Do the owners of Marketplaces have a responsibility?

[flipfilter]

In the last few days, I've began to write a whole lot of blog posts that I can schedule to "autoblog" (the proper way - not with crappy robot content).

One of the articles is looking at original ideas for sites outside of just blogs with a little video and an ebook. This is price and due diligence aside and based purely on the design and concept itself.

I came across these

http://www.websitebroker.com/site-de...999965644.html

and

http://www.websitebroker.com/site-de...teId=999972124

Both good designs and good content and I thought "great, finally we're seeing a turnaround at Website Broker". But then I look at the price for what's essentially a starter site and it's clear we've got two new candidates for crack smoking seller of the day! This isn't unusual for this particular site.

My question is, would this put you off using WB as a serious place to look for deals? Or rather, if you owned a marketplace, would it make sense to have a quality policy on pricing, to reject sites based on the owner putting crazy valuations like this on their sites?

Justin

[Clinton]

WB is moving in the opposite direction to Flippa - both are headed for the edge of the table if they keep going.

There was a time WB had high end sites (albeit with a slightly optimistic valuation). And Flippa had low end sites.

Now there are mutterings around showing people have finally caught up with what we've been saying on these forums all along: Flippa has gone down market with the sheer quantity of junk "templates" littering the marketplace.

And it looks like WB has found a way to do similar littering in their own market.

Or rather, if you owned a marketplace, would it make sense to have a quality policy on pricing, to reject sites based on the owner putting crazy valuations like this on their sites?

It depends on your business model. Flippa would go bust if it rejected crap sites.

[benitez17]

The quality at Website Broker has dropped off significantly in the last few months. I used to assume that someone was screening the submissions and making sure that the sites listed there were decent (unlike this one that I see listed almost every day and have a personal dislike for because of a run-in I had with the owner when he was trying to sell this crap on Flippa), but I have only seen one site listed there this year that I was really interested in, and the contact information for that site was bogus. Pretty much very listing there has some flaw, whether is it an absurd price, make up traffic or revenue, it is a crappy template site, or the seller doesn't respond. Of course, I could say almost the same thing about Flippa.

There are webite brokers out there who I assume are doing fine by focusing on higher end sites, like Website Properties and Quiet Light Brokerage, so it is possible.

[Alastair]

It depends on your business model. Flippa would go bust if it rejected crap sites.

But surely its in their best interests to vet the sites and reject the worst, if the site gets to swamped with crap (as it seems close to getting) I'd have though it likely to have a detrimental effect on the number of high value - and more profitable - listings they can attract?

As someone who is looking to buy a site it's quite infuriating.

[flipfilter]

unlike this one that I see listed almost every day and have a personal dislike for

I can second that. Whenever I'm running blackbox testing I always see the site appear as by the numbers alone it looks incredibly appealing and then as you the listing you're left thinking WTF! I'm on the verge of writing in a script just to block that url as it keeps reappearing.

It's a shame as I've been routing for WB from the beginning and want them to be good. They've got the age, the design is adequate and with some human intervention it could really be a formidable competitor to Flippa but at this rate they've got no chance. When I created FF, the whole idea was about bringing together sites from different sources but as it stands I feel like it's just the Flippa show.

Clinton - The market seems to be split between starter site lovers and erm...the rest. Maybe best solution to keep everybody happy would be to split the marketplace into starter sites (or lets just call a spade a spade - templates) and established websites for sale?

Maybe someone will run with the torch and create the next template monster

[Clinton]

Alastair, would you prefer to screen sites and list 10 sites at month at $19 that pay $5K in success fees ..or not screen and list 500-1000 sites @ $19 each i.e. $10K-$20K even without counting the success fees? Flippa has chosen the latter.

I admit that screening would be difficult. But, they went in the other direction and heavily promoted the listing of cheap templates. And they did it because there's money in that muck. It's infuriating to you but you still go there, don't you? And in the meanwhile they aren't complaining about the huge profits pouring in.

