Home > The Newbie Zone > Questions and Answers

Less difficult traffic sources? (6)


06-22-2021 09:57 AM #1 nguyengaren1234 (Member)
Less difficult traffic sources?

Hi, What'd be the relatively less difficult yet effective traffic source worth pursuing? SEO VS Native Ads? or something else?


I tried FB ads and couldn't figure out a reasonable way to overcome the constant ban issues yet. After spending over $20k on google shopping ads, I couldn't figure out how to make it consistently profitable and scale especially because Google banned retargeting for the health niche I'm in.


So I'm wondering what else may be more feasible, reliable, worth exploring?


Many thanks!


06-22-2021 02:38 PM #2 jeremie (Moderator)

SEO can take lots of time if you are on a competitive geo, especially for health products. You won't probably get quick results, unless you know what you are doing and have budget to grow links to your site. Look at @stickupkid website here to get some ideas.

I would pick a vertical that is not banned everywhere with smaller payouts, so that you can test and optimize more.


06-22-2021 07:13 PM #3 nguyengaren1234 (Member)

So would good results with native ads be more achievable than with SEO? Or you'd recommend switching to a low risk vertical and sticking to FB or google ads before expanding into SEO, Native?

Many thanks @jeremie


08-06-2021 06:35 AM #4 clicklead (Senior Member)

Hey there, in 2020-2021, Facebook is the #1 heavy-hitter when it comes to bans. If you're choosing between SEO and native ads, then definitely go for the latter. But each native ad network has its own rules: for example, if you drive traffic to casinos, they may ask you to show them the establishment's license for the particular GEO you work with (and a Curacao gambling license won't be good enough). But there's a decent alternative. There's plenty of native ad networks that can't boast as many websites as the heavyweights can, meaning they're moderation procedures won't be as strict. Pretty sure you can make a couple thousand dollars with their help


08-06-2021 10:08 AM #5 vortex (Senior Moderator)
Less difficult traffic sources?

Between SEO and Native, my vote would be with Native as well. I wouldn't say Native is necessarily any easier than FB, but at least the account bans happen less often.

Push is another traffic type I've seen weightloss being pushed (pun intended). And account bans are rare.

Search may also be viable depending how what and how you're promoting. Here are some restrictions on adwords: https://support.google.com/adspolicy...to-weight-loss

And here are Bing's:

https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-u...nd-supplements

https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-u...vices-policies

Hope that helps!



Amy


Sent from my iPhone using STM Forums


08-06-2021 11:46 AM #6 matuloo (Legendary Moderator)

Quote Originally Posted by nguyengaren1234 View Post
So would good results with native ads be more achievable than with SEO? Or you'd recommend switching to a low risk vertical and sticking to FB or google ads before expanding into SEO, Native?
SEO and Native (or any other paid traffic type) is quite different. With paid sources, you can start running within a few hours, SEO takes months.

Pages for paid campaigns can be simple, SEO requires proper planning, structure, content and as @jeremie mentioned, lot's of links in order to rank faster.

You can achieve good results with both, just one of them needs more time (SEO).

If you have the content or can write it, why not try both approaches?


Home > The Newbie Zone > Questions and Answers