Conversion ratios are half the story...

The dumbest question I here is what is you best converting sponsor.. Grrrr.

Why don't we look at our galleries, free sites, etc and ask what is our best converting free iste or gallery.

And I don't mean convert into a membership. I mean get to a sponsor.

If you free site gets 5,000 uniques how many do you send to a sponsor. That in itself affects your conversion to a sponsor.

If I can send 4,000 to a sponsor I may make 4 sales but convert at 1:1000 isn't that better than sending 1,000 to a sponsor and making 2 sales with a conversion of 1:500.

So, I think we need to look at our free sites "conversion". I dont know what to call it.

But what I am trying to say is per x amount of visitors to our site we send y amount to a sponsor. Those who can work on the skills to get that to a high number will make more sales in the long run, even though the sponsor stats may show terrible conversion ratio.

Do you send 10%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 70% of the visitors to your site to a sponsor? Or do you even know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abostonboy

If I can send 4,000 to a sponsor I may make 4 sales but convert at 1:1000 isn't that better than sending 1,000 to a sponsor and making 2 sales with a conversion of 1:500.

---

Not really. Because when people consider conversion ratios, the assumption off of the example you just gave would be that if they were to have sent 4,000 to the latter of the two sponsors in your example, they would have made 8 sales. Which is better than the 4 sales they got off of the former.

Conversion ratios are about maximizing potential. And one must assume a sponsor converting at 1:100 has the potential to return a greater amount of revenue off of the same amount of traffic than a sponsor converting at 1:500, regardless of the actual traffic amounts sent.

Now, I do agree that conversion ratios in and of themselves are not the end all and be all of the affiliate-sponsor relationship. There are many other things also worth noting. Such as...

- Membership costs. You can make way more money running a 1:500 conversion ratio with a sponsor whose lowest membership tier is $19.95 than making 1:250 ratios on a sponsor who offers up $7.95 trials. What is the commission per transaction you, as an affiliate, are getting?

- What kind of traffic you have and how much effort the traffic source itself puts in to selling the sponsor. The age-old example of TGPs horribly low ratios, for example.

- Retention. If you're sending signups at a 1:250 ratio to a sponsor who averages 2 rebills (after the initial signup, so 3 transactions total) per member, for example, you could be doing a whole lot better with them than a sponsor you have 1:100 signup ratios with but that never retains your referred member through to the first rebill.

So yes, you are certainly correct in that conversion ratios are not the whole story. And that there is way, way more to it than just whatever are on each side of the ":". So although I didn't quite get your example quoted above (perhaps I misread?) I think you're definitely on target when questioning blind reliance on conversion ratios alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD

Not really. Because when people consider conversion ratios, the assumption off of the example you just gave would be that if they were to have sent 4,000 to the latter of the two sponsors in your example, they would have made 8 sales. Which is better than the 4 sales they got off of the former.

---

I am referring to the same Feeder site. Same traffic coming in. Same traffic going out. Just a different designed site that gets more surfers to a sponsor.

What I am saying is it can be better to get 80% of the surfers to your site to a sponsor and convert at a bad rate, but make more sales, than it is to get 20% to a sponsor and make less sales but convert at a better rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD

So yes, you are certainly correct in that conversion ratios are not the whole story. And that there is way, way more to it than just whatever are on each side of the ":". So although I didn't quite get your example quoted above (perhaps I misread?) I think you're definitely on target when questioning blind reliance on conversion ratios alone.

---

Do you understand what I am trying to say now. Basically I am trying to say coversions are directly related to how agressive you are able to send the same surfers to the sponsor site. And you can make more sales with terrible conversions If you can get a higher % of the visitors to your site to a sponsor site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD

Not really. Because when people consider conversion ratios, the assumption off of the example you just gave would be that if they were to have sent 4,000 to the latter of the two sponsors in your example, they would have made 8 sales. Which is better than the 4 sales they got off of the former.

---

Ooops! I really meant to say same free site (just designed dufferent), same traffic coming to free site, and same sponsor. First example I am dumping them to a sponsor of my last gallery page. Which we know if they havent bought by then they MAY not buy. But still that chance. And it happens. Thats why the conversions get bad, but the sales MAY take place.

Isn't what you're talking about referred to as CTR? I get a very good CTR on my freesites (and not by using blind links either). I can "convert" quite a few of my surfers in the sense that I send them to the sponsor's tour or sign up page. But I can't very well make them buy, and this is where the sponsor needs to have a good site that converts them into actual buyers. And yes, converion ratio isn't everything. As stated above, there is the question of how much you get paid per sale overtime (i.e. your share and the retention if on revshare).

Another thing to keep in mind is that different sponsors count clicks in different ways, so if you're looking in something like Unified Stats, a sponsor showing up as 1:200 isn't necessarily much better than one showing as 1:1000. They could just be counting their clicks differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigermom

Isn't what you're talking about referred to as CTR? I get a very good CTR on my freesites (and not by using blind links either). I can "convert" quite a few of my surfers in the sense that I send them to the sponsor's tour or sign up page. But I can't very well make them buy, and this is where the sponsor needs to have a good site that converts them into actual buyers. And yes, converion ratio isn't everything. As stated above, there is the question of how much you get paid per sale overtime (i.e. your share and the retention if on revshare).

Another thing to keep in mind is that different sponsors count clicks in different ways, so if you're looking in something like Unified Stats, a sponsor showing up as 1:200 isn't necessarily much better than one showing as 1:1000. They could just be counting their clicks differently.

---

Maybe it's called that. I run a link list and every day I see sites that I know might get 20% to a sponsor if lucky.

I have eliminated most of what Corbin says from my equation as I am now mostly a pay per sign up guy.....

the ratio of a gallery or a free site or other feeder site to send traffic to a sponsor is the CTR or Click Through Ratio.

and a really good marketer sends only people they've really sold into the site already. while a bad site just won't sell, assuming you're marketing decent sponsors, prequalifying them is more important than sending tons of them to the sponsor.

of course, ideally you will either do both - send lots and sell lots - or use a fpa or other filtering so the people who aren't interested will be able to be sent elsewhere by you, doubling your chances of making a sale.