Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Pr8 Text Link For $120 A Month...
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:35 PM
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:24 PM
If you take the deal and make more than $120.00 a month from their referrals, then it's probably a good deal (assuming all other things remain equal). How much do you have to sell in order to earn $120.00 profit?
Look at it from a return-on-investment perspective. How much traffic do you honestly think you'll get, and how much of that will convert?
It may be worth a 3-month run just to see if it CAN pay for itself. But don't go buying links on the basis of Toolbar PR. That's just a complete waste of money.
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:27 PM
My gut feeling is that these links provide good PR value but the bottomline is what does PR bring to you that you'd spend 120 bucks a month in order to obtain it?
Yes, a few months try may be okay but I wonder if the effects would warrant a longer term commitment.
I'd rather have my site listed on Yahoo! Directory for $299 per year and develop good content.
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:34 PM
Just a thought.
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:34 PM
From a return-on-investment point of view, any link which costs you nothing is worth having. Any link which actually makes you money is worth whatever you pay for it.
One of the most common mistakes I see people make with paid advertising is that they don't project a return on investment and track results. Why spend $1000 on an advertising campaign if you don't expect to generate at least $1000 in profit?
There ARE some legitimate business reasons to do that, but boosting PR is not a legitimate business reason.
The chief reason you want a link from a popular, stable site is to ensure that you get crawled and stay in as many indexes as possible.
The chief reason to PAY for such a link is to drive traffic to your site that will convert to enough sales to at least pay for the link.
Once money gets thrown into the mix, motivations and expectations need to be adjusted. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in a forum somewhere asking why you're not making any money.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:02 AM
IMHO, the question varies based upon what you get. A text link footer style aint much use (IMHO) but a link that is quasi-prominant... it can't hurt.
Two things matter, IMHO, with these decision:
1. Your marketiong mix and your budget.
2. Your Margin.
If you spend a lot, $120 may not be much. If you have reached about teh limits of AdWrods et al, then $120 onb something like this may be a good deal.
And your Marrgin. If you sell CDs, you need to sella lot to break even. If you broker Construction deals worth tens of millions, $120 is a good deal.
Anyone that gives you an answer without knowing your unique context, the full offer (what exactly do you get for $120 a month?) and what your Marketing mix consists of is a clown.
So, sit down, work out what exactly you hope to / will achieve from this deal, your expected ROI and if a $120 makes sense to you.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:10 AM
Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:44 AM
None of us can answer this question because we just don't know how the person asking it has structured their marketing spends. All we can do is give a framework on how to make the decision, i.e. how they should quantify the worth of the spend.
Anything else is counterproductive!
Posted 03 November 2005 - 08:59 AM
Posted 03 November 2005 - 09:37 AM
There is another question that has not been addressed. Given that "site that is extremely relevant to my keywords", this PR8 site might be considered an authority site, and the link might carry further value.
Another question in my mind, that perhaps someone here might be able to answer is this: all other things being equal, is a link from a PR8 page of high relevance worth more in terms of relevance than the same link from an equally relevant PR4 page. In other words, does the "importance" of a page have a bearing on how relevant it will be considered, which is a question I am not sure can be answered.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 09:46 AM
My opinion is that you're correct in that NO ONE can answer that question. I think most would agree that the jury is still out on Goggle's ability to disceminate relevance. However, I would tend to think that they would be two seperate and distinct algorithms. One for relevance and one for importance. That's just my unscientific hypothesis..so anyone's guess is as good as mine!
Posted 03 November 2005 - 10:50 AM
PageRank is only worth something if you're selling links based on PageRank. In terms of search engine optimization, it rarely if ever helps.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 11:33 AM
If I understand you correctly Michael, following your line of thinking, buying a PR 9 link is as good and as useful as buying a PR1 link if you're optimizing your site for better ranking? I don't buy that at all. PR has always been a core part of Google's algorithm's. It was the basis of teh research paper that Larry Page and Sergey Brin formulated while at Stanford. I believe that PR is only one of the many factors in a site improving it's ranking, and it probably has become less of a factor with time but it certainly is in the algorithm equation. You're a sharp guy Michael, but I'm not quite sure how you can quantify your last statement.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 11:48 AM
That is, until the search engines realize that they obtained their PR by subverting it somehow, or anything like that. If you get a really and truly important page to link to you, that link can be worth a lot in terms of traffic and in terms of how it can boost your rankings.
But most really important pages are not going to link to just anyone. Many pages that appear to be important (because they have a high PR) really aren't important. Especially if they sell links. Don't think that the engines aren't aware of this and aren't doing things to make sure their algorithms aren't easily subverted.
Posted 03 November 2005 - 12:20 PM
PageRank has always been a core part of Google's buzz factor. That's about it. PageRank was never a primary factor used for search results rankings (the original paper clearly stipulates that it was incorporated into their results rankings along with other data).
The SEO industry (and I was as guilty as everyone else for a while) failed to pay attention to what was actually said in the paper and went off on a ridiculous four-year-long tangent about PageRank.
If I had a choice between a free PR1 link and a paid PR9 link, I'd take the free link. Period. Hands down. No hesitation whatsover.
That's because I know it's not all about links. It never was.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users