OK, So I have visited a few of the sites here for the Amazon affiliates and I am wondering why some people aren't using an internal site linking structure and iframes to help promote your sites within the search engines? I am also wondering how you guys that are selling anything at all, what types of methods are you using to drive traffic to your sites? I have see a bunch of people complaining about commissions, and no one is talking about how they really promote their affiliate links or their sites.
Thousands? At that rate, you should be seeing more than $30, even if its only $1000.00. The referral rate does not seem fair, but at least its consistent. I've often found I could bust my hump for a 2% to 20% conversion, or just build a site in 4 hours and never touch it again only to realize a consistent 4% return. I look at it this way. One of my smallest sites pulls a 3.37% conversion, with over 9700 clicks and sold 328 items for over $320.00 this month (my referral earnings). The referral rate is 4%, and I've not touched this site since I built it over 2 years ago. Considering I spent about 4 hours building it, and promoting it, and NEVER once touched it since. It consistently earns me over $300/mo. and I do NOTHING!!! NO WORK... Compare that to the unbelievable amount of time I've wasted with adsense and affiliate programs that require constant babying to one, make sure they still exists, and two, keep them up in the serps and current in the keyword race. Amazon's return may seem low, but when you build it in volumes of scale and you compare the amount of work vs. the return, its about 10,000 to 1 in many cases. You'd be surprised.
It is surprising that you never touched the site that you had built in 4 hours, and getting 9000+ clicks to amazon. Could you tell the PR of the site, and the number of Google backlinks (if any)?
PR does not mean squat... We were sold a bill of goods on that BS catch phrase. Traffic is organic and achieved by adding the site to several different search engines and directories MANUALLY (as in by hand)... Indexed pages in google for this current site is 58,700
It is hard to find any web site that ranks on the first page for any popular keyword without any PR or PR0. It is generally agreed that a site does not require a high PR for showing up in first page results, but it is hard to find any web page on first page of organic results without a PR. Anyways, would you be able to give us the PR of the home page and the number of back links (to the home page, if any). It's also known widely that Google is highly discounting the directory links, and its hard to rank with directory links. As fas as "submitting to several different SEs" are concerned, there is hardly any competition for G, yahoo is a distant follower. Further, are these 58,700 pages have unique content?
Really? That assumes that every other SE outside of Google only allows those sites with "PR" to rank for keywords. Again, I think you give PR too much credit. It has very little muscle with regard to exacting a specific or desired result, especially when it comes to an indexed site, regardless of PR strength. The more PR, the deeper a site is crawled, the more indexed pages appear, the more likely more pages will rank overall for PR. However, not everyone looks to compete with competitive keywords. In a niche' environment the key is building quality content and delivering ultimately what the end user was looking for. I really think you give PR way too much credit. PR is 0 (ZERO)... Site is THREE years old BTW. Registered it new myself on Feb 15th, 2006. Backlink = ZERO. I assume you are asking about Google of course. A few years ago, I am sure it was much different, ie., backlinks and PR. That comes and goes. I don't work at it anymore. I learned a long time ago that its relatively worthless to focus on something so volatile. I'd rather concentrate on monetizing my site and getting traffic, not a RANK. No, google is not widely discounting directory links. They are widely discounting and attacking, or attempting to attack directories by pulling backlinks, PR and other things away from directories. The links and traffic generated from good directories still exists, and will regardless of whatever motivation google has for such basless attacks. Hardly any competition? Listen to you. You sound like another of those followers that thinks google is the only thing out there. Not everyone uses google, and not everyone thinks google is God. Google needs to go back to basics and begin focusing on delivering quality results and relevant links to searches rather than focusing on beating up people in the business of delivering quality traffic. I think many of the people on the SEO side of the game have completely forgotten that it is traffic not rank that counts. Delivering quality relevant traffic to the end users is all that really matters. Everything else is fluff and hype.
