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.

[backdraft7]

cabbie must be related to the rich jerk.

[MikeNoLastName]

I like how you think Cabbie, but here's my biz concept model. If you have that good of a site with unique, constantly updated content (and I don't doubt you have, as I can think of a few right now) and that much "word of mouth" links, then you shouldn't care WHAT your G PageRank is and thus do whatever you feel like in regards to affecting your page rank at G. In fact I think I read you say that near the beginning of this thread. So assuming these links are bringing you actual traffic, it probably dwarfs the number of organic clickthrus from G. Thus, I would load the page with Adsense type Ads, the best paying Affiliate links, paid links, etc. that will probably make you far more money on a monthly basis per incoming link, than a 1-time $5 charge. Then encourage all the links from other sources as possible. You may also be able to sell subscriptions to visitors for more detailed info.

Naturally, make it impossible for other sites to link to partial content that does NOT have lots of ads around it and if possible break up the content into as many reasonable pieces as possible so as to be able to surround it with yet more ads.

While I love the idea of messing with G's New World Version of the internet this way, unless you are already an independently wealthy billionaire (in which case go for it Billy G. ,) I think you can do better via this method in your case.

[lucy24]

Charging to perform a verification service is not really something you can sue someone over as you'll find if you get an invoice

Uhm... Hello? Charging people for a service they did not request --and has not been performed-- is definitely lawsuit fodder.

I came into this thread late but I gotta say I'm impressed. Most people are content with reinventing the wheel. This time around, we're reinventing the pyramid scheme.

[oddsod]

Uhm... Hello? Charging people for a service they did not request --and has not been performed-- is definitely lawsuit fodder.

Thanks. You're correct. The wording will have to be amended to say that as standard we disavow all links as we get some shady sites linking to us. "If you want us to not disavow your link we need to check your site out first and there is a charge of $5 for that. Click on this link if you want an invoice".

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?

LifeInAsia, a bit like nofollow? Are all those nofollow destinations really bad destinations or did they just refuse to pay the fee?

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.

Exactly! Many of those crackpot, exploitative or sneaky ideas originated at Google so everybody and his dog thinks they are okay. If there's a moral case for snitching on fellow webmasters, for manipulating SEs, for using nofollow then there's a moral case to charge for IBLs.

[edited by: oddsod at 11:12 am (utc) on Feb 9, 2013]

[Samizdata]

I have come up with a idea of charging the websites that link to my websites $5 each...
start expecting a email from me soon asking you to pay me 5 bucks or else.

Leaving aside all the other obvious flaws and assuming your idea catches on:

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

If we charge 5 bucks to read an email about charging 5 bucks a link, where is the profit?

(i am not sure what I have been drinking)

It is called Kool Aid, and it has been spiked.

...

[cabbie]

"Blackmail , rich jerk, illegal,"..I am sure I will hear worse when I initiate my project but there seems to be a lot of outrage here...which is surprising.
Aren't we all trying to monetise our websites?
Paying to link to someone's resource seems quite valid to me and not blackmail when I neither have the time nor the resources to check if every backlink to me is natural and good quality. Nor is it illegal in my country to ask for support and include a paypal donate button in my email.
The concept is becoming clearer to me, so thanks for all the feedback, positive and negative.

Google has already confirmed that some links may harm your rankings.
I will try to convince the website who is linking to my website (as a resource to help his readers) in the mutual benefit of protecting the integrity of my website by validating the links to it.
I will ask that they contribute $5 to help me have the resources to keep my site updated and protected from malicious attempts to harm it's integrity.
By receiving the token payment, I will then assume that their link has a valid purpose and I will use the funds for a better life, er I mean website.
If I get no response, I may then take the safest option to assume that the link is not valid and disavow it in my bing and google webmaster account.
The linking website can of course choose any response it likes.
Cheers,

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Lol - an autoresponder that says "Thanks for the email but my time is valuable, kindly deposit $5 into my paypal account and I will respond". Classic.

As for the rest: I hate links more than ever after reading this.

Google, give me one good reason why I should care if another webmaster links to me or not. It makes a difference for you, but not for me. I have better things to do than to police other sites!

[Samizdata]

Paying to link to someone's resource seems quite valid to me

Charging people to recommend your business is certainly a novel concept.

You could also open a general store on Main Street and charge them to get in.

Aren't we all trying to monetise our websites?

The difference here is that you are trying to monetise other people's websites.

Google are first on my mailing list

Dear Larry and Sergey,

It has come to my attention that your websites include a number of links to my website.

Herewith my invoice for the full amount at 5 dollars per link, total $350,000.

Failure to pay within 14 days will result in all your links being disavowed.

This may seriously harm your business, so you had best pay immediately.

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

Just turn off your spam filter and you will be a millionaire in the morning.

This thread should have waited for 1 April.

...

[oddsod]

Yeah, but if you have to police other websites as a trade-off for Google traffic, why not get paid for it?

In time, authority websites that manage to get many others to pay for links get to be in a stronger position as only the really good authority sites can pull that off (getting people to pay). Further, webmasters paying to link to a site are clearly more interested in serving their visitors than gaming Google. And those are all good signals for an SE.

[Rosalind]

This thread is hilarious. I don't think we'd be having this discussion at all if Google didn't have such undue influence over the web's linking economy. And there's the flaw: all it takes is for the Gorg to change the rules, or alter how it treats the disavow tool, and everything shifts. If the disavow tool really did affect a site's standing then this sort of extortion would become commonplace. Then they would need a disavowal disavowal tool. And then people would have schemes to make money out of that, and we'd be back where we started.

The fact is, if Google and other engines use links, a secondary market is inevitable. That's the price they pay for trying to make money out of other people's curation.

