Open Letter to the “King”
By Michael Sumner • Sep 19th, 2009 • Category: Web DevelopmentWell, since my comment hasn’t made it through the moderation queue on Rick’s latest blog post about mini sites, and it seems like it isn’t going to make it through because many comments have been approved after mine, I guess I need to post it here. It all started with Rick getting his Adsense account closed, which he attributes (imo mistakenly) to having Adsense on mini sites. He goes on in his most recent article to say that his mini sites showed no sign of life or growth. Rick says “In EVERY case, traffic did not grow. In EVERY case traffic remained the same at BEST and mostly declined. In EVERY case I made less money than PPC.” I guess they weren’t developed very well…
Several people then chimed in with comments saying mini sites are nothing but glorified MFA sites, that full-scale development is the only way to go, and so on. As most of you know, I co-founded MiniSites.com. I replied to his post with examples of our own development projects since Rick keeps saying how much he loves stats and numbers, and that everything else is BS. Neither of my comments made it through though.
I occasionally hear people say that a mini site won’t get love from the search engines because they are too thin, but it is clear that those bemoaning the poor performance of mini sites obviously don’t know how to pull them off, or they used a provider that cuts corners and doesn’t do a good job. Here are some examples of sites we developed along with their ranking in Google, exact monthly search frequency, and number of competing pages. As you will see these are high-competition terms:
- Motorsports.com (#3 – 27,100 – 15.2 million)
- Housekeeper.com (#4 – 22,200 – 6.47 million)
- Sitter.com (#5 – 8,100 – 20.8 million)
- Wrenches.com (#5 – 22,200 – 3.36 million)
- Bifocal.com (#6 – 6,600 – 1.1 million)
- RestlessLegSyndrome.com (#9 – 60,500 – 746,000)
- Bicycle.com (#11 – 550,000 – 42.5 million)
- Haberdashery.com (#6 – 33,100 – 892,000)
- PetSitter.com (#6 – 9,900 – 1.95 million)
- PaternityTest.com (#9 – 22,200 – 1.85 million)
- BabysitterJobs.com (#9 – 18,100 – 3.53 million)
- MagicShops.com (#7 – 6,600 – 63.4 million)
- DesignerEyewear.com (#5 – 5,400 – 2.95 million)
Do you REALLY think that Google would rank these high-competition terms on their first page if they thought they were too thin and useless? Get a clue. You think those rankings are impressive? You should see what happens with long-tails that have low competition… the search engines love them so much it would blow your mind.
I hear people complaining that mini sites are too expensive… well you get what you pay for and then some. I know people who have paid $10k+ for consulting from an SEO expert and usually don’t even get first page results… well the people above paid $350 for first page results and a solid web site to get them started.
The problem is that 95% of domainers have never done serious development and have no clue what it costs, and they all expect instant gratification. I’ve seen people pay $5k for a good site design, $500 for a good logo, $10k+ for SEO services, mid $xx,xxx for a custom backend, etc. $350 is dirt cheap for the results you get. Many of our clients are getting thousands of uniques from search engines a month on domains that had never even been in the index before. If you know how to turn those extra visitors into dollars through direct banner sales, affiliate programs, and lead gen, you’ll make that $350 back in a month with interest. In fact, I’ll go into some traffic stats for you.
So far we’ve developed a little more than 200 sites, most of which are not in the same league as the category-killers listed above. Across that network of sites in August, there were 100,046 uniques, 164,813 visitors, and 320,666 page views. That’s not bad for a handful of “useless” mini sites. Averaging 500 uniques per month, 65% return rate, and 1,600 page views per site is a sign of the quality we put out there.
Let’s compare that to DevHub who just recently boasted hitting 1.1 million total visitors in 6 months with more than 25,000 active members. Even if we assume that each active member has just one domain in their account (most likely more), they got an average of 44 visitors (1.1M / 25k) per site over that six month period. In five months, we got 470,656 visitors, which across 200 sites is 2,352 visitors per site on average.
So are mini sites dead? Well, I guess that would depend on what provider you’re using… Google seems to like our work by rewarding it with great rankings. Other people who mass develop sites and cut costs and corners might be a dying breed, but doing things right will never go out of style. We provide unique, relevant content which Google loves, solid designs, and we give you the ability to expand on our creation, adding pages, forums, etc. to make the site even more sticky.
