Something different - Revenue model of the Future?

[cabbie]

While most of you are begging for, and heavens forbid, even paying for links (rofl), I get so many unsolicited links every day that my page rank is off the chart.
Now, I am more used to lurking in shadows, than being under the spotlight and I am feeling a bit uncomfortable.
Sure I get a kick at looking at the green bar, and it's something to tell and impress my friends, but as Donkey says" I aint got no friends".
And the thing is, these links aren't making me rich.

So I am trying to come up with a angle so something is in it for me.
And I have come up with a idea of charging the websites that link to my websites $5 each for the privilege.
What do You think?
A cool Million would be nice.

So while you are begging them, I am fighting them and making them pay or I will threaten to disavow their links!

This should be the revenue model of the future and Google should encourage it.

What could be a better recommendation that someone actually pays to link to you!
Page Rank, will become Paid Rank and the site with the most number of paid links to it wins!
As well as the attribute of No follow, we will have "Paid for" which Google will credit both the site paying and the site receiving.
So guys start expecting a email from me soon asking you to pay me 5 bucks or else.

[matrix_jan]

And a simple url shortener that provides no referral data will ruin your system.

[Vamm]

Frankly, I like the idea. At the very least, it is some funny reversal of (most of) the previous experience.

[1script]

For saving $5 you want to take a chance that a authority site(remember why you linked to it) disavows your link?
Don't forget that Google already rewards for outbound linking to good sites.

The business model has been based on two premises:

* linking out to good sites helps you
* when someone disavows your link it harms you

and BOTH are questionable at best. Linking out advantages have never been proven and disavowing harms have actually been denied by Google. Why bother?

[LifeinAsia]

the Gorg might just believe them without phoning you to have a chat first.

Maybe not if a number of sites contacted Google and forwarded copies of the SEO blackmail letter.

[jimbeetle]

And, yes, disavow links will probably not harm their websites anyway...but who knows.

"Do not worry about damaging other people, that does not happen"
Best practices for using the Google disavow tool, confirmed [webmasterworld.com]

[oddsod]

Maybe not if a number of sites contacted Google and forwarded copies of the SEO blackmail letter.

Google would be stupid to not grab on to this as a great way to let webmasters themselves moderate the quality of links. It works to their advantage! ;)

They don't have a problem with people paying other people. You need to recognise why they are against link buying - it ain't because money is changing hands without a commission for them. It's because they see it as corrupting the signals their algo relies upon. If people are charging others in a way that benefits Google and improves the quality of signal they use, I can't see the plex complaining. Can you?

And you can call it an SEO blackmail letter as much as you want but the letter itself will say it's an invoice for manual verification of your site quality before accepting your incoming link. Blackmail is illegal. Charging to perform a verification service is not really something you can sue someone over as you'll find if you get an invoice from cabbie (or me).

And a simple url shortener that provides no referral data will ruin your system.

I wouldn't be worried about that. If you aren't looking to "suck" credibility by linking directly to me then no worries, you don't need to pay as your link is not affecting my site's reputation.

Linking out advantages have never been proven...

Tell that to all the SEOs who are building OGL for credibility

... disavowing harms have actually been denied by Google.

It only when the Google FUD machine has denied it that you know it's definitely true.

[edited by: oddsod at 9:13 pm (utc) on Feb 8, 2013]

[LifeinAsia]

this as a great way to let webmasters themselves moderate the quality of links.

This has absolutely nothing to do with moderating the quality of links. It's only an indication of whether the site owner is willing to pay $5 for the "privilege" of linking to your site. It's not an indication of quality- more of an indication of gullibility of the linking site owner.

If people are charging others in a way that benefits Google and improves the quality of signal they use, I can't see the plex complaining. Can you?

I can't see any way, shape, or form that this type of extortion would benefit Google.

Quite the opposite- now all the disavow submissions would be suspect: are they really "bad" sites, or did the site owners just refuse to pay the extortion fee demanded of them?

Now, if there was the opposite of a disavow report- a way to tell Google, "Hey, this link to my site is a great link that I trust." In that case, there might be a way to suck in some money with a "Hey, I see you're linking to my site. For $5 I'll report your site as a good link to my site!" letter to webmasters.

But I still wouldn't play that game.

[netmeg]

Wonder how long it would take for a bunch of people to list your site (unlinked) with "Hey, this asshat wants to charge to link to his site"

I think if you're so sold on the idea, you should try it. Not gonna affect me or my linking practices either way.

