6 replies to this topic

[PatrickGer]

Ive started to think about how Google really is a website...using ads (highly relevant ones) to monetize their website traffic. The only big difference in terms of the website model is that Google gets all of its traffic from type-ins.

It made me wonder, if there are any other niches/business models who have pulled this sort of thing off?

I remember Randy telling me (in another thread) that, if you become synonymous with your niche ("the authority"/"the brand" in it), people *will* find you. One way or another (not only through organic search).

It seems like Google has pulled something similar off just on an incredibly large scale...by filling a re-curring(exp?) need and becoming synonymous with it. If anyone asked about a good search engine today people I know what tell them "google..."

Have any other websites that you know of pulled this off, by carving out a small enough niche and totally conquering it aka becoming synonymous with that niche?

I'm a big fan of SEO, but I'm an even bigger fan of not putting all my eggs into one basket & diversifying risk instead

[Michael Martinez]

I can think of many sites that have done what Google did: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, DIGG, and TechCrunch are all great examples of sites that moved into spaces that had been defined by other sites and took over the leadership of those niches.

There are probably thousands of such sites/niches.

[PatrickGer]

I can think of many sites that have done what Google did: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, DIGG, and TechCrunch are all great examples of sites that moved into spaces that had been defined by other sites and took over the leadership of those niches.

There are probably thousands of such sites/niches.

Interesting..have been thinking that leveraging the second mover advantage might be one of the best strategies out there (that i never thought of really) to solve the "human behaviour is kind of irrational"-problem (as in finding a market where money is already changing hands, so you "only" have to outperform the competition..and thats something that might be easier to analyze in many cases). I assume that's what you mean by "a space that had been defined by other sites", right?

Perhaps you can think of any sites who get most (or at least a big chunk) of their traffic through links? I mean traffic that flows through the links directly (rather than the indirect benefit of a ranking boost links may (or may not) give a site).

[Michael Martinez]

Interesting..have been thinking that leveraging the second mover advantage might be one of the best strategies out there (that i never thought of really) to solve the "human behaviour is kind of irrational"-problem (as in finding a market where money is already changing hands, so you "only" have to outperform the competition..and thats something that might be easier to analyze in many cases). I assume that's what you mean by "a space that had been defined by other sites", right?

Pretty much. This has happened to me. As a generalist in the science fiction community, I often launch fansite projects ahead of other people. But I don't have the time or the passion to dedicate entire sites to a concept, so eventually someone comes along, see what a half-baked job I'm doing, and does it better.

But that's not a trend unique to my experience. Many popular sites were born out of frustration with market founder sites that failed to deliver true improvements.

Perhaps you can think of any sites who get most (or at least a big chunk) of their traffic through links? I mean traffic that flows through the links directly (rather than the indirect benefit of a ranking boost links may (or may not) give a site).

Well, some of my own sites get a lot of such traffic. But many of the most popular sites in the SEO field say they get a lot of traffic through links. My feeling is that if you're getting more than 30% of your traffic from search, you're either missing out on a great opportunity or you don't have a very interesting site.

[PatrickGer]

Pretty much. This has happened to me. As a generalist in the science fiction community, I often launch fansite projects ahead of other people. But I don't have the time or the passion to dedicate entire sites to a concept, so eventually someone comes along, see what a half-baked job I'm doing, and does it better.

But that's not a trend unique to my experience. Many popular sites were born out of frustration with market founder sites that failed to deliver true improvements.
Well, some of my own sites get a lot of such traffic. But many of the most popular sites in the SEO field say they get a lot of traffic through links. My feeling is that if you're getting more than 30% of your traffic from search, you're either missing out on a great opportunity or you don't have a very interesting site.

You consider more than 30% of traffic to a site from the search engines too much, in other words? Are we talking about new visitors...or are you including repeat visitors (and thats why you say the site might not be too interesting if > 30% of the traffic comes from the SEs, because to an itneresting site a lot of the traffic would be repeat traffic)? I assume, you agree with the notion that it's not a good idea to put all eggs in one basket as most webmasters out there do (going for basically nothing but search engine traffic, which is sort of risky and not really a safe foundation for a business)...?

I can imagine that a lot of sites in the field of SEO/internet marketing get traffic from sites other than search engines. I was thinking probably most word-of-mouth, though - as this field is so interconnected with forums,blogs,etc.. I havent done an actual search for a SEO related topic in a while, because a)lots of clutter is re-turned, but mostly I know some "authority" sites & forums already...and if I want information on a topic I ask it on a forum (like here) or use the internal site search of the SEO blogs/sites Ive learned to trust.

