If you play in this space you have seen this model, again and again: "No! Not just one! Not just two! But a bazillion directories in our network!"
Some early versions that I saw used domain name iterations, as if that alone would make a difference.
I think the model has some validity, some legs, but that some models are better than others.
One approach that makes some sense is the aggregation model, where you buy an advertising placement in all directories in the network from an aggregator. For those attending PubCon it appears that one such "directory network" operator will be hosting a booth in LasVegas.
The "rub" of the directory network approach is this: Not getting traffic from 200 directories - or at least traffic that works/converts - is no different than getting traffic from 1 directory.
Also, if you run the same link-ad in multiple directories might that qualify as link spamming?
So, what's to be done with the model to make it better?
First off: Duplicate run of network ads likely is not the best approach.
Second: A network comprised of another generic ODP clone and another generic ODP clone and another . . . well, marginal, at best. Better to have focused directories.
Third: Need the directory "in the network" solely function as a directory? What about adding directories to the network that are actualy directories embedded in portals?
Fourth: What about a 2 tier approach to directory network advertising? Premium and run of networ? Obvious but "is it out there" yet?
It's an interesting model and, in time, link brokering for distribution across various networks will likely prove its mettle. Right now, the model is in it infancy and likely needs a bit of schooling.
[edited by: Webwork at 2:01 pm (utc) on Oct. 18, 2006]