Forum Moderators: rogerd
So, if you are trying to value a blog, what are the key criteria, and how do they differ from a static content site?
My first take is that a blog with similar page count, PR, and traffic count would be worth somewhat less than a static content site, mainly due to the need to keep adding posts. While a high quality content site can sit happily for months without updating and get more links and more traffic, a blog that's not updated seems likely to lose traffic and perhaps even lose links. Therefore, it's incumbent on a purchaser to keep adding content of similar nature and quality to keep momentum up. (Of course, if the blog had a lot of "evergreen" high quality posts, it would decline more slowly than one which focused on current news. In that case it would more closely resemble a static content site.)
Does that logic hold water? Or, if one has a blog about poodles, might it be a useful launching pad for a poodles-only ecommerce business who might either replace the content or graft their new content on in a way that reduces emphasis on the blog portion of the site?
A good blog on the other hand is valued mostly by the author's knowledge and abilities. Folks who enjoy a certain blogger's writing style may subscribe and keep coming back daily for more.
One (static) survives on the quality of its content and has limited growth potential. The other (blogs) survives on the quality of its owner/author and has unlimited growth potential.
Have I successfully rambled on for half a page and not said anything of value? I'll stop now... ;-)
One (static) survives on the quality of its content and has limited growth potential. The other (blogs) survives on the quality of its owner/author and has unlimited growth potential.
But as far as growth potential, I have over 5 years worth of content on my static site and I add more all the time. That would be hard to do with a blog. Of course, it depends on the site's topic; mine is one that doesn't tend to change much with time, so a 5-year-old article can actually be worthwhile. I often link to an older article from a new one, even if the older one is in the archive, and it's not unusual to see someone in a forum on a different site refer to one of my older articles in a discussion. A blog could contain 5 years of content, but it would be hard for someone to find an older post unless they had it tagged; much easier on a static site with a good category and linking structure, especially for people just finding the site for the first time.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see a "limited growth potential" for a static site. People who like my writing do come back to see what's new because they like my writing. I don't think I'd add any more content if I had a blog instead of a static site, although I might add it in smaller pieces and more often.
A blog certainly has its value. I have a "What's New" page that's something like a blog (without the interactivity), where I post links to new pages/articles, point out any new site features, put short comments on niche-related news, and post affiliate links to new niche-related products. It's pretty significant that I make about half of my affiliate sales through that one page (ETA - mostly due to the fact that the products are new and having them on that page makes the links easy to find). But if the rest of the site wasn't there, I'd have a lot fewer repeat visitors.
That's my "half-page" contribution. ;)
[edited by: Beagle at 2:42 pm (utc) on April 12, 2007]
Conversely, that suggests that a blog without the blogger that popularized it isn't worth much. That was more or less the direction of my original post.
I do think there are differences in blogs that affect the value of the site/content - some blogs feature frequent posts without much original content (perhaps a link, an excerpt, and some quick commentary). Other bloggers post less frequently, but produce lengthy, well-researched articles that incorporate illustrations, references to many sources, and a good amount of original analysis and thought.
To me, the latter type of blog has a greater intrinsic value - even if the author is no longer adding content, the existing content may be useful for years and continue to attract new links.
I think there are two valuations to consider if buying or selling a blog: the value as a website (number of search engine referrals, PageRank, attractiveness of domain name, etc.), and the value as a blog (number of feed subscriptions, blog links & Technorati rating, level of community activity, etc.) Some variables, like ad revenue, may apply to both. Depending on what the purchaser expects to do with the blog, one or the other type of valuation will be more important. What are some of the variables I'm missing?
