Linear Revenue Growth | Bloggers Lair | Yakezie Forums

I don't know if you've seen the epic thread about monetization timing here, but I wanted to just make a post in reply, but also to bring up another topic.  That epic thread is here: http://yakezie.com/forums/blog…..ers/page-2

If anything, I think a better debate might be over link sales vs adsense, and how to build a monetization structure.  I'm always amazed how many PF bloggers out there make very good money with what is really very little traffic. As an example, BudgetsAreSexy.com had a post up about his total pageviews, of which he had 1.6 million in three years.  http://www.budgetsaresexy.com/…..log-years/

That's like…135,000 pageviews per month (I'm assuming a lot of his traffic to be in the last year, but I can't know, so I'm giving the huge benefit of the doubt in putting all his stats in one year).  Given his monetization strategies, I'm going to say banner and textual adsense earnings of 15CPM would be reasonable…that's $2025 per month.  So where's the extra?  It has to be in all those private links.  Maybe a little money for pumping some products, too.

Private links, for the most part, aren't a linear revenue source. So I wonder, if he were to remove them, would he see income growth greater than the revenue of the paid links?  Given what I know right now, at the most topical possible level, probably not.  Would he see a Google boost?  Absolutely, I'd say, those have all the footprint of what Google hates, and Google makes you pay for doing things it doesn't like.

My comment is that when you place ads isn't nearly as important to how you structure revenue, pending the long-run goal is maximizing profits and producing consistent income that scales linearly.  I think we're going to see a max exodus in online media at the retail level over time as Google slowly dilutes the value of linking strategies, and gets better at separating editorially placed links from paid, sponsored, or incentivised links.

So, More ads = more money = more readers, actually.  Given that more ads are more ads that aren't paid links.  This is the conversation we should be having.  Abstract food for abstract thought.  Your thoughts, comments, goals, or input on what I should have for dinner are appreciated. :P  I enjoy these webmaster-y discussions. 

I'm coming to the same realization as you, and I am still learning a lot about this and have much to learn yet. It's about money now versus money later, and there's only so much value you can get out of selling a lot of private ads, but with the risk that the ads might discourage visitors or damage your SE rankings. We have to consider the long-run picture too and how the dynamic of accepting certain deals now will affect that future growth.

As I said, I have a lot to learn here so I look forward to the discussion! :)

I agree with not advertising while growing and than charging more later.

Alan – MoneySanity.com said:

Are you saying; forgo ad's while you are growing, so you can get big quicker, and then use ad's? 

 

 

It's not so much about when to generate revenue; I see it as how you generate revenue.  Any blog can make $100/mo from day 1 (probably) selling links on the sidebar.  But not only is this source of revenue one that cannot be scaled, it is also a source of revenue that threatens long-term traffic generation from search engines.

 

This is why I say that scalable revenue is the best revenue, as most revenue options for webmasters that DO scale with traffic, participation, etc. are also unlikely to hurt the possibility for growth.  If given the choice between $50/mo links and $20/mo from a large adsense block beneath each post, I'd take the Adsense, because it won't weigh me down in the search engines, and the future value of that $30 isn't really worth all that much compared to the future value of search engine traffic..  For those with a short-term perspective, higher revenue sources that don't scale may be more attractive.  Not a matter of timing, but a matter of how.

financialstudent said:

This is something I've wondered about. Does Google reduce my Adsense earnings if they think I'm selling TLAs? I 100% agree that advertising that scales is more valuable. There's simply a limit to how much space can be used for TLAs. I'd much rather have Adsense earning a decent amount per month instead of using TLAs.

 

They don't decrease your Adsense revenue, but they'll definitely discount your links and your site in the search engines for selling links, which indirectly affects your Adsense income.

Any link that you receive payment for (without putting no follow tags on) is probably going to cost you in Google.  Whether it costs you now or in the future is up to the Google gods, but it is certain that it ultimately will have a negative effect.

Post edited 1:20 pm – March 24, 2011 by JT_McGee

@ Sustainable

This recent Google update, nicknamed "Panda" started to use linguistics to determine the quality of content and link strategy.  This update is also suspected to be making clear divisions between "informational" sites and "commercial" sites. 

The difference between linking out to other sites for information and linking out for commercial purposes, especially SEO, is usually pretty clear.  Having a site about personal finance, then 10 links in the sidebar about "credit reports," "debt consolidation," and/or "payday loans" is pretty obvious as to what the purpose of those links.  A link to your local credit union, in a post talking about how you just joined, looks far less spammy, and is more likely be original content.

The personal finance space is rather friendly, as are most niches, but there are a few (health, in particular) in which webmasters would run off to go tell Google about who is and isn't selling links.  Total dick move, in my opinion–and something I'd never do, as I used to be involved in that game myself, so I understand the opportunity that is involved.  I don't play cop, I don't need to, as I'm interested in the long-run, not the short-run, and in the long-run Google always wins.  It's hard to see this if you haven't been at least a casual observer since 2005, but I can say in no uncertain terms that gaming Google always costs you.  Always.  Today, tomorrow, or in 2015, no one can say, but they do catch up.

There is something to be said about a site's "footprint" as well.  A site with 495804349935840 links from blogrolls is likely buying links.  A site with that many links, half blogroll, 25% social media, and 25% editorially given is probably a completely legitimate site.  

