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.

[helleborine]

The OP just 'fessed to to his comedic intent...

That makes more sense now, everything is back in its proper place in the universe.

Thanks for the chuckle, it was very welcome.

[Shaddows]

I think the big problem, other than poor taste, is maintenance costs.

I mean, sure, the first dredge is easy. But then what?

Do you monitor new links in real time, or periodically? How do you check against previous payment?

Do you charge by domain, sub-domain, or page? Do variables count as separate pages for charging purposes?

Then there is publishing your IBL policy. As soon as your policy is known, you will attract less new links, severely challenging your revenue stream.

It's a bit like auctioning bits of the EM spectrum. Good for a fast buck, lousy for actual revenue. Ultimately, I think you need to either charge more, or make it an annual fee.

I'd probably go for the annual fee, with different payment plans (Per-link, multi-link blocks, and free interlinking, for example).

No reason it couldn't work for a very small number of websites, with very specific characteristics (high PR, name recognition, unique resources, independent traffic sources). Google has proved that such sites need not fear the ill will of the webmaster community, and you're not nearly as hated as them.

</FantasyWorld>

[cabbie]

I appreciate the constructive feedback Shaddows.
Firstly, what is poor taste ?
Isn't good taste just a matter of acceptance, that often evolves? (with maturity?)
I think that monitoring (real time) and automation and management are eminently doable.There is software online now which can adapt to this, combined with a webmaster tools account to monitor links

The first thing that needs to be done is a clear visible IBL.
As you say, that may deter some sites linking, especially the average quality sites but really these do not bring much traffic anyway.So little lost there, and it probably wont stop bad sites linking, who wouldn't bother to read the ibl policy.
However, although I have had no feedback directly, I am punting better quality sites will not be so shocked.
Edu and some Government websites, make contact with me and it seems to be a policy with some of those to seek permission before they link.
My problem there is that these sources are not set up just to pay a quick $5 paypal.
So cost structure is still being contemplated.Quite a few websites have site wide links and I am not sure this is to be encouraged.
I prefer a once up front payment.I don't want a continuing engagement and I doubt the linking party does either

I agree, that I only considered this idea because of the unique situation of this website.However, having thought more, I believe that this model or an adaption of it can be made to work for other information rich sites.
What I do think will happen, is that IBL policies will become the norm, and ethics will require websites to ask for permission before linking.
Especially if search engines keep penalising sites for their inbound links.

[Samizdata]

I prefer a once up front payment

Dude, this joke isn't funny any more.

We are free to link to any URL on the web. We don't have to pay for your "permission".

Nobody will give you money unless you threaten to hurt them.

Extortion (also called blackmail, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

Your intent is clear in your opening post:

pay me 5 bucks or else

I strongly advise against implementing any such scheme.

what is poor taste?

Continuing with this thread.

</RealWorld>

...

[Chris_Boggs]

Thanks for the great discussion so far... this is the first thread I have caught up on in a few years or more, and I can see that passion and intelligence are still very common here.

I wanted to point out that the concept of telling someone not to link to you is enforceable. Here is an example: The Terms of Use for Amgen, a pharmaceutical Web site, clearly states that you may not link to any other page than their home page, and that you must only use the Brand name to link. See under "Links" subsection at amgen.com/privacy/use.html

"Unless otherwise set forth in a written agreement between you and Amgen, you must adhere to Amgen's linking policy as follows: (i) any link to an Amgen website must be a text only link clearly marked "Amgen WEBSITE," (ii) the appearance, position and other aspects of the link may not be such as to damage or dilute the goodwill associated with Amgen's names and trademarks, (iii) the link must "point" to the root domain name of the Amgen website and not to other pages within the website, (iv) the appearance, position and other attributes of the link may not create the false appearance that your organization or entity is sponsored by, affiliated with, or associated with Amgen, (v) when selected by a user, the link must display the website on full-screen and not within a "frame" on the linking website, and (vi) Amgen reserves the right to revoke its consent to the link at any time and in its sole discretion."

(Yes this is very fun if you have to do link building as part of an SEO recommendation for the site...)

