Creating 2 sites, same market, same design

[ariff44]

I am in the widget market and I have a few successful sites. Now I am consdering having 2 new sites designed for the main keyword in this industry. They will have the same layout but different colors and images. Keyword content will be slightly different. Titles will be slightly different. Both sites will be trying to hit the same market.

Now, in the normal business world, this would just be capturing the market, like owning walmart and kmart, however in the SEO world, this could be a problem, or so I hear.

My questions are as follows:

1. Will this be considered duplicate content?

2. How different does a site need to be from the other to avoid duplicate content?

3. If there is no way to avoid duplicate content, do I just create 1 site and foward both domains to 1?

Thanks for your help...

[DaveN]

I believe that there are three types of shopper on the internet.

a) the guy that wants the cheapest widget on the plant and doesn't care how long it takes to get it because it's the cheapest
(cheap keyword ,discounted keyword etc)

b) the guy that will pay that bit extra to ensure he gets the product next but wants a bargain as well
(great value keyword , guaranteed delivery on keyword , etc)

c) the guy who just doesn't care he's got no idea what the goods cost he just wants one
(keyword)

You can't market to all 3 with just one site.

DaveN

[ariff44]

Jimbeetle --

thanks...how do you feel about the major players using the same exact design structure and navigation. I don't see a problem with it since if you have found a structure that works well for the user, Google shouldn't require you to change it, don't you think?

[ariff44]

mrguy - I agree with your assesment about monopolizing the industry...that is bad in the real world and also the SE world. Thanks for your opinion

[fathom]

do you mean a new design structure, when you say design "shell"?

Yes -- it takes loads of time to develop text copy... therefore a good variation of graphical (particularly naigational) will keep Googlebot from red flagging your sites.

Remember that Googlebot is a link lover... changing the order of links diversifies "content" and gives you time to make each site unique.

[ariff44]

davn-

you are absolutely right

[ariff44]

fathom --

changing the order of links? even if I have the same backlinks, I can change the order and make google happy?

[ariff44]

fathom --

Regarding link partners...if I have 100 link partners with anchor text widgets for www.widgets.com, can I use those same link partners for www.widgetsonline.com with anchor text widgets online?

[jimbeetle]

ariff44,

Just reporting what Matt said. And we aren't required to change anything. But then Google isn't required to list our sites.

digitalghost and fathom have the right take, oh, and DaveN. Target different shoppers or people in different cycles of the buying process.

Dan Blober from Overture highlighted three different types of shopper-searchers, a cycle going from Information > Shop > Purchase. Something like "home video equipment," "wide screen television," "brandname wide screen television." You might be able to do a lot with sites set up for different types of shoppers.

Consider it.

Jim

[ariff44]

jim --

I hear you...thanks for the advice

[DaveN]

Regarding link partners...if I have 100 link partners with anchor text widgets for www.widgets.com, can I use those same link partners for www.widgetsonline.com with anchor text widgets online?

I would be slightly careful here play the 60-40 rule and mix a few new ones in

Daven

[ariff44]

daven -

60/40 rule? can you educate me on that?

[DaveN]

yes 100 backlinks spilt them into pr order and take 60% of them on to the new site then get another 40% else where

DaveN

[fathom]

Agree DaveN wholeheartedly!

[ariff44]

davn -

when you say put them in pr order...you mean highest pr link partner gets put higher up on my resource page? sorry if this is a stupid question:)

[DaveN]

makes no difference, you want 60% of the original inbound links from your parners sites (40% you bin they become ex partners for this site ;) )

DaveN

[ariff44]

thanks davn!

[CCowboy]

I understand the question and the reason for it.
I have done something similar, I have one site targeted to the Walmart demo, one site targeted to Foleys - Dilards Demo and another targeted to the Nemam-Marcus demo.

The sites are not a mirror but are 85% alike in many ways.

I believe this to be good marketing!

I am also starting to suspect that those who "cry wolf" or "cry spam" all the time are those most guilty of the crime.

And No, I do not cross link simular sites...

[edited by: CCowboy at 10:38 pm (utc) on April 29, 2003]

[mrguy]

Are those of you who have the similar sites doing any crosslinking?

[Powdork]

If Kmart and walmart were to merge there would be serious concern from various government agencies because it would reduce competition and not be good for the consumer. The amount of bureaucratic hurdles alone would be mind boggling. You would possibly get in trouble with the FCC if you were to hide the fact when advertising to deceive customers. At the very least consumer watchdog groups would be up your ... Many times we think we should be able to do things in business online that we couldn't do in the real world. It is rarely the case. Personally, I would pick which domain is kmart and sell it on a blue light special.;)
Of course, if the domains are disposable then you sometimes can do things online that you can't when you actually have a storefront.

