homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.62.132
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 157 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >     
Our First Layoffs in 8 Years - google referrals are down 50-70%
wingslevel




msg:3281126
 11:45 pm on Mar 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

We have laid off three full time employees - our shipping department has been closing early - we have put 2 new server purchases on hold (oh, and i told the wife to keep driving that old car for another year)

We have been at this since 1998 and have ecomm sites with over 200,000 products - no affiliate, adsense, reciprocals, purchased links, local issues or black hat. We have 1,000's of natural inbound links. Repeat customers represent over 50% of our sales. 6 pageviews per visit (not bad for ecomm). We were never touched by any of the major updates (ie Florida etc.).

We have been absolutely bludgeoned in the last couple of months - google organic referrals are down 50-70% (depending on which hour you check). Most all of our losses have come from our long tail keywords.

Obviously this isn't just an everflux spike or a silly mistake some young engineer made. It's clear that google actually thinks that they have improved the index. With this in mind, I have started issuing the pink slips.

A sad day for me....

 

Keniki




msg:3283308
 12:47 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Have small companies been caught up in something bigger than we minnions understand (like corrupt search results) yes.

europeforvisitors




msg:3283309
 12:51 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google is not a sound business partner - it is fickle and schizophrenic.

Google Search isn't a business partner, period. It's a search engine, and its mission has nothing to do with putting money in our pockets.

netmeg




msg:3283310
 12:51 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Whitey - are you sure you directed your response to the right person? That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Reno




msg:3283313
 12:53 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is anyone prepared to argue the case for some type of regualtion of web search?

In general I think it's best to keep government intervention to an absolute minimum. But I would point out:

[1] Google overwhelmingly dominates the search field;

[2] E-commerce is now an essential part of the economy of the USA and other countries as well;

[3] A huge number of e-com businesses depend on search for a significant percentage of their sales income;

[4] The essence of Google's business is highly secretive (the algo);

[5] When they change that secret algo the results are unpredictable and can potentially damage many ecom businesses, in some cases, seriously damage them (wingslevel being just one example);

[6] They justify this behavior by saying the essence of their business must remain secretive and therefore they cannot be expected to provide to the injured parties any kind of advance warning;

[7] They also have no real channels of responsive communication, so the injured parties have no where to turn to find out how they can correct the damaging "infractions".

Given that I believe all of the above to be true, no one should be surprised if at some point the regulators DO step in. If/when that happens, it will be on the basis that no one company should be in a position to dominate an essential part of the economy to the point where they can damage bonafide legal businesses with no responsibility whatsoever on their part.

I'm not saying it's a good thing that this may happen, but I am saying that it is within the realm of possibility, given the power that Google now wields over many people's economic lives.

.........................

Phil_S




msg:3283314
 12:55 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Maybe I missed it, but other than laying workers off, what have you done in an effort to deal with this? "

-----------------

I know what I'm doing... learning old fashion marketing.

I'm determined to be an expert in the area, and never to have to worry about Google search results again.

Like I said, most of the big boys "in my industry" don't rely on Google, they’re all doing ppc, affiliate, mag ads, mailing, sponsorships, etc.

However, it would be nice if Google would let you know why your pages are in the supplemental index. How can you fix it, when you’re not sure what’s wrong. I “think” our problems stem from a url change we did years ago, but not sure. It’s a long story for another time.

Being supplemental or penalized for reasons you’re not really sure of, can take a toll on your attitude and drive.

I mean, who really wants to work on their site when they’re being held under water by the strong arm of Google and not allowed to breath.

Good thing we have a mailing list, a real-world retail store and do ok in yahoo.

nonni




msg:3283321
 1:06 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

At present, Google does dominate the industry. But their position is far less secure than someone like Microsoft. If people get fed up with Google or any other search engine, it is easy to use a competitor. While 'Googling' is now used as a synonym for finding information and becoming enlightened on an issue, that slang could quickly change to 'become confused or muddled.'

