Hello - Another Website Buyer Here

[Clinton]

I used to think that too, Kay, i.e. that there's a demand for templates so those selling plain ol' templates without hype or fakery must be good guys.

To compete in the Flippa marketplace even those sellers you may consider "genuine" need to build into their offering the kind of "incentives" that persuade buyers to bid. These may take the form of hype in the listing, but it's not limited to hype. It could include site age (building on a previously expired domain), link profile, post-sale consultancy .... a million other things all of which are either directly or indirectly deceptive. Even the regular seller of templates - the "good guy" who makes no claims about potential or revenue - has mastered the art of minor tweaks to design to give the impression of uniqueness, learned the art of rehashing of copyrighted text; some even insert malicious Adsense-hijacking code in the design and so can afford to sell at a very low price and without any hype.

Any seller not playing the game properly has little chance of success in that competitive environment. Why would he continue listing sites instead of finding a more profitable occupation?

[petertdavis]

Clinton is dead on with this one Kay. There are no made for Flippa sites that are even remotely a good investment. It's fairly easy to rule them out, though. If a site has been created within the last few months, or if the seller is either new (usually from a third world country) or a habitual seller, you should just disregard their listings wholesale.

Not that all new sellers are bad, but the ones from places like Pakistan and Indonesia are best to be avoided. Some of them will mask their geo-location within Flippa to trick you into thinking they're in the US or UK, but you can often pick those out by the language they use.

No, it isn't true that 90% of these listings are fraudulent, 100% of them are. I challenge anyone to show me a made for Flippa site that is a good investment. You can't because it's not.

[crabfoot]

some even insert malicious Adsense-hijacking code in the design and so can afford to sell at a very low price and without any hype.

If you can spot that dodgy code, it might be a sign that the traffic will not go away after you have bought the site and neutered the dodgy code...

[Kay]

I challenge anyone to show me a made for Flippa site that is a good investment.

Whether something is a good investment or not depends on the buyer, how they value it, and what return they can get from it, therefore much of it depends on the price of the MFF. There have been times I've been tempted to go for one because, assuming I could get it for the price I was willing to pay, it would offer me a cheaper option to achieve something I wanted to do. I know it would be very rare to find a worthwhile MFF, but I don't think you can justify saying that something is 100% bad if you don't know the price. What's a bad investment at one price could be a good investment at another price.

Whilst I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy an MFF, I would consider buying one myself. After all, at the right price, it might be quicker for me to buy it ready made than to build it myself from scratch. As it turns out, though, the price has never been right and the seller always had a reserve higher than I was willing to pay for the package.

Also there's a big difference between what's a bad investment and what's fraudulent. Can you please explain why you allege that 100% of MFF listings are fraudulent? On what basis are they fraudulent?

[KenW3]

Please help. I would very much like to know a full and specific definition for the MFF acronym; This may aid discussion.

Whether something is a good investment or not depends on the buyer, how they value it, and what return they can get from it, therefore much of it depends on the price <clip>

I agree. I clipped the subordinate clause, of the MFF, because I do not perceive the reply to be about MFF sites. This opinion appears to be specific to starter sites and turnkeys, which are sometimes quite useful for specific purposes.

There are no made for Flippa sites that are even remotely a good investment. It's fairly easy to rule them out, though. If a site has been created within the last few months, or if the seller is either new (usually from a third world country) or a habitual seller, you should just disregard their listings wholesale.

Peter Sir, Is it possible a site that has been created in the past few months may have value? If so, there must be more to it. It's difficult to rationalize 100% of MFF sites being bad, so I am certain I am lacking a comprehensive definition of the type. It must be something well beyond a turnkey, infinitely worse than a hyped vanilla PLR installation. On a side thought, I fully believe Flippa's refusal to block IPs wholesale and the country problem is killing Flippa growth.

To compete in the Flippa marketplace even those sellers you may consider "genuine" need to build into their offering the kind of "incentives" that persuade buyers to bid. These may take the form of hype in the listing, but it's not limited to hype.

While they may be difficult to find, there has to be one honest seller of turnkeys and starter sites? I typically take statements like those as challenges to address an un-served market. Does someone need to start supplying an honest form of... and here, once again, I am unable to complete the thought because insertion of the MFF acronym as a site type needs disambiguation.

[Clinton]

MFF = Made For Flippa. Site created for the express purpose of being sold in the Flippa marketplace. It's about intent of the seller when he created the site. Templates are the less dangerous MFF as there are fewer frauds that can be perpetrated - rip-off design, IP violating domain, history of spamming / illegal content, malicious code etc. With the MFF sites being sold as businesses i.e. with any claims about traffic or revenue, don't even bother reading the listing!

