Morning Folks!
I decided that I should make this a standalone post given the gravity of things that have occurred. Sunday was not a pleasant day. It is hard to prove your innocence to somebody that makes up the lie to begin with. The false accusations about me I can handle and I have. But the ones about Monte and Moniker and TRAFFIC, that may linger for some time. Maybe the silver lining from all this is we learn that there is a way to behave. There are boundaries. Just because something is legal does not give a license to abuse it. This industry needs to step back and take a serious look at themselves. Ron Jackson wrote this in his 'Low Down' section yesterday and I think it deserves some attention before we sell our soul:
'This business has undergone some dramatic changes over the past five years. When I came in it was mostly composed of a small, tight-knit group of individual entrepreneurs that just about all got along well. Competitors hung out together, shared drinks and stories and worked together to expand the industry for everyone’s benefit. Over the last couple of years, with far more money at stake and new win-at-all-cost players entering the space, I am seeing more flare ups between competitors. It is not a welcome change and, at this stage of the game, I don’t think it does anyone any good. Fortunately there is still more of what Cahn calls “coopetition” (competitors co-operating to advance the entire industry) in this business than corporate world knife-in-the-back tactics and I hope that philosophy remains in place for at least a little while longer.'
And now.......The words that have set off a firestorm:
Jay Westerdal writes: 'When I look at the bidding on Shopping.mobi I see that the winner was bidder #338 Rick Schwartz. Rick bought Flowers.mobi
for $200,000 earlier this year and set the high water mark for a
DotMobi name. Surely Shopping is better then Flowers, so what “other
financial obligations” would allow Rick to back out of the successful
winning and binding bid?
This just looks bad. We need Transparency in this industry.'
Now the questions:
Did you bid and win shopping.mobi yes or no?
Did you then back out of the purchase, yes or no?
It is important to clear the air. Jay's blog has raised very
damaging accusations to say the least. If you want to make such bold
statements on ' why ' there is a mobi market it is crucial to not look
as though you are fixing it!
Rick Schwartz Responds....Even tho the above question was poised by
some anonymous poster it is a good question and needs to be answered. I
did not win shopping.mobi so the answer is NO and Jay must
have made it up becuause it is an outright LIE on HIS part and I expect
an apology and a retraction. A BIG apology and LONG retraction
explaining this incident considering he circulated to 10,000 of my
peers and now showing up on the industry boards. I hope folks on those
board will post a link so the record can be set straight.
I did not win shopping.mobi so there was nothing to back out of,. This is very
damaging to me and Jay should know better than to LIE. People should
now begin to question HIS motives. I expect YOU and others to go back
and have Jay explain his made up tales. Then you should ask other
questions of why he was motivated to do this without verifying with ME? If you have ANY backbone
you will.
Jay spread this lie to 10,000 industry professionals accusing me of
backing out of a deal and casting shadows on Me, Moniker and the
TRAFFIC Conferences. It was done with the worst of motives and fair
minded people will see that. He was able
to email me TWICE the day before asking for access to my private forum,
but
when I told him no and the reason, Jay did not have enough CLASS to
email me and ask me directly about this. Instead he CHOSE to drag my
good name, Moniker and TRAFFIC thru the mud with info that was not
factual and done by a person that has a motive to hurt his competition.
A motive to hurt Moniker. A motive to hurt TRAFFIC. A motive to hurt
Rick Schwartz. The post by Jay yesterday that I learned about shortly
after I made this initial post this morning is an outright LIE and is
not factual. Backing out of a deal is one of the worst violations
anyone in this community can make. Even when the TRUTH comes out and
Jay is forced to apologize, there will always be those that will keep
spreading the lie. So how do I EVER fix that? THANKS JAY!
In Summary:
A. I did NOT buy shopping.mobi so Jay should first learn to be factual
or stop lying. However I did bid on it and then dropped out.
B. Comparing a bid on one domain compared to a bid on another domain
in another auction a YEAR apart does not take into account someone's
circumstance or bank account or commitments or MY personal valuation. So this is just a STUPID comment from a so-called
'Businessman.'
C. Jay is bitter that I will not grant him access to my private board
on Friday. I said
'It was a little too close to home.' Instead of understanding he
complained how it was not fair. etc. etc. etc. So instead of emailing
me to validate his info, he saw a chance for a sucker punch and he took
it!
D. I have invited Jay to TRAFFIC even tho it is not in my best
interest and he attends. I invited him to be on a panel even tho it is
not in my best
interest and put him on 'Meet the bloggers'. In return this is what we
get!!?? A post done only to hurt the premiere show and auction in our
space and cast false shadows that hurts everyone and every business
whether you realize it or not. We are all on the same boat and those
that drill holes in the bottom to try and sink their competition are
being foolish and selfish at best and something I can't say publicly at
worst.
E.
Finally, Jay wants to hijack the subject of 'Transparency' the subject
that TRAFFIC announced it will focus on in our Las Vegas show in
February. Fine, let's start with Jay. With his way of doing business
and selling private info about others.....He certainly proved he does
not have the credentials to lead the way into a transparent business.