[matrix_jan]

And a simple url shortener that provides no referral data will ruin your system.

I wouldn't be worried about that. If you aren't looking to "suck" credibility by linking directly to me then no worries, you don't need to pay as your link is not affecting my site's reputation.

So you're talking about linking as in passing juice, not linking as in making it easy for the users to find more info.

But in this dream the one who links gets the juice?

It's like saying whoever calls my name out loud should give me $5 and be blessed or otherwise I will curse him/her. The reaction will be to hell with you and your name.

Good luck :)

Cheers

[Shepherd]

Hey, this asshat wants to charge to link to his site

I don't normally disagree with Netmeg but I think the above statement would be incredibly short sighted. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If I have a resource on my website and another site wants to link to it there is a value there. Maybe the value is only the effort it takes to code the link but there is a value. Who's to say that a link to my site doesn't have a higher value, who's to say that link to my resource is not worth $5?

Here's a thought, take the "disavow" threat out of the equation. How about instead disavowing the link I simply redirect all visitors from your site to a payment page if you don't want to pay to link to me. Maybe that page also has a note on it mentioning that the site they came from had a chance to provide this resource to them for free but they chose not to.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see this as being a billion dollar idea but since I've not yet had any billion dollar ideas what the heck do I know...

[ken_b]

Not sure I can afford to post in this thread... :)

[matrix_jan]

Who's to say that a link to my site doesn't have a higher value, who's to say that link to my resource is not worth $5?

If it's worth something charge for the content, not for the link. I think author is talking about reputation. If you link to me, pay the fee and you'll get some juice(how!?!?) because I'm the big guy.

[topr8]

... naturally this thread has been pounded by people saying no way would i pay - including me! after all this is exactly what you would expect on WebmasterWorld, and i still maintain in the current climate noway would i pay.

however, i happen to think the idea brilliant, as does at least one admin here as the thread has been promoted to home page status!

business is about thinking outside the box, thinking leftfield and so on - the opposite to popular convention ... opposite isn't always right, infact it is usually wrong, but not always!

as mentioned above - never underestimate the stupidity of people, and half knowledge is very dangerous! i'd say that if this was done seriously and genuinely from a major, well ranked website ... i'll go further, i'll more than say, i am certain that there would be some takers ... the $5 would start coming in ... maybe not many, but if you are a major player, what percentage do you need to generate a nice little revenue stream? 1 in a 1000? even that adds up.

this is very provocative and i like it a lot - it's got me thinking in overdrive actually ... tangentially, as i don't have a mega site that everyone wants to link to, but thinking the opposite way is good.

thanks cabbie

[Shepherd]

not for the link

Why not? You want to provide a link to my content/resource for the benefit of your site and the users of your site instead of creating the content/resource yourself why can't I charge you for it?

[matrix_jan]

...why can't I charge you for it?

Because as I said many will use proxies, and you will never know who linked to you.

Or simply will ignore your calls to send the money. What are you going to do then? Disavow? heh... and so what? Who cares?

If a news website writes an article about you are you going to charge them too, no? A blog, yes? where's the limit. Or if someone shares a page on facebook, are you going to charge that someone or facebook? Are you going to charge a page that send you 1 visitor per year the same as the one that sends 1M? From what you say you care about the content that is being used by people, so who's gonna do the counting? This is a broken business model to me. Sorry.

Again if there is something really valuable on the website, then the best thing to do is charge users. That is something you can control. You simply can not control who links to you and how many visitors you get.

[Samizdata]

why can't I charge you for it?

Because I won't pay you.

If the link stopped working I would remove it and no longer send you FREE traffic and PR juice.

No loss to me whatsoever.

Alternatively, I could link to google.com/q=yourURLhere

See if you can get your 5 bucks out of them.

...

[fathom]

Reference: [webmasterworld.com...]

I'm with Wheel.
I'm a busy man and I ain't got no time for these petty requests, especially if they didn't pay me to put them up.wink
And if they have attitude...

I am even trying to find a way to charge people for me to read their emails!

My concern about your model is... "what kind of an authority are you"?

Sounds like you are attempting to exploit the Negative SEO concept if you ask me.

Asking for donations is perfectly acceptable... demanding payment can only be mastered by invoking fear on your side of the offer... thus Negative SEO IMHO.

[Shepherd]

Because as I said many will use proxies, and you will never know who linked to you.

any visitor not from an approved link gets redirected.

