Morning Folks!!
We are starting to learn about the details of this unbelievable case involving Procter and Gamble. Now prepare to fall on the floor over stupidity and just being a cheap chump.
BizJournals is reporting: 'P&G asked Marchex in March 2012 to give it the name in exchange for registration and transfer costs. Receiving no response, it then offered $600. Marchex refused and asked for $30,000.'
So a 172 year old company got THIS and all the rest to come for not paying a LOUSY $30,000 for this $79 BILLION dollar company and had to try and STEAL the domain by LYING!?
The lie? They said they sold $40 MILLION on the Swash product when in FACT it was $60,000.
Rick Schwartz
UFO
P&G senior management are going to actually be very concerned about the lying bit. Thats actually quite serious when lies are made in the companys name. I am sure the CE wouldn’t tolerate it so I’m sure some people will be exiting P&G.
$30k is actually a very reasonable price. As a function of their likely brand development spend etc etc its a small amount. Now Marchex can ask for a million and P&G can take it or leave it.
Even filing the URDP and in theory gathering the required supporting evidence etc etc would have come in at 10k or more. So the 30k looks tame given the risk and lying that was undertaken.
Can’t believe that the marketing director looking after that product didn’t just sign off the 30k and get on with their real business of selling product and not engaging in legal plays with dubious probability of successful payoff. The CE should also assess whether he has sufficient commercially aware Legal/Marketing people.
I just know the legal department at P&G will be under a cloud with this.
Jay
This is exactly what lot of domainers experiencing – it is extremely hard to sell domain names to big companies, even they can easy afford to pay nice money for brand names. Why? I believe reason is that cheap and stupid people work at departments that deal with this kind of business. What a shame…
abe
The domain seller should at least have a 10k offer, far below the cost and hassle of an UDRP law suit.
Homero A. Gonzalez
Not only Cheap and Stupid, but Clueless and Arrogant. Big Companies, hear the calling; get an education on domain names. RicksBlog.com is a good place to start.
Anthony
Rick,
I think you are a top fella and I admire your efforts to highlight reverse domain name hijacking however two things:
1. Yesterday you said you will still buy their products, so if you of all people are still going to buy their products who wouldn’t, regardless of how they behave.
2. People who comment here will say ‘P&G what scumbags’ etc but I guarantee you 99.99% of them would still sell them a domain, probably undervalued even!
I am not trying to troll, I am just pointing this out and would welcome your thoughts.
Rob Sequin
Seems like some low level marketing department blunder but we have to wonder who in the company filed the UDRP.
If it was someone from the legal department, why did they think they had rights to the domain and why did they lie about the revenue?
If someone from legal did not file the UDRP, we have to wonder why not.
Probably more coming out about this now that P&G is literally branded in writing as a reverse domain name hijacker.
Heads will roll.
Aaron
“Trust, but verify”-Ronald Reagan
Rick great job holding them accountable.