BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
http://www.amazon.com/Brilliance-Breakthrough-Write-People-Forget/dp/0963868403, but it's apparently out of print.
Case study: ranking a 60k keyword
- Thread starter davids355
- Start date
http://www.amazon.com/Brilliance-Breakthrough-Write-People-Forget/dp/0963868403, but it's apparently out of print.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,849
- 28,315
Ya
still looking through services at the moment. Thinking about Deadly SEO, BTB linkpush SEO Lovers manual blog commenting and maybe a few others.
Will have definitive list in the next few days though
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,849
- 28,315
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,849
- 28,315
I just want to outline that mr "BlueTurtle" here have got some pretty nice points here
well contributed!
UnBhaxor
Yea definitely you are right
@blueturtle 7+REP added
thanks.Can the "100+ EMDs"hosted on the same host? Do we have to give them different IPs?
How to prevent them from being affected if one of the dimains got sanboxed by Google?
Last edited:
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
Yep, I agree selling is definitely good. It's actually MORE profitable if you build, monetize for 6 months to 1 year, then sell.
For example. Compare(simple, unrealistic figures for the example):-
Build site A. Month 1 to 6 - $1000/mo, total of $6000. Sell for 6x monthly = $36k
Total for first 6 months of year = $6k + $36k = $42k
Build site B. Exactly the same income and sale price as site A for simplicity.
Repeating for another 6 months gives you a yearly income of 2 * $42k = $84k
Now let's see what happens when we don't sell.
Build site A. Month 1 to 6 = $1000/mo, total of $6000.
Total for first half of the year = $6k
Build site B. Month 1 to 6 = $1000/mo, total of $6000.
Total for full year = $6000(Site B) + $6000(Site A 2nd half year) + $6000(Site A 1st half of the year = $18k
So by selling you make, in this example $66k more, or 467% of what the non-seller makes.
Now let's go to year 2.
The seller does the same again. Total for year 2 = $84k. Total across 2 years = $168k
The non-seller:
This year makes another $18k from the 2 sites(site C and site D), and this time he gets $24k for his previous 2 sites, site A and site B.
Total for year 2 = $24k + $18k = $42k
Total to date = $42k + $18k = $60k
So in year 2 the seller makes $42k more than the non-seller, or 200%.
Year 3:
Seller: $84k
Non-seller: $18k + $48k = $66k
Seller makes 127% of non-seller's income.
Year 3, total to date:
Seller: 3 * $84k = $252k
non-seller: $66+ $60k = $126k
In general we have:-
Seller income:
Year income = 84
Total income = 84X, where X = year
Non-seller income:
Year income = (2*12)*(X-1) + 18, X = year
= 24(X-1)+18
= 24X-24+18
= 24X - 6
Total income = Sum(n=1 to x) (24n - 6)
So, to find out when the income from the non-seller will equal that of the seller.
it's when 24X - 6 = 84
24X = 90
X = 90/24
X = 3.75
So at 3 years and 9 months, income will be equal.
Next we can find out at what point the non-seller will overtake the seller in terms of total income earned.
It's when the sum(n=1 to x) (24n-6) = 84X
To find out where they intersect you'd graph the summation by connecting the totals and zoom in to where it intersects with the 84X graph.
I can't find a graph calculator online that'll do it the way it needs to be done, so the best I can do is
The seller after 6 years:-
84X = 84(6) = 504 = $504k
The non-seller after 6 years:-
sum(n=1 to x) (24n-6) = sum(n=1 to 6) (24n-6) = 498 = $498k
So there you have it.
Conclusion
---------------
After 3.75 years the non-seller will be making the same as the seller, and from that point on continue to make more each year.
After a little over 6 years the non-seller will have made an equal total income.
After 10 years the seller would have made $840k
The non-seller: $1314k
Under these optimum circumstances, that is, being able to build 2 sites a year and making 6x the value on each sale you would make the same amount in 6 years as someone who chooses to keep the sites, but more prior to that 6 year period.
If you can maintain income for 10 years on all sites you'd be better off not selling.
There's so many variables that could change the conclusion.
This test assumes that you're able to get the full 6x monthly for each site.
It also assumes that if you keep the sites you'll *just* make the same monthly amount. It's not taking into account the ability to increase traffic, increase conversions or cross-sell.
It's also not taking into account the quicker money from selling being re-invested to produce more short-term profits, potentially leading to more in 10 years than the non-seller.
