An Idea I Thought I'd Share With You Options

[greggb]

Hey everyone. I've done quite a bit of thinking about this in the last few days, and I thought I'd share this idea with you. I'm curious if you think it's a good idea. And if you like the idea, feel free to use it yourself... though I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of it... you might have heard of this before.

As far as getting non-reciprocal links goes... it seems like it's a difficult thing to do. I know that one of the better ways to go about it is to create a website that's so good and useful that other webmasters will link to you, without your asking.

But when you're designing websites for other people, you can't make every website you design so good and useful that other people will naturally want to link to it. It seems like when it comes down to it, you're going to have to barter for links. It kind of seems to me that's just the way things are anymore.

So, here's my idea. I'm thinking about setting up what you might call a link-brokering network. The idea is to have a number of websites/webmasters on hand, willing to link to a particular website for a fee. Maybe a few thousand, maybe even more.

Whenever I run into someone who wants... let's say 25 one-way links from websites with a PR of 4 or higher, here's what I'd do. I'd send out an email to all of the webmasters in my linking network, and say "so and so has a website, needs 25 one-way links. The contracts will be going to the 25 lowest bidders, so please place your bids by this coming Friday".

If things went as planned, I'd check the bids on Friday, and I'd have 25 very reasonably priced bids for links to my client's website.

To me it seems like a very cost-effective means of getting links, since webmasters are competing with each other for contracts. And also, it'd be a very fast way to get links.

Let me know what you think of the idea,
Gregg

[qwerty]

There are programs like that out there, Gregg. I think they mostly work on an auction basis, kind of like ebay for links.

My only problem with the idea is that (and maybe this was either an ommission on your part, or you don't agree with me that this matters) you didn't say anything about the subjects of the sites that would be linking. If I need to get 25 links for a site, even if they're not going to be reciprocal links, I'll want them to be from sites that are similar in theme to mine.

There's also no mention of how good these sites are, except that they meet the criterion of having a particular minimum PR. But maybe they got that PR in such a way that has nothing to do with the quality of the site itself -- like using a link brokering service. So maybe they get no traffic at all, and are just there in order to sell links. And maybe their PR is something that isn't going to last.

I know it's old fashioned, but when I do link building, I do it by finding sites that are worth linking to, even if I'm not planning on linking back to them. I want links from sites that have audiences similar to mine, and I want those sites to actually be pretty good, no matter what their PR is.

[Jill]

Hey Greg,

Read my Evolution of a Search Engine Marketer.

You're apparently at "The Quick-fix Stage."

Which is good cuz it means you're almost to the "Work-hard Stage" and a true search engine marketer!

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Jill

[greggb]

Hi. In reply to the above post...

The kind of "network" I was talking about would be specific to a particular subject; that's something I didn't mention. So links would be fairly relevant... very relevant, if I wanted them to be.

Quality is another thing that would be checked and monitored-- I wouldn't rely on PR alone.

I'm currently in the process of setting up a search engine/directory for outdoor-related websites. That's kind of my specialty in website design. All of the websites in the directory will be of decent quality or better (only good websites will be allowed in the directory).

That's how I got the idea for this in the first place. It occurred to me that a directory could be useful for other applications, besides just a resource to visitors. I mean in a directory you already have a number of websites, very similar to theme, all of a certain quality level. All of those websites could be helping each other, if an organization was in place to facilitate this.

Anyways, that's what I was thinking about,
Gregg

[greggb]

Hi Jill. I read your article. Let me quote a part of it:

So off you go to make your site the best it can be for the search
engines as well as your visitors, and a mature search engine marketer
is born!

The problem in this statement is that we're not talking about my website. I can spend a lot of time making my website great for people and search engines, because I'm not paying $50 per hour to have this done. I can afford to spend hundreds of hours working on my website.

But some little mom-and-pop company can't afford to pay me, or anyone else $50 per hour for hundreds of hours of work making an awesome website. And they really don't need an awesome website, anyways. All they need is a simple, professional website to sell their 10 to 50 products, and a decent search engine ranking, so they'll receive a decent amount of traffic to their website.

To get that search engine ranking they're going to need a fair number of links. They're going to pay for those links. Whether they pay me for my time in getting links for them, or pay directly for a link, they're going to pay for each link they get.

I believe people spend way too much time playing the "link game". I mean why beat around the bush about it? I want a link on your website, and you want something in return for it. So let's spend an hour exchanging 3 or 4 emails until we finally get something figured out.

