Is link building unethical?

July 26, 2008 by Guest Writer
Filed under Website Promotion

Jonathan Leger wrote a post about link building recently that was just too good to pass up.

It certainly strenghtens my arugment as to why you shouldn’t focus on traditional SEO and why “findability” or getting found online is important but it also dashes my theory about playing by Google’s rules which, Jonathan highlights, there are none!

I would encourage you to read some of the comments on his blog about this post too. Makes an interesting and educational read.

**********************************

A thread got started at a popular marketing forum recently, and one poster (who appears to be pretty new to Internet Marketing), stated that my 3WayLinks.net link building service was “dishonest”, “immoral” and “unethical.” Those were his exact words. He didn’t say that he “felt” it was that way, he applied an across the board, no-contest judgment regarding the service.

I responded with a series of questions asking whether or not he felt writing articles to get backlinks is unethical, or posting comments to blogs was unethical, or using social bookmarking sites for backlinks was unethical. The user never answered these questions, so I can only assume that he was unable to do so without undermining his original argument. He continued, however, with a series of arguments which I responded to and, in my opinion, debunked. Numerous other users chimed in to support and agree with my position, but there were some on the other side of the fence as well.

I felt there was something to be learned from the debate, and I wanted to share my perspective on link building with my readers here. Your position may be completely opposite, or you may be somewhat in line with my opinion or somewhat out of line with my opinion. But here’s how I feel about it:

The basic argument from the other side of the debate appears to be that any “artificial manipulation” of the search results is dishonest, including link building. I can’t say this absolutely, as the other person refused to answer my questions in order for me to have a completely clear understanding of their point of view. However, it certainly appeared that this person felt anything even remotely appearing to violate Google’s Webmaster Guidelines is morally wrong.

I’ve heard this argument before, and I disagree with it for a number of reasons.

Problem #1: Defining “the rules”

First of all, in order for something to be unethical, you have to have a consistent set of standards by which to judge the action. To make this clear, let’s use an unethical act that I think everyone will agree on: theft.

Theft is defined at Dictionary.com as “the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.” Simply put, if somebody has something that does not belong to you, and you take it without permission, it’s theft. I don’t think there are many people who would disagree with that.

Let’s contrast that with link building, using Google’s Webmaster Guidelines as our “rules.” Here’s what Google suggestions you do in terms of building links:

Have other relevant sites link to yours.
Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.
Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

Notice how vague these guidelines are. Let’s go through them one at a time.

1. Have other relevant sites link to yours.

Okay, the problem here is the lack of definition of what constitutes a relevant site. For some, it would mean only sites that are based on the same subject matter. That is, if you have a site that is generally about arthritis pain relief, they feel you should only get links from arthritis-related sites.

The problem with that point of view is that it fails to take into account the vast range of subjects that fall into that category. For instance, as was shown in a previous blog post, such diverse subjects such as swimming, cycling, weight loss, vitamins, different types of fat, comfortable furniture, etc. can all be related to arthritis pain relief. So is it okay to get links from weight loss sites or furniture sites to your arthritis pain relief site? Given the lack of specifics, that can only be labeled a personal question, not an ethical one.

2. Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online.

Again, vagueness is the culprit here. Frankly, since I know that links from other sites are what rank my sites in Google, I’d like every site to know that mine is online! That means getting links from as many sites, in as many categories as possible. Without a better definition of what Google means, it’s impossible for everyone to share the same viewpoint of this recommendation.

3. Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

The same problems that exist with #1 and #2 exist with #3. What defines “relevant”? What defines “industry-specific expert sites”? From what we’re given by Google, it’s left for us to decide.

So, in contrast with the pretty straightforward unethical act of theft, link building can hardly be considered an indisputable breach of ethics. Now, it certainly can be relegated to a decision of one’s conscience. If a person doesn’t feel that building links would be right, they certainly have the option of not doing so — and I don’t advocate doing anything that doesn’t sit well with your inner radar. However, to claim that others are dishonest or unethical because of link building would not be appropriate, because the standards put in front of us leave a huge amount of leeway for interpretation.

This is true in many aspects of our everyday life, too. For example, we’ve all been taught that we should be “kind” to people, and most would agree that we should. But to what degree, and in what situations is left up to our own conscience to decide. In the end I believe we will find out whether or not we did what was right from a higher authority, but to try and group building links to your website into a great moral or ethical issue is nonsense in my opinion.

