Most converting promo tools
 

According to you, which are the most and best converting promo tools? (banners, free hosted gals, ...) Are there promo tools that convert better in relation to the site on which they are on?

I have my LL's domain tattooed across my ass and find the click through to be simply amazing.

You can only answer that question if you know how the person is promoting - meaning that hosted galleries are pretty much useless to a link list owner, where hosted free sites are pretty much useless to a TGP owner.

So then, in your case, what converts better for you, your banner spots or your HFS's?

Oddly enough, good old fashioned text links work best for me.

I think the best way to sell something is to review it with the "right" amount of text. As for tools, anything that catches the eye and have some "smart" message to it should do the trick, but click thrus dont really equal dollars :)

Banners catch the eye and brand the item being promoted, but don't necessarily sell it. I've read a couple of articles on that subject. Hence, I'm an expert. Text performs the sale.

I take it your ass gets a fair amount of traffic then :D

That makes sense, I find it strange that more freesites aren't text heavy - from what I've see a few lines of linked text and that's it.

Surely much more text is required (unlinked) with the punchline linked? What are your thoughts?

My favorite recipe for both sales and SE attention. |thumb

If you look at your server stats you will see a majority of your potential customers are there 30 seconds or less. I would guess text that grabs them works the best.

For the rest of them that actually do read your sales pitch, I think a fair amount 150-200 words might help get the sale (and the bots might find something they like). So it's really a matter of who you want to target.

I'm declaring the thread's topic dead. I shall leave it forgotten, covered with maggots on the roadside. |shocking|
At the risk of sounding like a rebel, I'm going to give you my thoughts. You'll have wished that you hadn't asked and, by the time you're doing reading this, you'll wonder why you asked.

I've been thinking about free sites a lot lately. OK, not a LOT,but more than I should.

The free sites which are being submitted to link lists are not designed for sales or search engines. They're designed for a quick and easy review.
There are three kinds of people who make a living off of these free sites today:
Those who build and submit every day.
Those who are on the top of their sales text writing game.
Those who are a combination of the first two.

Anyone can earn a few bucks off of free sites - even me (I have the $25 checks to prove it), but few make their living from them.

I wonder why people fret over the idea of link lists using rel="nofollow". Do they actually believe that their free sites are anything special? Do they think that a free site is a SE powerhouse waiting to take the SERPS by storm? Peshaa! They're shit. They're pretty, but they're shit. They're pretty shit.

Fuck. I forgot what my point was. Ummm...

Oh yeah - free sites should have more pages, though not more content than what we use now. Spread it out a bit. Keep the warning page since it makes the most sales (probably because link list surfers are idiots and have given up looking for content and are now willing to pay, not knowing that the pics are another page away). I'd drop the main page and any other sort of consolidated navigation system. The free site should be linear; one page after the other. Each gallery page would have 5-8 nice thumbs. Nice, as in quality and size. Each page would have much more text. Not just keyword stuffed BS, but a common man's review of the site being promoted. Every page would be of a similar theme, but each would have a slightly different keyword phrase being pushed. The page would be named for that phrase and the anchor text used in the link to that page, found on the preceding gallery page, would use that phrase. And of course, the pics would named according to the page they're on, using minor variations of the page's set of keywords. For 24 pics, you could easily have four SEO'd gallery pages, plus a warning page.

I also think that the links out on a page should be determined by the flow and design of the page, not by a set limit. (ducking to avoid flying tomatoes) Why 3? Why not 2, or 7? It's an arbitrary number, isn't it?

So, what I'm trying to say is, yes - more text. :D

While I have nothing constructive to add (what a surprise) I thought this line was funny as hell!

Personally, I like using one page as a content free ad space connecting content, but I like your creative chaos ideas UW.

UW ... there ya go, spillin' the beans again. :)

>>looking in can<<
Wow, not many beans left! Wait, here's one stuck to the side: The links to the pics can point to html pages containing the full-size pics, imstead of to the pics themselves.

Using html pic pages is something which isn't allowed on most link lists, but which has always worked very well for us. Especially if there's text on the pic pages talking about the specific pics.

Pic pages can either have their own navigation or not. You can make the surfer use their browser's back button to return to the gallery page, or you can give them a link back on the page. You can also give them a link to the next picture page. BUT don't name that link "next" anything. Instead name the link based on what you've named that next pic page (as UW mentioned).

More beans anyone?

What UW said - priceless!

I've never had a rule against this. In fact I'd like to see more submitters doing it. I think it looks better to the SEs if I'm linking to "sites" with more pages. I think you need to be careful with it though if you're looking for SE rankings. If every one of your image html pages has the same title and metas, it'll probably be seen as dupe content.

If all LL's would suddenly start accepting pics on HTML pages again sales would definitely go up, that's for sure. The only thing is it's an awful lot of work to check all those different pages.

|waves| Cassius, sorry we're going a bit off topic :)

I agree 100%! |bow|

Did you know that I've never officially banned pics on html pages?

This was touched on a bit at the XBiz seminars - XXXJay spoke about how good/beneficial it is, but that:
- people are lazy (you have to admit, it's a lot easier to NOT make up 20-40 extra html pages when making a site/gallery
- a lot of people abused it with extra links & ads & whatnot (which is true for most marketing methods that are banned by LL's & TGP's)

I've been thinking of writing an article on that 2nd part :)

I would make the extra pages if I knew they were accepted, at least a few LL. I agree with Greenie that a lot of people would abuse them. Also I think that some rules would have to be in place for it to work.

Greenie, write that article, it would be a good read and I am sure would serve well quite a few new webmasters that are still learning.

Not more beans, no. But I can agree with you on the benefits of using HTML pic pages with little more then a unique title and a single sentence describing the image. |thumb

Maybe it's time I figure out which lists allow pic pages and group recips different. I already use pic pages for my personal sites anyway. |loony|

Wait, I think I have a bean: What ever happened to putting recips on the "main" page!? |goodidea

The biggest problem that I see with any of it is that trust factor. Out of the hundreds of free site submitters out there, how many would we really trust to not screw with the surfer or yank the content, etc? In order to accept such sites, we'd with have to create a white list or a really, really big black list.

I really like UW's idea of scrapping the mainpage and going linear with more gallery pages. That's pretty much exactly the way I used to make freesites before the whole freesite thing became so standardised and stifling to creativity.
As to opening pics on html pages, I'd have no problem listing sites like that, though they sound like a PITA to build.

Did you know that:
- I do not mind an exit console
- I think counters have a legit use
- FPA's annoy me, but I'm used to them
- I have no problem with the concept of free or revshare hosting (and part of me thinks it's a great fucking idea)
- I'd like to let webmasters submit more than one site a day

I can go on & on & on.....but each one of those things were fucked with & abused & now, I don't allow them :(

Why don't you people maintain a list of trusted submitters?