I'd prefer a cut-and-dry system that eliminates the need for bartering. That's what I'm trying to come up with here. And maybe paying for links isn't the solution... maybe trading links will be better, especially in the long run. Either way, there has to be a more efficient way to go about this. I mean with all the technology we have, if I want 25 links by tomorrow, I should be able to have 25 links by tomorrow. I shouldn't have to spend 40 hours getting 25 links.

Anyways, just my two cents. I'm not happy having to work hard to get links, and I never will be. Not with the technology we have, and not when the principle in getting links/exchanging links is so simple: I want a link, and you want something in return.

Gregg

[ghergich]

nice point but just make sure you don't just take shortcuts all the time because who knows when google will change what they consider important...it seems like you wouldn't do that...on page factors have to be highly considered as well as links and relevance and the list goes on. A well optimized page will require less links to get good rankings thus saving your client money..

[Scottie]

If Mom and Pop rely on their website for income, they need to be prepared to dig in and do some of the work themselves, as opposed to paying someone $50 an hour to do it. if they can't afford it.

If all they need is an OK website because they really aren't selling online anyway, then they should be fine with whatever quick fix solutions you come up with.

I really mean that sincerely- if they are commited to their website, they can pay for consulting and direction and do a large part of the investment in making a great site on their own- after all, they know the market much better than you do. Helping to direct them and keep them from making missteps (like reading "Ways to trick Google into a top ranking!" and thinking that is what they need to do) shoudn't be all that costly.

It's not your job to make it the best, it is the site owner's. IMO.

[projectphp]

But some little mom-and-pop company can't afford to pay me, or anyone else $50 per hour for hundreds of hours of work making an awesome website.

Then they also can't afford to pay "... even thousands" for a link. The problem with your idea from a business point of view is that it has at its heart a capitalist ideal (sell a commodity, make more money) but is aimed @ a market that can't afford the cost. Link selling is better if aimed at big spenders, not at mom and pop organisations.

To get that search engine ranking they're going to need a fair number of links. They're going to pay for those links. Whether they pay me for my time in getting links for them, or pay directly for a link, they're going to pay for each link they get.

Really, why do small mom and pop sites need lots of links? Are all these mom and pop sites in Insurance, mortgages or real estate? How many links do I need to sell rare Australian native plants? In my book, one is probably enough.

If you sell a unique product, from a great site, you will get links. The web, especially the post-Blogging web, is viral. If the site you have isn't worth catching, you simply wont ever win.

Either way, there has to be a more efficient way to go about this. I mean with all the technology we have, if I want 25 links by tomorrow, I should be able to have 25 links by tomorrow. I shouldn't have to spend 40 hours getting 25 links.

The problem with this approach is that it is several steps away from the real goal. Think about the flow of events:
1. Get 25 extra links,
2. Google updates PageRank,
3. Site ranks better and delivers more traffic
4. You try to convert that traffic into sutomerns.

Timing that out, the whole process takes a months, and the link getting is so many steps away from the actual goal: a conversion.

Why not just do AdWords? Flow here is much quicker:
1. Buy an Adword,
2. get traffic,
3. try to convert.

That is 3 steps, and turn around time is like 1 day, versus link buying's several weeks to several months. And the two are extremely comparable. An AdWords budget that is the same as the cost of links will drive traffic sooner, thus providing a return sooner. As both are an ongoing cost, tehy are really in competition. All in all, I think PPC is a better way to go.

I am with Jill 100% on this one. There simply are no shortcuts to long term busines success. If you don't want to work hard on your site, then you need to have money to throw around. If you don't want to do either, there is a word to describe such sites: hobby Sites. If you want a business site, you simply have to accept that you either throw money or time, or preferably both, at the site.

[Scottie]

The difference is a short term strategy vs building a site that's going to do good business, regardless of what the search engines decide to do tomorrow.

If I invest 40 hours in finding 25 links that will drive real customers to my site (regardless of their PR value), or I invest $500 in 25 links from whoever is willing to sell me a link for say, $20, which would be the better investment in the long run?

Of those 25 sites, if the ones I researched and matched to my own business send me, say, 1 site visitor an month and half of them buy, that's an additional 12 purchasing customers a month.

Say I make $10 per sale- if that is all I get from those links (and I'd probably get return customers and referrals by happy customers to their friends) I'd have an additional $120 a month for my efforts. In 4 months, about when my paid links might be showing up and actually influencing my rankings to some extent, I would have already made $500 extra instead of spending it.

