Rebranding on a New Domain

[enlytend]

It's always scary from an SEO standpoint to rebrand on a new domain - seo-savvy buyers know this and it could be a sticking point in making a sale - or even starting to negotiate. Great post and case study on how Odesk (now Upwork) got it right:

http://searchengineland.com/odesk-upwork-migrate-domain-not-kill-seo-223494

Share this with sales prospects... and buyers!

 

[biggie]

if you're rebranding with a type-in traffic domain, how much does seo really matter?

 

[enlytend]

This is about rebranding on the new domain, not redirecting a domain to your current one. If you're just redirecting for type-ins, that's completely different - the biggest concern there is that it doesn't have "toxic" backlinks from previous usage.

 

[biggie]

who said anything about "redirecting" a domain?

 

[S-B]

if you're rebranding with a type-in traffic domain, how much does seo really matter?

Depends on the traffic, conversion rate, and a customer's life-time value.

 

[enlytend]

Regardless - if you have an existing domain and you rebrand on a new one (let's say one with type ins) you want to ADD the new direct navigation traffic, not tank your existing organic search rankings and traffic in the process. That would be pretty foolish.

type ins will get you ONE keyword to your home page. An established site will be getting traffic from hundreds (small site) to thousands (or more) keywords and to numerous pages. On a commercial site, the very specific long-tail search phrases usually represent visitors farther along the purchase cycle (I.e. closer to whipping out the credit card)

Read the 2nd link cited in the beginning of that article - about nuts online.com rebranding to nuts.com.

 

[biggie]

if the volume of direct navigational traffic is greater than existing SE traffic, then again, how much does it matter?

eventually, the SE rank will regain whatever was lost and the "DNT" may increase as well.....just from word of mouth of that change.

there is no definitive magical solution, in the battle with SE's for top-shelf display. while on the other hand, the best defense against the effects of algo changes, currently, is type-in traffic.

but that's just my perspective....

 

[enlytend]

if the volume of direct navigational traffic is greater than existing SE traffic, then again, how much does it matter?

First of all, not likely. If you're selling a domain for a rebrand AND the domain is high-quality enough to bring in that kind of significant direct traffic - as in enough to potentially drive the entire business - the buyer assumedly has a well-established business already. So unless you have a penalty you cant' shake (in which case you have nothing to lose) you want to preserve what you have.

Secondly, volume isn't everything. Read what I wrote earlier about "head terms" vs long-tail. If someone types in "camera" what do they want? If they type in "acme model 5200 camera" they're probably at least researching. If they type in "price acme model 5200 camera in stock" they're ready to buy.

In the advertising world, nobody advertises on head terms for direct response, they do it for branding. Those kind of terms are too broad to convert well.

eventually, the SE rank will regain whatever was lost and the "DNT" may increase as well.....just from word of mouth of that change.

And your revenue tanks for months while you want for that to happen - IF it happens.

there is no definitive magical solution, in the battle with SE's for top-shelf display. while on the other hand, the best defense against the effects of algo changes, currently, is type-in traffic.

Sites that do things right tend to weather algo changes well.

 

[enlytend]

Since a picture's worth 1000 words ...

Here's traffic breakdown from a small site (8-10 pages) on a nice .com keyword domain (generic product, noun, GKP estimated avg exact monthly searches 110,000) - I believe the domain was purchased in the neighborhood of 20-30K. Site was just put out and left there, no ongoing SEO work, no social media promotion, nada. There are 924 different search terms driving that organic traffic (not counting those falling under "not provided", which counts as one.)

This is an older site (around 40-50 pages, still small) built on a non-.com keyword domain (single word, product, noun, GKP estimated avg exact monthly searches 6,600) which was bought for reg fees. Again, note the traffic breakdown.There are over 7000 different search terms driving traffic.

Sooooo ... it's OK to throw away that percentage of your traffic?

 

[NameOmnia]

Sorry @enlytend ....I thought that SEO was just " buying and EMD and writing good content "....OR NOT?????

 

[enlytend]

Both have OK content and on-page was done effectively, the second has had a little more ongoing effort put into it - not a whole lot.

My point (this time ) was more that unless search engines actually hate your site, organic traffic will usually surpass direct navigation traffic. In the first case you might expect the direct navigation traffic to carry the site because it's a highly searched commercial keyword - it doesn't.

Search traffic will be more diverse also. Even poor, neglected, little site #1 is getting traffic from hundreds of different search queries. This is typical of "healthy" sites. Having one source of trafffic or ranking for one keyword is dangerous - if something happens and that goes away, your traffic goes to 0.

60-85% of your traffic is a lot to lose - not something you want to happen, if you can avoid it - which is why I posted that case study .

 

[briguy]

Having one source of trafffic or ranking for one keyword is dangerous - if something happens and that goes away, your traffic goes to 0.

Been there and done that,,when Google "devalued" the backlink, (had thousands, my blogs footers, unrelated sites, forum signatures, etc) went from $200 a month (stagnant site) to $20 a month almost overnight

"if something happens"...lol..like sites shutting down..GeoCities gone, MySpace almost dead, Squidoo gone...yeah all former great traffic sources.

 

[enlytend]

Been there and done that,,when Google "devalued" the backlink, (had thousands, my blogs footers, unrelated sites, forum signatures, etc) went from $200 a month (stagnant site) to $20 a month almost overnight

They didn't devalue backlinks, just certain spammy ones and "link schemes." But similar problem - always safer to have some diversity.

 

[briguy]

They didn't devalue backlinks, just certain spammy ones and "link schemes." But similar problem - always safer to have some diversity.

Probably more honest, if I posted Google "devalued" my backlinks..lots of blogs (mine) all interlinked for one keyword even on blogs that were relevant. Totally agree about diversity!

 

[enlytend]

Yeah, they're not big fans of that . It's fine to have a couple sites and interlink them if it makes sense to visitors, but if it looks "gratuitous", they either ignore them or slap you. People still successfully run link networks of their own sites, but these days you have to be crazy-paranoid and leave NO evidence connecting them to each other (or to your other sites) to make it work.