Squidbits – Greekgeek's Squidoo Blog Rotating Header Image

affiliate-marketing

'Tis The Season -- For Sales Research

You should get holiday shopping lenses done now, because Google has been favoring fresh content more than ever, lately. (Of course, last month would've been better, to make sure it got indexed in time.)

Regardless, this is the time to gather data about what your visitors are buying. On Squidoo, click the $$$ tab on the dashboard to sort your lenses by recent affiliate sales. Right-click the "Stats" button under each lens with $$$ commissions, choose "open link in a new [browser] tab," then click Squidoo's "Royalties" tab to see what items were bought from that lens.

Create new articles targeting similar kinds of products, which evidently you can sell because you've already did sell some!

But wait— remember my little riffs about coincidental sales versus direct sales? Direct sales come from a review or "best of" list you wrote in which you featured the product. Coincidental sales come from articles you wrote for another purpose — a How To article or a tutorial, for example, where you featured books related to your topic or included the materials used in a crafts project.

It's the coincidental sales you want to look for. You already have lenses to sell the direct sale products, so you don't need to make another. But if you accidentally sold toothbrushes on a lens about hairbrushes, maybe you should make a toothbrushes lens.

There is actually a spectrum between direct sales and coincidental sales, because people often click on a product review, go to the online retail website, and wind up buying something else entirely.

Consider creating lenses on "I went to buy X but bought Y instead" products.

Of course, you'll have to use your judgment. There's many things that one visitor will buy that no one else will buy — that's the beauty of the long tail. But it's time to examine all your sales and see if you detect any patterns (similar kinds of purchases) or any really good ideas for product reviews. New lenses may not get out in time for this holiday season, but at least you'll have them for later.

(And yes, I can hear you saying: "but if I publish them now, and they aren't indexed in time for the holiday shopping season, then they won't be as fresh for the holiday season next year." To which I say: never cheat yourself out of publishing effective content that may be building up an income stream because of something Google might or might not be doing.)

More Tips for Building Amazon Associate Links

I'm always fiddling with ways to display Amazon Associate links with big bold images and appealing layouts so they get more clicks.

I've got a few tricks I use all the time. They're fast, and I do them almost without thinking about it.

Unfortunately, when I try to explain them, they look scary, because the code Amazon gives us is scary, then I have to insert minor tweaks.

Which is why I've filed this Squidoo Tutorial under Advanced CSS. For old Squidoo hands, it may be useful; for new Squids, it'll probably make your head spin:

My Amazon Associates Links Beat Squidoo's Links

Hopefully they will prove useful to somebody.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't Listen To Me

This is an unsolicited, sincere, enthusiastic endorsement of a site on writing marketing copy and killer online prose.

But don't listen to me. Listen to Copyblogger.

For instance, check out the Magnetic Headlines ten-part lesson.

The site is chock-full of actionable, useful advice you can use right now to grab, hold, and tempt your readers to buy and click.

Make yourself a cuppa tea, coffee, or your favorite beverage. Take a break and explore the copywriting tips on this site. You'll be so glad you did.

2011 Google Quality Raters Guidelines (Oops!)

Google did something wrong. I did something wrong. Yet I believe that good will come of this. Let's recap what happened with the 2011 Google Quality Raters Guidelines:

  • Step 1: I see a post in the Squidoo forums noting that Potpiegirl (aka Jennifer Ledbetter, WAHM affiliate marketer) ha a new post up about Google.
  • Step 2: I read Jennifer's lengthy (and fairly useful) post on How Google Makes Algorithm Changes.
  • Step 3: I notice that Jennifer's post links to Google's 2011 Quality Raters Handbook.
  • Step 4: Classics major training kicks in: Wait, hang on, is this real? Is this legitimate? Why aren't the major SEO websites like searchengineland, seomoz and seobook salivating over this carcass like a pack of rabid hyenas circling a dying zebra?
  • Step 5: I share the tip with SearchEngineLand, asking if the document is legitimate. Barry Schwartz seems to think so and posts about it.
  • Step 6: Lots of people download the 2011 Quality Raters Handbook.
  • Step 7: Google contacts Barry Schwartz and asks him to take down SEL's mirror of the document. Google also contacts PotPieGirl and asks her to remove the link from her blog.
  • Step 8: Too late: the guidelines have gone viral. As a result, various SEO bloggers and experts discuss ways to make content more relevant and useful. (There, Google, was that so bad?)