We have clients with 60-75 mini sites on the same Adsense account and have never had a problem. I’m guessing Rick was using AEIOU which didn’t used to put a Privacy Policy (against TOS), and is very spammy with their Adsense placement, and that’s why he got the boot. Only Adsense knows for sure though.
Related posts:
- Google Opens up Adsense for Domains Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced this morning that it opened up...
- Mini Sites are Thriving I have to hand it to Rick, he is great...
- Selling Ad Space In the past few weeks I have been contacted by...
- Understanding Search Volume Every day you see sales pitches for domain names that...
- Comparing Mini Site Providers I just wanted to discuss Mike Cohen’s most recent post,...
Michael Sumner
Email this author | All posts by Michael Sumner
My Friend,
I never received the comment. Email it to me and I will post it. I don’t censor posts! A retraction would be nice!
Rick Schwartz
Is this your post???
It was there all the time!!!! Now a retraction AND an apology are in order my “Friend” I don’t like be accused of stuff I did not do and especially in public!
Did you speak with Google and they said they closed your Adsense because you put it on mini sites? Otherwise your title is misleading.
There are a million and one reasons why your Adsense account could have been closed. Maybe your mini site (or full scale) developer didn’t have an Adsense-compliant Privacy Policy on every site. Maybe he used more Adsense units than the TOS allows. Maybe he put headings over the ads to “Click Here”. Maybe you got a lot of sketchy traffic somehow. Maybe someone clickbombed you. Maybe you had them on a site that Adsense doesn’t agree with, like gambling, adult, etc. etc. etc.
To say Google is going after mini sites is silly, especially when there’s so many different reasons you could have been shut down. If a few of your sites happened to be about credit cards, would you shout “Google is shutting down credit card sites” from the hilltops?
We have several clients who developed 60-75 mini sites, all with Adsense, and none have had problems.
I can’t imagine your 7 were the first on Google’s kill list and they’re on a mission to destroy mini sites. It’s much more likely one or more of your sites violated their TOS in some way, or the quality of your traffic/clicks was not beyond reproach.
I know you like to shake things up, and I have nothing but respect for you… but please don’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
No Rick, that isn’t the comment I’m referring to. Although I did comment on your reply to that comment, which didn’t get through moderation. Once I saw your new article, I posted a similar comment which didn’t make it through moderation either. I know it isn’t a problem on my end, because one of my comments made it through today and all were posted from the same browser, computer, etc.
I would be inclined to issue a retraction/apology, however, I already sent an email to your webfather address almost seven hours ago about the comment not being approved, but I never got a response. Maybe two comments just happened to get dropped by your database or got lost in the vast internet, and maybe you don’t check that email address, and if that’s the case I’m sorry. I updated the wording to make it less accusatory, but I find it too big of a coincidence to issue a separate retraction/apology.
I don’t mean any disrespect because you’re a god in this industry and you have brought it to heights that without you (and TRAFFIC) probably wouldn’t have been possible. However, I remember Stephen having a similar issue with a comment expressing a dissenting opinion not making it through. Might want to get your software checked out.
I have not checked that email account today. I NEVER received your original post. I post everything other than spam. I use typepad, maybe it was just too long? I don’t know. But I will check my email and post it. I post every comment and if you check, Stephen may even confirm that one for you.
There was no post in the email so if you send it I will post it or you can try and resubmit and see what happens.
I didn’t email you the comment (and I don’t have it in my clipboard any more), I was just asking if maybe it didn’t get submitted properly and complimenting you on your blog. I don’t think it was too long, a longer comment from Helder made it through. Anyway, I changed the wording to say that it didn’t make it through instead of that you didn’t approve it.
I’d still love to hear your comments about the real topic of this post though, which shows that mini sites can rank well even for high-competition terms, that people are coming back to the mini sites multiple times, that people are viewing 3+ pages on average when 99% of the sites are only 5 pages, etc. Does that sound like mini sites are useless and dead? Also, I’d love to see a PPC lander that allows direct banner sales, affiliate programs, lead gen, etc.
I understand that you were trying to tell people to stay away from Google because they operate in a completely opaque manner, don’t involve us in decisions or notify us before they drop us, etc. and I think that is a superb message. However, grouping that in with saying mini sites are the problem seems counterproductive when you can monetize in so many other ways on one.