Mia: It is surprising to see Google's superiority in SE traffic being questioned! According to ComScore, market share of Search Engine traffic is as below: Search Entity Share of Searches Google Sites 58.5% Yahoo! Sites 22.2% Microsoft Sites 9.8% AOL LLC** 4.6% Ask Network 4.3% Total: 100% I am just trying to put forth the facts, and not trying to recommend Google or any other network. As per the above stats, it is safe to say that yahoo is a distant second. Of course, it is possible that a few sites might target search engines other than Google. These sites should be treated as special cases as we are discussing about the averages, and normal SE traffic. Further, in your own words: The more PR, the deeper a site is crawled, the more indexed pages appear, the more likely more pages will rank overall for PR. It is surprising how 58,000+ pages could be indexed by Google on a website with PR0 home page. The site appears to be a special case, and needs to be treated as such! That said, congratulations on your success with Amazon.
What I question is not superiority to SE traffic. I question superiority to concentrated, "RELEVANT" traffic. In that arena in my experience, there is a different make up of percentages. We really need to examine RELEVANT traffic. And when I look at my own statistical data and see where search results are landing visitors, what they are searching for and how they found us, Google is not "superior" by any means. That is not to say that traffic benefits from Google should be ignored, or are non-existent. What it means is, "don't put all your eggs in one basket". YMMV..
I really have to agree with Mia on this. PR is a fluke ranking factor that none of the other search engines consider at all and when you factor in that most people use Google for doing research, but the majority of my clients BUY from either Yahoo or MSN search results, I really don't give a F#@!K what Google does any more. I don't even track my SERPS there and I am in HYPER competitive industries online. As far as PR goes, 99.99% of John Q Public does not know, or care one bit about a sites PR. I know this because my top PR site is a PR of 4 and only makes about $2800 per year. I have a mid level site that has a PR of 0 that makes me about another $15,000 per year. My top site, gets the least amount of traffic than any of my other sites, has a PR of 1 and makes me over $100,000 per year. Mia is 100% correct. It is exactly about relevant traffic to a defined niche, then making that traffic convert into a customer, and then a repeat customer. People that spend so much energy worrying about what Google may think or do are really wasting their time. Google is not God, they did not invent the internet, but because so many people think that free traffic from Google is the answer to their Get Rich plans, they spend so much time praying at the alter of Google that they are missing out on tons of money that can be made much easier from other search engines. OK. I am done now. Let the hammering begin
The point is being missed out. Google was taken during the discussions only as an example (being a leading SE). We can take Yahoo! if you so desire for evaluating a site's SE traffic. Could you please tell as to how many back links are available in Yahoo! for your Amazon site (that had taken only 4 hours of effort)? And the number of indexed pages in Yahoo! The point being contested is that it is practically not possible to get significant SE traffic (any leading Search Engine) without a lot of effort put in to building and/or promoting a website. Further, it is possible that a few keywords might get good SE traffic. However, this can't last long because other sites catch up sooner or later, and one needs to contest with several other sites in the long run.
Their items are more expensive than Amazon. Even if I may earn more referral fees from them, I'm doing my readers a disservice, so no I will not use B&N.
Not necessarily. There is a trick to manipulating the niche's. Not every store I have performs great all the time. They go up and down. I've found instead of working to keep one at the top, I create a multitude of niche's stores in network that collectively performs with consistent and constant results. I've said too much. Wait for the eBook. I've been working on it for about 2 years now... One of these days I'll get that done too.
I have to agree. At this point in the game, Amazon does not really need us anymore. I remember when they started out selling books and advertised on nationwide radio, going millions in debt before they broke even years later. Their costs have to astronomical, besides, they sell a lot of 3rd party items where they make very little, yet still handle the payment processing. for thousands of other companies. Throw in the ginormous warehouses, employees, shipping, advertising and marketing worldwide and I don't see how they can afford to offer much more unless you are a top performer. Bottom line is they have the best affiliate program on the web, with the best tools and the most well known brand. People instantly trust them. You don't have to "sell" Amazon on your site, just place the right product in the right places. Anyone who shops online will check the prices on Amazon first (I know I do). It sells itself.
