Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
They don't charge per click, but rather $29.95 for the month, regardless of the number of click throughs.
Considering I get all my traffic for $0.05 or less per click at the other PPCs, I would need at least 600 quality visitors a month to make it worthwhile. Seems unlikely...
Anyways, has anyone had any experience with them, good or bad?
Why would they offer you as much traffic as you get for $30? Because they can't make any money without a flat rate. DON'T DO IT! SAVE YOURSELF!
joined:June 15, 2001
The only way it is really possible for the smaller ppc's to provide good traffic is if they syndicate their feed to a large number of partner sites.
That makes sense only if "good" denoted "heavy". If so - thsi is certainly true. But who cares about volume of traffic? The key - clearly - must be the QUALITY of the traffic, not kust a large number of dubious clicks.
What would make you try a new PPC? I know in the past that I have been turned off a PPC if it couldn't provide a reasonable volume, despite the ROI of the click thrus, because of the overhead in time invested in monitoring the campaign itself.
What would make you try a new PPC?
Quite simply - a free trial. Say a $25 'deposit' made when I open an account. If the traffic is any good, I'll be happy to pay for it (obviosuly - a reasonable amount / visitor).
As I have a very low tolerance to fraud, I will define 'good traffic' as visits with less than 10% bounce rate. Any more than that - and the prudent Web Master should not touch it.
I am not aware of ANY small PPC that does that. The reason is simple. Since very few searches are conducted at the site itself, the PPC need all the affiliate sites to generate traffic. Those sites demand a price for that trraffic, say 50% of the bid. To provide the WM with $25 of 'play money' means a REAL LOSS of $12.5, and no guarantee of recovering it, if the majority of the clicks are indeed 'questionable'. It sould also be, of course, that they don't have the deep pockets to start with. After all, the real beauty of PPC is that you need such a small upfront investment to get it going!
The only PPC that I am know provides REAL FREE trials is adwords. If you participate in a an adwords seminar you can get up to 100 USD worth of credit into your account! Now that's a serious and reputable approach - no wonder they are climbing so fast to thye number one position.
If a new PPC offered a free trial, and delivered a low bounce rate by not having an affiliate program, its obvious problem would be traffic.
How tolerant would you be of a low volume of quality click thrus initially? How would you suggest that a start up PPC generate enough GOOD traffic to keep you as an advertiser?
(Everyone's comments welcome.)
joined:June 15, 2001
Hope thes ideas are of some use.
Let's analyze the situation.
First, I think it would be safe to state that there is no difference what so ever between all the PPCs in terms of search experience (I'll exclude the big two for the moment)
That means, obviosuly, that the 'native searches' (people going to the PPC site itself to perform searches) is abysmally low.
Thus, the only way to compete and to get traffic is to 'bribe' other site owners with an ever increasing percentage of the click revenues. Even the giant Overture has to continously increase the payout to other sites to secure traffic.
That, in turn, makes it increasingly tempting and worthwhile for the site owners to cheat and provide bogus clicks.
The spiral has only one way to go - UP. Towersearch is trying to do something about it. That doesn't mean that they are good value for money. If it is a worthwhile expenditure or not is really up to each site owner to decide.
I still bieleve that ultimetly the winners will be searc engines and directories that will generate enough interest in searches to stand on their OWN legs. After all, isn't it the way Google used to become number one?