Michael,
My blog post gives minisite producers an opportunity to make a statement. Here is something somebody sent me. A link to hundreds of other folks that Google cut off.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdSense/label?lid=215fb2e4b67e2667&hl=en
So then the obvious question is who had what? I don’t know which companies had minisites closed down. Some one all who knows? That is a possibility, yes?
I am sure we will hear things in the coming days.
Dozens (if not hundreds) of Adsense accounts get shut down every day for one reason or another, but I wonder how many of those on that link were shut down for having thin content as opposed to violating the TOS. I don’t think it is what you expect. I haven’t had a single person tell me their Adsense was shut down because of a site we did, and in fact, Google seems to respect our sites a lot as is evidenced by the first page placement (and Yahoo and Bing even more so).
Who did you use for your mini sites that you think were the reason for losing your Adsense account? I know it wasn’t us, and I think that would have been a good thing to include in your post since not all mini site providers are created equal, and it isn’t fair to bash mini sites in general, especially when it is difficult (if not impossible) to confirm those sites were the cause in the first place.
I appreciate you taking time out of your day to comment.
It’s too bad you think I am “Bashing” minisites. I asked a fair QUESTION based on what I was sent below. I stated quite clearly that there were 3 different companies I used and since no further info was given to me I can’t say more.
“It is important for a site displaying AdSense to offer significant value
to the user by providing unique and relevant content, and not to place ads
on pages with little to no original content. Additionally, Google ads may
not be placed on non-content-based pages.
Your site should also provide a good user experience through clear
navigation and organization. Users should be able to easily click through
your pages and find the information they are seeking.”
Michael, you are right and I completely understand what you are trying to get across here. You’re clearly falling on deaf ears.
Rick, you might like to actually address the content in this post (rather than just fire random bullets effectively changing the topic each time) and open your mind a little because I don’t think Michael is being unreasonable and obviously has a lot of development experience. Something I’d think you could really learn from judging by your attitude towards Google and development of mini sites.
It’s sad to see this happen in many ways. We’re all on the same team here. It is becoming clear however, if you understand Google, you don’t run into these problems. A little learning about good old Google, instead of bitching goes a long way.
You said three of the sites were not mini sites, so I assumed the different developers had to do with the full-scale sites. Bashing may have been a bit of an overstatement, but from your posts I think most readers will get the impression that Adsense on a mini site will get your account closed, which isn’t verified. Actually, there was even a thread on NamePros about your blog post, and several people said they immediately removed Adsense from their mini sites, so you can see what I mean.
Also, you said all of your mini sites were total failures (other than giving you some data), which I’m sure is a fact, but without saying what provider(s) you used, you give the impression that mini sites are BS. Someone reading that is going to think that if the biggest legend in the industry can’t pull off a mini site (probably on pretty nice, exact match domains), that all mini sites are a sham… and as you can see from the stats above that isn’t the case at all.
Results vary a lot between providers, and results can even vary a lot between domains at the same provider. I’m not saying all of our sites where huge successes. However, I feel like blanket statements about mini sites are a bad thing, especially when that is only going to scare people away from moving away from the parking industry, which we all know is dying.
You make my points Ben and Michael.
Right now I DO believe minisites are BS. Convince me otherwise. Where do I send the $350?
That is why I experiment with so many things and never stop. Domainers need to know that minisites may be at risk. Maybe not all. But some. Maybe I will have better results with your company. Maybe not. I am always willing to try. But so far, I have not had a success and it is not from lack of trying.
Mini sites are definitely a risk, as with any investment. There are so many factors that come in to play, including search volume, CPC (or CPA), competing sites, etc. We try our best to help people make a wise decision, but even then, there’s still a chance that it won’t perform well. Nobody knows 100% how Google will react to a site. You can mitigate that risk by developing yourself (putting up time instead of money), which we encourage people to do so they are no longer slaves to Google, but for a lot of people they don’t have the experience to rank well, or they would rather invest money than time. Time is our most valuable asset after all.
I know you’re basing your opinion off of personal experience, but how can you think the model is BS based on the post above? It’s verifiable… go to Google and search the exact match of every domain up there, and you can see for yourself. Scroll down on each site and you’ll see “Mini Site Development by MiniSites.com”. I could send you a list of many more if you want, but they are mostly long-tails and it isn’t as impressive to rank for them.
