|Yahoo Inclusion / Directory / Overture|
Help me make sense of things
| 6:42 pm on Mar 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK, so a normal Overture account will provide premium listings for anywhere from $.10 to $10.00 + / per click.
A Yahoo directory listing is $299.00 that provides the following benefits:
1) A directory entry, if approved
2) A re-stated title and description to match the directory entry if the root page shows up in the serps.
Yahoo paid inclusion offers 24-48 hour refreshes for $10/page (beyond 11) + $.15 to $.30 a click.
A page which pays will supposedly not be penalized, but there is no written guarantee, and it has happened to people in the past on other engines.
So... PPC sponsored listings are the way to go if it's less than $.30/click or $.15/click for a top 3 spot.
Then there's the other service of bulk inclusion using XML and paying $.45? / click - but with that there is no per-url fee.
Do I have this right? It seems that there are so many options it's difficult to ascertain which is a good place to put money.
Here's a question. My web site has 3,000 + pages, but 2950 of those pages are dedicated to images, about 50 are text pages with good content. Would I even be considered for a bulk account since in reality my site is 50 pages and not 3000?
| 4:31 am on Mar 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm answering my own question here - for others to gain from.
I sent several e-mails to positiontech, both directly and through their contact form for more information about their XML bulk inclusion programs. They never called. I called today, and the person who I eventually worked with was VERY rude.
The question that I wanted to ask specifically was:
I have about 50 pages of content, plus another 3500 (this number grows rapidly) or so of image pages that I put up on the web as part of our service. With this situation, would I qualify for bulk inclusion service?
The answer is no.
The answer that I received from Evelynn was quite rude, though. She went off on me asking why I would want to include a bunch of pages with almost no text. Well, people search for these kinds of images all of the time, and my clients would like it if their family members and friends would be able to find their images easily. The point is that I shouldn't have to explain myself or my business to PositionTech or any search engine for that matter. A simple "no" would have been nice, or at most a polite explanation as to why this situation would not qualify.
I've been happy with PT's service thus far, except for the wierd change they put in last week without any notice. But now that I've had to deal with a real person there, I must say that I would NEVER use their service again.
| 2:41 pm on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Addressing your first post, I think you summed it up perfectly. There are a bunch of ways in now, and I think people now need to work out how much each click is worth per keyword and choose the most viable option.
For example, for a site that primarily gets traffic from long phrases that only have a couple of clicks a week, it might be worth it to use the PFI program. However, if you estimate your site will receive a lot of clicks, the directory may be a more cost effective way in (the disadvantage being that the directory title and description will be used in the SERP's, and these tend not to be marketable).
Large sites would find trusted feed to be more cost effective.