Google has no obligation to consider the finances of people that happen to benefit from their service. A search engine is provided free to the public. They do not have any contract regarding the consistency of where the results point. They do not have to be open about the algo. People have already sued when their rankings dropped, and the courts have all rejected their claims. Its like a celebrity that used to drive brand X car and wear brand Y jeans, and loved to talk about it. If they switch, too bad for brands X and Y.

[edited by: nonni at 1:11 am (utc) on Mar. 16, 2007]

Keniki




msg:3283323
 1:09 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

The Serps are google's business, the advertising is of all of our interest. Google we can visually see your serps suck show us the same distortion on ads and make some refunds please.

Keniki




msg:3283328
 1:14 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

At present, Google does dominate the industry. But their position is far less secure than someone like Microsoft.

I may have some issues with google but they are far far away from Microsoft.

walkman




msg:3283354
 1:58 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors,
people are just discussing, and maybe frustration is showing but it's all part of the life. No one is saing--or should say that G owes us the difference--but we praise them when they send the traffic so...

If you have a great website and sales start pouring, you have to hire people to handle the sales...once traffic slows drastically, you are in trouble.

workingNOMAD




msg:3283412
 3:28 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I agree with Europeforvisitors. If people were not so reliant on free traffic then they might not get into so much bother when the SERPs don't play to their tune.

walkman




msg:3283444
 4:31 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

workingNOMAD,

1. You have good business and you need 4 employees to hande requests.

2. You do much better in Google, you hire another four.
3. Traffic plummets years later...what do you do? How long can one afford to pay full salaries while hoping things get better?

This is a sad case, and no one can afford to turn free traffic away so peopel need to be hired to handle it. In my case, I am 100% online so I am screwed if google goes nuts on me (which it has, but then, I work alone)

tedster




msg:3283456
 5:11 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I know what I'm doing... learning old fashion marketing.

That's a really important point. During the first decade-plus of ecommerce, many "pure-play" or web only busineses launched and enjoyed success. Barriers to entry were low, and so was overhead. It looked like success could be had without any need for traditional business knowledge or discipline.

That situation could not last - and it is now shifting rapidly. I've noticed among clients that the pure-play businesses are often much more tenuous than those that are online extensions of an off-line business, or at least run by owners with previous business experience. The difference is often in the business smarts.

StickyNote




msg:3283474
 6:04 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

run by owners with previous business experience

Before moving to e-commerce, I had two miserable business failures. Both for the same reason. The first was a services company which I built up with many small clients, but eventually landed a huge contract. I put all of my resources into this large customer, and imploded when they no longer wanted my services.

Several years later, I did the exact thing same thing with a wholesale business that ended up providing products to a single large retailer. Not too smart.

In e-commerce, I see over-reliance on unpaid traffic to Google as another business disaster waiting to happen. It is too easy to build up a business structure based on the other business' continued cooperation. Expecting ANYTHING from a business that you do not own, or have an explicit contract with, is dangerous.

Whitey




msg:3283623
 10:53 am on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Whitey - are you sure you directed your response to the right person? That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Perhaps I was generalising the comment - nothing personal as I'm sure you and everyone are aware of the danger of making Google a dependable element.

I think that we need to remind ourselves of what we would do if Google no longer showed our results. Would one have enough collatoral from other methods of technology and marketing to grow and be sustainable?

simonuk




msg:3283672
 12:07 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think that we need to remind ourselves of what we would do if Google no longer showed our results.

And that is the most important point!

I have a fairly successful online mail order business. It's doing well in the SE's and I've optimised adwords over two years to give me the best ratio. It's a nice income and it pays all the bills with money left over.

Do I need to do anything else? no.... do I do anything else? hell yes!

I'm currently working away from home 5 days a week for extra income. I also have two much smaller businesses that bring in small revenues. I also have a number of sites using adsense for extra income.

Dropping off the SE's scares the hell out of me and for my own sanity I need to know if (or I should probably say "when") I suddenly nose dive off the SE's I have other revenues coming in to pay the mortgage and keeps the wife and kids safe.

wingslevel




msg:3283770
 1:49 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I feel like I haven't been a good OP as I haven't checked back in a couple of days...

Obviously this thread brings up issues for many of us.

First off, a heartfelt thanks for all of the kind words of commeriseration.

No need to bury me yet, though - I mentioned in my post that over 50% of my orders are from repeat customers. We also do adwords, affiliates, direct mail and email marketing. Obviously I am currently redoubling my efforts in these areas. Problem is, for me anyway, none of these channels provide me with the margins that I realize from organic search results.

I hope I didn't come across as a whiner - after the layoffs, my company will again be profitable - but what infuriates me is the current serps for long tail keywords. When I have a page that is titled and well optimized (but not overly so, IMO) for a keyword "Fuzzy Blue Widgets" (not even a remotely competitive keyword, btw), and it ranks 450, and the top 10 pages are far less relevant than mine, I start to feel like the engine is broken.

This thread isn't about the why - we've all read the threads starting last summer about supplementals, -30, 950 and phrase based. The bottom line, though, is that amazon, wiki and the shopping engines are dominating the serps - especially on the long tail keywords. I would argue that this is not good for the user, but obviously google has decided otherwise.

Well, enough for now, I'm off to start working on my "Spring Specials" postcard.... ;)

Cathyy




msg:3283785
 2:00 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting thread which expresses much of what I've been thinking for a while.

I too prefer less not more government intervention but I also share the view that Google's size/dominance makes it ripe for intervention.

One thing that interests me is the references to 'free' traffic.

We, too, have bricks and mortar stores and our website grew from that.

In the 'real world' we're not supposed to feel grateful for 'free' traffic. We don't get the local council telling us that in future our shop windows must be blacked out so no-one can see what we have for sale. Yet that's effectively what Google can and does do and if they choose not to then we're supposed to be grateful.

What also bugs me somewhat is that Mr Joe Average web user really has no idea of all this. He thinks when he goes to Google and searches that he's seeing (or got the potential to see) everything there is to see on the web.

Yet he hasn't he's just got the potential to see what Google allows him to see. That's a pretty worrying scenario.

In th UK there's lots of talk that one particular supermarket is becoming too big and dominant. Thing is at least with that people are aware of it and can, if they choose, go elsewhere.

In the world of e-commerce Joe Average can't choose to buy my blue widgets today because he's not allowed to know I have them for sale.

wingslevel




msg:3283789
 2:06 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

oh, I wanted to clarify about the 200,000 products...

These are spread across several ecomm sites that are in big sectors. It has taken us years to get these all up. We don't paste descriptions and we have a 40,000 sq, ft. warehouse with actual product (even a really cool forklift).

But I know where you were coming from with the dup content consideration - I personally feel it is a big part of the problem - if you have a category called "Fuzzy Blue Widgets" and it has 8 subcategories called "Checked Fuzzy Blue Widgets", "Plaid Fuzzy Blue Widgets" etc. - and then those subcategories are cross-linked (because, wouldn't the user want to be able to browse laterally within his category?) - you are begging to get filtered - that would be about ten internal links with the same anchor text going to the same deep page and there probably wouldn't be an inbound to balance those... could be fishy, right? well thats what google thinks now - of course I disagree, but...

Funny thing is that these issues don't apply to amazon - obviously the home page pr of 9 doesn't hurt - or is there a white list that disables all filters?

netmeg




msg:3283794
 2:14 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure "free traffic" is the best term for it - I think of it more as "incremental traffic" - i.e. I can't control it, and if it comes, great, but I won't put my house up against it.

I put all of my resources into this large customer, and imploded when they no longer wanted my services.

I was so there. Ten or so years ago, back when a small business could actually make money selling hardware, we became the sole supplier to a medium sized company nearby. For a little under two years, we were pushing through all kinds of hardware to them; we even hired a couple of techs and subcontracted them out to install and maintain all this stuff. We were rolling in the money, and life was sweet. Then this company (related peripherally to the auto industry) started having some financial problems - they were swallowed up by another company that had its own central purchasing and suppliers - and within a year that division was shut down entirely. We'd dropped a lot of business in order to cater to that one client, which comprised over 50% of our revenue. I actually can't remember why we didn't pack it in. Had a few really lean years, but we learned. And when another company wanted as much of our time and resources(and was willing to pay for it), we said no. We can't let ourselves be so reliant on one or two sources again.

caryl




msg:3283806
 2:19 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

workingNOMAD,

1. You have good business and you need 4 employees to hande requests.

2. You do much better in Google, you hire another four.
3. Traffic plummets years later...what do you do? How long can one afford to pay full salaries while hoping things get better?

This is a sad case, and no one can afford to turn free traffic away so peopel need to be hired to handle it. In my case, I am 100% online so I am screwed if google goes nuts on me (which it has, but then, I work alone)

I would like to build on this...

At this point in time I would sincerely advise any stable business to think hard before adding ecommerce to their business model.

YES, it can be very profitable! BUT, the instability and vulnerability it will put your business in may NOT be worth the Gamble.

Most people here do NOT understand the complexities of owning and operating a business that actually STOCKS and MOVES MERCHANDISE.

Most people here work in providing services. That is a different animal entirely. In the service industry, you are not required to invest (sometimes) thousands of dollars in stock for anticipated sales. IF something drastically changes, you have not only NOT made money - You most likely will have LOST money that is now sitting on shelves in the form of merchandise you can not move.

In light of this and with the internet currently being such an unstable environment for sales, the risk may just be too much to want to chance.

Believe it or not some businesses do just fine UNTIL they get involved with the internet. THEN they find a deluge of new business that they now must accomodate for. SO - they hire new staff and order more stock - just to accomodate this new demand. (In retail - you actually have to anticipate Christmas sales in JULY - when you must have or orders for stock in).

Everything seems too-good-to-be-true! (and it is) You are now GAMBLING vast amounts of money (investing in inventory) that sales will be there when your stock arrives. You grow and grow to keep up with the "phantom traffic" BUT at some point the bubble most likely will burst. You traffic lost.

The question is can you core business survive the getting stuck with the investment sitting on shelves AFTER the bubble burst.

A slow descent in the serps due to competition and such is much more workable and leaves opportunity to adjust for sluggish sales. A sudden plunge will HANG YOU!

Many of you people are shameless, heartless and mindless. You are quick to criticise, perhaps to elevate your own bloated importance, all while not fully comprehending the nature of other peoples predicaments.

That some people actually CARE about their employees (other people) should be refreshing in this day and age!

These are truely times that try mens ( peoples :) ) souls. God bless all who are struggling!

caryl

netmeg




msg:3283826
 2:26 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'll cop to shameless, heartless and mindless. But I have, over the past 30 years, managed or owned companies with upwards of $30 million in inventory at any given point, and shipments and deliveries coming from as many as twelve warehouses. I do believe I know what I'm talking about.

caryl




msg:3283835
 2:44 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

netmeg,

It is within the realm of possibility that I was not referring to you...

The internet is an odd place to do business.

Sometimes, we just need to vent, but the only ones who could possible understand, are the faceless people we "know" who also work within this medium.

Even my business partner - at times - gives me this blank stare (he focuses on non-internet side of business) when I attempt to express my dismay over some things...

It can get lonely out here :(

trinorthlighting




msg:3283903
 3:27 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

The key to eCommerce is to be spread all over the internet. We get the most referrals from Google search as far as search engines, but here is how it breaks down for a very large eCommerce site of ours in sales conversions.

25% EBay
20% Google Search
15% Ad words
10% Google/Froogle Base
10% Amazon Auctions
12% Yahoo
8% MSN

If you depend totally on Google search, you’re missing about 80% of the internet marketing

Gissit




msg:3283908
 3:32 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I just spent the last half hour or so sat in a hotel room in Tokyo reading this. It slways astounds me when this sort of thread turns up so many people that genuinly believe that there is some sort of right to a top position in Google's SERPS and a conspiracy by Google to push their advertising revenue.