Point is, that the lawyers will go after people they find to be linking to their site... who is to say they couldn't just charge as cabbie suggests. I do feel that the idea isn't that far-fetched, but rather than threaten to submit a disavow, simply throw up a TOS/TOU that says you can't link to me unless you pay me $5. :)

[martinibuster]

Hey Chris, welcome back, great to see you posting. :)

That's a good reminder about the strict linking policies some companies enforce.

Anyone know/recall, wasn't there a court case about this many years back?

[Chris_Boggs]

Thanks Martin! I hope to see you soon.

I can;t recall the lawsuit(s) but I agree something spurred this type of TOU. Since mid-2000's I have seen linking become more and more of a discussion point in corporate sponsorship/CSR contract creation... big brands and experienced digital lawyers see links as equity both for the giver and receiver ...why not for smaller brands and sites with provable established relevance in a particular industry/theme?

[Leosghost]

I wanted to point out that the concept of telling someone not to link to you is enforceable.

It may come as a surprise to some ;)..so best be sitting down before reading on..

There is a whole world outside of the USA..

Most of which includes countries ( such as all those within the EU for example ) where it would not be enforceable.. ( "shrink wrap TOS" ) any more than "shrink wrap EULAs"..

I suspect that many judges ( even in the USA ;) would fall about laughing at the idea of a website trying to enforce who and how one could link to them..

Then when they had recovered from the laughter..slapping a penalty for "trying it on"..

I suspect that trying to say who and how someone could link to your site would also fall foul of the right to free speech in the USA..:)

[Chris_Boggs]

from Shell Global site: shell.com/global/aboutshell/about-our-website/terms.html

"You may not

copy (whether by printing off onto paper, storing on disk, downloading or in any other way), distribute (including distributing copies), broadcast, alter or tamper with in any way or otherwise use any material contained in the web site except as set out under "You may". These restrictions apply in relation to all or part of the material on the web site;
remove any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property notices contained in the original material from any material copied or printed off from the web site;
link to this web site;
without our express written consent.

If you wish to provide a hypertext or other link to this web site, please email the Webmaster with details of:

the URL(s) of the web page(s) from which you are proposing to link to this web site
the URL(s) of the web page(s) on this web site to which you are proposing to link
and we will consider your request. It is our decision as to whether we agree to your request and we do not have to do so. "

[Chris_Boggs]

Leosghost I am curious also why the judges would laugh at someone not wanting to be pointed-to via hyperlink. It is a privacy thing at the core I feel.

I do agree "enforceable" is a vague word but I also think that the courts would side with a company that had clearly stated and very specific anti-linking policies such as these.

Some examples of where I may not want people to link to me:

I have original artwork or other digital assets that I want to keep from being scraped and copied all the time, so I may limit the number of ways to get to me, without having to implement password protection>

I have unique educational content and I don;t want people to "piggy back off my content" (I guess this is cabbie's argument that there is value in some content you link to that transfers back to your relevancy score - just for the record I do believe this concept of "content extension" beyond your own domain to have merit and I have seen examples of performance increases after new outbound links added)

what are some more?

[LifeinAsia]

Anyone know/recall, wasn't there a court case about this many years back?

Ticketmaster v MicroSoft, back in the dark ages of the 1990s! The suit was settled out of court, so no groundbreaking precedent.

Funny- mow, Ticketmaster's affiliate program ENCOURAGES people to deep link! :)

[lucy24]

"You may not ...

All of those quoted texts are from the Terms of Use. That means that, at most, you have to follow them in order to use the site. You would then have to convince a judge that linking to a site counts as using it, even if you're not setting foot on the site itself.

... copy (whether by printing off onto paper, storing on disk, downloading or in any other way), distribute (including distributing copies), broadcast, alter or tamper with in any way or otherwise use any material contained in the web site except as set out ...

That's not linking. That's an elementary copyright notice.

I suspect that trying to say who and how someone could link to your site would also fall foul of the right to free speech in the USA.

Conversely, your site is perfectly free to deny access to someone from any given referer-- with possible exceptions if your referer blocks are demographically targeted in some illegal way. For example, if your site lists available housing and you block people arriving from sites aimed at a particular ethnic group. I hate to think anyone would be that blatantly stupid, when a simple "It's been rented" or "We've already filled that position" would do. But you never know, do you.

So now we're back at one of the many unanswered questions: Under what circumstances would a real human visitor be unwelcome?