Problem #2: “The rules” aren’t rules!

The second big problem in the “unethical linking” argument is that the “rules” everyone refers to aren’t rules, and Google never calls them rules. They are referred to as “guidelines.” Guidelines are generally much looser in their approach then rules.

For instance, “the speed limit is 30 m.p.h.” is a rule. However, “you need to drive slowly” is a guideline which relies on your own personal view of what “slowly” means. There is a point at which virtually everyone would agree that another person is not driving “slowly” in a given situation, but there’s also a lot of gray area where people would disagree.

Google can’t call their guidelines rules because they are intentionally vague. Google seems to feel that creating too strict a set of rules would give away too much information about how their algorithm works, and so they make vague statements bordering on being almost useless.

Problem #3: I can design my website any way I want to.

The third problem with the “unethical linking” argument is that it fails to accept the fact that, as a webmaster, I have the right to design my site any way I see fit. Just as taking an object out of my house can’t be considered stealing (since I own the object), the act of adding links to my site to whatever other sites I choose cannot be considered unethical.

This third point is really where the “unethical” argument breaks down. After all, as webmasters we have not entered into any kind of agreement with Google. We have not agreed to abide by their guidelines. We have signed no contracts. Google has not requested our permission to crawl and index our sites, and they do not give us any kind of compensation for the act of doing so. What Google does, Google does of its own accord and without permission.

Granted, it’s in our best interest to be indexed and rank well in Google, so we want to try and do what we can to that end, but they have not asked our permission and give us no direct compensation for using our content.

So if a group of webmasters setup their sites in a way that they know will help them rank well in Google, and Google crawls those sites, counts those links and ranks those pages, can that be defined as unethical? Google has made the choice to index and rank the sites. They don’t have to do so, and if they change their minds about it, they can always remove sites they feel should not be in their index.

I see services such as 3WayLinks.net like a farmer’s co-op. In a farmer’s co-op, a group of farmers join forces to be able to have more buying power and get cheaper rates for equipment and supplies. It’s in a smaller farmer’s best interests to join so that they can compete with the “big dogs” of their industry and not be priced out of the market.

My linking service serves the same purpose. The “big dogs” of the web can afford to get huge numbers of links aimed at their sites through a variety of means (some Google sanctioned, some not). 3WayLinks.net is a “linking co-op”, where the smaller guys can join forces to help each other compete with the larger sites. You may or may not agree, but that’s how I see it and why I created it.

Problem #4: We have no relationship with Google.

A webmaster’s relationship with Google cannot be equated to a user’s relationship with a site for which they have an account. When you create an account with an interactive site, you usually agree to their terms of service, and so any actions you take interacting with that site must abide by those terms. Thus, when MySpace sued a spammer, they won, because the spammer had violated the terms they agreed to.

However, we’ve never “created an account” with Google. We never invited Google to our site. They just assume you want them there (and who doesn’t?) and so they crawl and index the site. But if our site is doing something Google doesn’t like, we have not violated any kind of agreement, and they have no right to take any legal action.

From my perspective, all search engine optimization is a risk/reward scenario. You have to be smart about how you interpret Google’s guidelines, because they certainly have the right to remove your site if you’re doing something they don’t like. But as the owner of the site, you have the right to create it and link to it in any way you see fit (as long as you have permission to put links where you are putting them — more on that in a bit).

Problem #5: What are the real “rules” anyway?

Also, I don’t think that Google’s Webmaster Guidelines are what define the real “rules” of Google. They can’t, because they’re far too vague. The real definition of the rules is Google’s algorithm. The problem with these “rules” is that they are constantly changing as the Google team modifies that algorithm. So what works well today may not work well tomorrow. That’s why it’s so important to diversify your search engine optimization and link building methods, which will help insulate you from future changes that are sure to come.

I can’t tell you how many threads on webmaster forums I’ve read where people are crying that they “did everything right” and Google obliterated their rankings in a major update. So is it really Google’s Webmaster Guidelines that sets the rules, or is it their algorithm?

This behavior on Google’s part has lead some to abandon the “white hat” theory of search engine optimization all together. Personally, I don’t wear hats. Let me tell you why.

