[registrars] RE: ONE MORE IMPORTANT point
Please note the following corrections to your points below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:28 PM
> To: Registrars List
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Divyank Turakhia
> Subject: ONE MORE IMPORTANT point
> In my prevoius mail i forgot one more point -
> I dont know how many people have realised this, but the
> higher the price
> point by Verisign Registry the more the advantage to Verisign
> apart from anyone else.
> Typically today the end user retail price at snapnames is $49
> for these
> spots. Consumer mentality has already shifted towards paying
> $49 for these
> spots. Most customers will not shift their mindset whether
> guaranteed 100%
> success or not. Now since the retail consumer is willing to pay $49 we
> Registrars must charge him $49 for the entire packge. No
> matter what all of
> you say I can challenge this that the retaiul price of this
> package will
> fall to $49 due to price wars amongst registrars.
> This means that each Registrar makes about $3 per
> subscription package sold
> (cost $40 plus $6 reg fee).
If and when there is an actual registration of a name from the WLS, the
$6 registration fee would be on top of the $49 WLS subscription fee.
However Verisign Registrar makes
> the whole $49
> as profit.
There are a couple inaccuracies with this statement. First of all, the
VeriSign Registrar, like every other register that might retail the
service for $49 would have a gross margin of $9 if the VGRS fee was $40;
the VeriSign Registrar will incur costs for offering this service so its
net profit before taxes would be $9 less its costs. Second, from VGRS'
perspective, we will incur significant implementation and ongoing
support costs in making the WLS available, so to assume that even a
large percentage of the proposed $40 registry fee is profit is way off,
let alone all $40; also, because we are proposing a one-year trial,
there is risk that we will not even recoop our investment costs if the
trial is ended after a year.
> This definetly does not create a level playing field for
> Registrars since
> this becomes one more LOW MARGIN product for us Registrars.
> Here is the best
> part -
> . In case of Domain Names the cost to Registrars was $6.
> Therefore if we
> sold at $8 and Verisign Registrar sold at $35 they were making larger
> profits, but at the same time losing a large number of
> customers, so most
> Registrars. Customers chose other Registrars as a lower cost option
> primarily because of this.
> . Now consider WLS. In case of WLS subscriptions Verisign
> Registrar themself
> can afford to match any pricepoint of other registrars.
> Having the highest
> visibility and brandname in the domain name market I dont see
> looking out for other options to buy WLS subscriptions from. Each WLS
> subscription gives Verisign Registry a good margin anyways.
> In the domain
> name market Verisign was the default monopoly due to Network
> solutions. That
> is being eroded today primarily because of lower price points
> and NO other
> reason (I would luv to see the monthly snapnames report if
> EVERY Registrar
> was charging $35 per name). Now in case of WLS subscriptions,
> Registrar can use their huge domain name base to effectively become a
> monopoly in WLS Subscriptions too. And here there will be no
> eroding of
> their market or distribution of the clients primarily because
> if Verisign
> Registrar wants they can MATCH the price point of other Registrars
> considering that the product effectively retails to the end
> customer at a
> $49 pricepoint today anyways
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Tel: 91-22-6370256 (4 lines)
> Fax: 91-22-6370255
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> > Behalf Of Rick H Wesson
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 1:44 AM
> > To: Registrars List
> > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrar Wait Listing Proposal
> > all:
> > It seems just about everyone had a problem with the M$ word
> doc, attached
> > is a PDF file for your review.
> > In the future I'll request that a PDF and Text version be
> available for
> > all proposals or formal communications that can't fit in
> the body of a
> > email.
> > again, sorry for the inconvience.
> > -rick
> > On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >
> > > Registrars:
> > >
> > > Please review the attached proposal as a replacement for
> the "overflow
> > > pools" some times referred to as the "Batch Delete Process."
> > >
> > > Chuck needs comments back to him by the Jan 18th. You may write
> > > him directly.
> > >
> > > I would also like this constituency to develop a consensus on this
> > > proposal and that we have a statement to VGRS by Jan 18th. We have
> > > scheduled a constituency call this month, I will see that
> this is on the
> > > agenda for that call.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > >