TheOptimizationIdiot - 1:45 am on Apr 14, 2013 (gmt 0)
Google says no more traffic to small site, buy adwords and price upcrease for everyone.
Small sites can't afford to pay for ads, that's why they don't pay for ads. You don't try to take money from those who can't afford to pay you, because you won't ever make anything.
You give those who can't afford to pay "freebies" so maybe they can afford to pay you in the future.
(you buy ad today, organic traffic up tomorrow)
When a site indicates they can pay for an ad and you really want to make more money from organic SERPs by driving sites to advertise, why would you send the sites that indicate they can afford to pay more/any free traffic? It makes no sense to me.
Which makes more sense?
"Hey, you indicated you can afford to pay for advertising so I'm going to send you more free traffic..."
"Hey, you indicated you can afford to pay for advertising so I'm not going to send you any free traffic..."
* What makes sense to me personally is: not sending any free traffic to those who have indicated they can afford to pay for traffic. Sending free traffic in hopes they will drive ads prices up because of their new higher levels of free traffic seems a bit futile. It would seem to me, once a site has indicated they can afford to pay, free traffic would make it so they would need to advertise less than they could likely afford to if they absolutely had to pay to be seen. (I guess I can't see how a site with deep pockets (big brand) would increase ad spending nearly as much if they were number 1 or 2 organically as they would if they were number 15. And, if they had to outbid other big brands to even be in the ads on page 1? Hmmm... seems like that would be maximization of revenue generation to me; much more than giving them free rankings.)
And not thinking: somehow those who have not indicated they can afford to pay for advertising --and very well may not be able to afford advertising-- will suddenly, miraculously start to find themselves with extra liquidity now that they have less free traffic and begin paying you, thereby driving the price of advertising up in the process.
[I know, I know, I'm an idiot and illogical. See my user name for details.]
Would you ask the panhandler who lives in a cardboard box for $1000 to build a new site, or the guy driving the Mercedes? Which one can actually give you the $1000? You don't go to the panhandler who needs a handout to survive and hope they drive the price of something up, you go to the ones who show and indicate they can afford it.
Most of the logic about showing brands in the top 10 as some scheme to drive advertising revenue up seems totally backward to me.