I don’t wear hats: white, gray or black.

You’ve probably heard of the three “hats” of search engine optimization. They are generally thought of like so:

White Hat - You do everything Google recommends in their guidelines.
Gray Hat - You don’t do what Google recommends, but you don’t misuse other people’s web sites for your own gain.
Black Hat - You don’t do what Google recommends, and you don’t mind misusing other people’s web sites for your own gain.

The “white hat” is a fantasy, some great ideal held up before people that doesn’t exist. How can there be a true “white hat” when Google does not give specifics in their guidelines, and does not publish their algorithm? Also, since Google’s algorithm is always changing, today’s “white hat” is tomorrow’s “unacceptable practice.” To make matters worse, since we have no specific rules from Google, all webmasters have to go based on their own interpretation of Google’s vague guidelines, so at best the hat is “light gray.”

I don’t like the label “gray hat” either, though, since that assumes that you are doing something “sorta” wrong by ignoring Google’s guidelines, but you’re not. You have the right to build your site any way you want. Of course, Google has the right to penalize or remove your site from their search results, but that’s a quality decision, not a moral judgment.

I do, however, believe in the “black hat” label. Using other people’s web properties without their knowledge or consent for your own selfish gain is very unethical in my mind. An example of this is blog comment spam. Stuffing thousands of comments into unsuspecting blogs in the hope that you can get some back links from those comments when you’ve never even read the blog posts is unethical to me, and I would never engage in such a practice. So I don’t wear that hat either.

The difference between using an unsuspecting blog for comment spam, and designing a site to rank well in Google, is that Google comes to you. Google crawls and indexes your site of their own volition. The blog owner does not come to you and ask that you put comments on their blog for the sole purpose of your personal gain. Google, on the other hand, wants your content and indexes it accordingly. One similarity between the two, though, is that the blog owner can make the decision to delete a comment they feel is inappropriate for their blog, and Google, too, has the right to remove sites it feels are not of the quality they want in their index.

The Bottom Line: It’s your decision.

I don’t believe in the mantra, “it’s not personal, it’s business.” I strongly believe that your personal ethics and beliefs should very much effect every aspect of your life, including your business. That said, there are situations that are simply business decisions. There are risk/reward decisions that every business has to make. “Will this advertisement help me make sales, or hurt my image?” Those kinds of decisions have to be made all the time, and there are good and bad consequences associated with those decisions.

To me, as long as you’re not doing anything that steals links or content from other web sites, search engine optimization is a risk/reward decision, not an ethical one. “Will this hurt my rankings in Google, or will it help it?” There’s always risk involved.

Google used to love reciprocal links, and so people got reciprocal links. Then Google changed their minds and decided one-way links were more valuable, and a lot of those reciprocally linking sites fell out of the rankings. Was Google right in their determination that one-way links are better than reciprocal? It doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t an ethical decision on their part — it was a business decision, and they had the right to make that decision.

Were the owners of those sites who linked to each other reciprocally “unethical”? My opinion is No, because it wasn’t an ethical decision on the part of the site owners either, but a business decision which they had the right to make.

What about being a part of the very successful 3WayLinks network, or writing articles for backlinks, or creating blogs and posting to them for linking purposes, or posting to social bookmarking sites for the purpose of traffic and links? Are those actions “unethical”?

The real question is, “What do YOU think?” Please post your thoughts and comments below.

Like this post? Publish It On Your Own Blog

Source: ethical link building

You new here? If so, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Tags: 3 way links, backlinking, backlinks, Google, link building, one way links, reciprocal linking, SEO

Why I don’t Focus on Traditional SEO

July 22, 2008 by Trish Jones
Filed under Website Promotion

7 Comments

As a business owner online who wants natural organic listings in the search engines, your main objective is to please Google and play by their rules. The reason being, Google are the biggest search engine with about 60% of the market share and generally, if you rank well in Google, you’re likely to rank well in MSN, Yahoo and the other search engines.

Most of the traditional search engine companies focus on ensuring you have the right keywords as well as right keyword density on the pages of your site (on page factors), whereas Google relies more on a linking structure or backlinks from other credible sites (off page factors), to determine how relevant your page content is to the term that a searcher online types into Google as well as how credible your site is.

