The costly mistake of setting BIN prices without regard to comparable sales

In domain name investing, few decisions carry as much weight as the price attached to a domain. A “Buy It Now” or BIN price has the potential to either maximize the value of an asset or undermine it completely. The BIN option, often displayed prominently on marketplaces, is designed to simplify the purchase process for buyers by offering a fixed, immediate acquisition price. The challenge is that many investors set these prices arbitrarily, based on gut feeling, wishful thinking, or personal attachment to a domain, without considering the concrete evidence provided by comparable sales data. This mistake can be costly in two distinct ways: by scaring off potential buyers with unrealistic pricing or by leaving substantial money on the table through undervaluation.

The danger of overpricing is the more obvious of the two. A BIN price that is wildly higher than market norms for similar domains sends the wrong signal to buyers. Instead of sparking curiosity or negotiation, it conveys that the seller is disconnected from reality, making it less likely that a buyer will even initiate contact. End users, especially businesses exploring branding options, often research comparable acquisitions before making a purchase. If they see that two-word .coms in their industry generally sell for $5,000 to $15,000, but a seller has priced theirs at $75,000 without justification, they are likely to move on. The result is that the domain sits unsold for years, accruing renewal fees and giving the investor a false sense of holding a high-value asset when in fact it is simply overpriced.

On the other end of the spectrum lies the equally damaging mistake of underpricing. Investors who set BIN prices without consulting comparable sales may inadvertently sell premium assets for a fraction of their worth. This often happens when a seller is eager for liquidity, relies on automated appraisals, or lacks knowledge of recent sales data. A memorable one-word .com or a strong industry-relevant keyword might easily command six figures in the right circumstances, yet some investors list such names for a few thousand dollars, only to watch them resell later at exponentially higher prices. The sting of seeing a buyer flip a name for ten or twenty times the original BIN price is one of the hardest lessons in domain investing, and it almost always stems from neglecting the guidance provided by comparable transactions.

The emotional factor also plays a role in poor BIN pricing. Investors often develop personal attachments to certain names, convincing themselves that their domain is unique or special beyond what the market indicates. This leads to inflated pricing that has little basis in reality. While every domain is indeed unique in the literal sense, the market evaluates them relative to alternatives. A buyer looking for a name in the health, finance, or tech sector is unlikely to overpay drastically for one option when numerous comparable alternatives exist at more reasonable prices. Ignoring the competitive landscape and anchoring to emotional valuation distances the BIN price from actual demand, creating an illusion of value without any market validation.

Comparable sales serve as one of the most reliable benchmarks for pricing because they reflect real-world transactions between actual buyers and sellers. Databases like NameBio and reports from marketplaces regularly showcase thousands of sales across extensions, keyword categories, and industries. By analyzing this data, investors can identify patterns: what types of names sell most frequently, what price ranges dominate certain niches, and how buyers are valuing particular characteristics such as length, memorability, and brandability. For example, short two-word .coms with broad commercial appeal may consistently close between $3,000 and $15,000. Ignoring this range and assigning a BIN of $50,000 on a similar quality name without a strong reason is more likely to result in inactivity than in a windfall sale.

Another important factor is timing. Comparable sales reveal not only what prices are typical but also how trends shift over time. For instance, the rising popularity of .io and .ai domains in the technology sector has significantly increased average sale prices in those extensions. Without awareness of these shifts, an investor may underprice assets that are riding a wave of growing demand. Similarly, failing to notice cooling trends in other extensions or niches can lead to overpricing and stagnation. Comparable sales act as a living snapshot of market sentiment, and disregarding them when setting BIN prices blinds an investor to evolving realities.

The consequences of ignoring comparables extend beyond individual transactions. When portfolios are filled with names priced inconsistently or irrationally, they fail to generate consistent cash flow. Investors rely on occasional sales to cover renewals and fund new acquisitions, but overpriced portfolios create dry spells that stretch for years. Meanwhile, undervalued sales prevent the compounding growth necessary to expand strategically. The cumulative effect of repeated pricing errors can mean the difference between long-term profitability and financial stagnation.

Setting a BIN price without comparables also undermines negotiation strategy. Buyers often interpret BINs as signals of how flexible a seller might be. A BIN far above market value suggests stubbornness, reducing the likelihood of offers. Conversely, a BIN well below potential value leaves no room for negotiation and cuts off the possibility of achieving a higher price through back-and-forth discussions. Comparable sales provide the anchor that helps set reasonable expectations on both sides, creating a zone where negotiation feels fair and productive rather than lopsided or unrealistic.

Professional investors recognize that BIN pricing is as much an art as it is a science. While comparables cannot provide an exact formula, they frame the decision-making process within reality. A strong BIN price reflects both the uniqueness of the domain and the evidence of what similar names have sold for. It considers not only keyword relevance but also buyer psychology, industry trends, and liquidity needs. By grounding prices in market data, sellers signal credibility to buyers and position themselves for faster, more profitable transactions.

Ignoring comparables, on the other hand, is essentially ignoring the voice of the market. It replaces evidence with guesswork and leads to portfolios filled with either overpriced assets that never sell or underpriced names that are snapped up and flipped by savvier players. In an industry where margins can be thin and patience is often tested, the discipline of aligning BIN prices with real-world transactions is not optional but essential. Setting prices in a vacuum may feel empowering in the moment, but over time it erodes profitability, credibility, and opportunity.

In the end, the lesson is clear: BIN pricing is not about what the seller hopes or imagines but about what the market has already demonstrated it is willing to pay. Comparable sales are the compass that guides investors through the uncertainties of valuation, offering both a reality check and a roadmap. Ignoring them is not just a minor oversight but a fundamental error that can sabotage both individual deals and entire portfolios. Those who study and respect market data stand a far greater chance of turning domains into profitable assets, while those who disregard it risk clinging to unsold names or regretting the ones they sold too cheaply.

In domain name investing, few decisions carry as much weight as the price attached to a domain. A “Buy It Now” or BIN price has the potential to either maximize the value of an asset or undermine it completely. The BIN option, often displayed prominently on marketplaces, is designed to simplify the purchase process for…