but not a CVCV IMO. Don&#039;t get me wrong, I clearly like 4L domains similar to Sony that are pronounceable. Several are VCVC or end in Y.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Fizz<br />
That is correct. Sony is not a CVCV. It&#8217;s pronounceable but not a CVCV IMO. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I clearly like 4L domains similar to Sony that are pronounceable. Several are VCVC or end in Y.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5964</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5964</guid>
		<description>Most reported CVCV.com sales can be found here: http://www.llllsales.com/index.php?p=1024

To show only CVCV without Y you can add &quot;Y&quot; to the &quot;does not contain&quot; search field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most reported CVCV.com sales can be found here: <a href="http://www.llllsales.com/index.php?p=1024" rel="nofollow">http://www.llllsales.com/index.php?p=1024</a></p>
<p>To show only CVCV without Y you can add &#8220;Y&#8221; to the &#8220;does not contain&#8221; search field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reece Berg</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5963</link>
		<dc:creator>Reece Berg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5963</guid>
		<description>Great post Jamie!

There seems to be a major disconnect between domainers and developers when it comes to search results. Most domainers don&#039;t seem to get that more search results means more competition! I&#039;ve long been a fan of CVCVs and you did as good a job as anyone elucidating why.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post Jamie!</p>
<p>There seems to be a major disconnect between domainers and developers when it comes to search results. Most domainers don&#8217;t seem to get that more search results means more competition! I&#8217;ve long been a fan of CVCVs and you did as good a job as anyone elucidating why.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fizz</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/best-4-letter-domain-names-cvcv-com-brand-builders/#comment-5962</link>
		<dc:creator>fizz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=1697#comment-5962</guid>
		<description>Interesting stuff Jamie.

Re not &quot;sometimes Y&quot;, does that mean you wouldn&#039;t consider something like Sony a CVCV?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff Jamie.</p>
<p>Re not &#8220;sometimes Y&#8221;, does that mean you wouldn&#8217;t consider something like Sony a CVCV?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