See http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html for more information on how Google’s linking structure works and how they determine the credibility of your site.

Now, the problem with just focusing on keyword placement and, contacting other website owners to ask them to link back to your site is that some website owners will want to charge you to have a link on their site nowadays which, can actually get you into serious deep waters with Google … though a long-standing debate, it’s not all bad but again, you need to play by Google’s rules if you want to pay for links.

What could also be an issue is if you decide for whatever reason that you don’t want to pay for links any longer … you could end up losing a whole bunch of credible links overnight. The net result (no pun intended) is that you’ll loose your ranking, meaning less traffic and less money … overnight! And when Google decided to come down hard on perpetrators of link buying in December 2006, it left a lot of companies struggling over the Christmas period so, be warned. Do your due diligence to ensure you’re not violating Google’s terms of service before getting into link buying.

So, to answer my own question though, why do I not focus on traditional search engine optimization strategies?

My focus is on “findability.”

How can I get more people to find my site or, your site, on the Internet. Or put another way, how do I get more people to find me online and still get quality incoming links to my site from other credible websites at zero costs.

I think Mike Filsaime, successful Internet Marketer said it best at the UK World Internet Summit in 2006. He referred to it as “throwing seed out on the Internet.” He then went on to say that getting traffic from this seed may not be as instant as Pay-Per-Click traffic, but it grows and grows and long-term will give you a great return on investment.

I’ll add to that by saying it will get you an awesome amount of credible backlinks to your site too.

Some of the best ways to get backlinks to your site are:

Blog posts
Submitting articles to article directories
Submitting your RSS feed to feed directories
Podcasting (audio broadcasting)
Video broadcasting
3 Way Link exchange
Commenting on other people’s blogs
Web PR
Forum commenting

By using these methods, it’s not just a matter of getting links to your site from credible sites, it’s about “spreading your seed on the Internet.” What you want to achieve is popularity … whenever people search the forums, the search engines, article directories etc using variations of they keywords you want to rank for, you want them to find some reference to yoursite.com.

And more importantly, when they click on yoursite.com, you want them to find good quality content.

I’ve never personnally bought into the fact that you have to put your product in front of a prospect sevent times before they’ll buy, but if you do believe that, this must be the easiest and most economical way of presenting your product to your prospects.

In addition to the exposure, it will also give you more branding power because you’re not limited to just getting your message distributed via the search engines or links, people can find you on blogs, in article and
RSS directories, iTunes, YouTube, GoogleVideo etc.

In my view, it’s actually a far more powerful strategy than just focusing on keyword density and approaching other webmasters for links … though take note that I am not suggesting these are ineffecitve nor, should they be abandoned but I will say that I’d rather spend my valuable time writing good quality articles and submitting them to article directores than spending hours writing webmasters for links.

Hope this helps you put search engine optimization into perspective as well as give you a good idea of where you should be spending your money as well as your time.

Trish's Blog Signature

Tags: 3 way links, article directores, article marketing, backlinks, Blog Marketing, Google, off page factors, on page factors, search engine consultant, Search Engine Optimization

Why Should I Promote Traffic Secrets 2.0?

July 15, 2008 by Trish Jones
Filed under Website Promotion

5 Comments

It’s true, why should I promote John Reese’s Traffic Secrets 2.0 course, especially after my last blog post about stuffing big product launches?

And, I’ve already had one enquiry today asking StomperNet or Traffic Secrets 2.0 and I’ll be honest, both are fantastic but for value, it has to be John’s product in my view.

But, let me answer my own question … why should I promote Traffic Secrets 2.0?

It’s simple really … “without traffic, you don’t have an online business!”

It’s like opening a retail shop and no one popping in even to browse. And, John knows how to get those browsers and, turn them into buyers.

In other words, whatever you sell online, if there is a demand for it, John knows how to get you more business. It doesn’t matter what niche market your business is in. The course will take you step-by-step through the process of generating and increasing traffic.

Traffic Secrets 2.0 is all about…

Social Media Marketing & Strategy
Advanced Content Syndication
Cutting-Edge Video Marketing & SEO
Leveraging Software & Widgets
Setting Up Automatic ‘Content Factories’
Building An Affiliate Army
And so much more.

