Empire Flippers Marketplace

[TryBPO]

Hey all,


While I've replied to Enrico privately via email, I thought I'd also respond here publicly to clear a few things up.


We typically sell (or allow others to sell) their websites based on a multiple of net monthly earnings. While we're explicit about making no guarantees or assurances on future performance after purchase, many of the buyers have a reasonable expectation that the earnings/traffic will continue. (And that's typically the case)


Niche Sites From Scratch was different.


As the price of the sites we sell continued to climb many were left without an opportunity to purchase. To cater to this market, we offered to build out 5, 10, or 20 niche starter sites (or turnkey sites as Kay's put it) that we would typically build for ourselves. We'd tested this before privately on a larger scale with individual buyers. (100 sites each for two separate customers with one of them coming back for another purchase)


As everything was working with private buyers we decided to test an offer with smaller packages across a larger range of buyers publicly.


These put more of the risk/reward on the buyer and we stated that. A few "winners" in terms of traffic/earnings could make it completely worth it. A group of "losers" may not.


We stated this pretty clearly in the write-up...here's an excerpt:

"This is an opportunity to put our team to work for you.


We’ll be creating niche sites for you in categories you’ve pre-selected. Unlike our marketplace, the pricing is not based on a multiple of revenue.


You could end up with a few “winners” that would effectively put your price at only 5x monthly revenue.


Or…you could end up with lemons that put you at 40x monthly revenue.


Note: You will need your own hosting + AdSense account for the niche sites. No claims or guarantees are being made as to the potential earnings on these sites."

We weren't completely sure whether we'd role this out full scale, so we put a cap on it at 200 sites and wanted to wait 3-5 months to ensure the buyers were happy before opening the doors again.


Along the way we solicited feedback from the Niche Sites From Scratch buyers that ranged from cautiously optimistic to negative, but the overall feedback leaned towards negative.


Here were some of the concerns:


- Not happy with 3 month delivery
- Disagreement regarding the KW research and KW's selected
- Frustration with the content quality
- Limited traffic/earnings


While we were planning to roll this out again in January or February, we took this feedback into account and decided to scrap the project. Simply put, turnkey sites were putting too much of the risk on the buyer. (Not to mention they're built for customers that don't fit the profile of our longer-term vision)

Sites with a history of earnings/traffic continue to be our focus in 2014.

[David S]

Here were some of the concerns:

- Not happy with 3 month delivery
- Disagreement regarding the KW research and KW's selected
- Frustration with the content quality
- Limited traffic/earnings

Justin, I think the reason for the negative comments are valid, if the examples here are typical of what you produced. You were not delivering what you promised (though the fourth objection, limited traffic/earnings, was not part of the promise).

In you pitch you said, among other things, "We have keyword selection and the niche site creation process down to a science," yet in the site Kay showed as an example, the site and tag line are "Straw Dispenser - Getting more out of functionality and aesthetic décor with a straw dispenser." Yet only ONE article is on straw dispensers at all. The other articles are on dispensers for toothpaste, cups, napkins, juice and beverages. What do those keywords have to do with straw dispensers.

Also, as Kay pointed out, the quality of the writing is quite poor.

As Clinton pointed out, the hype surrounding turnkey (or starter) websites is awful. You are wise to decide to abandon that project and continue to focus on established sites.

[Kay]

David, there is a role for turnkeys in the marketplace. Turnkeys or starter sites are not bad per se.

There are two schools of thought about these starter sites. Some people think that they’re harmful because the sellers tend to talk up the potential and underplay the work required in turning the site into a business. They estimate that the vast majority of turnkeys fail. Other people say that turnkeys provide a useful service by providing a low barrier to entry for those who want to get started without having to build a website from scratch.

http://experienced-people.net/forums...-turnkey-sites

However, not all turnkeys are of the same quality. There are good and bad. Assuming the buyer understands that in buying a turnkey he's buying a shell not a business, then he should have a reasonable expectation to get a good quality turnkey for his money. That expectation is all the more reasonable when the seller is perceived as being an expert in this area of business, and keen to maintain his good reputation.

I certainly don't have any issue at all that Justin sold templates. If that's what the buyer wants, then why not? It's the poor quality of these templates I was questioning.

Justin said that he'd had negative feedback about the turnkeys he sold.

Here were some of the concerns:


- Not happy with 3 month delivery
- Disagreement regarding the KW research and KW's selected
- Frustration with the content quality
- Limited traffic/earnings


While we were planning to roll this out again in January or February, we took this feedback into account and decided to scrap the project.

Translation: We sold crap. People told us we sold crap. We're not going to sell that kind of crap any more.

As you said:

Justin, I think the reason for the negative comments are valid, if the examples here are typical of what you produced. You were not delivering what you promised (though the fourth objection, limited traffic/earnings, was not part of the promise).

I would still like to know what Justin thought of the quality of the templates he was selling. As I see it either:

a) He thought the sites he sold were good quality. In which case, some people might think he's not a good judge of quality - certainly not what one would expect from an expert in the industry.

or

b) He sold poor quality sites in the full knowledge that they were poor quality.

Is there an option c)?

[David S]

c) - he didn't check the quality of the sites that we are looking at. If there was no final review, that is nearly as bad as b) but not quite. Justin's company wouldn't be the first or the last company to lack adequate quality control.

[Kay]

Thanks, David. The quality control option had occurred to me too after I've posted, but I was hoping that Justin would come back and explain rather than us speculating about what might have gone wrong. And it appears that something did go wrong. This is a good opportunity for Justin to sort things out and be seen to be doing the right thing.

[pippo29]

Thanks guys for this debate.
I think you're getting the real point of my frustration. The thing that made me angry/disappointed was not the failure of the websites in terms of money/visits while but the fact that those websites were not meant to get traffic, in other words I can accept losing a match but they didn't even try to play... So @Kay, I think the answer is a B

[Kay]

I don't think there's much to be gained from us speculating about what Justin thought about what he sold. The only way we can know the answer to that is if Justin comes back and tells us. He knows of this thread. He knows there's a discussion of his business here. If he doesn't come back and explain, then most likely people will draw their own conclusions. I would have expected he'd come back to respond to the issues raised here which are still unanswered.

Meanwhile - no more speculation about what Justin was thinking, please. Feel free to add something useful or interesting to the thread if you have something to say, but an accusatory post which is simply guessing what Justin was thinking when he sold the low quality templates isn't helpful. Thanks.

[Edit - that last comment was not directed at Pippo but relates to another instance which I received a complaint about.]