I owe Jennifer an apology for tipping without thinking. Hopefully the amount of traffic that has landed on her blog as a result of this offsets the inconvenience of having to delete that link. I also feel guilty for my part in spreading the leak, but I honestly think that having the Quality Rater Guidelines out there will encourage people to focus more on the quality of their content, which is not a bad thing.

So, well, Mea culpa. Now, what are these Quality Rater Guidelines? Simply, they are the rating system that Google beta testers use to test, refine, and improve Google's automated algorithm. They are not the algorithm itself. But in order to create a computer algorithm which can detect and rank sites relevant to a given search query, Google first needs to know which sites real people judge to be the best ones for a given search query.

The reason these raters guidelines are useful to us is that they give us some idea what Google considers "quality content." I can't talk too specifically about what's in the guidelines, but here are three takeaway lessons:

  • The rating system is based on relevance to a topic. Content is king, but relevance is queen. And "relevance" here means "gives the searcher what they wanted when they typed in that search." Is a site absolutely THE go-to place for a particular search query? It wins. Is a site incredibly relevant for that query, satisfying most people who search for it? It ranks pretty well. Does the site only have some relevant content, or is it from a less trustworthy source? That's going to lose points. If it's only slightly relevant, fuggeddaboudit.
  • Google defines webspam as anything designed to trick search engines into getting more traffic. So while backlink spamming, keyword stuffing, or other sneaky tricks may work for a while, sooner or later, Google will tweak its algorithm to negate those practices. If you're doing something only for search engines, it's probably not worth doing it (save, perhaps, making your content structured, organized and clear enough for search engines to comprehend it). If you're doing something that really is for your readers, hopefully, long-term, you'll win.
  • Google doesn't define all affiliate marketing as spam or "thin" content, but it's extra wary of affiliate marketing. Raters are told to watch out for warning signs like a product review on one page that sends people to buy things on another domain entirely, suggesting the review is there to benefit the reviewer (with commissions) not the visitor. If you're doing affiliate marketing, you have to create relevant content that is useful to your readers — price comparisons, pros and cons, your own photos of the product in use, etc. If you only excerpt/quote customer reviews and info from the site selling the product, then your page has provided nothing of value to the reader that cannot be found on the original product page. That's thin, that's shallow, and it's asking for Google to bury your page so far down in search results that no one sees it.

In sum, Google is trying its best to design an algorithm that rewards pages which are useful to readers and relevant to the search query.  Over time, the algorithm gets more and more successful in doing this (we hope). So, if you want your pages to rank well on Google, take a page from Kennedy:

Ask not what search traffic can do for your webpage, but what your webpage can do for search traffic.

 

UPDATE: I discuss this topic a little more here: Google's "Quality Content" Guidelines: Do You Make the Cut?

Resizing Images for Amazon Associates, Squidoo, Zazzle

I experiment with different ways of using images, because they get clicked even when they're decorative. (And there's nothing like a visually intriguing thumbnail to get people clicking -- they want to see it full-sized).

When you grab a basic Amazon Associates "image" code, you get something like:

There's an easy -- well, fairly easy -- way to resize Amazon graphics, up to whatever size the original product image is that's stored on Amazon. (Any larger than the original, and it gets fuzzy.)

(more...)

Making Money Online: Coincidental vs Direct Sales

Squidoo, Hubpages and Wizzley users make money through ad revenue and affiliate commissions. Many of us who come to these sites with basic writing skills are shy about sales lenses. We take a pussyfooting approach instead: we write on something we love, and include links to products that might interest our audience.

I call this second approach coincidental sales:  you're not writing a product review, just hoping that visitors will stop what they're doing (reading your article) to buy. Obviously, this isn't quite as effective as the direct sales approach, but there are ways to tweak it.

Coincidental Sales

My very first two reliable sales lenses were my   Thoth article, an essay on Egyptian mythology, which I'd divided up with some Amazon product thumbnails more as visual decoration than to sell anything, and my "How to take your pet on a plane" article, where I included a spotlight on a particular pet product I use.

In the former case, I learned that you can break sales modules "best practices" -- a keyword-rich header or caption for search engines, a large picture and personalized review for people -- if the textless thumbnail images are so puzzling, intriguing, or provocative that people tend to click on them. Another excellent example is posters or signs that obviously have funny captions, but are slightly too small to read. I shamelessly use a block of Zazzle "demotivational posters" on my Funny Signs lens for exactly this reason. (I don't get many Zazzle sales, but at least I get clickouts). People click images. Surprisingly, they even click images which are decorative elements on the page. Getting them to Amazon is like getting people inside a department store — it won't guarantee a sale, but it's a start. And again, on Squidoo, clickouts boost lensrank.

