5 ms·
The devil is in the traffic source. Organic vs. Paid?
by rokhayakebe 17y ago
The devil is in the traffic source. Organic vs. Paid?
- fallentimes 17y agoFansnap: http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=-2468732506894565801 http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=-2468732506894565801 TicketStumbler: http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=8285194011102117400 http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=8285194011102117400
- gruseom 17y agoThose two links are the same. Did you mean http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=8285194011102117400 http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=8285194011102117400?
- fallentimes 17y agoOops yes - corrected.
- rokhayakebe 17y agoBoom! That's what I thought. I am sure with some distribution partnerships you guys can catch up in terms of traffic.
- enjo 17y agoNo it's not. As long as they're buying well qualified traffic, then there is no difference. I don't care who's paying more for their traffic. Organic traffic isn't 'better' in any sense except that it's free. The devil, as it were, is in the conversion rate. If I have a $1M/year ad budget, and I'm successfully converting that budget into $10M in revenue. Well, then I'm a successful business. If I spend $0/year in revenue, and convert my purely organic traffic into $1M... well I'm also a successful business, but (likely) less so than my more aggressive counterpart. At the end of the day, it's about the bottom line. I have no idea which company is in better shape based on their traffic numbers. But to blithely say 'well, fansnap isn't successful because they gaspbuy/gasp their traffic' is lunacy. It's about making money... nothing else.