I’m really not going to plug this too much though because I’m sure this isn’t the first time you’re reading about it, I don’t have any bonuses to offer, I just think that traffic is as important to the survival of your business as healthy blood is to your body.

Even if you can’t afford the course or don’t want to invest in the course, I hope you got around to watching the preview videos and taking notes because there were some real and solid lessons to the survival of your business in them.

There are only two reasons you shouldn’t buy this course:

You really don’t have the money and no, I don’t advocate you ”beg, borrow or steal” just to get hold of them. This statement has been so overused in the online world and not too many of the broadcasters of this message are being kicked out of their homes or struggling to pay their bills! Enough said on that one.
You’e got so much traffic and making so much money that even the bank manager’s complaining!

Other than that, if you qualify, you can read the salesletter and be shocked at the price! I was.

Best,

My Signature

Tags: John Reese Traffic Secrets 2.0, John Reese Traffic Secrets course, traffic secrets, traffic secrets 2.0

Stuff the Big Product Launches, I’ll Take This Thanks Marlon

July 13, 2008 by Trish Jones
Filed under Website Promotion

5 Comments

I’ve just received Marlon Sanders newsletter and I have to say, I just love the guys down to earth style and his honesty.

Marlon Sanders has been making money online before most of us set eyes on a PC and yet, he’s the non comformist. Rarely do you see Marlon involved in huge product launches, his products are often in the reach of most people’s budgets and, they are often nicely packaged in a step-by-step video format.

In his current newsletter he refers to three online marketing models that I know most of you will be able to implement without having to put a further strain on your marketing budget.

Ensure you take particular note of the 3 models Marlon refers to in his newsletter and ask yourself how you could use any of the three strategies to grow your online business, attract more clients and to earn an extra $1,000 per month.

You also have to check out the information about Google and using Gmail … kinda scary …

*************

The other day I was reading a forum. Several guys had gotten 100 visitors and not made a sale and wondered what was wrong.

In this article, I’m going to try to answer that question.

I just talked to another friend of mine on the phone last week.

He’s been making $100,000 a month online since I met him back at the Boulder seminars years ago.

Back then his model was to run banner ads, sell a $39.95 ebook with a super duper offer.

Then in the ebook he sold ‘em his big ticket. He spent $25,000 a month on banner ads and made $100,000.

Almost identical numbers to my friend who is doing the same thing with Google pay-per-click in another market. Except he gives away the ebook free instead of selling it.

My first friend had back ends of $377 and $577. And then later went to $577 and $997, or something like that.

My second friend has a recurring billing $37 a month back end. But converts 10% of the people who request the free ebook.

What’s CRAZY is my second friend is NOW doing the free BOOK thing by direct mail. So instead of a free ebook, it’s a free PRINTED book.

You’ll laugh at this.

I asked him WHERE he was getting his books printed at and he said Kinkos! The reason you’ll laugh at that is he consumes over 30,000 a year. And could easily get ‘em cheaper elsewhere.

Here are the models:

Model one: $39.95 ebook. $377 and $577 upsells. Later a $997 upsell.

Model two: Free ebook. $37 a month back end.

Model three: Free BOOK. $4,000 back end.

Oh, I forgot to tell you. The free book sells a $4,000 product. Basically, it’s written on the old Jeff Paul if you’re familiar with that.

Anyway, that’s not the point.

The point is these models all do some things in common:

Step one: Get people in the funnel

You can sell a low-priced something or the other. Or give it away free.

Step two: Sell ‘em something MUCH more profitable.
$377, $577, $37 a month, $4,000.

I think of Matt Bacak and Russ Bruson doing the $5500 big tickets with phone sales. I think of Vincent James doing the $59.95 a month recurring billing for his bottles o’ pills.

In the early days, my model was Amazing Formula on the front end then the Big Course for $500 on the back end.

Later that changed to Cash Like Clockwork.

But there’s one MORE missing element here.

And that is the MAIN key: A repetitive way to generate leads.

The vogue nowadays is product launches. And that’s all well and good if you have lots of friends who are willing to stick together and promote each other. And, coincidentally, win each other’s fancy affiliate prizes.

(Did you EVER notice a friend in the JV circle seems to always win the huge affiliate pize? I WISH my friends were so kind to me!)

Personally, I’d RATHER have the consistent traffic without the chaos of a big launch.