I would just ask that you reserve judgment until you have developed a handful of sites with us. If you want, you can shoot me an email with a list of domains you’re thinking of developing and we can order them by how well we think they’ll do. If you’re just too sick of mini sites in general and want to forget about them I understand.
There was one client we developed 57 domains for… of those, 42 had first page placement in at at least one search engine (usually Google). That’s a 74% success rate (of course results will vary). So yea, I would be pretty disillusioned too if I were you, paying for seven mini sites and having none of them rank.
I don’t offer this service myself. Glad to hear you’re willing to persist Rick. It can be done.
It appears to me as if you cannot find someone that understands and can easily articulate Google’s intentions to you. Few people are really savvy to develop out bulk generic names as mini sites and get traction – especially on a budget.
Having researched some of the development options on offer myself, your past experiences don’t surprise me at all Rick. If I could get bulk websites top 10 for $350 USD per name, I’d be rowing my own boat all the way to the bank – and certainly not sharing
Michael’s offer sounds like a goer to me Rick!
Also Michael if you ever want to run something past me, or yourself Rick, email is info@benwilks(dotty)com and I’d love to help dispel any common myths regarding development and domaining, totally gratis. I tend to enjoy this specific topic quite a lot, and I sincerely wish you both all the best with it!
Google’s made quite a progression here in how they treat Adsense sites. First, MFAs were the target of closed accounts, then G publicly announced de-indexing parked pages, some months later they launched their own Domain-for-Adsense to justify this maneuver, now they target mini-sites as “violating terms”. Do you think it will end?
It isn’t the fault of mini-sites that Google behaves this way. They simply don’t like giving away so much money. All it takes is a complaint from a competitor about a single site and you are likely on your way to have your entire account closed and G keeps the statistics and the cash.
Support for mini-sites should remain as strong as ever. Support for Google needs to end.
I will continue to rant about this behavior until it gets me somewhere!
In Rick’s defense, I know that a lot of comments find their way to the spam folder rather than the moderation queue.
I also understand how Michael would be upset to see word spreading that you can’t use Adsense on so-called mini-sites, especially since it was just based on a hunch.
Ed, Adsense cracks down on low quality sites… they have been for years, this is nothing new. The point I’m trying to make is that the term “mini site” is not synonymous with a low quality site, it just means a site that isn’t a full-scale development. It really depends on what provider you use, how well the content is written, how many ad units you place, etc.
Most of our competitors place the maximum number of ad units allowable by the TOS… but they’re doing it on a thin site that imo doesn’t have as good content as we do. That is a recipe for disaster. You shouldn’t be putting three ad units, two link units, and a search box all on a page with 300 words… it just doesn’t make sense and looks really spammy. If your visitors think it is overkill… chances are Adsense will too. That is a mistake a lot of rookie developers make.
Andrew, I believe what Rick says that the comment didn’t make it through to to moderation queue, I think I was just too wordy. Rick is a great guy, as we all know, and he wouldn’t censor anything.
I can see both sides of the argument as I have experienced it myself.
The MAIN issue is in building sites to make Adsense money. IF you don’t put Adsense ads on them then Google can’t screw with them and they don’t. I have NUMEROUS domains that are nothing but redirects to affiliate sites, eBay, etc that go straight to a page that gives the searcher EXACTLY what they are looking for. If I have an EXACT match product keyword dotcom that sends the searcher to the exact product they are looking for then they get what they wanted and everyone is happy. I have many number one listings for these types of domains in some very competitive markets.
If you want to sleep with your neighbors wife, in this case Google, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. I stopped relying on them a long time ago.
T
How are you all defining mini-sites?
Most of my developed sites are five pages or less. I don’t have any AdSense compliance problems. But all my content has been either written or collected or edited or *enhanced in some manner so as to provide value* by me and nobody else BUT me.
It’s true that this week Google came up with a new canned letter to send people when disabling their accounts – the unique and relevant content letter.
Google is NOT clamping down on mini sites, once and for all. They are clamping down on thin sites that consist mostly of repurposed, syndicated or (in some cases) scraped content. They don’t see any reason to pay out AdSense for hundreds of sites publishing the exact same article.
And the *reason* that they are clamping down is because the advertisers are tired of finding their ads on these sites. The major perception is that they don’t convert – and if we’re being brutally honest here, they don’t convert. And if we’re likewise being brutally honest here, we’ll admit that there is a *lot* of fraud still in the PPC industry. So the perception is that the Content Network is still rife with fraud – and having thousands of sites with nothing but regurgitated crap only perpetuates that perception.
