A little over 2 years ago FeedBurner did a case study on the growth of TechCrunch, and the phenomenal amount of growth it had achieved since it’s start in 2005. Since then in 2007 TechCrunch had harvested up to 419k readers not counting the people who visit TC on a daily basis but don’t subscribe to the RSS feed. Now it appears TechCrunch has become a household name, reaching 715k subscribers, and boosting the companies CEO Michael Arrington to web celebrity hall of fame (he is my idol.) Also stated in a recent interview “inside TechCrunch” where Sarah Lacey interviews Arrington 37 (turns 38 tomorrow March 13.)

Our revenue in 2006 was $800k last year revenue was around $3 Million.

He also states that he had turned down an $8 Million, but sells himself short on a $100 Million evaluation. Overall I think TechCrunch is one of the brightest companies I can think of right now. It may be just a well maintained blog, but the type of audience they capture is so important that they have the ability to change the way new media is presented. Thus making it a staple to the web 2.0 world, and an as important if not more significant publication than the wall street journal.

Clek Media Inc. has apparently brokered the largest dot com sale in history of FUND.COM to Meade Technologies, currently Fund.com Inc. (OTCBB: FNDM) This sale knocks off the previous record holder BUSINESS.COM for $7.5 million in 1999. Speculators of the domain industry have argued the high price of this domain, yet only recently has the true value of Internet real estate become obvious.

However this sale also could be showing signs of just how weak the US Dollar has become. Offshore companies have more money to spend with American currency dwindling, and it is throwing off the market. Not only that but this sale could just be inflated as a marketing ploy, something the domain industry loves to pull off. Honestly I think the name is weak, and the plural FUNDS.COM would be worth significantly more (but still not 8 or even 7 figures.)

CNN Money has rightfully noted the sale of SEX.COM in 1999 for a reported $12 Million, yet this deal had been benched and the original registrant sold to ESCOM LLC in 2006 for an undisclosed price. Which still leads me to believe that sale was more than likely over $10M.

So I was at the Wal-Mart (note evil shadowy image) or “the wal” as I like to call it late yesterday morning at 1:00am because me and a few of my fellow chaps had been craving a game of Monopoly. However as we stared deeply in to the vast shelves of board games, we tilted our heads in confusion. There literally were 10 different types of monopoly i.e.(spongbob squarepants, little mermaid, disney pixar, cars, etc.) Now, I don’t know about you, but when I want to play a game of monopoly, and I land on boardwalk… I wan’t the property to say boardwalk, not “patricks house” or “ariels castle” I am not a friggen baby, and even if I was I still wouldn’t want to play this version of monopoly:

That is the Monopoly “Electronic Banking” edition, and I thought about buying this one for about 2 seconds till I realised the entire point of Monopoly is to collect money, and not holding it makes it a lot less fun. Note: One of the pieces is a segway scooter, and I am not one of the few who think those are cool. Dane Cook is not a fan of monopoly, not that anyone cares.

My point here is that Hasbro is ruining the game of Monopoly, by licensing its rights to corporate demon seeds such as Nickelodeon or Disney. I cannot even find the original Monopoly anymore, and I forgot what it even looks like. Actually I did see a really nice Michael Graves Monopoly wood box set at Target just recently. Which is beside the point, and I guess not every deal Hasbro makes is lackluster. However my biggest gripe is with the Monopoly “Here and Now” edition, which has cities that were voted by Americans instead of the original property names (there is also a UK version.) I don’t see the appeal of this, and as a true fan of Monopoly, do not get it other than it is an attempt at a marketing ploy. I do not wish to own Las Vegas, and I think New Orleans is bankrupt. Bottom line, next time I go to wal-mart to buy Monopoly, I want to at least see the original edition on the shelf.

American Express has been advertising their PlumCard website recently featuring Jim Davis and his company MusicDirect. Here is the ad:

Music Direct is a website that sells CDs, vinyl, music hardware, cables, analog gear, and hi-fidelity music equipment. AmEx has been trying to appeal to small business owners, especially those with big aspirations. The previous PlumCard commercial featured new trendy frozen yogurt company pinkberry.

The Plum Card marketing campaign is flawless, they even have an expensive adwords account for several terms as shown here in a full blown report from netbanker regarding the “Scarcity Marketing” technique used by AmEx to attract consumers. I personally think it is a brilliant move by AmEx to appeal to the growing small business and start up crowd by opening a niche market. This is credit cards we are talking about here, the entire idea behind them is to feel rich or exclusive. It is a status thing, so people in business are going to be attracted to that.

May 2002 Addidas.com WIPO Adidas-Salomon AG v. Legueret Dominique

In 2005 addidas.com was bought for $13,009 from Enom’s Club Drop . Then Received a WIPO Adidas-Salomon AG v. Jim Yoon / Yunkook Jung

2008 addidas.com was aquired through snapnames by ”ever ready domains” yet apparently is still pending payment as the nameservers are in interim:

NS1.INTERIMNAMESERVER.COM
NS2.INTERIMNAMESERVER.COM

What this means I guess is the WIPO process can be used as long as a trademark is relevant. A company like Adidas can easily spare the legal retainer and UDRP fees. It is however quite irresponsible of Adidas to let the name expire not once, not twice, but three times. Unfortunatly they are just throwing money down the drain, and nothing is being accomplished except more lawyers being paid (yawn.)