Whether you have a FREE ebook, FREE book or low-priced offer, you MUST have something that converts.

Copy is king and queen.

And truly, if you can’t write great-converting copy, you’re at a handicap.

Then you gotta have a big ticket back end or recurring billing.
Now, you can convert people with sales letters, direct mail, teleseminars, video, or email.

They all work.

They’re all just ways of delivering your sales message via different channels.

Here are the things I’ve seen work on the front end:

1. Banner advertising

If you’re in a market with lots of inventory, this is a great option. Get ‘em to a page, bribe ‘em with something free to join your list.

Begin marketing.

2. Pay-per-click

This works too IF you have a back end that sucks money out within 30 days. But you have BETTER have an offer and emails that convert 5% to 10% of subscribers to buyers.

Google keeps tightening the rules and the cost of clicks seems to be going up. But there’s no doubt the volume is there. It’s fast. And it’s highly trackable and testable.

3. Affiliate program

In probably any arena OTHER than Internet marketing this is still gold. Internet marketing has degraded into the product launch of the week. And you’re LUCKY if your affiliates promote your new product for longer than 2 weeks.

You have a degree of vulnerability in that you’re dependent on the efforts of others. So it isn’t perfect. But with ppc, banners and direct mail, you pay IN ADVANCE.

With SEO, you pay with your time creating content.

With affiliate programs, you pay in money AFTER the sale.
That is why it’s still a great marketing method.

4. Direct mail

The age of folks is 45 to 50+. So if you’re trying to target people in their 20’s or early 30’s, you may have a challenge.

5. Seo stuff

Article marketing and other methods can work. I mean, if you produce an article a day, turn it into video and podcasts using Traffic Guyser, submit it to the video and podcast directories, submit it to the article directories, post it on your blog and so forth, and KEEP doing that day after day — sooner or later you’ll get traffic.

I mean, if you just HAMMER Google with content day after day, relentlessley, it’s bound to get you somewhere. The only thing is, the content has to be themed and related and so forth.

This is basically what Tinu does in the Evergreen Traffic System except she’s a lot more focused with it and targets Google with laser tactics.

Still, it’s a CONTENT-BASED approach. With Tinu’s system you create high quality content and syndicate it using RSS.

Either you create content or buy it. The problem or issue I see with buying it is if it’s low quality content, Google can TELL people don’t spend much time on the page or bookmark it.

I’d personally rather buy clicks, banners or send out direct mail. Writing every day is NOT attractive to me.

There’s a MAJOR sacrifice of time UNLESS you can afford to hire or magically find writers who can actually produce high quality content people WILL read.

Seo is a CONTENT model. The only approach I know of that works long term is CONTENT. That is what Google values. And they CAN differentiate the quality of content by time-on-page, bookmarking, links and so forth.

Long term, you CANNOT trick Google. Having said that, I do know people who outsource articles inexpensively and do get results.
I wonder, though, long term if those pages will stick.

I pretty much doubt it. Did you know Google sets a cookie when you long into Gmail?

So they can SEE every email you open.

They KNOW every link you click.

They KNOW the web sites you go to. How long you spend there. How much you scroll (or they could track this easily).

They know who links in and out.

They know who clicks what.

Heck, they even have a PICTURE of your HOUSE on Google Maps and your street view. They have a picture there of the CAR you drive if it’s in your driveway. Seriously, in the U.S. they probably have literal video footage of your home, your car and the street you live on.

I’m NOT making this up. I looked up a friend’s home in a fairly remote suburb of a pretty small town. And they had STREET LEVEL video of the whole neighborhood. And you could see the CAR in the driveway. Everything.

And with their new Google phone, they’ll know WHO you call, how long you talk and where you call.

So just TELL me you can find a way to fool them about the quality of your content long term.

By the way, in the U.S. the government from what I can tell can get that DATA anytime they want. So every email you read, email you SEND, web site you go to. They know WHAT you click when you GO to those web sites because of Google ANALYTICS.

If you use Gmail, it’s ALL tracked.

And you wonder why Microsoft was desperate to buy YAHOO?

You know, in the U.S. I THOUGHT we had a constitution that prevented search without a warrant.

Yeah right.