Sure, this priority for them has an impact on what quality sites they attract to the marketplace. One of Luke's first posts here was about how to attract quality sites to the marketplace and we told him then that focusing on the junk wasn't going to help.

They're very proud of the retweet sale that went through the flippa marketplace at over $200K but the fact is that those are becoming rarer and rarer. The previous marketplace at Sitepoint used to get more of these premium sites. Now the owners of these sites cringe at listing on Flippa. I know because several of them have spoken to me/asked for advice via PMs/emails. So while Flippa is very proud of the retweet sale, the fact that there's only ever been one like that is a damning indictment of Flippa.

Maybe best solution to keep everybody happy would be to split the marketplace into starter sites...

Justin, it's been suggested to Flippa in other threads by me, by benitez17 and others. But even a market for starter sites doesn't deserve to exist if it's based on the cons that Flippa seems keen to perpetuate.

[benitez17]

But surely its in their best interests to vet the sites and reject the worst, if the site gets to swamped with crap (as it seems close to getting) I'd have though it likely to have a detrimental effect on the number of high value - and more profitable - listings they can attract?

As someone who is looking to buy a site it's quite infuriating.

Websitebroker.com makes the same amount for listing a junk site as they do for a high quality business. Flippa has the same listing fee for all sites, and the success fee has a pretty low cap. Because of this, they don't care about the quality of a site listed for sale. I agree that they should (and I think they could if they wanted to and still have a profitable business), but it would require giving up a lot of revenue. Basically, rejecting sites will hurt their revenues, and it would increase their expenses because they would have to have someone competent review the listings.

Flippa's entire business model is based on getting as many people as possible to list sites. Since there aren't that many quality sites for sale on any given day with owners who want to navigate the sales process themselves, and they don't have the ability to provide any support like a broker would to attract interest in the site, it means that they are reliant on hyping up the potential of turnkey sites and getting as many listings from that as they can.

[benitez17]

Clinton, I would rather own or work on a site that had 5 - 10 quality listings a day at $50 (i.e. the Premium Sites section of the Sitepoint Marketplace) than the cesspool of useless turnkey sites, scams, and overpriced listings that Flippa has become. If a website marketplace had $250 per day coming in on average, the owner could easily afford to pay someone to spend a couple hours per day to have someone review the listings and make sure that they seem legit and are a site that would be of interest to website buyers.

I agree that Flippa has too much overhead in its current form for this to work, but it doesn't have to be that way. The overhead for keeping the lights on is essentially zero ($10 per day for hosting at most), and staff costs are variable if you contract out coding and support. I don't want to derail this thread, because I have made my opinion on Flippa's business model and their excuses for it very clear, but I'd like to see what others think about alternative models.

[Alastair]

Alastair, would you prefer to screen sites and list 10 sites at month at $19 that pay $5K in success fees ..or not screen and list 500-1000 sites @ $19 each i.e. $10K-$20K even without counting the success fees? Flippa has chosen the latter.

I admit that screening would be difficult. But, they went in the other direction and heavily promoted the listing of cheap templates. And they did it because there's money in that muck. It's infuriating to you but you still go there, don't you? And in the meanwhile they aren't complaining about the huge profits pouring in.

When you add numbers into the mix then I guess it does make sense. But I can't help feel that heavily promoted the listing of cheap templates is a bit short sited, especially as has been pointed out they are beginning to attract more high end sellers.

Maybe there is a need for a market place where buyers pay more of a % of the success fee where sites are vetted and some basic DD is performed. As an inexperienced buyer I'd be happier to offset the risk with a higher fee.

[TrustButVerify]

But then I look at the price for what's essentially a starter site and it's clear we've got two new candidates for crack smoking seller of the day! This isn't unusual for this particular site.

A term, near and dear to my heart...

There seems to be a crack epidemic out there these days.