I know there's no right and wrong answer, but wondering if we could have a discussion about many versus few, the pros and cons.
My thoughts (as someone with two main sites, and a few trivial ones I haven't really invested in, with returns that reflected that):
On the many, diversification seems the main benefit. Having lots of sites means when one gets hammered in the next algo update or whatever, then it's no big deal. Having many also increases the chances of getting a big winner - I think we all know that some sites just won't do well. A friend of mine, a very successful investor, said from 5 investments, 1 will do much better than expected, 3 will do about what you expect, and 1 will bomb. That is in line with my broader experience in life. Diversify gives you a better chance of finding that 1 good one in 5.
On the few, it seems in my experience the deeper you dig into a niche, the more opportunities present themselves. I'm sure some sites have limits, but most sites it seems to me that new opportunities, new ways to expand the audience base (and thus increase traffic), and new ways to monetise that traffic are constantly appearing. But of course, this takes time, time that could be spent... diversifying.
So, I open the floor, what are your thoughts and experiences?
One will be winner, one will be so-so and one will be weak.
Beyond that the average person will find himself stretch to
thin trying to run numerous sites. Why have multi sites
with 85% not producing any thing, seems foolish to me.
That being said different people have different.
abilities and attitudes when it comes to many versus the
few.
there's danger in just having one winner. i think you need to go above this, but not too far beyond it. maybe instead of 1/1/1, shoot for 3/3/3 and live with 2/2/2 as a min.
That's my results of posting at 3.am
King Fisher