Google AdSense is what it is. You sign up for it, and you give away a large measure of control in exchange for the ease of just placing the code and relying on G to do all the work for you. If you don’t like their rules, you know what the alternatives are – do the work and find your own advertisers (with virtually no restrictions on your content, your source of traffic, or anything else) or else bring your site(s) up to Google’s standards. Nobody’s forcing you to do business with them, and there *are* alternatives. The fact that they don’t pay as well or require more work is not Google’s fault. The fact that they can’t be as transparent as you or I would like is no doubt partly due to competitive reasons and partly due to the fact that every single thing that Google ever publishes is analyzed and hashed over and broken down by miscreants looking to game the system and *steal* every penny they can get away with. I know personally of large scale networks devoted to this, on both the AdWords and AdSense sides.
Believe me, I do a lot of bitching where Google is concerned (and they know it – come find my twitter stream some time) but I also recognize them for what they are, and also am able to see the challenges THEY face with a neutral eye. And I’m coming off the worst AdSense month I’ve had (August) since I joined the program in 2005.
As for Google not respecting domainers – that’s more or less true. But that’s also driven by the advertisers. Your garden variety AdWords advertiser does not want his ads showing on parked domains. In many cases, even if they convert. The vitriol that has been hurled at me (a heavy duty AdWords advertiser AND an AdSense publisher AND the owner of around 1700 domains) has been pretty heavy, once the part about the domains comes out. It doesn’t have to be logical or reasonable. It doesn’t even have to be true. As long as domains and domain parked is *perceived* as scammy and spammy by advertisers, that’s all that’s required for Google to clamp down hard. And Yahoo is clamping down too. And Bing has already apparently made the decision that no parked domains will appear in its index.
ALL of this is not driven by the search engines, Google in particular. It’s driven by the advertisers. Banding together to ‘fight’ Google isn’t #1 ever going to happen or #2 ever going to make a difference, because Google doesn’t give a good goddamn about anyone but the advertisers. THAT’s who you have to convince that your site, or your domains, are of value.
All mini sites are is parking pages with a few paragraphs of wording someone put together.
And people call this development.
All this debate is silly.
Moving from a PPC parking page to a site created to use for Google adwords is STILL PPC.
Motorsports.com is a PPC parking page in disguise.
That’s not development.
Bobbleheads.com – now that’s a developed site.
Thanks for your comments netmeg, very well said.
WQ, nobody is saying a mini site is as good as a full-scale development… but to call them a PPC parking page in disguise is pretty silly. Do you have other monetization options on a parked page? Do parked pages get indexed in search engines? Can you build backlinks to a parked page? NO
The goal of a mini site is to grow your organic search traffic and be able to explore other monetization options like affiliate programs, direct banner sales, and lead gen… all of which crush PPC.
In the case of Motorsports.com since you mentioned it specifically, the owner is working on a full-scale developed, and used our service so they could have some serious traction even before they launched, giving them a nice head start. How many full-scale developments can launch already being #3 in Google for a major term… and for $350 no less. Candy.com isn’t even on the first page of Google yet after several weeks.
Bobbleheads.com is a great example of turning a premium domain into a cash cow, but development like that isn’t scalable. The way I look at it is this:
Parking -> Perfectly Scalable -> Extremely low payouts and no visitor value.
Mini Sites -> Fairly Scalable -> Much better monetization options and some value to visitors.
Full-scale Dev -> Not Scalable at All -> Good money and a ton of value to visitors.
The more work that is put in, the higher the returns. For any domainer, it is going to be a mix of solutions. You’re going to park your mediocre domains, put mini sites on the solid ones, and do full scale dev on the one or two category-killers you may be lucky enough to own.
You can tell me about the big dreams the owner of Motorsports.com has but that doesn’t change that the site is nothing but a PPC site.
It was created for PPC and it’s current income comes from PPC.
Writing a few pages of wording that you re-worded from a Google search doesn’t change this fact.
In regards to this comment “The goal of a mini site is to grow your organic search traffic and be able to explore other monetization options like affiliate programs, direct banner sales, and lead gen… all of which crush PPC.”
I say great…but all I see on your ministies I visited so far is PPC.
I do agree that you can do more with these sites than your typical lander page though.
I would call these advanced parking pages.