[ariff44]

powdork -

point taken...I do agree with some of the other senior members that using different sites that are similiar but geared toward different markets and/or geared to customers in a different buying stage is perfectly legitimate and as long as no crosslinking takes place, content is optimized for that market or buying stage and links are different, then Google probably does too:)

[mrguy]

Now that this thread has fully played out and I understand what is being done with sites,

It actually looks like a good way to capture other markets.

As long as no crosslinking happens and they go after different terms, I can see the benefit.

I think I'll look into this concept further for my own site!:)

[ariff44]

mrguy...I agree, this was a great thread and very informative..thanks to everybody

[ariff44]

side topic --- when google considers "fresh content", is it only looking at body text or design code as welll (like if you redesigned your site)?

[deft_spyder]

"I don't think owning kmart and walmart would be smart in the real world. I think it would be better to own one of them and make it a better store. If you own just one, you can save a lot on administration costs and advertising expenses. "

Would it be suprising to know that 1 company owns 4 different clothing stores, all of which are in the same mall by my house?

[ariff44]

deft_sypder ---

I know exactly what you mean...like Burdines, and several other very large stores are owned by a company called Federated...

also, Macaroni Grill, Carrabbas, Outback, and a few other restaurants are owned by the same company...

[scottj]

This is an interesting question.
I have 3 sites. One is called
"topics.myco.com" another is
called "authors.myco.com" and
the third is called "content.myco.com".

I am not making any effort to bamboozle
anyone. It's set up that way to access
our primary publications from the
perspective of the user who might be
coming to look for a given topic, author
or speicifc publication. Each site has
a flavour specific to it's name/purpose
in a secondary way.

Are my 3 sites which are heavily interlinked
going to be deprecated by google?

There's a lot of shared content. For instance,
"author" pages list all of the titles of
publications by a given author. "topic"
pages list all of the /same/ content but
sorted into different topics. "content"
sorts the material into different publications.
"content" actually has the /content/ whereas
"topics" and "authors" are efficient ways
that users might approach find "content".

Is this trouble?

It's maybe not a question of owning KMart, Walmart
and Target but a question of making the same consumer
products available in multiple ways, varying the
approach to address different market-segments
who have different concerns but ultimately want
the same /information/.

If google is deprecating interlinked sites
with essentially the same /ultimate/ content
maybe they are making a mistake in some cases?

Or am I wrong and I should just adapt and have
a single site that makes the approaches to finding
info obvious?

For some companies it's important to have things
like "personalcomputers.mycom" and "businesscomputers.mycom" but both sites have all of the product information presented in different ways.

=Scott

[fathom]

myco.com is the domain and the directory is a sub-domain.

So no problem here, as long as the content is uniquely different.

To expand -- as long as you are linking to "1" copy of the content from the other sub-domains -- no problem what-so-ever.

[psychophant]

"Would it be suprising to know that 1 company owns 4 different clothing stores, all of which are in the same mall by my house?"

No, clothing stores appeal to different peoples tastes. I doubt if your friend owns 4 men’s shoe stores in that mall. Instead, he/she is sticking to something familiar but directing it to a different audience (that’s my guess at least). Wal-Mart and Kmart are “big box”, general stores. More like owning MSN and Yahoo, not respectively.

[deft_spyder]

"No, clothing stores appeal to different peoples tastes. I doubt if your friend owns 4 men’s shoe stores in that mall. Instead, he/she is sticking to something familiar but directing it to a different audience (that’s my guess at least). Wal-Mart and Kmart are “big box”, general stores. More like owning MSN and Yahoo, not respectively."

In fact, many similar product lines can be presented in the same mall by the same company:
Guess Shoes, Charles David, and Natalie M- Same Company

A few other examples of similar demographics being approached by the same company with different store fronts in the very same mall:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bath and Body Works, Victoria Secret, Express, Structure, The Limited, The Limited Too, and the recently defuct Cacique- Same Company

Bloomingdales, Macys, Dillards, The Bon Marche- Same Company

Seline, Vottschalks- Same Company

Rampage,Charlotee Russ- Same Company

Gap, Club Monaco, Old Navy, Banana Republic- Same Company

Wet Seal, Contempo - Same Company

Or how about makeup, all at the very same counter!
Lancome, Estee Lauder, Perscriptives, Clarins, Loreal- Same Company

The Westside pavillion, a very successful mall in Southern California has 3 Sunglass Huts: a sport, classic, and fashion, Lens Crafters, Solstice, and a Watch Station... which is also owned by the same company all in the same mall. And yes, Sunglass Hut sells watches too.

I think it's pretty obvious that blanketing the market is a very valid strategy for making sure you get your product purchased. Much like companies fight for shelf space, these companies fight for store space in malls. It's not hard to see how this strategy plays easily to the web model.

[Powdork]

I think the most important distinction here is that these companies are selling different products. Actually, they may be the same products, but they are at least packaged, marketed, and sold differently. That was not to be the case in the original poster's model.