The second lens I mentioned above, the "pets on a plane" lens, was useful in that it showed me there was a market for a particular product. Multiple "coincidental" purchases of the same product meant I should break the lens off and create an actual sales lens devoted to that product.

Direct Sales

Direct sales lenses, however, are more powerful. People use the web to buy things. Don't be embarrassed to help them. After all, you search the web to buy things all the time yourself, correct? If you provide useful, actionable information that can help someone find what they're looking for, then you've earned your pay more than half those folks wearing orange, green or blue aprons in big box retail stores.

With sales lenses, you have to:

  • Identify the product in the opening sentence, or declare what kinds of products your page covers.
  • Establish yourself as trustworthy and knowledgeable. Polished prose helps.
  • Stay brief, focused, and to the point. They want information to help them decide whether to make a purchase. Give them that information. Don't give them something else.
  • "Talk benefits, not features." The most valuable lesson I've learned on sales is that people want to know what's in it for them, not how many whoosiwhatsits it has.
  • Use crisp, eye-catching graphics, if you can.
  • Don't go overboard. Less is more. People who are shopping are in a hurry; they don't want to plow through more than they absolutely must. So you don't have to be exhaustive and comprehensive. Just give them the most useful benefits, the most important points. (You might do this at the top of the lens, with a spotlight, and then go in more depth for those who pass the first big shiny BUY button without committing.)
  • There is nothing wrong with having a BUY button near the top of the page for those who make their minds up quickly, and another at the end after you've covered it in more depth.

I am learning to create two kinds of sales lenses.

"Best Of X" or "Top Five/Ten X"

You're not just pushing them to buy, buy, buy. You are serving as a concierge, researching all the products of a certain kind (Digital SLR cameras, e.g.) and presenting your recommendations for the top five or ten. Basically, you're being a one-person Consumer Report, saving your readers time and effort by helping them find the product that will best suit their needs.

In this case, you start by saying you're going to review the best [cameras, kitchen utensils, cars, books, dog breeds, software, or other thingies] for X, Y, and Z. Say this right in the first sentence. You need to tell people the page has what they're looking for. Then deliver on that promise. Be brief, but personable. Show you know what you're talking about. (Polished writing helps.) Link to products that also have good customer reviews; if they don't, you've got the wrong product. Go beyond Amazon customer reviews to the web at large -- heck, do look at Consumer Report, and other sites too -- to learn what you can about the products. You don't want to overwhelm; your readers are in a hurry and want a few facts (or features), not an essay. You don't want to lift reviews or copy from anywhere; write in your own words. But research and learn so you can give good info.

"My Review of X"

When I'm stumped for what to write on, I prowl the house looking for things I like, and then review them. My own photos are a powerful message (I hope) saying, "Look, I use this. I know what I'm talking about."

Again, start the article by saying what you're covering. What's in it for your reader? They've come to find out about the Widgetbat XT 3000, not your feelings on widgetbats in general. Use the product name -- brand, model, number -- in the page title and URL, if possible, to attract the precise people who want to know about that product before buying it. They're researching it.

Again, give them more than they'll find in Amazon reviews, otherwise there's no reason for them to read your page as opposed to going straight to Amazon. I list features, what I use it for or like it for, pros and cons.  I highlight the main product in  an Amazon Spotlight.

I also give a few alternates below for people to make their own comparisons. "Other products like this." I include shorter blurbs on them.

 

Silly moneymaking tip...

I've got just one word to say to you:


"The Graduate"

Or, wait, two words...

I noticed this phenomenon several years ago when I converted a seminar paper on the Egyptian god Thoth into a Squidoo lens.

People love action figures. Even in this economy, and especially if it's something for which one would not expect an action figure, they'll click on small thumbnail images of action figures to get a better look. Sometimes they'll buy. Sometimes they'll buy something else on Amazon instead.

There's sports figure bobbleheads and politician action figures (and voodoo dolls) and collectible action figures for every single movie, video game, and most pop music stars. There's collectible Greek mythology action figures.  There's Seth Godin and his mismatched socks.

The eco-friendly part of me shudders at promoting collectibles, because they're plastic, plastic, plastic, and they're a waste of resources. Mea culpa.

The pragmatic part of me says that they pay the bills. And I'm really fond of the one that sits on my computer guarding my hard drive.

So there's a thought. Which I'm offering in lieu of intelligent commentary on Squidoo's experiments with subdomains and "digest" style magazines following the Hubpages success with subdomains which has the Panda watching world in a tizzy. Other than: it's worth testing.