I do like them…and may even try it sometime…but Let’s not BS each other here and act like we are not looking at PPC pages in disguise.
That’s EXACTLY what they are.
Google may have not taken any action yet but I’d bet they do not like these type of made for adwords type websites. I wonder if their TOS says anything about this? I know I hate seeing them when searching in Google. They are bound to do something about these soon.
Sorry, but I fail to see your point. So what if a lot of clients use PPC? If they all worked out direct ad deals, would you still call them cheap MFA sites? The monetization method chosen has no reflection on the quality of the site, so get your facts straight. The point is they rank well in the search engines, which gets more traffic and more money. Call them what you like, but to say search engines hate them when they clearly don’t is asinine.
I can’t control what the owners do to monetize their sites, if they don’t want to bother with seeking direct advertisers, signing up for affiliate programs, etc. that is their business. The point is that if they want to, they can (and some do) join an affiliate program or work out ad deals. I have heard from several clients that they were approached directly to advertise on their mini site.
That doesn’t change the fact that these sites are not cheap MFA sites, which are mass-produced, usually have copied or scraped content, no design elements, and have Adsense splattered all over them in a very tasteless manner.
Are you kidding me about the Adsense TOS? There’s nothing in there that says you can’t have Adsense on a site that has five pages of unique, relevant content. Your comment saying that Google is bound to do something about them is completely uneducated speculation, and quite frankly it is far off the mark.
@WQ:
It seems like you may be buzzing on too much “hatorade”, especially since you looked over Wrenches.com in your haste to hear yourself speak (which does include more than just PPC, to point out, it has Amazon’s A-store monetization). Mini-sites are indeed developed sites, just lesser developed sites with a purpose, as Michael said, usually being that of gaining traction before moving into the phase of full-scale development.
I would hope that most people in our industry are knowledgeable enough today not to place all of their eggs into one basket, especially “PARKED” PPC, but PPC is not the devil when it’s on a website with content that’s valuable enough to gain more and more unique visitors, more and more repeat visitiors, AND very good rankings on the search engines…even when the websites is a mini-site.
Have to walk before you can run, WQ, and if you can make some money in the process via your well-designed mini-site, why not? It’s the American way!
Very well said Neil, thanks for taking the time to comment.
>>Sorry, but I fail to see your point.
The point is that many of those who design mini sites are telling everyone PPC is dead and to start developing. So they charge them $300 or whatever bucks to make them a site doing what? If you guessed “using PPC” you’re right.
If you want to see what I mean just visit the forums.
You also have domainers talking about development and moving away from PPC themselves, not having to be talked into it…so what do they do? They have some content written up in order to create a Made for Adwords site…so they shout PPC is Dead then simply move to another method of using PPC.
It’s the same thing.
And just to show what I mean lets take Rick for example who is a victim of this mini site hysteria (not to pick on you Rick).
Ricks Blog talks about Google cutting him off killing his Adwords on his mini sites. Down a bit he says, “In EVERY case I made less money than PPC. ”
Rick, Google Adwords is PPC.
You didn’t make “less money than PPC” you made less money using another PPC option or method.
Rick then says “…as they are now back at PPC”
Rick, you never left PPC. Adwords is PPC.
This is the mini site hysteria I’m talking about. Many don’t even “see it”.
People actually think they are doing something different than PPC but they aren’t.
So what we have is people running away from PPC and jumping into the arms of, you got it, PPC.
Its kind of funny when I think about it.
What I would like to see is the people that are talking about the big D word and wanting to be less reliant on PPC actually do SOMETHING DIFFERENT than PPC.
The small Amazon box at the bottom of Wrenches.com that Neil so kindly pointed out is a start.
@ WQ – a lot of people are referring to PPC and meaning Parking. That’s it. They really mean parking, not the overall method of pay-per-click advertising.
@ Andrew – Yes, and part of what I’m getting at here is that it’s still PPC parking.
Adding a few paragraphs on a page or two or three doesn’t mean its now no longer a PPC parking page.
It’s not parking… I don’t know what parking company you’re using, but I’ve never had one do a design, custom content, link building etc. for me.
Anyway, you’re derailing this whole conversation with a petty argument. The point I am making is that if Adsense was really gunning for mini sites as Rick was suggesting/questioning, Google wouldn’t be giving them first page ranking for high-competition terms (or long tails for that matter). The point was also that, contrary to Rick’s experience, mini sites can improve traffic through higher ranking in the SERPs, and they can be sticky (multiple page views per visitor).
