Who needs to monetize with ads when you can just sell the entire site!

I remember seeing the site, BeTheBot.com being linked on Digg’s frontpage. I saw it, shook my head, and moved on. An idea implemented many times over many years, it just seemed like another shot against Digg.

And so when I came across the beforementioned link today I let out a hearty laugh. Basically what happened was as follows:

• Domain registered on Feburary 14, 2007 to Kavi Siegel (cvxdes)
• Website and content put up that very same day.
• Domain gets dugg that same day also.
• Three days later, domain/site gets sold for $500

The really interesting thing about this is because of domain tasting (ie you can get a full refund minus 25 cents on any domain within 5 days) our friend Kavi would have been out only 25 cents (plus some of his time).

I’ve decided to jump on this bandwagon - digg this post so I can sell it (just this post) …

Continuing from my earlier discussion on why startpages are so important.

The problem with the current corp of startpages is they are too damn confusing

I just headed on over to Netvibes and it made my head throb. There are so many potential choices it made my head spin. Modules, feeds, six different searches (’web search’ vs ‘classic web search’), dozens of links, Mini API module … it is completely overwhelming.

Then each module itself has all these inner tabs - four tabs for web search, four for images, four for video search. Wasted space in the form of ‘Netvibes news’

Startpages that cater to parasitic users (eg early-adopters) are doomed to chase feature after feature. By focusing on ‘normal’ users they have the ability to really create a connection with these end users.

I originally bought the domain iBegin.com for a startpage. I had seen some JS examples of modular windows being moved around, and it was extremely thrilling. Problem was I took too long, and before I knew it, Netvibes had arrived on the scene, and I was still getting the machinery moving (really a blessing in disguise - iBegin as local search is where I want to be). To that end, when we had specced out what we wanted, our core goals were the following:

1. Simple. We were not going to mention the word RSS anywhere. We were going to have some fixed RSS feeds, and thats it. There would be a module for search that would default to Google (and then users could edit that if they wanted).
2. Connected. The end goal was to have a static url for every user that they could access. Eg http://www.ibegin.com/ahmedf/ or http://www.ibegin.com/ahmedsmama/
3. Different audience. The hardest part, but we wanted to aim towards people who couldn’t care about fancy and instead wanted stability and usefulness. Eg my mother or my father. I would create them a startpage, ‘lock’ it (so that modules could not be accidentally moved/edited), and then set it as their startpage. Every day they would open up to a startpage that had quick links to where they wanted to go, weather, ability to perform a quick web search, a quick product search, place to scribble notes, access email, and (for my father) news links. I wouldn’t even mention the words module, API, feeds, or anything like that to them. By forcing a static url on them, they could go traveling and still have access to all their links (only having to login to edit notes).

You can even see the design we had formulated (click to enlarge):

The current crop of startpages are simply too damn confusing and complicated. I actually hope 37signals could maybe join the fray and create their own startpage

You can ask the savvy website operator about what would be their biggest nightmare, and the usual replies will be along the lines of: “server crash”,”hack attack”,”Google bans me”,”get sued”, and so forth.

Yet none of the above matter if you are not making a cent.

A great majority of advertising-supported websites (especially ‘web 2.0′ sites) rely on AdSense. If they were to ever construct a P&L statement, the entire revenue segment would consist of AdSense revenue. The entire strategy is to pin a leaderboard + rectangle + one more spot on the site, remove borders, blend into the site, and voila - revenue is had. Some pin their hopes on a ‘premium’ bringing in money, but most over-estimate the number of people that will actually subscribe.

This is somewhere between high dangerous and insane. Having all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.

Jason Calacanis was a smart man when it came to his Weblogs Inc network. He immediately knew that to make any real money, he had to build out a sales force. So while he trumpeted the fact that AdSense was making them over $1,000,000 a year he also noted that AdSense was secondary:

AdSense doesn’t reach the level of display advertising ($3-12 CPM) and it never will…

If a sales team (or even person) is still a bit of a stretch, it is prudent for you to look into affiliate sales. You have to consider what CPC is - the advertiser is spending time and money in bidding on a keyword. So the profit per click must be significant enough to warrant the price being paid per click (basically the ROI has to be worth it). In the case of CPA, the time advertiser spends much less time on the sale. So the profit per sale can be less (as the advertiser has less time to expense on each sale). Furthermore, the upsell in CPC is far more difficult than in affiliate sales. Lastly, in any market, there is always more than one advertiser (metaphorically - a basket). If one causes trouble, you can always go to the next.

If the above paragraph is confusing - read it again. And again. CPA margins are higher, ’selling’ on CPA is easier, and you have more than one basket - always a good thing.

