What's new

Good news; bad news

neddy

Top Contributor
A month is a long time in the online world.

Good news story May 20:

"Stay-at-home-mum website attracts funds and eye balls"

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busine...racts-funds-and-eye-balls-20140519-zrgpl.html

Run out of her spare room in the Queensland country town of Gympie, SAHM receives up to 600,000 visits a month and employs 37 people around the country. They include web developers, advertising salespeople and Chris Gryg, Ms Allen's shirtless champagne-in-hand CEO and only male staff member.

Coupled with a Facebook page with 370,000 fans, the site has morphed into an attractive medium for advertisers, with the likes of Suncorp, Disney and Ikea lining up to tap into its following of stay-at-home home makers.

Marketing packages comprising sponsored features, Facebook shout-outs and banner ads on the site cost from $10,000 to $80,000.

----------------------------------------------------------

Bad news story June 19:

"Stay At Home Mum blogger walks out into eye of social media storm"

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/bus...eye-of-social-media-storm-20140619-zsf8t.html

Rising blog star Jody Allen has been forced to apologise for domain squatting, after being accused of attracting visitors and advertisers to her Stay At Home Mum site unethically.

On Wednesday, rival bloggers contacted media outlets, advising of a concerted campaign to alert advertisers like Suncorp that Stay At Home Mum had registered a number of domains similar to successful independent blogs in order to redirect web search traffic to itself.
 

neddy

Top Contributor
I am interested to see how all this pans out. There has been plenty of further mention of this - even on A Current Affair.

In a follow up article in The Gympie Times; in relation to her alleged cybersquatting, Mrs Allen says:

"these domains had since been stopped from trafficking users to the Stay at Home Mum site and the domain organisedhousewife.com.au was in the process of being transferred to Mrs Springer and two other sites in an act of "goodwill".

But in the next breath she says:

She also said neither she, nor her staff, had been contacted by Mrs Springer in regards to the domain name, which could have been bought from Mrs Allen.
(Bolding is mine).

As they say in the classics, 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'. Since this furore, her site visits have apparently gone through the roof. :rolleyes:

While Mrs Allen said her page had lost 4000 readers after the debacle began, she gained 6000 and in the 48 hours leading up to lunchtime yesterday her site was welcoming 1000 users per minute.

:rolleyes:
 

James

Top Contributor
Yeah it is kind of like this article in the news the other week. The firm in who is mentioned in the article is one of the worst for spam driven SEO work on a huge scale. One search for them on Google will show you a Whirlpool thread with 1000s of ripped off customers.

Code:
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/entrepreneur/whats-the-nasty-new-internet-trend-20140521-38n6u.html
 

James

Top Contributor

nina

Top Contributor
I read that Gympie article - someone commented that it's 'illegal to redirect' I've never heard that. I redirect alot of sites

Does anyone here have any legal knowledge about redirection or is the calico goose who commented on the article leading us into a wild goose chase?
 

Data Glasses

Top Contributor
I read that Gympie article - someone commented that it's 'illegal to redirect' I've never heard that. I redirect alot of sites

Does anyone here have any legal knowledge about redirection or is the calico goose who commented on the article leading us into a wild goose chase?

Anyone willing to comment?
 

Community sponsors

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
10,979
Messages
91,775
Members
2,061
Latest member
domino111

Latest posts

Industry and community links

Top