Forum Moderators: martinibuster
There have been some threads here pointing out that if you make a site that isn't so useful, that if you write articles that aren't so comprehensive, visitors are more likely to click on ads and you'll make more money. Based on my experience, I agree.
Does that mean a choice has to be made between providing a good site or making the most you can from your site?
Consider this example. I'm currently planning for a site about widget accessories. One page will have an article reviewing widget cases, their benefits, disadvantages, things to look for when shopping for a widget case, etc. If I put AdSense on the page without suggesting sites where my visitors can find widget cases, they will be much more likely to click on targeted AdSense ads for widget cases.
Instead suppose I want to make my site very useful and after the article I list a series of sites where widget cases can be purchased. My visitors might find the site more useful, but they will have less reason to even notice the targeted AdSense ads, much less click on the ads.
I suppose I could compromise somewhat by listing the sites' URL's without providing clickable links to the sites that sell widget cases. But that seems an odd way to present the information on today's WWW.
So where's the balance? How do you decide?
FarmBoy
I clearly go for quality because this will create long-lasting value, a future investment if you want. Your visitors will ONLY bookmark and recommend your site or article if they are pleased with it. If you provide a poor experience, people might click to get away from the site and you will have a short-term gain from this, but you are always under pressure to repeat the trick again and again (read: you are under constant fear that something happens to your SE rankings). With quality content it is much easier: even if you lost your SE rankings, you could re-load the site with a bit of advertising (which users would then bookmark again).
If it's a review site, a really good review is likely to get readers who will click on an ad for the product if they are interested in buying. If it's an MFA "review site" the ads clicked are likely going to be for other reviews instead of purchases.
Which site is more likely to get the natural links to the reviews? The natural links come to the good content, not to the crap. Maybe my good content doesn't get as high of a CTR, but it probably gets a lot more traffic, and it probably gets a higher EPC.
Then there's the little thing about being happier with myself when I produce a good product. I just can't bring myself to produce large quantities of crap content just to make more money. Of course it works for some people, but it won't work for me. I enjoy the complement too much when I get natural links from people that enjoy my content.
If it's a review site, a really good review is likely to get readers who will click on an ad for the product if they are interested in buying.
I don't necessarily have a "review site" in mind as much as a site that will have some reviews.
Either way, as I explained in the original post, I'm considering whether or not to provide (just below the review), links to sites that sell widget cases. Providing them will make the site more useful to visitors but less likely to click on ads.
FarmBoy
I think I can get away with this strategy because a have a long tail site and Google has done a good job of matching the ads to the content.
FarmBoy (half-kidding)
Instead suppose I want to make my site very useful and after the article I list a series of sites where widget cases can be purchased.
Case 1: This is a small percentage of your traffic, so it does not represent any great degradation of your "visitor experience" to present them with AdSense ads pointing to widget cases instead of links.
Case 2: This is a significant percentage of your traffic, so you could reasonably select the one or two vendors of widget cases you feel are best, and strike up an affiliate relationship with them -- thus continuing to profit without degrading your "visitor experience".
Paper magazines could enhance their "visitor experience" by always including a sidebar of relevant product listings in each and every article (even when the article is not a product review). They do not, because they realize this decreases any motivation to advertise, which eventually leads to not being able to provide any "visitor experience" whatsoever when they run out of money.
I will say though I am only a semi expert on dating sites, and not all types of websites. My visitors do not seem very bothered by the ads because they are getting something out of my site. If you can build a community with your site things just seem to fall into place.
I am feeling good today because when I started this in March ads only brought in about $3 a day, but now I just broke the $1000 mark for the month of February! Yippy!
Either way, as I explained in the original post, I'm considering whether or not to provide (just below the review), links to sites that sell widget cases. Providing them will make the site more useful to visitors but less likely to click on ads.
When I write about a destination, I link to all kinds of sites that distract visitors from ads and affiliate links, and which--in come cases--are competing with me for revenue. (A good example would be an official national or city tourism site that has a hotel-booking engine.) I figure that, in the end, I'll prosper by gaining the trust and loyalty of visitors. What's more, that strategy is hardly new: It's a strategy that has worked well for sites that range from Google Search to TripAdvisor.
[There have been some threads here pointing out that if you make a good useful site, people will use it, return and will refer others. Based on my experience, I agree.]
For evergreen sites this works well
[There have been some threads here pointing out that if you make a site that isn't so useful, that if you write articles that aren't so comprehensive, visitors are more likely to click on ads and you'll make more money. Based on my experience, I agree. ]
For sites with dated content you can away with this but with a site w/ evergreen content I suspect diminishing returns would set in quickly
For sites with dated content you can away with this but with a site w/ evergreen content I suspect diminishing returns would set in quickly
Not in my experience. It depends on the topic and the motivatation of the audience. An evergreen site that appeals to car buyers or travel planners, for example, is likely to attract repeat visitors who are at various stages of the research and buying cicle. A visitor who's planning a trip to Japan, for example, might click on ads for tours during a preliminary visit, click on more ads when researching hotel stays, and so forth. Similarly, someone who's interested in buying a $1,000 digital single-lens reflex camera may spend months visiting review sites (and conceivably clicking on ads) before biting the bullet and making a purchase decision. Also, certain topics will have a constant stream of new visitors (leisure travel being a good example).
DoubleClick published a "Search Before the Purchase" study in 2005 that is well worth looking up in Google. It showed, for example, that most purchase decisions involve multiple online research sessions over a period of weeks or months. The publisher who can attract those visitors at each stage of the buying cycle (not just at the end) will earn more revenue per visitors than the publisher who takes a short-term, grab-'em-and-discard-'em approach.
There might be an affiliate opportunity there that would be even better than an adsense click.