It's also relying on being able to keep expanding and reinvesting in more sites, which relies on there being a market to buy big sites at the competitive rates continually. In reality there's a lot of bumps in the road when selling, making it more stressful and this only gets worse when you're selling more and more.
If you're wanting a solid conclusion then this is what I'll say:-
Choosing to sell your sites is going to make you more money if you fine-tune your art, can get the maximum X*monthly_income for your sites time and time again, AND you continually reinvest your money into either buying other undervalued sites, or hiring more staff to pump out more sites than the non-seller could afford to do in the short period. You can basically outproduce the non-seller with your short term profit reinvestments in the 10 years at such a rate he can't catch up.
If you choose NOT to sell you will have *much* less work to do. Your reinvesting will be much less aggressive and will consist more of reinvesting profits into the existing sites to maintain them rather than increasing your productivity like the seller will do.
Ie, The seller is expanding, producing more and more sites each year by reinvesting his profits and has the potential to make a lot of money by investing a lot of time.
The non-seller isn't trying to increase production, but instead keeps producing 2 sites per year, reinvesting some of the profits to make sure those sites stay profitable.
The seller spends his time in an office, working hard, trying to build an empire.
The non-seller spends the time on the beach, sipping majitos and checking up on his staff who are taking care of maintenance.
Hope this is of help to some people who wondered about the difference between selling and keeping sites.
Sure, you're welcome to drop me a pm any time you like.
I will say a few things though -
The regulatory sites are authorities in the general niche and not really targeted at all to the keyword.
The EMDs are quite authoritative EMDs not just 5 page sites.
The newspaper is not an article but a niche subdomain on a newspaper site
My page will be re-written to become more comprehensive, the content is written by an industry professional so should be very high quality and 100% unique, hopefully that will help.
If the regulatory sites are authorities in the general niche, then you have a chance of getting in the top 3. That means the emds are probably not THAT hot, otherwise they'd beat the general authority site. I'd have to see exactly how general the authority sites are compared with the specific niche though to know for sure.
Might do that when I get back to work
Heh, yeah, can't get around that, but it's worth it.
Yea definitely you are right
@blueturtle 7+REP added
Thanks!
Last edited:
transam7410
Power Member
- Apr 22, 2008
- 517
- 270
BlueTurtle,
I don't know where you came from, but wow! Is it ok if I get your opinion on a conversion question on my site? I can PM you if thats ok?
I don't know where you came from, but wow! Is it ok if I get your opinion on a conversion question on my site? I can PM you if thats ok?
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
Sure, go ahead.
gundamwing
Supreme Member
- Sep 18, 2008
- 1,294
- 935
@blueturtle
but when you chosse the keyword wrong or first step is fail (keyword/niche)
all gone wrong ..
but when you chosse the keyword wrong or first step is fail (keyword/niche)
all gone wrong ..
Last edited:
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
There's thousands of variables that could be used to create a more accurate mathematical model, but the goal here was just to provide a basic comparison for people to make their own conclusions/analysis.
There's nothing right or wrong about the model. It's there to aid people in forming their own conclusions based on what they perceive to be their own variables.
And it's not "all gone wrong" anyway. Every experiment/model has to make certain assumptions, and the assumption in this one is that both parties can create 2 successful, $1k/mo web sites per year. The only unrealistic part to the experiment is the precise $1k. In reality the month to month would vary, but in this experiment the goal is to compare the differences between selling and not selling, so the other factors aren't important.
Either one could fail. The seller could have a bad year, or the non-seller could have a bad year, or both could have a bad year. How would that help our model? In the model we allow them both to operate under ideal, optimum circumstances so we can compare the differences between them at their best.
That's how science works. If you want to compare a US athlete with a British athlete you wouldn't take a US athlete who has a cold and then form any conclusions between the 2. You'd take the best of each country, operating under optimum circumstances to get a fair comparison.
If you're going to attack 100's of words of careful analysis, then at least have the decency to do it with more than a few words with "all gone wrong".
Last edited:
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
@blueturtle you stole my thread! Only joking
Hehe. Just surfin on a good wave
Can't wait to see how things progress. This should be a fun one to watch now we've done a good pre-analysis on the competition.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,849
- 28,315
Hehe. Just surfin on a good wave
Can't wait to see how things progress. This should be a fun one to watch now we've done a good pre-analysis on the competition.
Yea I appreciate it really. You've definitely got the conversation going over here
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,849
- 28,315