Over the last couple of years I have looked at loads of sites that have been hit and lost ranking, almost invariably they have been penalised for non-compliance with the Google webmaster guidelines. Many of these sites have been previously succesful and suddenly just got hit over a short period (got away with it for years and then got 'caught'). The common theme between all of them is that they had been 'SEO'd' in some way or other to try to increase their presense in the past. Now SEO is a widely abused term but anything that is done un-naturally to boost a site's ranking is fair game to take exception to and this must even include providing content that is not truly useful or unique (and unique does not just mean that the words are different).

Back in the old days link exchanges worked, trying to cram 20,000 pages with thin content from a chopped set of data worked, stuffing pages with the name of as many cities/product/keywords as possible worked, content scraping your supplier's catalogue worked, loading alt tags with keywords worked, hiding keywords and phrases worked, url keywords worked etc etc and many sites have survived with thousands of pages of thin content but eventually the algos got smarter and didn't take prisoners. It is hard, but just because it worked yesterday does not make it right today. Trying to sell any product in a shooping mall with a million other shops is never going to be easy.

I run a small but succesfull, year old, small site (among others) that only ranks OK in in Google but is now the biggest in its field. On an average day google accounts for only around 25% of my converting traffic. Other SE's make up about 10% and 20% is from direct as the domain name is becoming known. The rest comes from other related sites. My traffic has been through a couple of turndowns during the last six months but because it is from diverse sources it never really hurts. Over the last couple of months google traffic has increased around 50% so I have made an extra effort to increase other sources of traffic to maintain the balance. It is not always easy to generate traffic away from Google but it is certainly possible, I spend many hours helping other site owners that send high % converting traffic to me because it is more predictable than having 75% of my traffic come from one place.

When I run adwords my Google traffic increases a lot but as I see around 40% of my cpc visitors convert I certainly don't think that click fraud is a problem (in my industry at least).

If you run an online business I think that the single most important thing you can do is to carefully watch the server logs and understand your traffic. As soon as you become reliant on any single source you have to find new ways to market yourself. If you have a very high ratio of SE traffic then you probably should look at your marketing strategy before commiting to employing full time staff.

If this sounds harsh it is probably because I have suffered reliance on a single source in the distant past when I ran a brick and mortar business, the big customer went bust with big bills and that was the end of it.

trinorthlighting




msg:3283925
 3:52 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Reno,

In your "significant penalty" issue, its not googles resposibilty to tell the site owner when their webmasters guidelines are broken.

Its the site owners responsibility to know googles webmaster guidelines!

Thats like saying, mr police officer, do not give me a ticket for speeding, its your responsibility to give me two warnings first.

Phil_S




msg:3283926
 3:54 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

"so many people that genuinly believe that there is some sort of right to a top position in Google's SERPS"

I don't think anyone one here thinks they have the right to the top position in google or any other engine, we're just venting frustration. I don't think I deserve top position, just a fighting chance.

---------------
"40% of my cpc visitors convert "

Wow, that's a awesome conversion rate, most get single digit conversion.

thanks.

Reno




msg:3283940
 4:00 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I do believe I know what I'm talking about.

And everyone who reads this forum respects your expertise and experience. However like all of us, you are seeing things from your perspective, which for you and a few others in a similar circumstance is entirely valid. What I don't hear is the acknowledgement that your circumstance/perspective is largely unique to you and thus is not going to be the same for most other people. The fact that you have managed and/or owned companies with upwards of $30 million in inventory is commendable but it puts you in a fairly small circle.

When the WWW really kicked off in '95-'96 it was (at the time, correctly) touted as a "level playing field" where people in rural communities or in 10 story apartment buildings could compete with larger more established firms. That was a good vision that may have lasted for a while but now the same-old same-old is raising it's ugly head, which is to say, big players with big money are buying the rules, and the smaller businesses -- people who don't own $30 million inventory companies -- are getting seriously pushed aside. This is not a good thing. It's not good for the people, or the economy, or the internet in general, and Google has sadly become part of the problem.