Answer that comes immediately to mind: When the referer is "web-sites-that-you-know-what dot com" or similar, so you know in advance that the visitors are only there to sneer at your site. But that's a pretty small group.

[Leosghost]

@Chris_Boggs

from Shell Global site: shell.com/global/aboutshell/about-our-website/terms.html

"You may not

copy (whether by printing off onto paper, storing on disk, downloading or in any other way), distribute (including distributing copies), broadcast, alter or tamper with in any way or otherwise use any material contained in the web site except as set out under "You may". These restrictions apply in relation to all or part of the material on the web site;
remove any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property notices contained in the original material from any material copied or printed off from the web site;
link to this web site;
without our express written consent.

If you wish to provide a hypertext or other link to this web site, please email the Webmaster with details of:

the URL(s) of the web page(s) from which you are proposing to link to this web site
the URL(s) of the web page(s) on this web site to which you are proposing to link
and we will consider your request. It is our decision as to whether we agree to your request and we do not have to do so.

"

One can write what ever one wishes on ones own site..that does not make it binding in any way whatsoever upon anyone else reading or linking to you..

Copyright ( and trademark ) protection are completely different matters upon which there is international agreement and conventions..

Leosghost I am curious also why the judges would laugh at someone not wanting to be pointed-to via hyperlink. It is a privacy thing at the core I feel.

Want to keep your "content" private ? ( again not talking about copyright etc ) ..don't post it on publicly accessible servers..or block access ( selectively if you wish ) to it via robots , .htaccess or scripts..

Don't want me to point at your site..serve me a 403 ;)

Again you really need to think outside the USA..and possibly to talk to a few more judges within the USA..no judges take kindly to people wasting their time..

Lucy.. and in fact almost everyone.. types faster than I do ;)..She said substantially the same things.. whilst I was correcting my speeling

*

I hate to think anyone would be that blatantly stupid

Racism and racists are by definition blatantly stupid ;)..

[Samizdata]

the strict linking policies some companies enforce

That Shell example was hilarious.

And Chris_Boggs just violated it with impunity, which rather negates his point.

simply throw up a TOS/TOU that says you can't link to me unless you pay me $5

I never need to see the ToS, let alone agree to it.

www.example.com/five-dollar-link

Freebie for you.

...

[Chris_Boggs]

sorry folks about not having trimmed that quote any further. I just put the whole section in for context, but obviously was only referring to the link portions which are innocuously powerful in a strange way. :)

I did not in fact link to the site rather made reference to a page - Yep there are plenty of "example" links that could be violating such terms.

I think it would be fun if someone tested it... I may try to work that in somewhere.

Lucy I did try to provide an example where you may not want a human visitor, but of course most scrapers would be automated. I feel that there are instances where a site owner could test as a more positive overall user experience for your community by not forcing login/firewall/robots etc, and rather keeping the website "on the low." If you really wanted to do this maybe you would ask people that have traffic volume and are sending bouncing traffic to your site, to remove a link?

I know business owners that use security to block even remotely suspicious visitors, so the more links to them the more potential bad UX for desired visitors.

The Shell example is pretty hilarious for a number of reasons... it seems that almost 10k root domains link to shell.com... however we have no idea if and how many Shell has gotten removed by sending scary lawyer letters. In my experience all these Terms of... for big companies eventually come in to play.

[Samizdata]

I did not in fact link to the site rather made reference to a page

You apparently violated the ToS by copying content and distributing it.

Better send them 5 bucks immediately.

...

To those with dollar signs in their eyes, I will offer an analogy:

You may own the house you live in, and you may own the land it is built on.

But you do not own the address that describes its location.

I don't have to visit that address to know it exists.

And when I write to that address you don't get paid.

This may apparently make you unhappy.

Get over it.

...

I offer the link below for the benefit of everyone on this thread.

I am not claiming it is gospel.

But neither I nor WebnasterWorld will be charged for it.

[chillingeffects.org...]

...

[Chris_Boggs]

ok good point but there are also 400k plus link violators. :)

thanks for the link - I wish the subsequent link to the tickets.com article worked, but I find it interesting that chillingeffects says that deep linking hasn't been found to be illegal, and insinuates that it isn't, yet the references states that Microsoft settled and agreed not to link to deep pages at Ticketmaster - does that mean they were afraid they couldn't win?