Ive actually been wondering if the field of SEO/Im and how traffic flows here might be the future of the www, as people become more web savy and use forums and such more (then again they might not be as web savy as internet marketing professionals/hobbyists, anytime soon I guess). If youre a regular visitor to enough good sites (including forums) in your niche, you might prefer to ask there rather than a search engine.

of course, like i said..the average joe might never be as web savy (and use forums,etc. a ton) no matter what niche he's in so my analogy might be a bit of an exaggeration....and of course beginners/newbies to a field still need some kind of starting point (search engines).


PS: I just came to think of a guy...on webmasterworld...who once mentioned he got most of his traffic from links, because of...that's how traffic flows in his niche....that people buy mostly upon recommendations from other sites in the niche. I have absolutely no idea about this stuff, so please forgive me if I totally confuse something, but I think he said something about "Tolkien"..? Actually Imp retty sure that was the topic(?sorry I dont really know what Tolkien is, but associate it with phantasy+SF stuff in my mind..)

[Michael Martinez]

You consider more than 30% of traffic to a site from the search engines too much, in other words? Are we talking about new visitors...or are you including repeat visitors (and thats why you say the site might not be too interesting if > 30% of the traffic comes from the SEs, because to an itneresting site a lot of the traffic would be repeat traffic)? I assume, you agree with the notion that it's not a good idea to put all eggs in one basket as most webmasters out there do (going for basically nothing but search engine traffic, which is sort of risky and not really a safe foundation for a business)...?

I can imagine that a lot of sites in the field of SEO/internet marketing get traffic from sites other than search engines. I was thinking probably most word-of-mouth, though - as this field is so interconnected with forums,blogs,etc.. I havent done an actual search for a SEO related topic in a while, because a)lots of clutter is re-turned, but mostly I know some "authority" sites & forums already...and if I want information on a topic I ask it on a forum (like here) or use the internal site search of the SEO blogs/sites Ive learned to trust.

Typical sources of traffic for Websites include:

• Print advertisement (direct mailings, newspaper/magazine ads, shopper ads, sales coupon mailers, etc.)
• Broadcast advertisement (TV, cable, radio)
• Product packaging advertisement
• Service vehicle advertisement
• Online advertising (PPC, display, product reviews)
• Publicity (press releases, media events, news stories)
• Product placement (TV shows and movies)
• Clothing display/placement and other forms of street advertising
• Links on other sites (every type of site)
• Email/newsletters
• Blogging and forum discussions (pinging/being crawled) (some people might include this in "links on other sites")
• Social media announcements (some people might include this in "links on other sites")
• Organic search results

An SEO has to focus on the last area but a Web marketer should be keenly aware of and immersed in at least several of these functions.

Ive actually been wondering if the field of SEO/Im and how traffic flows here might be the future of the www, as people become more web savy and use forums and such more (then again they might not be as web savy as internet marketing professionals/hobbyists, anytime soon I guess). If youre a regular visitor to enough good sites (including forums) in your niche, you might prefer to ask there rather than a search engine.

Internet marketing has been around since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). I'm sure it will be around for as long as we have the Internet. But the options for Internet marketing just continue to increase.

Anyway, I just don't believe that most Websites need to depend on search for all their traffic.

[PatrickGer]

Typical sources of traffic for Websites include:

• Print advertisement (direct mailings, newspaper/magazine ads, shopper ads, sales coupon mailers, etc.)
• Broadcast advertisement (TV, cable, radio)
• Product packaging advertisement
• Service vehicle advertisement
• Online advertising (PPC, display, product reviews)
• Publicity (press releases, media events, news stories)
• Product placement (TV shows and movies)
• Clothing display/placement and other forms of street advertising
• Links on other sites (every type of site)
• Email/newsletters
• Blogging and forum discussions (pinging/being crawled) (some people might include this in "links on other sites")
• Social media announcements (some people might include this in "links on other sites")
• Organic search results

An SEO has to focus on the last area but a Web marketer should be keenly aware of and immersed in at least several of these functions.
Internet marketing has been around since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). I'm sure it will be around for as long as we have the Internet. But the options for Internet marketing just continue to increase.

Anyway, I just don't believe that most Websites need to depend on search for all their traffic.

I don't really believe it either. Or rather I don't want to believe it ;-) - so good to hear when others (with much more experience, and thus more knowledgeable obviously) are in the same boat.