We do (and are in the process of doing) what I have said above. I would say more than 50% of our revenue is CPA based. What is fantastic is for the same niche, Google CPC is roughly 15 cents. With CPA, it is roughly 43 cents. And click rates are higher. Our CPA CPM is roughly 4.5x more than Google CPC. In fact, we even have some pure CPA sites (no banner/rectangle/skyscraper/etc ads) that have tremendous CPMs.

AdSense is a good place to start, but it should not be your only (or even primary) source of revenue. To build a strong advertising-based business, one must fully look into assembling a sales team and the CPA model. Not doing so is being negligent to your business.

I’ve been using StumbleUpon (for advertising) since roughly May/June of 2005. I’m very happy with the quality of traffic coming in, and it is also nice seeing feedback from end users.

At the same time, the system is a bit convoluted. It isn’t easy picking one category out of a hundred (figuratively), and so my monthly spending is likely around $20-$40 (when I am willing to spend much more).

So I was actually glad when about a week ago a Ms. Brooke from StumbleUpon emailed me yesterday. She said that she sees that SU users like our websites (we have a roughly 70-80% approval rating), and that she has extra SU categories to suggest that would be a good fit.

That made me happy. I was willing to give them more money, but I had no desire to go through their crummy interface. So after a bit of email back-and-forth, I basically said I was willing to spend $500 a month on SU advertising and we can go from there.

I didn’t hear anything for a few days, and then I got a nice little generic message from their VP of Marketing. He let me know that Ms. Brooke was no longer with SU, thanks for your business, and continue to use the self-advertising system.

I was absolutely confused. Here was a chance to increase your revenue from a single advertiser from a paltry $150 a year to $6000 a year (or even more, $500/month was just a testing amount). The effort on their part was minimal. And its not like they didn’t read our email correspondence - it was a straight reply from my last email.

Stuff like this just makes my shake my head.

UPDATE 15 minutes later: I had emailed back conveying my confusion. I got a nice little one line reply again telling me to just do it myself.

I keep hearing about how great and fantastic and wonderful Yahoo! Answers is.

I have to ask - has any of the lauding pundits ever tested the site out?

First off, a lot of the ‘questions’ on the site are not even questions - just random musings or inflammatory trolls. A real question? Quite a few aren’t even close to that.

Of the remaining legitimate questions - the answers have nothing to do with the question (or they get it completely wrong). People are absolutely stuck up on getting more points and points and levels and levels. Case in point - Is there going to be a baseball game for the nintendo wii not including wii sports? The two answers are totally off base. The first one is nothing more than a comment. The second one is offbase. It took me literally 10 seconds to find Wii Sports games - and there it is, listed by Konami.

This isn’t the first time. Yahoo! Answers is less Q & A and more ‘Post random thought/question and watch everyone pile on to boost their points’. My favorite question was someone asking how tall the CN Tower was - 11 people answered exactly the same. Nevermind Google has the answer as the description in its first result, I can only imagine what the 10th person who answered was thinking.

I will concede there are some legitimate questions. But by and by, most of the answers are absolutely retarded and contribute zilch to the actual answer. Yahoo! Answers should just be renamed to Yahoo! Messageboards

I used to be a subscriber to Mashable. Then I realized one day - they post all the news they can get, and 99% of the sites out there are either 1) stupid or 2) crappy or 3) useless or (most likely) 4) all of the above.

One of the biggest reasons I blogged was to point out sites that made no sense. Dead20.com has been gone for a while … so I headed on over to Mashable to find someone to pick at.

The first page did not disappoint.

Mashable talks about MyDesignIn, where you can design your house in a ’social’ setting.

• A social site is exactly as it says - a social exercise. You want to know what your friends are upto. What events they are visiting. What restaurants they have visited. But do you really care what your friends think should be in a house? I sure as hell don’t, and my random straw poll on our own IM network drew 0/6 enthusiastic responses.
• Continuing on with the social theme, you join a social site to come again and again. Once you have your house designed - then what? Are you going to come back to share pictures … and then what?
• Mashable compares the site to something like StyleHive. While I am not a big fan of StyleHive as a site, it has a purpose - ’style’ is always changing. You want to know what is new and chic. But in the house? I don’t think so.
• Lets say I do want to design my house and share it with everyone and get rated and other jazz like that. How am I going to find MyDesignIn? This can work as a feature on a bigger site, but stand-alone? Nope. And that is its biggest weakness. But perhaps they are making a play to be acquired.

Good to know that web 2.0 continues to suck.

PS. I just realized that the headlines I use are more random musings than attention-grabbing headlines. Someone teach me