(I think this is interestingly relevant to the most recent problems Yelp was having with Google and is actually part of the FTC settlement structure from Google's perspective but with content instead)

(added) I love the DMCA last question on that link too... I read it as saying that that you would only receive protection as long as you took down a link as soon as you were legally informed you were infringing. To the point of "who" would be someone you don't want linking to you I think it's fair to say that it doesn't matter who. Then as long as you formally ask them to remove a link then they should comply, right? So if I don't like certain segments and I don't want them to link to me then I have that right? (to Lucys point the makeup of this segment could be drawn by race or other demographic status.

It seems to me it's the same thing if I own any type of digital content that I can block someone from linking to it, at least in US under DMCA. But since the DMCA is based on the (World treaty) WIPO why wouldn't this be globally accepted as fair right to block people from infringing through their link?

[edited by: Chris_Boggs at 3:41 am (utc) on Feb 15, 2013]

[cabbie]

I strongly advise against implementing any such scheme.

what is poor taste?

Continuing with this thread.

So says the poster who has done most to keep this thread active.:)

There have been a few legal suits brought to bear for sites linking to other sites.
Most have had to do with issue that the receiving website feeling that their copyright has been infringed.
Nearly all of the Irish newspapers under a umbrella organisation sent invoices to websites linking to their content demanding of payment of 300 GBP.
So I am cheap.
The fact that it is now proven, that links maybe harmful to one's site and it's reputation, opens up a new avenue for legal claims.

Apple, BBC interactive, Manchester United, Vodafone, NYSE are just some of the heavyweights that prohibit linking to their site without at least prior written permission.
As to whether a sites TOS is legally binding.. according to Chillingeffects,
"The law is still not settled on so-called "click-wrap" contracts, but a court will look at how prominently the terms of use are displayed and whether you had to agree to them before you could proceed with using the website or service."

[tedster]

With Google being such a driver of traffic and income for online business, and also playing games with backlink related penalties, the idea of restricting who can link to your site certainly has some appeal, doesn't it?

Seems like either Google should either stop this BS, or websites should get the legal right to stop unwanted links.

[lucy24]

You may own the house you live in, and you may own the land it is built on.

But you do not own the address that describes its location.

I don't have to visit that address to know it exists.

And when I write to that address you don't get paid.

That's a pretty decent analogy, but there's always a loophole. In this case: If I inundate your mailbox with unwanted mail, or if I knock on your door at all hours of the day and night, you do have remedies beyond tossing the mail in the trash and refusing to open the door. The precise nature of those remedies depends on your jurisdiction. And if it is found that I've been going around telling all my friends to go knock on your door...

:: idly wondering whether anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted for disregarding a "No Solicitors" sign ::

[cabbie]

Seems like either Google should either stop this BS, or websites should get the legal right to stop unwanted links.

Tedster, when a calm rational guy like you comes out with strong language like this, I sit up and listen.

Hmmmm.., could this argument.. be turning around?

[Shepherd]

idly wondering whether anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted for disregarding a "No Solicitors" sign

Yes. Well, I would have been successfully prosecuted if I had not plead no contest...

[Shaddows]

Seems like either Google should either stop this BS, or websites should get the legal right to stop unwanted links.

I detect a logical fallacy, possibly a Category Error.

Restated:
"This private company's guidelines, which you are under no obligation to follow, is causing incidental impacts in unrelated spheres, so the State should get involved"

Choosing to play Google's game is a non-contractual relationship that should have no legal protection whatever. Consumers get protections from monopolies, but not businesses.

Now that jurisdiction has been brought up... why aren't the US contingent talking about the 1st Amendment? Could US websites be stopped from "talking" about a third party?

Anyway, IIRC correctly, the OP is not talking about stopping IBLs. Just sending an email asking for payment. At which point, one of three things can happen:

Link stays, payment made.
Link removed, no payment.
Link stays, no payment.

Only the third will result in any action from the OP.

At that point, disavow is a tool that has no restrictions on it.
Redirects ("Sorry, this resource is not available to visitors from <referrer domain>") might be seen as cloaking, but otherwise are not controversial.