Actually quite to the contrary not unlike a company using manufacturer reps vs. direct sales, or a combination of both, they do need us. Without getting into raw numbers my sales are over 7 figures for some sites. That's a significant amount of sales that otherwise may or may not have landed at Amazon. Keep in mind while Amazon is well known and their brand image and trust IS there as you say. Not everyone goes to AMAZON dot com to buy their goods. Many will google up what they are looking for, end up at someone else's store and then find what they want. When they get through the check out process they end up completing the sale based on that "trust" and recognition you mentioned. What we give Amazon is EXPOSURE. A wider sales force, and one that costs less than direct sales, or even their own web site. I think to say they do not need us is very presumptuous at best. "Costs" for what? If anything their costs are near ZERO. They direct ship from other peoples ware houses in many cases. They have a nearly free of charge sales force, (people like myself) and with the majority of items I see selling being 3rd party, there is NO cost to Amazon by way of shipping, or product inventory/costs. That's only part of the puzzle. This is why Amazon works. It is the melding of both rep and direct. Both Amazon and 3rd party sellers. Saying Amazon does not need people to sell their products is like saying Amazon does not need third party sellers/products. But you're taking the assumption that everyone that uses Amazon is placing random products on their site to monetize or target relevant products on their site. Not everyone is using them in this capacity. I build sites to specifically sell PRODUCTS. And specifically target people looking for products on the web that they might not otherwise look for directly from Amazon first. I guess if you have a forum about the Hobbit and you throw a few Hobbit books / amazon affiliate links on your site, its not doing Amazon a world of good in terms of return. However, not everyone is doing this. Some of us are creating and running large NICHE' stores selling products specifically for Amazon and their 3rd party vendors. This is after all how Amazon works, and why it is successful. Get rid of the 3rd party sellers and the reps, and I'd imagine that 75% of their business would be gone. They will? Again, you are being way too presumptuous here. Not everyone thinks like you. Er, let me change that word "presumptuous" to naive...
Mia, you make some very good and true points, but Amazon existed before us and could continue to exist without us. We are not bigger than the company. If they closed their affiliate program tomorrow, they would merely take the cost of affiliate commissions and administration and apply it to a robust advertising program, like they did in the beginning. They may make a less in the short run, but, in the long run they certainly will not lose any money.
Affiliates are their (Amazon's) primary advertising tool. It is not that Amazon is only getting sales from affiliates, they are also getting huge publicity in the process. Of course, it's Amazon's privilege to continue or discontinue Affiliate program or set affiliate commissions. It is recognized with due respect. Assuming that Amazon prefers to advertise on Google and Yahoo! for the lost clicks (and the lost publicity), they will have to pay several times the CPC that they "effectively" pay to affiliates. The affiliate CPC works out to around 2c (at least as far as our experience goes) where as it would cost several times this amount if Amazon goes with G or Y!. Of course, they do advertise, but I guess it is much smaller compared with the publicity and traffic they get from affiliate community. Does Amazon provide any stats on traffic pattern to the site (like affiliate referrals, SE referrals, direct, etc.?)
You are of course assuming that Amazon would stay with internet advertising only. As I stated before, when Amazon first launched they did nationwide radio 24/7 for a year in every market large or small. they completely saturated the airwaves...and this was in the 90's when every house didn't have a computer. Now that they have the money, that would be nothing to pick up again, but you are right, affiliates do give them free advertising on thousands of sites.
hmansfield: It is possible to give sustained ads on tv/air for a limited period of time. It would be very expensive to advertise on tv/air throughout the year, and impractical. Amazon is basically an e-commerce site (arguably, selling the widest range of items) and requires sustained advertisement to remain on top.
amazon commission is indeed low. is there any good alternative that allow you to use script to white-label?