That's interesting. Not sure I understand what all of it means. But sounds like you are focusing on content. Today we have to focus on 1 domain at a time and do a really good job at developing it. If you develop 1 or 2 domains a month, you end up with 12 to 24 per year. After 5 years you have 60 to 120. That is a really reasonable schedule to develop domains that will stand the test of time and be profitable. If you do it full-time or hire someone, you can develop more per month.
create umbrella brands.
In short, I'm trying to perfect the perfect in-house landing pages utilizing mega content driven hubs to help stimulate indexing for multiple long-tail keyphrase niche terms to open the doors to start-ups researching keywords that some of my assets are ideal for. (If that makes sense)
I haven't perfected it yet and just getting started on this new network.
My business model changed over the last 12 months.
My 2005 25k+ page asset is now the network(s) umbrella.
The 50k+ asset I'm testing now is the network Hub. (
Some public testing can be found in the insiders lounge - VIP/Gold Only)
All the assets listed on the 50k+ network hub are slowly being updated to complement the niche of the hub itself. Assets can be sold individually, in packages, or the whole network hub along with all hub assets can be acquired in a network purchase.
The Umbrella, serves as the brand manager for all the network hubs and domain assets under each hub.
Each network hub is niche targeted and the assets that best fit that niche become part of the new hub.
Hubs are massive 25k to 50k+ page content driven sites with a few monetization options. The targeted content assists with seo/sem in the added exposure and indexing through deep linking and contextual article links referring to landing pages.
It's not a perfect science and I'm still hammering it out and testing, a lot. The data crunching is crazy.
If the assets never sell, but continues to generate revenue, that's fine by me. I tell my wife that this new landing page layout/monetization strategy on huge network hubs is part of our emergency contingency plan, to help insure that our assets don't creep up on us one day as the portfolio(s) get big again and hit us with a huge renewal bill out of pocket that forces us to drop or resell some dirt cheap again, way before they matured. (It sucks when that happens)
My biggest attraction to branding landing pages out and making clear development intentions is for added asset protection. In case someone, some day, comes along with a UDRP. I now have dated usage/TM/Definition and clear business development scope as a foundation to help keep my assets from being taken unjustly.
Another reason that I am starting to prefer the 301 in-house lander over the independent (1-page stand-alone) lander, is less code updating work. Each individual landers code will eventually become outdated and devalued in the index for lack of current standards. Rather than have to go update thousands of individual landers, when it's inhouse, it all updates on the same platform. Much more time management friendly in my opinion.
Planning with future updates in mind.
A lander on a large asset will pass value within/between it's own pages and not be penalized for a redirect coming to it. Yet another reason why inhouse landers may be a better option now days than static independent landers (Same server ip value passing penalties).
Since the new test hub asset targets a nomadic entrepreneurial market, it gives me the versatility to apply several verticals that play well with the core resource and remote work values. In essence, it all ties together and gives targeted exposure of my other assets and assets + websites to traveling/nomadic entrepreneurs that found my resources helpful and decide they like one of my business in a box development directions. Of course, that's a hypothetical situation but when I cross reference it with human psychology it seems to make sense that a larger brand asset with such a large amount of resources, would gain trust and authority faster than a mini-site and potentially result in more asset inquiries motivated by that same trust.
Well, that's my thoughts on larger assets these days and their practical uses for our industry.
Everyone does it different and only trial and error active testing and development will reveal the truth. Mere speculating doesn't come close to what is learned building these assets out and applying real-world business strategy, ethics, scaling, licensing, and hands on experience.
At a minimum, it gives an investor an inside look at what a start-up/end-user must go through once they acquire an asset to build on.
A domain itself, is just the beginning of a blank canvas waiting to be a painting.
I think once more investors can relate to how an end-user handles an asset, it will clear the smoke and mirrors that clutter the industry, making it easier to identify viable assets that a start-up, or at the very least, a hobbyist would want to invest in to build on.
Just my thoughts anyways. I'm still just a hobbyist, even though I developed my first asset in 2005 (On a .ws - lol) and then moved it to the .com in 2007. The rise and fall of mini-site networks has been tiring for me.
This time, I'm fortifying everything for the long-run game.