TalkFreelance relisted on Flippa

Dante - I think there is confusion, the marketing rights are to promote a new SEO product that we have been working on not a competeing website, so the McDonalds analogy would be closer to them promoting Disney films when you visit their restaurants.

Originally Posted by willb Dante - I think there is confusion, the marketing rights are to promote a new SEO product that we have been working on not a competeing website, so the McDonalds analogy would be closer to them promoting Disney films when you visit their restaurants.

Last I checked the TFL title included SEO.

Yes TFL is the place to discuss SEO, but what we want to promote is a tool that will make certain aspects of SEO easier for site owners and not a forum for discussing SEO.

I can see that some people might think that we would use the links to promote SSS, I can confirm that this is not the case and this can be demonstrated by the fact that we could easily carry out that marketing now whilst we have full control of the site.

One option would be not to sell TFL until we have comleted the marketing and this might still be the case if the auction does not generate a high enough bid, but I think that as we are still unsure of the exact launch date for the product TFL would benefit from having a new owner sooner rather than later.

I hope this helps to explain why we want some marketing rights retained.

Whether the future product is relevant or not should not matter in the slightest, you either sell the whole site or not at all. This will be reflected in the bids anyway.

From what you've said, willb, you're either going to not attract many bids due to the ridiculous clause, or you will wait too long to sell it and risk the site not being worth much at all after the site has fell further.

The logical thing to do is to sell the site in its entirety now, make some money and promote your new product the same way as everyone else (using the sale proceeds to give you a decent start).

Refusing to sell because nobody agrees to your terms is only going to hamper your own and TF's potential progress.

Is the $5,000 price reflective of you paying for 3 months worth of advertising on Talkfreelance once it's sold?

No, the current bid of $5,000 is for as it is described with the retained marketing rights.

Any idea who the current bidder of $5000 is? Very curious.

Originally Posted by willb Dante - I think there is confusion, the marketing rights are to promote a new SEO product that we have been working on not a competeing website, so the McDonalds analogy would be closer to them promoting Disney films when you visit their restaurants.

A quick view of the forum topics area on the SEO web site clearly indicates overlap of subject matter between it and TFL. That site also targets an audience that is absolutely related to the target audience here at TFL.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or argumentative....I'm simply giving you my perspective on this, as if I were a potential buyer. This would be a complete deal breaker for me guys....And I'm speaking as someone who once owned a community forum that generated 30 GB/month in traffic, and as someone well aware of how difficult it is to not only grow a forum, but maintain one as well.

With similar subject matter, and a common audience, I would be completely turned off by the idea that after I pay you $5,000 for the web site, that I'd be expected to take actions that would potentially risk steering my inherited audience away from the site I just bought.

I really believe you guys should re-think this position of yours, but that is only my opinion. Do with it what you wish.

Originally Posted by Jeff Andersen Any idea who the current bidder of $5000 is? Very curious.

Someone affiliated with the sale most likely bid to get more for the auction, since nobody has a large interest.

Originally Posted by Patrick Someone affiliated with the sale most likely bid to get more for the auction, since nobody has a large interest.

Can't say that wasn't what I was thinking when I posted that