|
Greenguy, I'd appreciate it if you'd pull the link. As I said above, it means I'll get useless traffic from that category that won't be the slightest bit interested in visiting the sites I advertise. In the future I won't submit this kind of 4women site to LinkORama.
DocHolly, will add Tart to my submission list. I guess the prob is that there aren't a huge number of for women webmasters and we're all stretched... I don't make enough free sites at the moment, got so much to do.
And the reason there aren't that many "for women" webmasters is due to the prevailing opinions already expressed in this thread. That's fine, it means more money for me.
What I am a trifle confused about is why people will happily promote small niches like balloons, midgets, hirsuite, smoking or whatever, but can't accept that the "for women" niche is equally worth promoting.
Making broard generalisations about your market isn't the best way to make money. Saying "all women aren't visual" is the same kind of generalisation as saying "men only want to look at solo naked women." It means you are ignoring a niche specialisation which can increase your profit.
Do you know where that "women aren't visual" idea came from? Kinsey, in 1953. He asked his subjects if they were aroused by porn. Most of them said they weren't. Never mind that most of them were 1953 housewives who'd probably never even seen porn, or that the porn available at the time was all made for men. That 50 year old Kinsey research is considered to be gospel.
Ask an 18 year old chick today if she likes porn. She'll probably say yes. Or she'll say no, not really, because all the tits are fake and that Ron Jeremy guy is so bloody ugly...
Oh, look, never mind.
Carry on with what you were doing.
|