[Shepherd]

You could also open a general store on Main Street and charge them to get in

Costco and sams club come to mind...

[matrix_jan]

@cabbie

There are already dozens of meaningful question about your broken model and you didn't even care to answer which makes me believe you need more attention than discussion. Why did you post here?

At least be kind enough to answer people's questions who spent some time on your post.

Or should we pay $5 to get answers?

[1script]

This thread is hilarious

Well, that and I have no idea how and why this thread made it a Featured Home Page Discussion.

Mods, seriously?

[netmeg]

I still want to see him try it and report back.

What the idea doesn't really account for is the psychology of a webmaster; no matter what the TBPR is, *our* sites are all better than his, almost by definition, because they're ours. He might make a few bones (because a certain percentage of any group of people are idiots) but most just won't see the value. So if he wants to charge to link to his site, odds are most will say "meh" and not bother, or if they really want his content for their users, they'll just scrape it.

Still be an interesting experiment though.

[Samizdata]

I still want to see him try it and report back

I want him to send me one of those 5 dollar link emails.

Then I can charge him 6 dollars for reading it.

...

[incrediBILL]

I want him to send me one of those 5 dollar link emails.

If someone sent me a Blackmail SEO email I would publicly post it and send a copy to the Google SPAM team so fast it would make your SMTP port spin.

Then in a preemptive strike, I would disavow his domain first.

[tedster]

I gotta say this is a novel idea - almost hysterically novel. The only thing that bothers me is how much it encourages kool-aid drinking instead of building a valuable web resource. IMO Google already gets enough webmaster support, spreading their distortions of the internet.

[helleborine]

Did April Fool's day arrive early?

OP has got to be kidding. This is so ridiculous, I won't waste my time commenting any further.

[cabbie]

Guys, I understand you are challenged by this.
This is novel and on the past status quo quite absurd, but so was the notion that the world was round once.

You just may have to get used to the idea.
The internet is no longer the Wild Wild West.
There is a new etiquette coming!

If you want to link to my content,do the polite thing and get my permission first.

Simple as that.
Some edu sites are already doing that and it should become the proper practice.

[Leosghost]

but as Donkey says" I aint got no friends"

There may be a reason for this ;)..

[topr8]

You could also open a general store on Main Street and charge them to get in

Shepherd >> Costco and sams club come to mind...

and also trade shows, consumer shows and many (consumer) fairs and events

[Samizdata]

If you want to link to my content,do the polite thing and get my permission first.

If you don't want people to link to something, don't put it on the public web.

Permission is not required and politeness has nothing to do with it.

Linking is a fundamental notion for the web... any attempt to forbid the practice... is based on a misunderstanding of the technology... There is a clear distinction between identifying a resource and accessing it. It is entirely reasonable to control access to a resource, but entirely futile to prevent it being identified.

Source: [w3.org...]

Did Larry and Sergey pay your invoice yet?

...

[cabbie]

There may be a reason for this ;)..

:) True, yeah.
But then you know what the say about mixing business with friendship. ;)

Permission is not required and politeness has nothing to do with it.

Please note the disclaimer at the very top of the document you quoted.(which was printed in 2003)

"Publication of this finding does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time."

The times they are a changing.

[Simsi]

I like innovation and quite often an idea gets shot down by lots of people before it flies.

Personally, it strikes me as a very flimsy business model with your foundations built on Google Sand and even if people do pay, it might all end tomorrow, you lose your authority and income. They may even want their money back if you get penalised! So to coin a phrase, I'm out, but... why don't you do it and report back how it goes cabbie? Might be an enlightening experiment.


PS. Incidentally, your potential customer base is not every webmaster. It is only those who think linking out to an authority site buys them Google juice. Is that very big?

[edited by: Simsi at 10:01 pm (utc) on Feb 10, 2013]

[Samizdata]

The times they are a changing

An invoice from Bob Dylan may be on its way to you, then.

Don't forget to charge him for reading it.

As netmeg suggests, try your "revenue model" and report back.

Don't forget, Google is first on your mailing list.

No point in wasting time on small fry if you want your "cool Million".

Google has lots of websites, lots of links to your content, and LOTS of money.

It should be a cakewalk.

You can publish your success story online and charge people 5 bucks to link to it.

Hell, why not make it 10 bucks?

People will line up to thank you by email - and you can charge them for reading it!

And nobody will ever point and laugh at you again.

...

[ken_b]

Other than thinking that this thread really belongs in the FOO forum, here's where this really falls down for me ...

What kind of niche/market/audience/call-it-whatever

has ONLY one "authority" website?

This whole thing sounds like a great way to promote your competitors,

but who knows, they may even send you $5.00 as a thank you!

.

[swa66]

The first one to send me such a message: I'll happily report the extortion attempt not only to google's abuse dept. (and other serach engines where relevant), but also to his/her ISP, email provider etc.

I'll probably publicly write about it as well.

[Shepherd]

I'll happily report the extortion attempt not only to google's absue dept. (and other serach engines where relevant), but also to his/her ISP, email provider etc.

I would love to see what those "reportings" look like! What in the world do any of those have to do with who I allow to link to my content/resource?

[lucy24]

See above about pyramid schemes. It's a terrific idea-- if you're at the top of the pyramid.

Fortunately, survey after survey has shown that well over half the population is better-looking, more intelligent, a better driver, has a more authoritative website ... et cetera ... than average.

So that's all right, then.

[Samizdata]

who I allow to link to my content/resource

You cannot "allow" (or disallow) publication of a hyperlink on a website you do not control.

Fantasize all you like, but you have neither the right nor the power to do it.

You are free to monetise your own content if you want.

But you have zero control over mine.

...