Rick Schwartz
Further Update.
Monte from Moniker posted some of the email but I would now like to show 2 quotes that should show the intent of Jay:
'Rick,
If you didn't buy it. Who did? I would be glad to print a
retraction if I am wrong. However I am using my notes and that is what they
say.'
And the clincher......
One more TELLING quote from Jay's email:
'Trust me, I would have preferred to ask about it on your board first
and do some investigating there.... oh wait. If you don't want me there
that is totally up to you.'
So Jay could email me TWICE the day before his blog post but could not email me to verify the info??!! THIS was payback for not allowing him
in my private forum and of course to damage me. Jay has a lot of answering to do and I am sure
most will be BULLSHIT! Jay you screwed up BAD in front of EVERYONE in the
industry. I don't even know how to tell you to fix it. The damage has
been done. Just don't want to hear lame and silly excuses for trying to
ruin my good name. Ruin the name of TRAFFIC. Ruin the name of Monte and
Moniker. I think people are going to think deep today. Maybe I am an
easy target because some don't like me. But when they put themselves in
MY SHOES and have THOSE FEELINGS go thru them, they may even give me a
fair hearing.
Latest Update........
Jay posts a 'Luke warm apology on this site. Normally I would post a
link. I don't want to do anything to circulate the lies Jay told today
anymore than they already are. So This is the part as it relates to the
sale that accused me of welshing on. He BURIED the link from his
original post under comment #24. If he had ANY CLASS he would have put
it on top, in red, so nobody would miss it. But like I said, that is
just one of the things that makes it a lukewarm apology. So this at
least begins to clear the record and states I did NOT buy shopping.mobi
So I am going to do what I can to fix the mess that Jay created. He
could give a shit about cleaning it up or he would be on every board
and he would not be blaming HIS STAFF for HIS LIES!! THAT is the most
telling. Blame his staff for HIS CRAP!???? That's a real MAN! Blame his
staff!!! Good one Jay!
Jay writes: 'My staff notes also reflected inaccurately that Rick Schwartz was the
winning bidder of Shopping.Mobi. He in fact was not the last bidder,
the audio recording clearly shows it was bidder #161 on the phone (the
Sri Lanka Investment group). I want to apologize to Rick publicly for
making such a big mistake. I should have done more due diligence rather
then relying exclusively on my notes. I will try and do a more through
job reporting facts in the future.'
Jay, I don't believe a word out of your mouth any longer.
yesterday/today you said you reviewed the video and it was your notes.
Now you blame your staff. Thanks for setting the record straight after
you dragged my name thru the mud for the last 2 days. You know that
won't erase the damage you have done. Now you just drag your own staff
thru the mud. What next? You have NO CLASS!
Transparency is
finally here. What you did is transparent to the entire industry. You
tried to inflict damage on Moniker, Monte, TRAFFIC and me. The only
thing you did was stain the entire industry for your personal gain. A
mistake is forgivable. Your statements prove it was your intent to do
us harm no matter what the cost to the industry and are just the back
peddling now because you have no choice. At the end of the day, you
harmed yourself and your event worse than anything else you could have
ever done. The saddest part, I doubt you will change your ways. Others
may give you the benefit of the doubt as time goes on and they forget.
But Howard, Monte and I and our staff's know how many other things you
have done that we NEVER complained about publicly. This time you got
caught! Jay, you are a very smart guy. Time to use that energy to stop
abusing things for your personal gain. Stop screwing with people's
privacy. Stop the things you do that everyone knows you do but would
never say out loud. I have been told at times some things you do to
invade people's privacy that make me cringe. YOU now have a MOTIVE to
DIG into my stuff and others. STOP IT before you get any deeper! People
in this industry want their PRIVACY and it is not up to YOU to
distribute it and make a profit. The domain community is ANGRY at what
you are doing.
Rick Schwartz
Photo courtesy of DNJournal.com
This just in:
'This is Stephen Douglas (Right in the photo with Jay on his left). I was the executive producer for the Domain
Roundtable Conference 2007 and had a five year contract with Nameintel.
However, because of failure to pay me fairly nor follow my directions
and other breaches by NI, I am no longer connected with Jay Westerdal
or Name Intelligence as of October. I do not endorse nor consult for
him nor agree with his blog comments attacking or judging Marchex,
Enom, Snapnames, Moniker, Rick Schwartz, Traffic, or Moniker. Jay
opinions are... NOT MINE. I currently have a lawsuit filed against NI
for my fair commission payment and joint venture profits as per my
contract. More information about the REAL JAY WESTERDAL on my blog at http://www.successclick.com.
Please forgive my unfinished blogsite -- I'm too busy to even get it
together the way I want. However, I have figured out how to post. 