And again I repeat for the umpteenth time -- NO one expects Google to guarantee ANY kind of high rankings! I really don't know how we can be any clearer about that. All anyone is asking is for an arrangement where Google understands that to wipe a business out of it's SERPs -- without any warning OR recourse -- is in many cases going to have the most profound & damaging repercussions.

Why is that? Because Google thoroughly dominates (to an unhealthy extent) the search field, and the search field is crucial to e-commerce success for many if not most people.

I fear that if they don't establish some sort of process to allow for reasonable warning & correction, then at some point in the near future we will be discussing "what has been the impact of the government's intervention on Google". This is a wave that is building -- it's just a matter of time if they don't open their eyes.

...............................

Jane_Doe




msg:3283968
 4:20 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

All anyone is asking is for an arrangement where Google understands that to wipe a business out of it's SERPs -- without any warning OR recourse -- is in many cases going to have the most profound & damaging repercussions.

That's why they are pretty clear on letting people know that it isn't a good idea to base a commericial business on the free serps. It is even in their terms of service, "The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales."

There are billions of pages in the index right now, so I don't see how it would be reasonable for them to contact every webmaster whenever there are major serps changes.

trinorthlighting




msg:3283996
 4:40 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

A business who puts 100% of their faith in Google serps is gambling! There are many ways to market and many ways to get traffic.

It’s called diversifying!

Remember when Yahoo used to be bigger than Google? AOL was bigger than Yahoo? The net changes constantly!

Google is a fad right now! The in thing. How long will it last? No one knows, but 10 years down the road we might be posting to threads about how we wish it was the good old days with Google.

Martin40




msg:3284009
 4:48 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

I just spent the last half hour or so sat in a hotel room in Tokyo reading this. It slways astounds me when this sort of thread turns up so many people that genuinly believe that there is some sort of right to a top position in Google's SERPS and a conspiracy by Google to push their advertising revenue.
Over the last couple of years I have looked at loads of sites that have been hit and lost ranking, almost invariably they have been penalised for non-compliance with the Google webmaster guidelines.

I'm not convinced that everyone in Tokyo is informed on the present situation. This isn't about spammers getting demoted. The situation changed radically in mid 2006. Before that a good site with white hat SEO could rank, now there is a good chance it won't. This has led to people saying:

At this point in time I would sincerely advise any stable business to think hard before adding ecommerce to their business model.

Is Google killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, in pursuit for short term profit?

If your situation is such that:

20% Google Search
15% Ad words

...then you haven't been ranking very well on Google in the first place.

The point I'd like to make is that in an economy everything is interconnected. You take some and you give some. Companies that think the're an island (whether the're monopolists or not) will meet
criticism.
Google's standard answer to criticism is always that the're not responsible because the're a business, which is naive and a 19th century attitude. If ecommerce is to be viable, then there must be stability and predictability in the SERPs.
Why are there anti-trust laws? Just to prevent companies from causing economic disruption, like Google is now killing ecommerce. I'm anything but a legal expert, but I can't imagine why such laws wouldn't apply to search.
In countries where Google owns 90+ % of search, the feeling of discomfort towards Google is considerable. It's only a matter of time before a Google competitor (which is not Yahoo) will attain critical mass, but in the meantime Google will take many more small businesses down in it's fall.

That's why they are pretty clear on letting people know that it isn't a good idea to base a commericial business on the free serps. It is even in their terms of service

Which doesn't mean their TOS are the Bible, or realistic. I really do wonder how many businesses would (will?) survive without organic traffic.

[edited by: Martin40 at 5:04 pm (utc) on Mar. 16, 2007]

Phil_S




msg:3284011
 4:49 pm on Mar 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

trinorthlighting, thanks for displaying your revenue break-down.

Most successful business do many different kinds of marketing. That's what it takes to be successful, online or off line.

thanks.

This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 157 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved