Free Traffic Generation Better Than Paid?

[bertuseng]

Personally I don't want to pay for traffic and get all my traffic from free traffic generation techniques. Obviously PPC is better, but is it worth it compared to the cost if you can get it for free?

How are you all feeling about this? Which one do you use more off and which one is more effective do you think?

[hugofortin]

Hi,

I think it's better to use a mix of both paid and free. You can take advantage of both. But, it really depends of your budget.

Hugo

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by bertuseng

Personally I don't want to pay for traffic and get all my traffic from free traffic generation techniques. Obviously PPC is better, but is it worth it compared to the cost if you can get it for free?

How are you all feeling about this? Which one do you use more off and which one is more effective do you think?

There is no such thing as "free" traffic. There may not be an out-of-pocket cost, but there is something - usually time and sweat. Those are worth something, if only because of the lost opportunity to do something else.

That said, I don't think either kind of traffic is "better" than the other. They just have different sources. If you can generate a profit, I wouldn't exclude either one.

If you fine-tuned your PPC campaigns so that for every dollar you put in you got four dollars back, how many dollars would you put in? As many as you could, right?

The same goes for free methods - if the return on the time invested is worth more than the cost of that time, wouldn't you put as much time into those methods as you could?

It's not an either/or question.

[DAS_Matt]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

There is no such thing as "free" traffic. There may not be an out-of-pocket cost, but there is something - usually time and sweat. Those are worth something, if only because of the lost opportunity to do something else.

That said, I don't think either kind of traffic is "better" than the other. They just have different sources. If you can generate a profit, I wouldn't exclude either one.

If you fine-tuned your PPC campaigns so that for every dollar you put in you got four dollars back, how many dollars would you put in? As many as you could, right?

The same goes for free methods - if the return on the time invested is worth more than the cost of that time, wouldn't you put as much time into those methods as you could?

It's not an either/or question.

Good post.

I would also point out that how you define the parameters of better makes a difference. Is it pure traffic numbers? Is it profit per click? etc....

[ppcpimp]

I think it depends on what you are promoting and why. We do both but our business is based on PPC as it fuels the beast and allows us to build bigger more in-depth SEO campaigns.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by bertuseng

Thanks for the good advice. I guess free traffic isn't really free, but if you pay $1 per click to your website using adwords, then working for half an hour a day to get an extra 50 targeted hits to your website using free traffic generation, then you actually save $50. Hmmm.

It depends entirely on the value you place on your time. If you place zero value on your time, you are correct. Generating 50 targeted visitors for no cash out of pocket saves you $50 if clicks are $1.

If you value your time at $50/hr, and 1/2 hour brings you those 50 visitors, you need to make at least $25 to break even. (There will be some breakage from processing fees, etc., but those will apply in both cases.)

You have to look at the return on your investment, either time or cash. The only ROI that matters when figuring out traffic sources is measured in bankable currency.

As I said, it isn't really an either/or question.

If you could spend $50 and generate $100, why would you ignore it?

If you could spend $50 worth of your time (or pay someone to spend that 30 minutes) and generate $100, why would you ignore it?

In either case, your ROI is 100%. Unless you can get a higher return doing something else, common sense says you do as much of both as you can, right?

Of course, if you don't have the $50, it's a moot point - you go for the method that doesn't require sticking your hand in your pocket...

[JC-PureProfitsHQ]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

It depends entirely on the value you place on your time. If you place zero value on your time, you are correct. Generating 50 targeted visitors for no cash out of pocket saves you $50 if clicks are $1.

If you value your time at $50/hr, and 1/2 hour brings you those 50 visitors, you need to make at least $25 to break even. (There will be some breakage from processing fees, etc., but those will apply in both cases.)

You have to look at the return on your investment, either time or cash. The only ROI that matters when figuring out traffic sources is measured in bankable currency.

As I said, it isn't really an either/or question.

If you could spend $50 and generate $100, why would you ignore it?

If you could spend $50 worth of your time (or pay someone to spend that 30 minutes) and generate $100, why would you ignore it?

In either case, your ROI is 100%. Unless you can get a higher return doing something else, common sense says you do as much of both as you can, right?

Of course, if you don't have the $50, it's a moot point - you go for the method that doesn't require sticking your hand in your pocket...

GREAT POST, John!

What I do is I generally run PPC ads for keywords I'm targeting until I grab a position within the top 3. I then disable that keyword and check if I'm getting a reduction in conversions for that keyword. If I don't, then I stop paying for that keyword immediately.

[GavinStephenson]

This is what i do. It might sound cliché but it has always worked for me. Post as much as you can on free forums and blogs and register on directories. That brings the most free traffic at absolutely no cost. And for me free is always better than anything with cost.

[randall37]

I think having site traffic needs work to be done. With proper SEO and the like help boast your traffic.

[Birdion]

The best way, as mentioned above, is to use both SEO and SEA. Why? Well, first of all, people read from left to right (most of them that is), so see the SEO results first, and later the SEA results. When people see a company or website that is listed in the SEO as well as the SEA, they think it is a more reliable company / website compared to a company or website only shown in one of the two...

Another thing, when people tend to look for something specific, they will turn to SEA results more, when people are looking for a general subject, they tend to look at the SEO results more...

[tommen]

If you need traffic instantly and have money to spend, PPC is the best option.However, the minute you stop paying the traffic will stop as well.I like article marketing.It takes some time to see results, but you will get traffic forever from it.

[bertuseng]

So basically, only the rich people or more experienced marketers can pay for traffic it seems.

[ivana]

No, it does not mater if it is paid, or the free, as long as you make the investment back and earn on top of it.

I however, like to send traffic with free methods as much as possible, but sometimes I pay, HOWEVER, if I do pay, I want it back in couple of days! So the best way so far is, like this. I test the niche with free method by driving traffic to an opt in, having and oto, and 1 more product I promote within next 7 days. While I test with free or inexpensive method, I see what my conversions are. So if my opt in converted at 30% I push this to convert to 50% or higher, I make my oto convert at 3-5% and I am good to go, because in the next week or a month, the initial investment pays off and from then on, it is all profits