Frankly, if this scares you a little, it should. You need to know, if you’re on the Net and you’re not surfing with a proxy like hidemyip.com, and you’re using Gmail and doing all your searches in Google…ummmmm….you should just know it’s all TRACKED and probably recorded.

I don’t know WHO owns Skype. And I don’t know if any of that data is SOLD. Since it’s FREE, I’m guessing it is. How much data is sold and to whom? I wonder. Are your Skypes private?

Mmmmmmmmm. I doubt it. But I could be wrong. I’m sure that if the government or someone in a lawsuit wants them, they can get ‘em.

I’m no privacy expert. And I’m sure some of the things I’ve said here aren’t exactly accurate. But anyone with half a brain can put two and two together and see the pattern.

As far as privacy, don’t use Gmail. Use Safari as your web browser or maybe Firefox. Don’t get a Google phone when it comes out. And know that when you search on Google, there is very little protection of your privacy.

Just know that there is no privacy unless you surf with a proxy turned on. You may not care. But I think you should at least KNOW.

1. There is no privacy
2. It’s all tracked
3. The Government has access
4. Even your emails are archived and are NOT private.

(Don’t know about UK and Australia or other countries.)

In terms of BANNER ADVERTISING it is good for marketers. It means they can and DO track people’s movements ACROSS web sites and can serve banners based on a theme of their surfing habits. That is what the whole Double Click uproar was about ..

They also know WHAT people click in their email on Gmail and Yahoo.
The targeting is VERY precise. I mean, they know EVERTHING.

Everything. Every click. Every move. Emails. House location, value (from Google Maps). Even your forum postings can be tracked.
(Google Analytics).

In terms of PRIVACY, Google is not your friend.

As a marketer, if you can’t target precisely with THAT….

There ARE services that let you target banners with this precision.
However, NO ONE has really researched them and written up an ebook that’s affordable on the topic.

No one has written who these services are, the degree to which they track, how much you can REALLY buy the banners for via negotiation vs. off-the-rack b.s. prices.

It’s a bonanza for marketers NO ONE has written about exploited.

If you know:

– What sites people go to
– How long they are there
– What they click on
– How often they go there
– How often they click
– What types of emails they send and to whom
– The location of their home (and by implication home value)

If you know all that, are you telling me banners aren’t being served with the greatest precision known to man?

Why hasn’t this been told or written up?

I KNOW you can buy these banners. But who sells them? What is the minimum buy? What is the price AFTER negotiation? You know, the true street price? What are the minimum buys?
Who are the main players? What data are they tracking?

What is the average CTR?

So you wanna talk about TRAFFIC and TRAFFIC SECRETS? There you go. THERE is something to talk about.

SUMMARY:

1. You buy traffic

Banners, Google, other methods.

2. You trade time for it by creating content for Google

Google rewards high quality content with good rankings.
But quality content takes YOUR time or talented hired writers.

3. Direct mail

You could call this direct response and include full-page ads, TV and radio.

Once you’re reaching .50 a hit on Google, there’s not a lot of difference between THAT and spending .50 to send a proven buyer a piece of mail.

The cost of entry is high though. Testing 10 lists at 2,000 names each is a 20,000 mailing costing over $10,000.

I began this article talking about a forum thread I read where several guys had gotten 100 visitors and not made a sale and wondered what was wrong.

Do you see now?

1. You gotta have a way to deliver a LOT of visitors predictably.
Banner ads. PPC. Affiliates. Direct mail.

Something you pretty much CONTROL.

2. You gotta have a conversion PROCESS.

Get people on your list and follow up with emails.

3. You gotta have a big ticket back end.

Every single thing I said in ActionGrid.com still applies. And the system for creating big ticket info products STILL WORKS and still applies.

These guys:

1. Didn’t have a repetive way to bring in visitors that they could rely on.

2. They didn’t get people on a list.

3. They didn’t have a big ticket.

I will add that they were trying to do an SEO method based ONLY on getting inbound links with low quality content.

You know, link exchanges and such. Which I’m sure probably work IF you have high quality content. Google just isn’t stupid or dumb.

Marlon

———————————————————–
Marlon Sanders is the author of “The Info Product Dashboard.”
If you want to create your own info products, go to:
http://getyourprofits.com/z/377/CD23579

Tags: Marlon Sanders, product launch, Product Launches, the info product dashboard