I see no need for the OP to resort to legal protection. IANAL, but I can't see how this could be seen as illegal. It will probably make money, especially if the resource is valuable and unique.

I just think it is in bad taste to restrict the free flow of traffic- its against the ideals of the internet.

But, norms change over time. There is no reason why the balkanisation of the internet is inherently worse, unless you happen to be attached to freedom of information.

Of course, as soon as you start down that route, the arguments become precisely the same as copyright- freedom of information Vs freedom of the creator to control the content, and the context the content is presented in.

But I come back to my initial point. This will NOT work for 99% of sites, simply because they do not have the inherent authority to charge for links. They are not a unique resource.

I suppose that is something that upsets people, when someone has a monetisation option that is unavailable to them.

Go for it. It's an interesting experiment, not dissimilar to a paywall. After all, people are free NOT to link to you should they choose.

[Samizdata]

it is now proven, that links maybe harmful to one's site

Citation needed.

My very first contribution to this preposterous thread pointed out that a hyperlink cannot damage your website, which remains entirely unchanged.

A search engine's reaction to a hyperlink is entirely their decision - I have no agreement with them and no influence on their ranking system. Take it up with them.

The fundamental flaw in your supposed "revenue model of the future" is that you are trying to monetise something you do not own.

You are free to put a toll-booth on your property and charge people to get in.

You are not free to put a toll-booth on my property and charge them to get out.

the idea of restricting who can link to your site certainly has some appeal, doesn't it?

Tedster, the appeal of the "ideas" presented here is in the charging, not the restricting.

If you can charge for inbound links, you will presumably want as many as possible.

Don Corleone knew how it worked.

pay me 5 bucks or else

Or else what, Cabbie?

Extortion and fraud are criminal offences.

And they are all you have.

Make me an offer I can't refuse.

...

[netmeg]

Hmm, reminds me; I had a situation where I had to block referrers from a specific incoming link. Someone linked to one of my event sites - it was a group that some people might consider to be along the lines of a hate group - and they posted a link to an event on my site in order to organize some kind of demonstration at that event (nothing to do with me personally, nor even the event - they just saw a chance to reach a lot of people at one time) I kicked it around in my head for a while after I discovered it, and then ended up blocking referrers from that link.

But that situation is 1) a one off and 2) not the same situation as cabbie is proposing.

[ck77]

Imagine how this would work in the offline world?
Do you think it would be right if a store owner demanded you pay them just for talking about their store?
Imagine being taken to court for not paying for the privilege of being able to talk about a business, even if it's in a positive light?
How much of an impact would this have on freedom of speech?

[Shepherd]

there is a difference between:

talking about their store

and sending traffic to my store/content/resource (please try to remember that not everything on the web is a "store").

"Talk about", no problem, use a link to my content/resource to try and make your "authoritative" article/content/site more better, not so good.

Shaddows point is very valid though:

This will NOT work for 99% of sites, simply because they do not have the inherent authority to charge for links. They are not a unique resource.

Something like this is not for the 10,945,899th article about little blue pills written today, this is for the top 1% of content/resources out there.

[matrix_jan]

Maybe I live on the other side of the web. Because I don't get how linking to authority website can make one's article better. Anyone? Please explain.

So the question still remains that if the linker sends users without referral data, how in the world are you going to find out where they came from?

The word will spread that some websites are charging, and a simple script will appear in x forum on how to redirect with no referrer.

There is a line between not allowing links, and charging for them. Why? X website buys a right to link to you. It then sells the right to other websites for 20% of the actual price. It simply asks to link to a page on its server which sends them to you. And you think they came from X. How do you imagine having control over this? Checking backlinks for every website that buys linking rights from you?

But the question still remains, on why would people care so much to link to something. So that their users would get to a better place? What's in it for them?

[Shepherd]

I don't get how linking to authority website can make one's article better. Anyone? Please explain.

Why would one link to a website from an article if it did not make one's article better? Are people actually linking out to make their article worse?

[matrix_jan]

To my knowledge authors link for user experience, so people can click and go to the page directly instead of searching for it. But if the page owner does not want you to link for free, you are more likely to find a bypass instead of paying. My question is why would someone pay in order to have a direct simple <a href... link instead of a bypass. How is it better for the author?