Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
From what I hear, I think I've had better luck than most people. I am getting about 50 visits a day from my pixel ads, which is actually quite a drop off.... I was getting about 200-300 visits per day early last month, but that was before the page had filled up as much as it has. I think one of the things I did right was position my ad out in the open, far separated from other ads. A lot of people try to cram their ads in the upper right hand corner, and, frankly, I think they get lost up there.
That said, I suspect that this fad is crested and I don't particularly recommend pixed advertising as a means of building traffic.
I thought about doing something similar, only turning pixels into tattoo ink. I get the entire Trail of Tears tattoo I want, plus quite a bit of extra cash, people get links from the site and they get to pay for my pain. ;)
From some of the people that I've talked to, the traffic was pretty good early on, but the conversion rate was terrible. Now, the traffic has fallen off, but conversion rates have climbed. Might have something to do with having to search through all those pixels to find an appealing link.
Original ideas still seem to be worth something. Over half a million examples of proof eh?
Perhaps, but perhaps some curiosity seeker sees an ad of decent pixel count, and this turns out to be the talk of the town of s/he, or blogged heavily, etc. thus becoming a fairly inexpensive tidbit of viral marketing. While neither building or playing this particular pixel paradise is my cup of tea, it does have an inherent modicum of charm and simplicity.
Of course, I hope that the people buying pixels don't assume that those pixels will flow PageRank. :)
So, does that mean that PR is only passed through text links and not image links? Brad Fallon, a SEO guy, says that it is passed through image links. Is he wrong?
No, he's not wrong - it just means that PR isn't passed through these particular image links (from the million Dollar Homepage.
Google basically doesn't like people selling links and therefore sometimes takes such links out of the equation as far as PR and ranking goes.
I can think of worse backlinks to pay for.
I'd aslo think that, due to Matt Cutt's remark, this site has probably been flaged and had some human intervention applied to it.
It's not that I don't think that google knows which links they are giving value to, it's that I don't think that the backlinks they show have much if any meaning. Links are the backbone of their algo. Why would they give useful data to SEOs?
I dont see much benifit in it, May be Alex (Owner of Million Dollar) has earned a lot, but i dont think people are going to buy pixels on everysite.
I made few sites but i dont understand one thing, why people are running towards this concept?
A lot of things people do, like exclusively hunt for links PR 4 or above, are done without understanding why. They only know that others are doing it and they follow along. That kind of thinking creates opportunity for others, I guess.
[edited by: martinibuster at 7:22 am (utc) on Nov. 25, 2005]
My square went up yesterday, and so far it looks like I shoulda spent my check on steaks. But I'll give it another month before deciding if I'd buy more pixels for fun.
So is the little green bar! ;)
SEO benefit debate aside, I don't think there's anything silly about it - as someone said previously, the site will have an insane ROI. Fair play to the (original) guy who set it up IMO.
To the person who builds it? No, that fad has peaked.
To the people who buy the link? No ROI. Zero. It's like buying Sea Monkeys and you realize it's just brine shrimp.
After you drop your dough on the pixels you realize it's just a link farm with zero traffic. Just use your head and think about it.
The idea that you can generate any kind of ROI from this is wishful thinking. Just use your head and think it through. This site isn't viral. People are not emailing this to each other. There is no traffic, much less targeted useful traffic.
I totally agree that the clones that are popping up are pretty daft, but the original concept / implementation worked well and the ROI for that site will be insane. The others just idiots trying to jump on the bandwagon.
The concept is simple enough to be viral but has a limited lifespan (in that the success can't be replicated with the same model) but the lifespan is such that it is fad-esque.
I still think the concept has merit in terms of orginality - typically the copycats just replicate instead of innovating.
For example, this might be an interesting way for a site to host a links page - a links wall instead. OK maybe not *all* sites, but it might appeal to certain types of people.
It's viral enough - having ongoing discussions on WebmasterWorld, SEW, TW...
What value does a trickle of SEO traffic have to someone advertising their travel affiliate site?
It's like a nude beach full of dirty old men with binoculars.
There's no action there.
A trickle of SEO traffic it may be, but it is all site owners (or largely site owners anyway) - not just that, a lot will have a fairly substantial disposable income. All those hosting and casino advertisers didn't come from mainstream press coverage.
If I was conducting a SEO / viral campaign for MDH, I'd consider the subsequent press coverage, 1330 IBLs, PR7, blog and forum coverage and 700k+ pixels sold a success.