Linking for traffic vs. linking for rankings

[Makaveli2007]

I often hear SEOs state that they get most of their traffic from search and only 10-15% or so directly through their links.

I've been wondering if this is a self-fulfilling prophecy these days as most SEOs (or webmasters) don't really consider whether a link will send traffic as long as it's a link and placed on a relevant/authoritative site. For example if they get a link from a blog they'll be happy about it even if the blog entry is outdated soon and doesnt receive any direct traffic anymore. For direct traffic that'd be obviously a bad strategy, but for rankings it probably still has a lot of value after the page isnt visited too much anymore.

Or consider some viral marketing/link baiting techniques the main goal of which usually is to get a link through controversy (not really trying to get interested prospects through direct traffic).

Ive also heard quite a few times that quality direct traffic often converts better than traffic from search. Is there any truth to this?

Is there anyone out there who's trying to get links for the main purpose of getting quality direct traffic? I must say doing this seems extremely appealing to me as it'd be a great way to be more independent from the search engines and their algorithm updates, but Im wondering if it can be nearly as effective (even if everybody will usually say it's a good idea to think of links this way).

[wheel]

Your question colours most of the posts here. I'm completely in the camp of 'SE traffic only'. In my niche, when folks want product they head to Google. So that's where I need to be. There's clearly other industries where there's plenty of non-search engine traffic; just not in mine :).

[lorien1973]

Ive also heard quite a few times that quality direct traffic often converts better than traffic from search. Is there any truth to this?

most definitely. I've had a few of my products featured on blogs as a "review" situation. After seeing a few sales come thru the links, I checked out what was written there and the guy said he saw the product on tv, linked to my site and the conversions there were many times better than any SE conversions I got for it. Don't under-estimate word of mouth on blogs.

[Crush]

For me search. I know people use search and that is where I want to be. I think it is more cost effective to persue serps opposed to articles blog posts etc.

I would be please to hear opinions from people who get from non search sources though

[Makaveli2007]

Interesting @lorien1973.

Usually people say "I dont care about traffic from links, all I want is search engine rankings, because my overall traffic from links is only 15% anyways!".

However the only thing that really counts is the percentage of conversions coming from each traffic stream, not the amount of traffic itself.

Admittedly, I bet that search engine rankings will still be king even if looking at number of conversions not number of unique visitors. However that might change it a little bit.

[martinibuster]

I think Crush has a good point for focusing on linking for the sake of ranking better over linking for traffic.

That said, I have advertisers who enthusiastically pay to advertise on my site from banners served up by a JavaScript rotator. They're there because my site traffic is 100% relevant, regardless that they obtain zero search engine benefit.

[edited by: martinibuster at 9:32 pm (utc) on Nov. 20, 2007]

[lorien1973]

Admittedly, I bet that search engine rankings will still be king even if looking at number of conversions not number of unique visitors. However that might change it a little bit.

Of course. There's no doubt. But I had sent a blogger a product one time, he reviewed it and had it link to my site of course. Its a relatively familiar commercial (if you are in the US). The blog brought me about 30 clicks and resulted in 20 sales. I'd have to look at current stats, but after it went away from the homepage it wasn't looked at very often. So it converted at 66%. SE traffic for the same product is about 3-4%. So about a $9 investment got me about $180 (plus or minus) in profit. No SE traffic is doing that.

There's a certain level of trust for blogs (not all blogs, mind you, of course). So if you read a positive review on there you are going to take a second look at it - much longer than you would just clicking some SE result. I do it for blogs I enjoy. If a blogger says they bought x on amazon and love it, I'll definitely take it into consideration.

[Whitey]

That said, I have advertisers who enthusiastically pay to advertise on my site from banners served up by a JavaScript rotator. They're there because my site traffic is 100% relevant, regardless that they obtain zero search engine benefit.

There are immense benefits in using banner advertising, but you have to be very smart in it's implementation. It simply depends on the circumstances which may have subtle nuances.

Banner advertising works well with "awareness" campaigns. Links do not command the same attention. Currently, in Australia , there is an election campaign with huge banner ads occupying fromt pages of our daily news sites. Strong stuff ..... you'll likely not click on the advert, but it will remind you of who to vote for. The better the ad, the better the retention. Potentially, these adds could be cost effective if they're built to drive word of mouth.

Links for traffic would have to be embedded in a well read article, and even then, the reality is that few would have a legitimate reason to be side tracked out of the article through the link.

Links for rankings lead to very specific and qualified searches by users on the SERP's.

Frankly, there's no science to marketing, since it get's to a point that's beyond measurement with all channels involved, coupled with user behaviours that are diverse. But getting a few foundation strategies in place is key.