Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Hosting Users - Rank Your Revenue

[mwatkins]

PLEASE NOTE THIS POLL IS FOR Hosting Users (Not resellers or hosters themselves)

Rank your revenue (or lack thereof) from your web site. Maybe your web site(s) generate income, perhaps they are personal, but wouldn't it be interesting to see some stats on this?

Hey, no need to id yourself - and there are enough responses now that your identity will not be associated with revenue, if you are concerned about such stuff.

So go ahead, use the poll!

[mwatkins]

Other than simply being curious, I wonder how many revenue producing web sites are out there being hosted on services such as those provided by the web hosters / resellers that frequent WHT.

Or, are most users running sites offering free content? or Personal sites?

And is it lack of revenue that causes users to seek out budget hosters? Or is intense competition between hosters the only force driving prices down?

I'm asking because I assume that revenue producing sites care less about small cost differences and more about stability - yet so many comments on WHT are focussed ultimately on cheap deals and nothing but...

... leading one to conclude that the vast majority of sites are free / personal / non revenue producing ventures.

?

[Deb]

<begin sarcasm>

I find these results shocking actually. Run another poll for hosts asking "How much revenue do your clients claim to be loosing every minute their web site is down?" I bet you'll see much higher numbers

</end sarcasm>

And is it lack of revenue that causes users to seek out budget hosters? Or is intense competition between hosters the only force driving prices down?

I think it's probably a bit of both. There are MANY hobby and NFP web sites on the Internet that need to be hosted somewhere and there was a day they were willing to pay $20/month for that service. Today we have the "intense competition" mixed with many more NFP and personal web sites and that is what keeps forums like WHT booming

Ok..I'm going to go back to my hole now as I can see I'm too tired to be too serious tonight Feel free to flame me

[mwatkins]

Run another poll for hosts asking "How much revenue do your clients claim to be loosing every minute their web site is down?" I bet you'll see much higher numbers

LOL I agree. I suspect that most of the whiners lose very little due to down time. I've seen this in other on-line ventures - take day trading - the failure stats are very high for day traders yet it would seem that when trading sites or software is down, *everyone* is missing out their daily big bonanza.

LOL

Real life just aint like that.

[ozzie]

Well my site is a personal site and I have no qualms about admitting that, that is why I want a low cost site that allows me www as well as POP3.

I wonder how many people are going to select the > $1M just for kicks.

Ozzie

[nuthin]

loss of revenue due to downtime from a host can be percieved in many ways.
If my host is down when googlebot hits my site? Therefor it won't get indexed in google's index, Then their is that potential to lose alot of revenue until googlebot happens to update there index again which has been happening every month.
And for my site which will be going up against lucrative terms like "wedding gifts" and "gifts" there's alot of money that will be lossed all because a web host was down when googlebot came crawling. So there's 1 month's potential revenue that will be lossed.
This aint just with google if you submit to yahoo and dmoz and editors finally get around to reviewing your site and your host is down then you will have to wait and re-submit again and wait another 3/6 months.
That's just one reason why 99.99% uptime is very important.
And probably that's why i am one of those "whiners" about hosts that guarantee 99.99% uptime then fall very short.

[Deb]

And probably that's why i am one of those "whiners" about hosts that guarantee 99.99% uptime then fall very short.

"whining" about a host that has fallen short of their promises is a totally different topic all together and I'd like to note that that type of "whining" is not what my above sarcasm was referring to. There's a different type of 'whining' that pleads thousands per minute for sites that are not yet developed and are often still in propagation phases... The hosts are quite familiar with "those types" and it was meant as a joke

[mwatkins]

Down time complaints are legit, however fretting that you are missing the the few hours out of 2160 hours... seems a bit overboard to me.

That's a .02% chance of missing the prized bot if the downtime is 5 hours out of 2160 hours (3 months).

There are better ways of getting your site in the indexes than worrying about that .02%.

However being down for 5 hours, for a site that generates revenue, shouldn't be something you need to tolerate. Sure, there will be times when downtime is unavoidable, but your hoster should be able to mitigate most issues and recover faster than 5 hours on average.

WHT is replete with stories of one host down or another for extended periods of time. Its clear from reading a lot of these stories that some of these hosters have little redundancy or experience in planning for and dealing with downtime.

Contrast that to a big experienced provider:
http://pair.com/pair/support/notices/older.html

Notice how very few of the outages are for more than 10 - 15 minutes? And even for the truly serious outages, the hoster was able to deal with them in a straightforward professional manner?

Forget 99.9999% guarantees - nothing can be guaranteed with certainty. IMO its more important to see how hosters deal with problems than to rely on some arbitrary % of uptime.

I really believe that penny wise / pound foolish for a revenue generating site is a good rule of thumb when it comes to chosing a hosting partner. It costs real $ to have quality machines, network, spares, people etc.

[dragonhawk]

I think we can rule out the 1M plus

Edit: had to remove a part of my post, coz it's a bit embarrassing (didn't read the thread properly) :p

[pmabraham]

Greetings:

Please deduct one vote from the "500,001 - 1,000,000$ per year" category.

I apologize, but didn't catch that this was for hosting customers only and not providers of hosting or managed services.

Thank you.

[cperciva]

Does it count if people offer to give me money, but I refuse to accept it? In that case, count this as a vote in the $1M+ category.

Of course, that was just an absurd consequence of the overheated VC market a couple years back.

[mwatkins]

So far 66% of web hosting users derive at least some revenue for their site. Lets keep this going!

[mwatkins]

More than 70% of respondents derive revenue from their web sites. And 43% generate more than 5,000$ per year in revenue.

Lets keep this going.

I wonder if we'll see anything like the 80/20 rule once enough numbers come in...

[UnkleMunky]

Hmmm.....interesting poll. Not sure if my situation applies to others, but with a few sites in my nest now, not all are the same format, but my main site(s) do bring in some change($), so at least a little. A couple others sites are personal(no money intended) types, so decided to take an overall view and voted that way.

BTW.....for those folks checking the $1M+ option, umm......you looking to buy a few good sites?? That might put me in a higher bracket myself! heeehheeee.......


Take care....
Michael