If the Nexus Tax Killed Your Amazon Associate Account

... you can change your Amazon Associates links on Squidoo to Squidoo's Amazon associates ID instead, and then get at least some commission. You know the drill: Squidoo collects about 8.5% commission due to its high volume, then pays us half of that, so you'll be making less than before (assuming you were making 6% or more). But at least it's something.

Flynn got on the ball before I did and wrote a Tutorial on How to Change Amazon Associate Links to Use Squidoo's ID. Obviously, this will only work on Squidoo, which means "eggs in one basket" syndrome all over again, and we're screwed if Amazon shuts down its New York program (where Squidoo is based).

California Lawmakers Reduce Income Tax Revenue, Kill Jobs with Misguided NEXUS Tax

Here we go. California's just-passed budget includes the infamous NEXUS tax, which attempts to force online merchants to collect sales tax in any state where a single affiliate marketer -- someone who gets a tiny commission for the sale -- is present. Supporters of this nose-cutting, face-spiting tax claim it will bring in $200 million dollars in sales tax revenue.

Really? Haven't they been paying ANY attention at all? Does nobody in Sacramento read the writing on the wall? Whenever a state has passed a law like this, Amazon and other online merchants have had a simple solution: they shut down the affiliate program in that state. Amazon doesn't really need affiliate marketers that much; it's making a tidy profit anyway!

The victims of this will be Californians.  By throwing down the gauntlet, the state legislature has encouraged Amazon and other online retailers to shut down their affiliate programs. If that happens-- and  Amazon has indicated it will happen, just as it has in many other states -- here's the fallout:

  • No income tax will be collected, so the law's goal will fail.
  • It will kill part-time (or even full-time) jobs for thousands of Californians.
  • It will eliminate millions of dollars of income for Californians, who will thus pay less income tax.
  • It will eliminate the "buffer funds" of thousands of Californians who were using that money to fund shopping, trips, leisure activities like going to the movies or catching a game, or pay bills. This means less sales tax collected than before, by the way.
  • It will put more pressure on one segment of the population: seniors, young people, work at home spouses, and those with health problems which make it difficult to work 9 to 5 jobs. Many of these were finding affiliate marketing an effective way to work and earn money from home.
  • It will cut back on sales of products made by Californian businesses selling their products on Amazon and getting the benefit of free marketing.

Way to go, California state legislature! You may have just killed thousands of jobs and lost your state coffers and local businesses millions of dollars!

 

Recommended Link: Why California's Nexus Tax is a Lose, Lose, Lose situation for Californians, the state of California, and Amazon (and why the only winner in all this is, basically, Wal-Mart, which lobbied hard for this law)

Captain Obvious on Amazon Referrals

Most of you are much farther along than me in this whole Amazon Associates thing, which I only started doing systematically last holiday shopping season. I'm just overhauling a massive product catalog lens (a whole series of collectibles which I used to have divided up by page breaks), consolidating it and re-checking all the Amazon Associates links. Things I'm checking:

  • Affiliate links are nofollowed
  • All the links point to the right product (duh)
  • The associates id is in every link
  • Correct product image
  • 4 or 5 star rating on the Amazon product page
  • Reviews on the Amazon product page won't give a potential buyer cold feet (if many reviews point out major problems with the product, this may not be a good product to recommend)
  • If there's multiple Amazon listings, look for one with a "Buy" button on the right rather than "available from these sellers"
  • The Amazon product page has a reasonable price

My basic template right now is

[Thumbnail Product Image linked to Amazon listing]
[2-lines of captions under image in 9-point type:]

Photos: [Link1] [Link2]   | Video [linked to video review, if there is one]
[Amazon Link]  [Link to eBay module at bottom of page]

Paragraph: My own comments and review. Blah blah blah blah blah...

Links/quick blurb on other, similar items for comparison.

 

Instead of taking other people's photos (bad!) I include links to their pages, but use the Amazon Associates image for the thumbnail on my own lens. Of course, if I link to another page for photos, that page must (a) have the photos near the top (b) not have anything offensive on it and (c) not be selling the product. For collectibles, at least, you'll often find a ton of "look at my cool toy!" photos on Flickr and video reviews on YouTube.

Since eBay modules tend to load more slowly, I put them at the bottom of the page as an appendix, with a link pointing down there; they'll have loaded in by the time visitors get far enough to look at them. This is only necessary if you've got an older lens with more eBay modules than the 5 we're limited to nowadays.