Don't stress about it too much.  If you're linking to sites because the link is justified for expanding the knowledge of the reader, for citing a source, or for increasing the usability of your own site, then you have nothing to worry about.  You've a high-quality site with a very interesting and unique perspective.  None of the above is even remotely targeted at sites like yours. 

P.S.  Linking out to sites as citations to the original source, or in linking your users to other quality sites, articles, etc is known to have a POSITIVE effect on your rankings.  

P.P.S.  I don't intend to sound preachy, though I might come off that way.  This is what I do for my very modest living, and in that regard I treat it the web like I would my family–the web is close to home, I have respect for it and I've spent a lot of time helping to develop it.  I've learned a lot in doing so, and I like to share what I've learned.  I do not mean to come off as conceited, an asshole, or disgustingly opinionated on how other people run their sites.  It isn't any of my business, and I don't intend to make it my business.  If anyone takes anything the wrong way…don't–I don't mean it like that.  Different strokes for different folks. I'm just happy to have a pulpit from which I can occasionally preach (okay, I'm preachy, I admit it!) because I absolutely enjoy it. 

MyJourneytoMillions said:

Yeah, absolutely, I understand that viewpoint entirely. 

I also want to highlight that there is no right or wrong way to do it.  My view is in the total future value of what you do today.  Let's say, for example, that your text link revenue comes at a cost of say..#2 instead of #1 in Google.  Where most bloggers don't make anything from Google, there's more to the picture than having someone come by, click an adsense ad and never to return.  What if those readers you miss in being #2 instead of #1 would have been loyal, everyday readers who might have subscribed to an email subscription?  Or someone who retweets or fans you on facebook, or someone who passes your site onto someone else.  What if that was someone who is active on a forum, and might link your site from there?

I can't stress this enough: the best SEO is organic SEO.  No, not ranking organically in the SERPs, that's a mis-characterization of the word organic.  What I mean by organic are the links that you build just for having a totally rad site with ballin' content are the links that will get you the furthest in Google, and will ultimately bring you the most readers, more revenue, and a revenue model that grows linerally, and doesn't flat line based on that little green bar in your browser toolbar.

Think about it this way.  What if blogs were newspapers, they basically are.  Why don't people pay $5000 to have a little tiny reference to their website in newspapers?  Because having a little tiny blurb about your website with anchor text doesn't do anything to sell product when it's printed on paper.  There's no Google Juice to be had there.  Likewise, people don't buy text links to sell product on your blog.  They buy text links to sell product on Google.  You're worthless here, just a middle-man, nothing else.

Advertising is all about branding–building a public image.  Ultimately, all the revenue to be had in the media space is in selling advertising that reaches a company's target audience.  Where people may pay $50 to play the Google SEO game, they're buying it because they want Google, not the benefit of meshing themselves in the brand of your website.  Your brand is the most valuable thing you own, and ultimately, the big money is made not in links, nor in helping other people game Google, but in helping quality businesses showcase quality products on quality blogs.

 I think really we just have a difference in perspective.  Where you like the quick $900, or whatever it is, I see the future value lost to be greater than that $900.  There's no right or wrong, either way.  I don't want to say that the way other people make money is wrong, nor that they can't make money doing it.  But long-term, with or without Google, the value in a website is in its core: how can this website help advertisers reach their target audience.  You can make plenty of money selling links to companies that want to do better in Google, but that revenue is dependent only on Google's willingness to count links in its algorithm, and again, you're really just a middle man for Google, benefitting in that your site helps them do better on Google, when there might be more, longer-term money in helping advertisers reach their audience through YOU, not Google.  

Does that make any sense?

How's about an analogy:

You're in HS, and you can work a job and make $1000 and get okay grades, or you can just do the school thing and get really awesome grades.  Assuming mild correlation between grades and income, this situation is easily predicted, a risk is easily assessed.  The less awesome grades, in many ways, can be made up for in that there are literally thousands of employers out there.

But then there's Google.  It is, for now, the ultimate traffic generation scheme.  It holds all the cards.  It's the only employer. Are you willing to risk less awesome grades for a certain profit now in exchange for an unknown amount of loss in the future?  That's your risk to take.  Who knows, maybe the loss won't happen (I can say it is almost a given that it will, having spent a lot of money to test this concept.)

I'm keen on the idea of limiting my risk to structural issues, especially those that result from rigidity in structure.  Seeing as there is only one Google (rigid structure), and I can only piss it off once, I'm not too interested in making it unhappy for short-term profits.  Maybe I'm playing a little too conservative, or maybe I'm not.  Time will only tell.  

@MJ2M

I completely respect that view.  It comes down to where you are with your blog, and where you want to be with it.  I don't foresee that I'll ever escape building businesses online, and I don't have a lot of the responsibilities that others may have.  I live at home, I have few expenses outside of car, phone, school, life, etc. and I don't have any mouths to feed.  I can leverage up on the future like a reckless idiot and nothing in my personal life would be affected in the least.  I realize that opportunity is rarely afforded unless 1) you have no responsibilities or 2) you have so much money that your responsibilities are sustained with a quick visit to the ATM.  

That's why I say that ultimately it comes down to the position of each person, where they want to be, and where their blog/site/whatever business fits into what they have in their personal life.  Believe me, if I was in a position where leverage wasn't so comfortable, or where I thought that the value of current revenue is worth more now than revenue in the future, I would absolutely take your model. 

I've really enjoyed the discussion today.  Lot's of fun all around.  Now I need to do this research paper. :P