Is cooperation between gambling sites something feasible?

[Ares]

Hello,

I know most of the members here are gambling PORTAL webmasters.
However there other gambling sites out there (like mine ) which are not portals, but would like to monetize their targeted traffic.
And I would prefer to focus on my content instead of affiliate account management and communication.

I know well that the casino guys only care about clear cut deposits etc. So there is not so much room for improvisation there.

Now I wonder if it would be feasible for two webmasters to cooperate. Say one has a casino portal and the other has a "content" site (with advice, info, stories, interviews etc.) . Could they ever cooperate? I mean something like I give you this amount of money every month, you give me links, leads and awareness.

I believe this would be beneficial to both. The portal webmaster gains better seo, more targeted visitors and may move up the revenue share ladder. The other webmaster monetizes his site without the hassle of finding, setting up, evaluating and managing multiple affiliate accounts.

The thing is that many of us are so over-evaluating ourselves that I guess it would be hard the two webmasters to reach an agreement. Such a pity. Because theoretically, if a good portal and a good content site would cooperate they may kick some serious butt.

[wonderpunter]

Hello,

I know most of the members here are gambling PORTAL webmasters.
However there other gambling sites out there (like mine ) which are not portals, but would like to monetize their targeted traffic.
And I would prefer to focus on my content instead of affiliate account management and communication.

I know well that the casino guys only care about clear cut deposits etc. So there is not so much room for improvisation there.

Now I wonder if it would be feasible for two webmasters to cooperate. Say one has a casino portal and the other has a "content" site (with advice, info, stories, interviews etc.) . Could they ever cooperate? I mean something like I give you this amount of money every month, you give me links, leads and awareness.

I believe this would be beneficial to both. The portal webmaster gains better seo, more targeted visitors and may move up the revenue share ladder. The other webmaster monetizes his site without the hassle of finding, setting up, evaluating and managing multiple affiliate accounts.

The thing is that many of us are so over-evaluating ourselves that I guess it would be hard the two webmasters to reach an agreement. Such a pity. Because theoretically, if a good portal and a good content site would cooperate they may kick some serious butt.

Yes many over evaluate themselves on links they have paid for to get shiny scores on the synthetic SEO benchmarks giving what could be a potential page rank but it's all just a ploy to draw money out fore these self imposed authority callers.. I had this conversation earlier.. the only thing that counts is organic traffic and conversions everything else is just showboating.. you know the type that go out and buy 80k cars? but only make two grand a month and have it all on finance.. it's all fake

[Ares]

I know what you are talking about. There are sites and sites. I am talking about sites with substantial organic traffic. The key here is that a portal can have less traffic and monetize great and a content site have more traffic and fail to monetize. The idea would be to join forces and leverage the traffic from the info site with the monetization power of the portal.

[wonderpunter]

I know what you are talking about. There are sites and sites. I am talking about sites with substantial organic traffic. The key here is that a portal can have less traffic and monetize great and a content site have more traffic and fail to monetize. The idea would be to join forces and leverage the traffic from the info site with the monetization power of the portal.

Yes in that case it works, actually I have found partnerships to be very beneficial in the past, the biggest hurdle to overcome is trust but, rather than use two sites it would really need to combine under one larger site incorporating both a portal and content imo

[eenzoo]

guys, i can follow your idea but cant follow what do you call a portal and what a content site?!

[Ares]

guys, i can follow your idea but cant follow what do you call a portal and what a content site?!

The portal is about specific casinos, the info site is about the game in general.
The portal has the classic html table with casinos and "play now" buttons and/or bonuses, ratings etc.
An info site may have not such table.

[universal4]

I would consider any site with gambling or gaming content that links to other gambling sites a "gambling portal".

The criteria we use for the GPWA Private Membership is similar in nature except that it must link to operators sites through affiliate links.

The only difference I see in what the OP is trying to explain is whether or not the "info" site links directly to operator sites through affiliate links or is a feeder site that links to affiliate portals which in turn link to the operator's sites.

Rick
Universal4

[Triple7]

The portal is about specific casinos, the info site is about the game in general.
The portal has the classic html table with casinos and "play now" buttons and/or bonuses, ratings etc.
An info site may have not such table.

