Comments on: Automating Content Network Management - Part 1 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/02/12/automating-content-network-management-part-1/ Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Chris Stigson http://blog.merjis.com/2008/02/12/automating-content-network-management-part-1/#comment-40650 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:15:35 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/02/12/automating-content-network-management-part-1/#comment-40650 Interesting post... I've been marketing online for about 14 months now and I'm learning more and more so this post really made me realize some of the things I though I knew, which obviously I didn't.Thanks,- Chris Interesting post… I’ve been marketing online for about 14 months now and I’m learning more and more so this post really made me realize some of the things I though I knew, which obviously I didn’t.Thanks,- Chris

]]> by: John Nagle http://blog.merjis.com/2008/02/12/automating-content-network-management-part-1/#comment-36932 Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:27:33 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/02/12/automating-content-network-management-part-1/#comment-36932 Thanks. I'd also realized that "In practice, you need to allow a significant overspend on useless sites, in order to ensure that you end up with a collection of sites that achieve $10.00 average ROI." It takes too many clicks per site to develop statistical confidence. Examining incoming sites is potentially more promising, but, as you point out, what do you look for? We rate "site legitimacy", which does filter out the "bottom feeders" like the made-for-Adwords sites. But the "bottom feeders" may be the ones generating your revenue. I just had a talk with someone in the bankruptcy lead generation business, and he discovered that some of his most profitable ad sites were rated very low by SiteTruth. Some little 3-page ad sites with canned content about bankruptcy generate his best traffic. Whether "site legitimacy" is a good criterion depends on the campaign and the brand. If you're advertising a valuable brand, you may want to keep your ads off bottom-feeder sites for branding reasons. For example, if you're running ads for a well-known brokerage house or a famous-brand luxury good, cutting out the bottom feeders make sense. You wouldn't buy ads for them in low-end media like an advertising throwaway, and on the Web, you need to keep those ads off bad sites to protect your brand. John Nagle / SiteTruth Thanks. I’d also realized that “In practice, you need to allow a significant overspend on useless sites, in order to ensure that you end up with a collection of sites that achieve $10.00 average ROI.” It takes too many clicks per site to develop statistical confidence.

Examining incoming sites is potentially more promising, but, as you point out, what do you look for? We rate “site legitimacy”, which does filter out the “bottom feeders” like the made-for-Adwords sites. But the “bottom feeders” may be the ones generating your revenue. I just had a talk with someone in the bankruptcy lead generation business, and he discovered that some of his most profitable ad sites were rated very low by SiteTruth. Some little 3-page ad sites with canned content about bankruptcy generate his best traffic.

Whether “site legitimacy” is a good criterion depends on the campaign and the brand. If you’re advertising a valuable brand, you may want to keep your ads off bottom-feeder sites for branding reasons. For example, if you’re running ads for a well-known brokerage house or a famous-brand luxury good, cutting out the bottom feeders make sense. You wouldn’t buy ads for them in low-end media like an advertising throwaway, and on the Web, you need to keep those ads off bad sites to protect your brand.

John Nagle / SiteTruth

]]>