My apologies to all those people who are scratching their heads
wondering what Jay is doing. As far as Jay talking about
'transparency', he should start with looking at his own company first.'
mindwrecker
It is to bad, Jay seems really smart and has alot to offer with his programming on Domain Tools, but instead focus’s energy on unprofessionalism and sneaky side ass comments which appear to be fueled by jealously. This hurts the industry top to bottom, we need strong conferences setting the bar high and promoting the business to the rest of the world, people on the outside looking in do not want to see kids throwing sand from across the box because there Tonka truck isnt as good.
You can tell he does not care about this because of his Registrant Tools program, which is a high security risk, this program should be shut down and perhaps a class action lawsuit by domainers is needed to do it as this makes personal information on domain investments to readily available to the public.
lawrence
lol – rick, when you’re the king…it seems like everybody is out to dethrone you
Juli G
I’m saddened and dismayed to read about this. You have such a solid reputation in the domaining community, I can’t see where slinging mud at you would do anyone any good.
I’m sorry you had to deal with the dark side of domaining :(
havanajournal
Rick,
You are a big target in the industry. Your passion for the truth shows you still have a real love for this industry and I respect you for that.
So, maybe Jay is just throwing bombs and you are the biggest target?
Why he’s throwing bombs I don’t know but I do have a comment about it.
I have been reading his blog since it came out (yours too of course) but in the past couple months his writing has changed to be a bit more”sensationalistic” shall we say.
Honestly, I wonder if he is drinking or something worse? Maybe the pressures of business or a personal situation?
I just wanted to chime in and say that I noticed a change in his tone of writing a couple months back.
Stay on the high road. That’s where need you to be.
Thanks.
Charles
I’ve been following the domain industry for just a short while. I’ve got to tell you that it is very secretive. Of course I understand some of the reasons behind it. But, in order to get this industry to the next level (which is a”true marketplace”) you will need a third party to”police it”. The future of buying and selling domains is a NASDAQ type electronic market with market makers. There will never be acceptable transparency until an electronic market is created that can be tracked in an orderly fashion.
Nonetheless, sounds like you got hosed and good luck.
lawrence
the domain trade seems just like the diamond trade…dominated by a few, with the overall picture seeming cloudy and dirty
Donna Mahony
Rick, Life is too short to keep looking back and explaining away other folks actions. You can blog up every data bit on the internet and not change anyones mind. Fill your blog with positive energy. Keep you nose and eyes forward and make your feet follow in that direction. Like they say, the sweetest revenge is success!
Jason
say something good about someone and it is shortly forgotten, say something negative about someone and it always seems to linger, one must be 100% sure of the facts before attacking someone, I agree with ron at dnjournal that there seems to be a lot of disputes between companies this year, the goal should be to continue bringing the domain industry out as a legitimate business and continue making it stronger and not taint it with personal attacks which only hurt the industry as a whole especially when the facts have not been verified, I’m not a fan of the registrant search as there are a few harmful things this can be used for, but anything for a dollar I guess, good luck with your future domaining Rick and as Donna already posted stay positive and let the haters crash and burn on their own.
Alex
Someone said you bought it, then it turns out you didn’t.
Can’t really see the story, am I missing something?
.pH
This whole affair, I view it as another attempt to discredit the .mobi extension and anyone in any shape, form, or fashion associated or affiliated with it.
Even us”small fry” buyers, developers, and holders of .mobi are subjected to a daily barrage of bashing and mud-slinging.
There comes a point to shove back, and indeed it has entered that phase.
For the sake of all these players that have blog sites and are viewed as”experts” in the field of domaining, there is indeed a black eye.
It is not about taking sides (everyone will). It is not about winning and losing (there will be plenty of those).
It is about individual integrity, an industry’s integrity, and the validity of a domain extension that few understand but most want nothing to do with.
Smartphones are outselling PC’s and laptops four to one. That is 4:1 odds in favor of .mobi.
3.5 billion current cellular phone subscribers, estimated to be nearly twice that by 2010.
Guess which team I’m playing on?
RJ
Rick,
Could you help me understand why people would type in a type in a generic word in the address bar? Why would anyone looking for refrigerators for example go to refrigerators.com and not to sears.com or lowes.com, homedepot.com? or to Google and search for”best refrigerators”? Direct type-ins seem to have been a pre-Google phenomenon that should logically be dying out. Google is so good that why would anyone want to go with a generic type-in?
I have been reading your blog and Franks but still find it hard to phantom why direct navigation works in today’s environment. Just want for this to”click” once and for all. Any insight you can share will be appreciated.
Response by RS:
It’s human nature. They”Surfed” with 800 numbers and they do it on ther net. To the tune of tens of millions if not hundreds of millions visitors a day or more. Google and Yahoo receive as much as 15% of ALL THEIR traffic via type ins to the browser bar from domain names.
As far as it should die down….quite the opposite. Think of Google as a map. When was the last time you opened your glove box and needed a map to the local supermarket? Yoo don’t need a map you go there directly. That is what the browser bar is…..you go there directly.
Type ins also mean folks may not be happy with the results they are getting at Google. Sometimes you type in a keyword in both Yahoo and Google and get virtually the same results. After folks search and don’t find what they want they use alternate methods to find what they are looking for.