Throwing money out the window.

[Xstr8guy]

I was chatting with my pal Dzinerbear and we were fantasizing about what we would do in this business if we had a time machine. I joke that I'd go back and buy www.sex.com.

After I posted that joking comment, I clicked on the url in my chat window. What an absolute piece of crap! Do they actually make any money off of that domain?! It looks like it was made in 1991. The page takes ages to load, requires horizontal scrolling on a 23" monitor and there are actually broken images on the index page!

Why would the owner of sex.com domain pay it so little attention? Aren't they just throwing money out of the window by putting so little effort into it? It has to get a million type-ins everyday. Can you imagine what you would do if you owned that domain?

[basschick]

i felt the same way about sex.com when gary owned it - it's the best domain in porn and no one seems to have a clue how to handle it.

btw, playboy is who owns sex.com now - believe it or not *LOL*

[Lee]

The idiots running the site should turn it back in to the banner farm it was when Cohen stole it.

He made so much money from the people buying the banner spots, plus using his affiliate links on the banners once they had been paid for.

Hell, even parking the fucking domain somewhere like Sedo would easily pull in 5 figures a month in revenue.

Regards,

Lee

[SPACE GLIDER]

If I had a time machine I probably would have gone back to '83. I certainly would have selected the Colecovison game player over the Atari 2600.

Oh... and I would have gotten the guts to tell girls that jelly shoes weren't attractive and that it made their feet smell.

As far as this industry is concerned I'd go back to around 199 and rebuild it all in my own space-faring image

[Xstr8guy]

btw, playboy is who owns sex.com now - believe it or not *LOL*

I don't see any information that confirms that Playboy owns the domain. Whois shows the owner as Escom, LLC. And google search shows that Escom bought the domain in January of 2006 for $14 miilion.

Xbiz article

[Xstr8guy]

I just found this article that says Escom has a deal with Playboy to 'power' sex.com... whatever that means.

Let's see.. they bought the domain in January but they didn't ink a deal with Playboy until October. It's now March and the site is still a piece of shit. Why wouldn't they just redirect the site to playboy.com until they had something to show. Is this domain cursed or something?

[basschick]

no - the domain is not cursed. or rather, it's SUCH a high profile domain that it is cursed to be owned by people who jump to own it without the slightest idea of what to do with it.

btw, jelly shoes are horrible, disgusting things...

[gaybucks_chip]

It absolutely amazes me how, even in 2007, people outside the adult industry think that it's 1995. Almost every week, somebody emails or calls and says they're starting a new website, they're going to shoot content, etc., and they somehow expect the money to just come rolling in. "Oh, I'll put a site up on the Internet and I'll get a thousand members."

On the grand scale, somebody gets the bright idea to pay $14M for sex.com and figures the money will roll in. Now granted, that's a hard domain to NOT make money off of, but amazingly, these people have managed to do that.

On a smaller scale, I know of several people that have invested 30 grand, 50 grand, 100 grand or more into production of ONE or TWO dvds, or a website, fully expecting they will make a gigantic return. And then the money's gone and what they're left with is minuscule returns on their investment.

What is it about this industry in particular that makes people feel like they can invest, do little to no work, and make a ton of money?

[Madame0120]

btw, jelly shoes are horrible, disgusting things...

They brought back knitted panchos.

The Day That Fashion Died, Again.

:yeah:

[SPACE GLIDER]

As far as this industry is concerned I'd go back to around 199 and rebuild it all in my own space-faring image

1996 I meant

[Fister]

...
After I posted that joking comment, I clicked on the url in my chat window. What an absolute piece of crap! Do they actually make any money off of that domain?! It looks like it was made in 1991. The page takes ages to load, requires horizontal scrolling on a 23" monitor and there are actually broken images on the index page!...

Hmmm, sex.com looks fine on my monitor (firefox. xp, 19 inch), no horz scrolling, no broken images. Guess they must have read your post and fixed things?????

Basic isn't always bad. Look how much traffic link-o-rama and the hun get year after year, and they are certainly lacking in the graphic design department.

[Madame0120]

Basic isn't always bad. Look how much traffic link-o-rama and the hun get year after year, and they are certainly lacking in the graphic design department.

Well .. The Hun linked the 10 Commandments for Moses, so not the best points of reference. :vanish:

We like simple too ... but there's so many CUTE banners out there, I got to place them somewhere. That my Friends is something to remember, if you ever market to the girlies. We like all the pretty colors.

Such a :fool: telling gay guys about Women.

[strictlyb]

If I had a time machine I probably would have gone back to '83.

If I could go back to 1983... I'd stay right here in 2007 thanks!

Reagan would make Bush look smart (and liberal).

[CamCruise]

Hell if I could go back in time. I would go back to the start and buy into IBM, Apple and Microsoft!! Then I could be retired by now like my brother is. Only 2 years older than me and retired 10 years now.

[Xstr8guy]

Hmmm, sex.com looks fine on my monitor (firefox. xp, 19 inch), no horz scrolling, no broken images. Guess they must have read your post and fixed things?????

Basic isn't always bad. Look how much traffic link-o-rama and the hun get year after year, and they are certainly lacking in the graphic design department.

The current page is a billion times better than what I saw... it was nothing like this. What i was describing was a plain white page with links scattered almost randomly around the page. I wonder if just caught them while they were changing the design or the style sheet wasn't loading.