Can you please explain why you allege that 100% of MFF listings are fraudulent?

While I'm waiting for Peter to reply, I'll make you an offer: Find me one MFF listed by a frequent seller that's not fraudulent in any way, shape or form ... and I'll spend the time to prove you're wrong about that listing. This includes all starters and turnkeys, Ken. I can't say that every single MFF is fraudulent for the simple reason that I haven't evaluated every single MFF. But the logic in my last post still holds: any MFF seller not playing the dirty tricks game won't last long and won't become a frequent seller. Among the frequent sellers there is no doubt some of them consider themselves good guys and try to operate in a more open and ethical way than others, but that's "open" and "ethical" by their standards. 100% of their listings should be fraudulent in some way. It might be the wording of the listing, it might be the dupe accounts shill bidding.... fraud takes many forms.

If you can spot that dodgy code, it might be a sign that the traffic will not go away after you have bought the site and neutered the dodgy code

That might seem logical, but insertion of the code by the seller is not necessarily an indication that he expects the traffic to continue; it's more a hope that traffic will eventually be developed by the new owner. The one-off seller selling his hobby site - a site with long-term traffic prospects - is unlikely to even know about this code.

[DomainMagnate]

While I'm waiting for Peter to reply, I'll make you an offer: Find me one MFF listed by a frequent seller that's not fraudulent in any way, shape or form ... and I'll spend the time to prove you're wrong about that listing. This includes all starters and turnkeys, Ken. I can't say that every single MFF is fraudulent for the simple reason that I haven't evaluated every single MFF. But the logic in my last post still holds: any MFF seller not playing the dirty tricks game won't last long and won't become a frequent seller. Among the frequent sellers there is no doubt some of them consider themselves good guys and try to operate in a more open and ethical way than others, but that's "open" and "ethical" by their standards. 100% of their listings should be fraudulent in some way. It might be the wording of the listing, it might be the dupe accounts shill bidding.... fraud takes many forms.

Allow me to disagree, to a certain degree. While there are indeed plenty of outright scams and fraudulent listings, it largely depends on how they are presented.
If someone sells a new turnkey website for $150 claiming that it will start making $500 per month in no time with just a little bit of work - that's obvious BS. But when someone sells that same turnkey site for $150 and presents it as it is - a new website with no revenue and some suggestions and advice on how to promote it, this can be a good opportunity for someone new to this to learn from and get a better understanding of how everything works - there is nothing fraudulent about that.
However it's true that it's a lot harder to sell a turnkey site without misrepresenting it's stats.

[Clinton]

DM, good point. Keep the punters looking at just the lack of the more obvious hype/BS in the listing and they'll miss all the other cons.

Do you think you'd have trouble coming up with some examples of MFF listings from frequent sellers - note my persistent distinguishing of the regular sellers from the one-offs - that are not fraudulent in any way, shape or form? Give us preferably examples where the auction has completed (to allow for spotting shill bidding and other shenanigans).

[Kay]

Clinton, I don't think it's fair to make this "challenge" public. If anyone takes you up on it then they're obliged to put what's their own business under public scrutiny and have all and sundry gawking at at it. If it turns out to be a good deal, then most likely the one who spotted it and accepts your challenge will end up not getting the site they want. Also, it could lead to a lot of attention and publicity for a listing. Good or bad publicity, it doesn't matter. It could become "most watched" and gain kudos from that.

I won't accept your challenge for that reason. However, I am always keen to learn. That's why I ask questions even at the risk of looking like a newbie or looking stupid. I am willing to do this privately if you give your word, as I will, that we'll report back about the outcome. Not in terms of any specific sites or sellers but in terms of our approach and whether all MFFs are bad news.

[Thomas]

Why has this thread been turned into a discussion on cheapo MFF sites? Surely more specific questions regarding what Phil is looking for would be more constructive (budget, skills, time commitment) rather than another unproductive thread complaining about turnkey site sellers? IMO that part of the thread should be split. The constant negativity around here rarely offers any constructive suggestions to a first time buyer like Phil.

My questions to you, Phil:

- What is a comfortable budget for your first acquisition?
- What are you good at/skills?
- What time do you have available?
- Any particular moral/religious etc. requirements? (e.g. adult, gambling)
- Timeframe you are working to?

I often find that buyers who spend a lot of time researching can take years (if ever) to pull the trigger as they get paranoid about potential issues. My usual advice is jump head first into an acquisition of a comfortable size and learn "on the job". You can read all the theory you like, but until you've actually invested your own cash and lost (or gained) from a deal, you'll never properly learn. I have read almost everything industry related over the last ~6 years and learned more from acquisitions I made personally than all of the articles and deals I've brokered (~200) put together.