If you’d like to add anything to that conversation be my guest. If you’d like to discuss whether or not you think our clients should use PPC or a different form of monetization, please start your own blog post. It’s not really relevant to this conversation.
Hi Michael,
I appreciate your blog focus here, but I am backing up Rick Schwartz in confirming that he DOES POST EVERY COMMENT, as far as it isn’t spam or over-the-top… and even then, he may post the negative comments… cuz I see my “bad Rick! Bad!” comments on his site.
The problem is if you do a “preview” with his blogsite before posting your comment. For some reason, after you type in the anti-spam code, it returns a “Your comment cannot be accepted at this time” or something like that. There is an issue with “previewing” a comment first before you post it on Rick’s site. I use Mac’s, and Safari, so it might have something to do with that, if you’re using a Mac.
Other than that, I have experienced the same result after posting an opposing comment that you did – in other words, I thought it was rejected. That wasn’t the case, the post did appear several hours later, and I printed a retraction to Rick on my blog.
Hope this helps both you and Rick in this issue.
Followup to WQ:
I agree with Michael here. When we say “PPC”, we really mean “landing page” with a PS (parking service).
You can have a developed content site (such as WhyPark or DevHub or AEIOU, and if accepted, Noparking.com), with just a few pages of original content. If correctly managed, you would also include CPA (affiliates), ebooks (big money here), Clickbank products, CPM’s, and even your own products to monetize the site.
Coming soon in a tidal wave, “rent the domain” – with 100% CTR, redirects paid per unique at a set rate. It’s already being done, and the face of monetizing a domain name is moving in these directions, quickly.
@Stephen. Thank you!
@WQ there is a HUGE difference. With parking there is no distraction. It is a straight line to search. Point A to Point B. With a site and PPC even though technically they are the same you are trying to do more than just make them click. That is why a parked page for me does better than a website in most cases. The CTR is MUCH greater. One maybe is 10%, 20% 5%. on the website. On the parked ppc page it is 50%, 80% 125%.
Thanks for the comment Stephen, I do realize that now and I apologize to Rick for thinking he didn’t approve my comment. I admitted on comment #17 that I believe it didn’t even make it to the moderation queue.
Rick, I agree that if you can’t get the site to rank, and you’re set on using PPC, you’re definitely better off with a parked page than with a mini site because the CTR will almost always be lower. The idea is first, to offset the lower CTR by having much more traffic. If you can triple the number of visitors to your site by capturing organic search traffic and a little marketing, but your CTR is half, then even with PPC on a mini site you’re still better off than a parked page. This often happens.
The next idea is to make more money per visitor by breaking away from PPC. If you have 100 daily visitors to a parked page and 50% CTR, but you’re only making $0.02 per click, you’re earning $1 a day. If you have 300 daily visitors and converting them at a rate of 1% into affiliate sales that are paying even as low as $5 per sale… you’re making $15 a day. Huge difference ($365 a year vs. $5,475 a year).
Also, if you’re getting 300 visitors a day, depending on the niche and banner placement, you should be able to charge advertisers at least $60/mo per banner spot, and let’s say you are able to sell four spots. You’re making $240 a month instead of $30 a month from the parked page.
Let’s also not forget that you can’t build back links to, or market, a parked page. This means you’re stuck with whatever level of type-in traffic you’re currently getting if you park the domain, and for most domains that is a trickle at best. If you build a mini site, you can build back links which drive traffic, set up an Adwords campaign, do some article or social media marketing, whatever you can come up with all in addition to the search traffic benefit.
Of course these numbers are made up, but I’m just trying to show that CTR isn’t the end-all and be-all. Differences in numbers of visitors and how you monetize can offset that easily.
@ Rick S
WOW! A “Thanks” from you means “good stuff coming!” I’m not joking…
Because of your nice response, I’m taking my wife to a five star restaurant this week, (and anyone in PDX who wants to contact me in the next 48 hours) and I sense that several big domains will be selling for me in the next 90 days (maybe at TNYC?). Yep, that’s what a simple nice word and recognition from you means in many people’s lives! When you look in the mirror all this week, feel great because I’m pushing “good karma, beyond money” to you. I’m thinking it!
Thanks Rick. Much Success!