I was at a prominent internet startup event in New York City last November, where one of the guest speakers was Justin Day, the Chief Technology Officer of huge web success story, blip.tv. He said that one should NOT build a web business with the goal of selling it, using himself and his friends as successful prototypes of that philosophy.

Blip.tv hosts the independent web shows of tens of thousands and is valued at over US$3billion. So they definitely are successful and power to Day and the rest of his team.

But they are geeks...

And the reason I mention this is because my belief is that the answer to the question: "to build to sell, or not?" is: "it depends who you are"!

Day is somebody who comes from a technological background, as does Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and many other web success stories. These guys, and I employ over a dozen of their type at KAYWEB (websites & apps company in New York, Sydney, Melbourne and Manila), are stimulated by a technological challenge.

Coding to them is like ice cream to a child, like cocaine to Tony Montana, like beer to Homer Simpson, like sex to Russell Brand, and like pizza to me.

Mastering the code of an internet project is achievement enough to most of these types. Therefore "building to sell" is the farthest thing from their minds.

The rest of us who are likely to be involved in web projects are entrepreneurs. For us, our programmers mastering the code is just the start. We want to have fun, and make money so we have more fun, with more projects and challenges.

Web business projects like YouTube, LinkedIn and Groupon will make money and scale to a degree. But the reason they get acquired by larger companies, or have a strategy to go public, is because that is where the bulk of their reward for an outstanding web project will come.

An entrepreneur can only take a business so far. There will always come a time that someone larger, better-equipped should take over and pay top dollar for that right.

For our types, "building to sell" is not such a bad idea, as you would plan your growth and sell at the right time, having assessed all your options.

Again, my answer to the question: "to build to sell, or not?" is: "it depends who you are"!

I had an interesting experience the other day. A client recently at KAYWEB called me and said:

"Haig, my business associate told me that I don't need the website I have commissioned you to build for my business. I can apparently simply create a Facebook page and bring in business in droves. And it's free!"

Having done business with hundreds of small business owners and entrepreneurs over the years, my attitude to all questions is to treat them with respect. The internet is a "newer" industry and assuming a level of knowledge in your clients is never advisable, as it will lead to important pieces of information not being passed on.

My response was:

"A Facebook page or presence on any social network is a wonderful way to spread your message as a business. But your website IS your message. It is your shopfront, where if someone comes to buy milk, you can also convince that customer to buy some bread and junk food."

A Facebook page is a great way to bring people to your website; your virtual shopfront and convert these people to paying customers and clients.

It is true that my company KAYWEB designs and develops websites, but please take this blog as advice rather than a sales pitch :)

The auDA Domain Names Policy Panel discussion paper and survey has been released and I encourage all domain name owners in Australia to take part and ensure you become part of the .au domain space policy-setting process.

You are asked your opinion on issues that concern you, such as the push by some (including myself) to have the 2-year minimum/maximum domain registration period extended to allow 1 year to 5 year registrations of .com.au domain names, like other countries allow.

Please click here and complete the survey BEFORE 21 January.

Groupon is one of the most profitable and definitely one of the fastest-growing internet businesses. But it is not operational in Australia under its globally recognisable brand because of a dispute.

groupon.com is a website where you visit, enter your locality, and receive an 'offer of the day'. This deal can also be emailed to you.

Providers of the deals range from corner stores to major retail and service chains. They know that Groupon has massive reach, therefore they offer a significant discount, expecting large 'group buying' to ensue. And it often does.

Groupon accept a share of all sales, and have pocketed a reported US$800million over the last year. The company also reportedly rejected a US$6billion offer from Google.

A representative recently revealed in a Groupon blog that the reason they are not operational in Australia, in their most typical form, is because of 'domain squatters' owning the domain name groupon.com.au. Moreover, the same individuals have a Groupon 'clone' website (scoopon.com.au) and have registered the Groupon Trademark in Australia days before the real Groupon people acted to do the same.

Groupon, in all their wisdom, offered US$286,000 to Messrs Gabby and Hezi Leibovitch (the brothers who own Scoopon, Groupon.com.au and the Groupon Trademark in Australia). In exchange, Groupon wanted the domain name and the Trademark. The Leibovitches agreed. Now they have changed their minds and apparently want to sell Scoopon as part of the deal.

Groupon have now started trading in Australia under another name and website: stardeals.com.au. They have also begun legal action against the Scoopon people.

Despite this, they say that the US$286,000 offer is still on the table.

I feel for Groupon.

Domain Squatters and people who deliberately go out of their way to ride on the back of growing enterprises like Groupon for a quick buck should not be condoned. It is not best practice, yet it is very prominent in the web industry.

I also criticise Groupon for offering this duo money in the first place.

If the Leibovitches broke the law, and Groupon want to criticise them for doing that, they cannot simultaneously offer them a reward for the alleged illegal act.

It is rewarding the perpetrator and it is sending mixed messages to potential supporters about what you really stand for.

Does Groupon stand for business legitimacy and doing no evil? Or does Groupon cave for the sake of a quicker resolution to a trademark dispute and .com.au domain name?

The fact that Groupon's representative stated that the US$286,000 is STILL on the table for the men they call 'domain squatters' is wrong.

Make a stand. Or don't. But don't do both!

In 2010, Twitter rose further up the prominence ladder due to the influence he micro-blogging social network began to have on public discourse in various countries.

• Hollywood Box Office successes (e.g. Inception, The Social Network) and failures (countless) were attributed to poor Twitter reviews;
• As were certain election results in Australia (Federal) and the United States (mid-terms);
• More celebrities (e.g. Steve Martin) and people of influence (Hugo Chavez, Bill Gates) joined Twitter;
• Television programs broadcast Twitter feeds (e.g. Q & A);
• And events (e.g. Chile Mine Disaster, Gulf Oil Spill, FIFA World Cup) were given true attention from citizen journalists around the world.