Forum Moderators: martinibuster
You don't need multiple sites to protect yourself from revenue swings
EFV, Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had made some posts about your Google referrals dropping by 75% not too long ago?
EFV, Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had made some posts about your Google referrals dropping by 75% not too long ago?
Yes, and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if my traffic had been on one site or multiple sites, because the same factors would have been responsible for the change (a temporary one, I hope) in Google referrals.
Fortunately, Yahoo and MSN referrals went up slightly at the same time, Google referrals have begun to climb again, and affiliate revenue hasn't been seriously affected. (Total AdSense revenue dropped, though not to the same extent as Google referrals, and in any case AdSense has never come close to representing a majority of my site revenues.)
Another benefit of having a site with "critical mass" (in terms of content and reputation) is that you don't depend entirely on search engines for traffic. Over time, you build up a solid base of repeat users, and search referrals become less important over time.
One technique that can work well is to build "subniches" within a broader topic. This is similar to (for example) guidebook publishing, where Bud's Guide to Mexico might later be joined by Bud's Guide to Mexico City, Bud's Guide to Cozumel, Bud's Guide to Cancun, etc. Each subtopic can develop a critical mass on its own while contributing to the strength, success, and longevity of the overall brand.
A multiple site network on varying topics is inherently less risky than a single site with varying topics - and probably earns more in Adsense.
In real life my network of sites benefits from the fact that when an algo change causes one site to lose traffic quite often it is the case that other sites (in different subject areas) gain traffic.
A multiple site network with each site focused on a particular subject area is better placed to earn money off of the site-topic ads that Adsense posts when it can't find a page relevant ad.
In real life my network of sites benefits from the fact that when an algo change causes one site to lose traffic quite often it is the case that other sites (in different subject areas) gain traffic. "
SPOT ON!
But... it's easier to grow one website and make it authoritative, that's the advantage. In a niche with a lot of competition, but lots of traffic, the single site webmasters have the advantage, I think.
A benefit to a multiple site network is that you're less vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations.
Better yet, have a site with multiple subtopics that works year-round. That way, you're likely to do better in the search engines because of your size, and--more important--you're building a single brand with product extensions instead of having to start from scratch with each new brand.
Better yet, have a site with multiple subtopics that works year-round
Nah. Not always the best idea. What happens if by some glitch/dodgy registrar someone got hold of your domain? Or your ISP folds and your site is off-line for a month? Or a hacker takes your site down while you're on vacation? Or a htaccess error causes the SE bots to understand that your site does not exist anymore?
Sure, in your case it makes sense from the brand POV. But if your topics are as varied as ring-tones, skateboards, IT consultancy, ladies' underwear and aviation gear ... then it's probably not a good idea. Some like the fact that the distribution of content over several sites meets the oft recommended policy regarding eggs and basket/s. The partial protection from algo changes wiping away all your free traffic in one go is a gratifying side effect.
Sure, in your case it makes sense. But if your topics are as varied as ring-tones, skateboards, IT consultancy, ladies' underwear and aviation gear ... then it's probably not a good idea.
That may be true, although sites like About.com might disagree. :-) But how many members of this forum have the expertise, the time, and/or the financial resources to develop credible, successful, long-lasting sites on a diverse range of topics? Some do, but the typical person who's coming to this forum for advice probably doesn't.
For the typical mom and/or pop who's trying to start a business on the Web (whether it's an e-commerce business, an affiliate business, or a publishing business/content site), there's a lot to be said for building a brand, a reputation, and a critical mass both in and out of the search engines. People who are starting out need to think about their skills, their long-term goals, and how they can best achieve those goals.
Nah. Not always the best idea. What happens if by some glitch/dodgy registrar someone got hold of your domain? Or your ISP folds and your site is off-line for a month? Or a hacker takes your site down while you're on vacation? Or a htaccess error causes the SE bots to understand that your site does not exist anymore?
There will always be risks. We have a big site covering every nook and cranny of our main topic - an approach that worked very well for us (and thankfully has not suffered any of the risks you enumerated). It's very good for branding. We are almost always at the top of our main and other keywords, and our Adsense revenue is very stable on the upward trend even if EPC of various subtopics rise and fall.
This approach is recommended only if you are covering a topic with several related subtopics, and not a hodge-podge of topics with no relation to each other.
The key is to think what you want your websites to be in the long term, and find the approach that you think is best.
Warning: About.com lost over 50% of their traffic in early 2004 (some evidence visible in alexa). It can happen to the best of sites. And when it happens I'd rather a 50% drop to a site that comprises 10% of my total stock ...than my only site.
The same argument you epouse - that the typical WW user doesn't have those resources - is the same argument against them bunging vastly diverse content into a single site - they don't have the clout to build an About.com brand. They'd be better served having smaller sites.
Or they might be better off focusing on an area where they have some expertise (and can build a niche brand) instead of spreading themselves thin with sites about vastly diverse topics.
In the end, I suppose it's a personal preference based on how diverse your content is and your attitude to risk.
Personal preference is obviously a major factor; as for risk, there are different ways of reducing it. For some people, that might mean having multiple sites; for others, it might mean having a strong, visible site that earns income from multiple revenue streams. To each his own--my point is simply that new AdSense publishers need to think about strategies instead of getting caught up in the "If it's Tuesday, I'll create a site on mesothelioma" mentality.
Or they might be better off focusing on an area where they have some expertise
That's the crunch. Your viewpoint is that of someone who does most of his content in-house. I have sites on subjects I know very little about. I pay experts to write content in those specialised areas. The sites are diverse in nature, diverse in how they react to algo change, and the risk is spread. An algo change is highly unlikely to affect me to the same extent it has you. Your play-it-safe advice to have multiple sources of income is even better if it's multiple sources of income on multiple sites.
You underestimate the readership here. Many members have more than the odd one or two sites ;)
I agree with your point about new Adsense publishers. 100%. The only point of difference is whether the build-it-all-on-one-site suit fits everyone.
As long as you have a good understanding of your topics / industries then you can certainly write opinions on the topics/industry.
Multiple sites (topics) means you can apply different algo rules for each website to apply for different search engines, so if one se algo causes a drop in ranking on one site then that algo wont affect all sites in your holding.
