Quality vs Junk traffic

[Artashes]

Hi,

Today I got into argument with my professor of Management Strategy and Competition. We were analysing the case for ChicagoTribune.com online newspaper and I happened to mention that quality traffic (the one that is generated when a user finds their web site for intentinal usage reasons) that their web site receives, means that their advertisers would be ready to pay more. He disagreed.

Please tell that there is a difference between junk traffic (untargeted or spam-generated) and quality traffic and that advertisers in fact do value the difference and are ready to pay premiums on it.

Also, how would you define terms "quality traffic" and "junk traffic"?

[dufik]

Hi,

Interesting question even though it may seem obvious (as are the answers); still – this is an interesting issue that can be explored...
:cool:

I would say that the "simple" answer is:
Junk traffic is traffic that you (as a promoter or as the manager of the online business) do NOT want. Targeted traffic is the one that you DO want.

More specifically, targeted traffic is the traffic generated from members of your targeted audiences. These, in the SEO sense, are usually defined by the targeted search terms that you are optimizing your pages for (although, at times, a given search term can target both 'targeted' as well as 'junk' traffic for you since the term may have a dual meaning).

Furthermore, if a website has got a target action (the action that it is leading its targeted users to take - such as fill out a contact form), targeted traffic would be the traffic that would generate more of these actions - in comparison to junk traffic.

Naturally, there is a difference between junk and targeted traffic but your Professor may have meant something more specific than just that... in the context of a specific case...

One thing to watch out for is the return on investment, which may be greater for a campaign that generates 'junk traffic' in comparison to a costly campaign that generates highly targeted traffic but poor ROI...

[Artashes]

Originally posted by dufik
One thing to watch out for is the return on investment, which may be greater for a campaign that generates 'junk traffic' in comparison to a costly campaign that generates highly targeted traffic but poor ROI...
Good point. And yet this junk traffic may work only in case where, as you mentioned, a user is expected to take action (most often some e-commerce web site).

However, since we were analyzing a content-based web site, such as newspaper where the business is made from publishing - you really want your targeted market to access it and not just everyone. Otherwise, it will not be possible to have any idea about who visits your site and advertisers might choose not to pay for something that'll be wasted.

Best,

[dufik]

Now all we need is to get your Professor to come into the forums and chat some Internet Marketing with us...

:beerchug:

[Artashes]

I doubt he would still agree with us. His approach to everything is very scientific. And it always makes sense (from scientific point of view), even though what he is saying might sound absolutely illogical for business as usual models.

Best,

[nicholas]

There is merit to both arguments, but it is dependent upon the context of their use.

For example, it is a no-brainer to see that if you were selling something (say, a luxury car), you'd be better off spending $100 on a list of 100 high-income individuals who expressed in one form or another that they are purchasing a luxury car on this quarter, than spending $50 to get a list of 100,000 emails randomly "farmed" by a webcrawler/bot.

But there might be value on the other side of the coin. For instrance, getting (junk?) traffic to your site (or for that matter, newsletter, store, etc.) is fine if you're able to "hit" someone at the most opportune time when they were just seeking the very thing you're selling.

It would also count what metric you're basing your goals upon. If you're after a high success margin at the least possible trouble, then targeted is almost the only way to go. But if you're selling things that can appeal to the general public and you're willing to go with a very low success rate per capita (or low margin; think WalMart), then random shooting can work.

Ultimately though, the real issue of the argument is what is better, and while junk traffic can have value, having that value does not make it better.