Most info websites do have such a table and buttons too as a table and buttons the most convenient ways to get the traffic to the place you want them to go.

I guess what's meant in the first post is a content-rich website with a lot of pages with quality content written for the visitors and readers and a thin website with just some CTA-stuff and some content, not for visitors but just because a website need some content in the eyes of Google.

Of course they can work together. The best thing would be to send people that arrive at the "portal" and want to read more about the casino, the games, etc to the more informative website. A better question is how much the informative website owner is wanting to pay for it, because it's clear that the "portal" owner is giving away traffic, depositors and likely the more serious traffic. I guess nobody is going to risk losing whales, a bunch of depositors or a bunch of reasonable players for a few bucks.

[Ares]

I would consider any site with gambling or gaming content that links to other gambling sites a "gambling portal".

I understand and agree to that, technically speaking.

I guess what's meant in the first post is a content-rich website with a lot of pages with quality content written for the visitors and readers and a thin website with just some CTA-stuff and some content, not for visitors but just because a website need some content in the eyes of Google.

Yes. Though the CTA site doesn't need to be thin to benefit from such a cooperation IMO.

Let me give an example. Imagine a fashion site and an fashion e-shop. It would be beneficial if they cooperate.
Now you can tell me that in the example the fashion e-shop is the casino itself and the fashion site is the portal.
Yet, IMO the fashion site is the "content site" (say: bjplayer*com) the fashion e-shop is the "portal" (say: bjcasinoreview*com) and the manufacturer of the apparel is the casino (say: bjcasino*com )

Btw, in the above example, the bjplayer site is easier to rank in google, yet the bjcasinoreview site is easier to monetize.
At least that's my experience, though I admit I do NOT have huge experience in the field.

I understand that we try to be all things. Add content to our portal or add affiliate links to our content site etc. But the truth is that it would be nice if we focused on our strengths. Some people may be better at creating converting sites and reviews and some in creating gambling content. It is already hard to create a good "portal" site or a good "content" site, let alone creating an all-in-one. Even big casino companies, with huge budgets know they can NOT create the best sites and attract most organic traffic. That's why they depend on affiliates.

[Triple7]

True that it's beneficial if they cooperate. In this case the fashion site would be an affiliate of the fashion e-shop. If the e-shop sends visitors to the fashion site, it costs them money if they return clicking from the fashion and ofcourse they might risk to lose them. It could be profitable if conversion is higher if people read the fashion site than when people do not read the fashion site. Theory. I see more and more e-shops having their own rating systems. That's also why in my opinion big companies depend on affiliates.

Either affiliates can do cheaper the job than they can, either people are looking for reviews. Many people check for reviews before they want to buy something to see what's other people's opinion about the things they want to buy or the webshop they want to buy from. Better have those reviews as a back-up for people that want to read before they play! And also better have the 90-hours a week working affiliate, because he'll be cheaper in the end than the contracted employee for who you have to pay taxes, social system things, days the employee is sick, pension plan, etc.

I do agree cooperation between websites is useful, but to me it just is when the owner of both websites is the same person/company. I do not see people creating and managing a website just for sending their best traffic to another website they do not own. If you own both websites, it's another kettle of fesh. In that case you'll use the better and easier ranking website to attract traffic and send it to your other website. Of course that's possible too if you're not the owner, but at what prize? Better try to monetize it yourself.

Also many big companies do have a bunch of affiliate websites. I know casino brands that are having hundreds of affiliate websites. A lot of start-ups are also having shareholders that were affiliates before or still are affiliates.

But I do agree cooperation could be a good thing, but in my eyes than in one project. A coder does the code stuff, photoshopper does the photoshop thing, seo-expert does the seo-things, great writer does the content, negotiator does the communication with advertising companies and affiliate programs, etc. Now for many websites it's a one-man-show. It's like having a pizzeria and being the one who prepares the pizza, does the administration, serves the pizza in the restaurant, designs the leaflet, cleans the pizzeria, etc competing with a Pizzahut that is having different people for different jobs.

[universal4]

Basically, if you convince the site owners it is beneficial for them to sell you links great.

But if it is truly beneficial to the site where the links would point, it "might" be more beneficial financially to the site owner to carry their own affiliate links to the bookies or casinos.

Rick
Universal4