This was a good read and true of me and many of us hit by Google Panda.
The Ugly Truth About Google Panda 2.5 (not a DR)
The Ugly Truth About Google Panda 2.5 (not a DR)
Google Panda Reveals a Flawed Business Model
- Thread starter 1yerrot
- Start date
"Anytime your traffic and business model is largely dependent upon one site you have absolutely no control over, you are playing with fire. AdSense is not a stable income solution, and it’s even more unstable when your AdSense earnings are mostly dependent upon your Google traffic."
^ Fucking THIS.
Yet all the supposed "enlightened" members here wet themselves over "bulletproof strategies" like these:
http://www.wickedfire.com/enlighten...post-easy-bulletproof-long-term-biz-plan.html
LOL WUT.
^ Fucking THIS.
Yet all the supposed "enlightened" members here wet themselves over "bulletproof strategies" like these:
http://www.wickedfire.com/enlighten...post-easy-bulletproof-long-term-biz-plan.html
LOL WUT.
The difference in Luke's case and many others is that they have hundreds of sites. So, if setup and done right it is VERY unlikely that EVERY site will be deindexed or penalized.
Anyone doing SEO is at the mercy of Google, even legit sites and big brands. It's all about how you diversify and limit your risk when talking about a LONG TERM business model.
Also if you do it right.. She was basically referring to those sitesell idiots with 10 page sites which have been ranking based on domain age... those sitesell sites have been there forever...
I will repeat again. It is not like google is blanking out the SERPs.. There still are 10 results for all keywords..
of course, there are the google places and brand terms, but other than that... there still are sites..
I will repeat again. It is not like google is blanking out the SERPs.. There still are 10 results for all keywords..
of course, there are the google places and brand terms, but other than that... there still are sites..
No matter how you rationalize it, when the vast majority of your traffic (and thus, revenue) is reliant on the whims of a single other company, it's not a "long term" business model.
And when your sole source of revenue comes from that same place, it's not even a "business model" at all. It's just suckling from that other company's teat.
TBH, I think people with sitesell likely average far more pages of content than the average website builder.
On another note, I've gotten far deeper into social media marketing and niche group marketing. I can't let Google own me even when things are going good. I've been getting crazy traffic to a couple sites from building facebook pages and keeping them updated and active.
Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? You know where 80% of ones business comes from 20% of their clients? Think about that for a second and tell me how that isn't the same thing?
So if your stats look like mine and most others...
75% from google
10% from Bing
10% from Yahoo
3% from direct
2% from referral
Then you are in the EXACT SAME boat as most companies who deal with the 80/20 rule!
The fact is, many businesses would be absolutely fucked if they lost their biggest and best client(s).
Everyone depends on some type of "traffic tit" anyway, the solution is to diversify.
For instance if scroogle, face and POF would go down I would be pretty much fucked. But what are the odds? And If they go down, always something else goes up.
For instance if scroogle, face and POF would go down I would be pretty much fucked. But what are the odds? And If they go down, always something else goes up.
My stats look nothing like that because I don't concentrate on SEO. Other than a little on-site optimization I don't generally mess with it.
What you're referring to is the pareto principle and doesn't really apply (apples to oranges) when your sole source of traffic is also your sole source of income. That's an all-your-eggs-are-in-one-basket rule.
What do you do Beach Affiliate? List? Social Media?
I've never gotten into the lists, but I want to look more into it.
Yes, I know what the principle is.
All your eggs in one basket would mean you only have 1 site and rely on that 1 site for all your traffic and income. That's entirely different then having 100 sites...
All your eggs in one basket would mean you only have 1 site and rely on that 1 site for all your traffic and income. That's entirely different then having 100 sites...
The point of my original post in this thread is not just people that get all their traffic from Google but also depend on it for their sole source of monetization.
Whether you have one site or one million sites, if you depend on a single entity for both traffic and monetization, you give up all control of your business, simple as that.
I have hundreds of sites (not all are money sites) and I dont rank ANY of them exactly the same way. To do so would be foolish and would also not allow you test different strategies to see what is working and what isnt.
Maybe others do it differently... I cant speak for them!
If you don't mess with SEO then you yourself are guilty of not diversifying enough.
I don't depend on google, they account for a large amount of traffic sure but I'd still be able to live if all my sites got deindexed tomorrow. That being said, when one company controls 80% of search and search dominates the internet landscape (I'm talking about both paid and organic traffic) then there isn't much you can do.
Well, I agree with the monetization part for sure... I dont agree with the traffic portion!
Not true. My traffic comes from PPC, direct media buys, affiliates, and offline media purchases.
I control each and every traffic source. I can turn them on and off at will.
The only time I concentrate on SEO is for a term that I know converts well over time. To do otherwise is a waste of time, period.
There's plenty you can do: don't depend on them. Simple as that.
WTF you talkin' bout willis? Put down the crack pipe. There are sites making a million dollars a month and not 1% of their traffic comes from a SERP. Google is so 12 seconds ago. I don't know any successful direct marketers that rely on Google any more ...