Or, as PHP pointed out, I could put that $500 into a PPC campaign and use it to tighten up my search terms and drive people who are actively searching for what I sell.

Either way, I don't see buying links from a link broker to be a good investment of a small firm's money.

[Debra]

Can someone tell me what a link broker is?

I've read what greggb said about his link brokering network in the very first post, but this seems to have taken a little turn.

What exactly are we calling a link broker?

[Scottie]

So, here's my idea. I'm thinking about setting up what you might call a link-brokering network. The idea is to have a number of websites/webmasters on hand, willing to link to a particular website for a fee. Maybe a few thousand, maybe even more.

Whenever I run into someone who wants... let's say 25 one-way links from websites with a PR of 4 or higher, here's what I'd do. I'd send out an email to all of the webmasters in my linking network, and say "so and so has a website, needs 25 one-way links. The contracts will be going to the 25 lowest bidders, so please place your bids by this coming Friday".

If things went as planned, I'd check the bids on Friday, and I'd have 25 very reasonably priced bids for links to my client's website.

This is how the original poster described his link brokering idea and what my comments are based on.

[projectphp]

Try link addage. I think they sell links eBay style, with the link going to the highest bidder.

[greggb]

OK guys. Maybe "link brokering" isn't the best idea (and I even said that in one my replies). If I was sure it was a good idea to begin with, I never would have posted here. I just wanted to get some opinions as to whether or not it was a good idea.

Maybe it's not a good idea. But I still maintain that there has to be a better way to go about getting links. Like I said, we're not exchanging links because we're all such a bunch of good Samaritans. We're all trying to get higher PRs by exchanging links. None of us are doing this for a hobby.

So why don't we just cut to the chase? We're all a bunch of SE marketers trying to buck the system. We're playing a game with Google, trying to fool it any way we know how. That's why we make a point of placing specific words and phrases in the code we write, in specific locations, in specific quantities, and that's why we try to get links.

So I say, let's get some links! Any way that's legal... any way that won't get us banned from Google.

BTW, if you were banned from Google, could you still use Google Adwords?

I'll tell you what guys. Within 2 weeks from today I'm going to have 100 new links--at the very least. So around the 1st of June I'll drop by and tell you how I did it. It won't cost me a dime, and it will be fairly easy. And no, I'm not going to use any link-partnering software, or anything stupid like that. And these will be genuine links, created manually by genuine webmasters. And there will be nothing shady about how I get these links (at least not that Google could prove). And finally, these will be one-way links pointing to my website; I won't have to link back.

If you don't hear from me you'll know that I failed, and that I'm too ashamed to show my face here again. But I don't think that I'll fail, because I've already seen my little system in action.

Happy link building,
Gregg

[projectphp]

None of us are doing this for a hobby....We're playing a game with Google, trying to fool it any way we know how.

I like the mixed metaphor of "playing a game with Google" but "not doing this for a hobby".

Best of luck to you Gregg. I'm not sure why having 100 links is so important, but good luck nonetheless. Personally, I would focus on making more sales and a more successful business, but if links are the only way you think you can get there, then I guess that is a valid course of action.

Happy link building.

<added>There is no need to never come back. 100 links is a great goal to set for yourself, but failing in this goal hardly is something to be ashamed of. So stick around, you never know, you might learn something!!!</added>

[Scottie]

We're all a bunch of SE marketers trying to buck the system.  We're playing a game with Google, trying to fool it any way we know how.  That's why we make a point of placing specific words and phrases in the code we write, in specific locations, in specific quantities, and that's why we try to get links.

Wow- you really think that don't you?

I love the people who read Jill's newsletter and post here but still think that "better site" stuff is all a "front" for manipulating search engines; deep down, we are all spammers, right?

When I work with clients, I improve their site. For people and for search engines. Not by placing words strategically or "manipulation" but by clarifying what the page is about and often organizing it better so that 5 concepts aren't fighting for atttention on the same page. Often, all it takes is focusing what the page is about and clearly writing about it, as well as making sure that the other page elements support that focus.

When I look for links, I look for links that will improve their business by sending people who are looking for what they do/sell.

I think a lot of people here believe in improving sites, not just manipulating rankings. Or maybe they are all just sucking up and hiding their true intent as well... it's all a conspiracy... I see it clearly now...

(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)