If a news website writes an article about you are you going to charge them too

A blog

facebook?

yes, yes, yes, you want to send someone to my content you pay, otherwise don't send them. simple enough.

If the link stopped working I would remove it and no longer send you FREE traffic

and your users would no longer have access to my content/resource, a loss to you or you would have never linked to my content/resource in the first place.

Alternatively, I could link to google.com/q=yourURLhere

and it would be redirected as it would not be an approved link...

[Samizdata]

This is a broken business model

Indeed, and it forgets what every business person knows:

"Word of mouth is the best medium of all".

When I link to a piece of web content I am personally recommending it.

FREE OF CHARGE.

Someone wants me to pay to do this for them?

When the content I link to may change at any time?

Or disappear entirely overnight?

While there is no benefit to me whatsover?

Are they for real?

the thing is, these links aren't making me rich

Then perhaps you need to work on monetising your content.

Charging for inbound links is not the revenue model of the future.

It is the first step on the road to oblivion.

...

[Samizdata]

your users would no longer have access to my content/resource

They can Google it themselves if they are that interested.

it would be redirected as it would not be an approved link

So you are really going to try charging Google 5 dollars a link?

Do let us know how that works out.

...

[bakedjake]

So guys start expecting a email from me soon asking you to pay me 5 bucks or else.

Based on the rule of thirds, I think it's a great idea and would love to see you try it. Make your email even more strongly (yet vaguely) worded to capture more of the second third:

"As you may know, once your site receives enough disavow reports, Google might penalize it. It's important you verify your site with us to prevent us from filing a report with Google."

I'd be interested in your results.

BOTH are questionable at best

So are meta tags, canonical tags, reciprocal linking schemes, spam reports, and every other silly thing 99% of SEOs out there have tried.

Then perhaps you need to work on monetising your content.

Sounds like that's exactly what cabbie's doing.

[matrix_jan]

Then I will pay you to link to you and then I'll just sell a redirect to others half the price. Heh... End of story.

There are million reasons why this is a broken model. Remember, when it comes to paying, people will do anything just not to loose a penny from their pocket.

[matrix_jan]

Make your email even more strongly (yet vaguely) worded to capture more of the second third:

"As you may know, once your site receives enough disavow reports, Google might penalize it. It's important you verify your site with us to prevent us from filing a report with Google."

It's called blackmailing. Pay me or else I will disavow. Talk to google first about monetizing their tool :)

[Samizdata]

Then perhaps you need to work on monetising your content.

Sounds like that's exactly what cabbie's doing.

With respect, Jake, he is trying to monetise MY content.

...

[indyank]

OMG! this thread now has the 55th response to add to the fun...enjoy guys...lol

[indyank]

Guess, the only innovative part is the title of this thread. does that credit go to the OP or the mod?

[cabbie]

I think Shepherd has summed it up perfectly.

You want to provide a link to my content/resource for the benefit of your site and the users of your site instead of creating the content/resource yourself why can't I charge you for it?

The websites are linking to my resource because they don't want to go to the trouble of creating the information themselves.
And if they did, then it would not be anywhere near as trustworthy as my site dedicated to the topic.
Now, webmasters can find many ways of getting around this but is not that more trouble than just shelling $5 paypal?

By the way, if you guys think that idea is good/bad, wait till you hear my next!

I am going to start charging people for me to read their emails! ;)
(i am not sure what I have been drinking)

Any link request or request to buy a link or other unsolicited email will be met on receipt by a email asking them to verify their email by paying $2 paypal.


Of course, I will wait till after I send my unsolicited emails first.lol

[bakedjake]

I am going to start charging people for me to read their emails! ;)

My lawyer does this. :)

[cabbie]

come to think of it so does mine. :)

[fathom]

By the way, if you guys think that idea is good/bad, wait till you hear my next!

I am going to start charging people for me to read their emails! wink
(i am not sure what I have been drinking)

Be sure not to response to anyone asking for a link removal with a fee request as Google sees (has stated) that is ill will and now has reason to take action against your domain and drop your nice green bar to white bar... OMG! :)

You can grandfather existing links to be removed for free and make it policy to charge anyone in the future and it is then up to them to accept a known risk... I'm sure Google would see that as good will...

But the former is as good as the Bidding Domains that got banned, and the article submission sites that got PANDAized and the link schemes (just before PENGUIN) that also got banned.

In your opening post you hinted at your flaw... PAGERANK!

Your value seems to be tied to PageRank and that wasn't your creation so if your model has anything to do with Google's PageRank... it had better not violate Google's TOS.