QUOTE(PatrickGer @ Jun 28 2010, 06:03 PM)
(Sorry for the possibly annoying quotes, dont mean to be annoying lol)
What I was wondering is why does the effort of building a new query space pay off ROI-wise.
If you build converting traffic, the newly generated sales can be measured against the expense of the building process. If you build non-converting traffic, and you're LOOKING for converting traffic, then the building process is probably the wrong strategy (or was not implemented correctly). If you're looking for NON-converting traffic (such as building brand recognition) then you have to deal with those intangibles that are so popular in the "brand building" concept.
After all, you might simply create a new query space (seo theory) and then everyone else could fill that need and in the end youre not better off than if you had leveraged existing query spaces.
I find it unlikely that a query space founder would be easily knocked out of the top search results. I suppose it has happened but I have never seen that happen. Being first means you get the early recognition and eventually the major recognition. Now, I suppose someone could identify a newly formed query space, launch an off-search marketing campaign that reaches out directly to the media, and generates a lot of interest. But unless you actually top the search results first you're creating visibility for the query space founder. I don't know anyone who has tried to take over a newly developed query space through indirect marketing. However, from time to time your trends data may reveal that one query space loses traffic (and content) as another grows up and takes on greater value.
It is all about the first mover advantage you have in that new market (you referred to it as market building (which i agree with)), right?
Yes. Of course, that's not a magical advantage. It can be squandered. But I believe it takes a reasonable amount of effort on a competitor's part to take away a dominant position in an active query space, even a new one.
Even if bill slawski, aaron wall, etc. tried to break into it youd probably remain one of the existing players to be found for those search queries? ..and overall the ROI should pay off for you because building that new market and getting to the top of it (without any active link building simply because you were the first to deliver the content..which gives it a good shot to get linked at) can, in your opinion, often be a higher ROI strategy than looking at existing queries and putting all your money and time into link building to get to the top for those (overheated..as in lots of link building necessary) queries..
I am no longer writing for the SEO Theory blog. If 10 other people launched SEO theory blogs and published articles every day, I would bet that their sites would eventually move the original site down to page 2 simply because of the fresher, relevant results.
Sorry for the blabla - what Im wondering is actually simple:
The reason why (many times) building new query spaces rather than going after overheated queries...long term...can be a higher ROI strategy / better way of allocating your resources...is the first mover advantage you get in that market, right?
Not so much because of the first mover advantage as because of the reduced level of competition. Your costs of traffic acquisition should be lower (although offset by the marketing expenses). It comes down to where you can get the most bang for your buck AND where you feel less frustrated. I mean, if your ROI is higher in the competitive query space but your frustration/stress level is also higher there, if you get a good ROI in building a new query space with less stress, maybe that's the best business decision to make, too.