Basics about building website traffic

[Andy]

I created an introductory guide for newbies about getting traffic to your site entitled Traffic Generation Tips

The main idea behind my strategy is summarised in the opening paragraph (which people may like to debate here):

The main thing that governs the success or failure of a web site is traffic. The more visitors a site has, the more products are sold, the more ads are clicked or the more members join.

Hmmm, what do you think? .....

[Menard]

The main thing that governs the success or failure of a web site is traffic. The more visitors a site has, the more products are sold, the more ads are clicked or the more members join.

Traffic would certainly be the main crux to site success to me. Some may argue that quality content, design, etc. are a site's most important factors, but, essentially, when all things are said and done, no matter how good or bad a site is, the successful site is the one which draws visitors.

I'll add a a quote from my TrafficClose site:

It's just like having a retail store. It doesn’t matter how good you are as a salesman or if you have the best products, if no one comes into your store, they may never know. Even if you advertise, if your marketing strategies are weak, it could be buried beneath the other marketing schemes of the other stores. This is especially true on the Internet where the competition is fierce.

*One of the few parts of that page I wrote myself.


IMO, websites ultimately are not that separated from the mundane as their presence in a virtual world would suggest. As with any store which requires a customer to physically walk into it in order to make a sale, a website requires someone to visit it to make a sale. In both, the more who cross that threshold, the more likely a sale is to be made, and the more likely that result is to be repeated.

Of course one could make the arguement that websites differ from physical stores in that people in a mall will happen upon a store just by walking through the mall while visitors to a website can't just walk past a website but have to specifically look for it. I digress, isn't walking past a website what is called backlinks? The idea of being a store in a mall is to get traffic from another store's pull; essentially, a website does a similar thing by having links out on the web and pulling in customers from other websites.

What about search engines though? (Ya ever notice how I like to ask myself questions, then answer them?)

Search engines are rather like our phone directories. We want to find something, we look it up in the yellow pages (admittedly, it is easier to find it in the yellow pages than a search engine). Those you have paid listings get highlighted and even have ads in the yellow pages; much like a search engine. When we find what we want and go there, we might happen upon another store along the way, or from a recommendation at the shop in which we visited; much like how we find a website when we are looking for another (yes it is an oversimplification).

Ultimately, IMO, web traffic is governed by human behavior. It is people who make up web traffic, and they will search and respond like people. That does not mean that every bit of traffic a site receives is human and that sites that are ranked, like by Alexa, are ranked on actual human visitors, but, in the end, people are doing searches for the things they want and traffic is an integration of appealling to the rsources they will be using (search engines and other sites) and to the way in which they will be asking questions and looking for answers.


Have I gone off-topic again?

[Andy]

Have I gone off-topic again?

Not really. It is nice to get some user response from my starter posts like this since they stimulate further posts. This is how forums succeed. You have helped me confirm that short provocative posts work on forums but taking this to another level we have the detailed, researched and provocative post combined with user interaction.

Back on topic 

I was going to say that you used to be a sales person but I know that this mind set doesn't go away. You are always working out how to convert visitors to buyers/fans/book markers etc.

The analogy of a store customer with a website visitor is a good one.

OK, your post is related-content heavy, that's good!

Now moving on to the search engine question.

If your site is good for visitors then it will be good in the search engines too i.e. it provides relevant content and it is easy to use and gives visitors what they wanted. This should result in traffic and links flowing freely towards your site.

You should "take a step back" and put yourself in the shoes of somebody who knows nothing, only that they just clicked to your site after finding your link, Imagine you are them experiencing your site for the first time and looking for answers to the questions that they searched on. Visualize yourself as this person as they land on your site and discover it for the first time.

[Menard]

You should "take a step back" and put yourself in the shoes of somebody who knows nothing, only that they just clicked to your site after finding your link, Imagine you are them experiencing your site for the first time and looking for answers to the questions that they searched on. Visualize yourself as this person as they land on your site and discover it for the first time.

An interesting observational tactic. Though I can use it daily in a retail environment (I know where to place product for maximum exposure to traffic in relation to the customer who is most likely to buy), I find myself often designing by something I would like to see. Of course, does this fall into a category of customer satisfaction on the web? I like fast and easy navigation myself, but I am on dial-up, so this is an obvious choice for me, whereas someone on broadband might well like to have more upfront than what I would care for.

Although there is something to be said for unique and creative designs, people often, me included, finds themselves most comfortable with familiarity. If presented with an even choice, I like a store which is accessible and well laid out that makes things easy to find; oddly enough, I like websites that do the same.

I think I forget this a lot. Even though people will say that they prefer creative and unique things, ultimately many of us make choices based on something which is comfortable to us, and that means something which is familiar.

The number one selling ice cream flavor is plain old vanilla. There are gobs of different flavors, and we may all try them. There are gobs of toppings and things we can add to vanilla, but it is vanilla to which we are adding it. Vanilla is plain, but we know what to expect and have become comfortable with that.

I think in addition to stepping back and taking a look at one's own site (opinions please) it might do good to take a look at what someone looking at other sites finds comfortable about them, and, in comparison, is there something, say about my site, which does not offer that same ease of use or appeal. That's not to say that we need to duplicate other sites; not entirely anyway. Nor is it to say that one cannot be unique. It is to say that people are trepedatious about 'new things', 'unknown things', and they have always been that way and will continue to be so.


More random inane thoughts.

[Andy]

An interesting observational tactic.

I wouldn't call it a tactic but more like reality.

I love to mess about with designs for a web site but at the end of the day people prefer what they are familiar with.

Simpleist is normally best even if it is boring. That's the way to make say $100 a month from a really boring simple page that delivers exactly what the search engine user was looking for.