[sneak]

This smacks of "That doctor only spent five minutes in the room, and now he wants $200?!"

There is a lot of other value you're buying here - the selection of the name, the connection of the name and an aesthetic, the skills for which don't magically appear in people overnight.

Did you look at the site? Care and consideration has been exercised in the branding of these names, from colors to typography. If the "raw materials" are indeed $99 + $7.99, then $250 is a good deal for what amounts to 1.5-2 hours of skilled work to create this finished product.

[phillmv]

Most of these logos are poor, which means you're going to throw them out. That's all the service includes.

[This one](http://stylate.com/portfolio/sporous-com/) is just the domain name in a particular font. They don't even include rights to the font! That is bullshit.

I'm echoing the "lipstick on a pig glorifying domain squatting." These guys are like upscale spammers, or group buying discount sites.

[tptacek]

First, it's a logotype. Some of the world's most recognizable logos are, like this, logotypes.

Second, professional designers do not give you the rights to the typeface they use for their logotypes. You ask them, they obtain them, and then they invoice you the several hundred dollars the logotype cost them.

Third, why would you want the font used for this particular logo? It's a terrible display font. Its only value is in creating logotypes like this one.

I find this particular critique unfounded.

[phillmv]

>First, it's a logotype. Some of the world's most recognizable logos are, like this, logotypes.

I'm willing to accept this. Point to your favour.

>Third, why would you want the font used for this particular logo?

Because I might want to tweak it, resize it, use it on letterheads, put it on my business card, create sub products that follow the "brand style", etc. A vector drawing at the minimum is essential.

That said it's entirely moot because I took a look at their FAQ and:

>The logo is a simple mockup designed to feature the domain name but we do send it to you. We have professional logo designers that can tweak or redo the logo if you are interested. Just email us.

Eh. Glorified domain squatting. It makes you feel good about paying through the nose for bogus "intellectual property".

[alex_c]

Why is it moot? It's a simple logo and you can use it right away. Naming and branding has been a huge headache and/or cost on almost every project I've worked on. Picking something off the shelf that lets you get back to the more important work of building your product is a godsend. It's not for every project, but for smaller projects it's perfect.

[sneak]

Yes, and there's something to be said for "launch now, iterate later". A "good enough" domain/logotype is sufficient for an MVP.

[tptacek]

It's probably sufficient for the long run too. We fetishize this stuff in ways that real customers do not.

[rprasad]

Crucial point you are ignoring: if you do not have the rights to the font, then you do not have the rights to the derivative works based on the font.

A license to use an image does not necessarily include the license to use the elements making up the image.

[wildmXranat]

Value is in the domain name itself. There is no justification in defending domain parking. Like I said, offer the domain names at %80 off. That would still be a 600% markup on a $8 domain.

[larrys]

"There is a lot of other value you're buying here"

Something that has escaped many people who are in the habit of helping people for nothing is that their knowledge has value to others as a time saver among other things.

Back when NSI was essentially the "Internic" a living could be made by simply knowing how to submit a form to them to register a domain on behalf of a customer. If you (as an end user) wanted to take the time to learn how to do the same thing (which didn't require a medical school education of course) you could avoid those charges.