Reviewing an SEO Incubation Partnership Discussion: We Discovered Late That They Wanted a New Short Drama Site

Recently, I was contacted by a promoter claiming to be involved in “webmaster incubation” and “traffic cooperation.”

Initially, they stated that they were supporting webmasters who were still running sites and hoping to further expand their traffic, offering upfront funding, resources, and basic support, to be followed by revenue sharing once the website achieved results.

Based on this introduction, I originally thought they were interested in content growth, SEO optimization, or traffic monetization for an existing website. Therefore, I carefully compiled the website’s traffic data, content scale, user demographics, and acceptable cooperation methods.

It was not until the final stage of our communication that they clarified their actual requirement:

The platform invests funds, and the webmaster builds a new short drama website, with subsequent revenue sharing based on results.

This is a completely different cooperation model from the personal tech blog I am currently running.

The communication ultimately did not progress further, but the entire process is worth reviewing. For individual webmasters running websites long-term, similar invitations for “financial support,” “resource cooperation,” and “traffic incubation” may still be encountered in the future.

1. The Initial Cooperation Invitation

On July 6, 2026, the other party contacted me via an instant messaging tool, roughly expressing the following:

We are currently doing a batch of SEO incubation, mainly supporting webmasters who are still running sites and want to grow them.

The platform can provide financial support, resource support, and basic assistance to grow website traffic together, and then share revenue based on results later.

They also attached the link to my blog’s “About Me and Cooperation” page.

From this information, it was clear they already knew I owned an actively running website.

Therefore, my initial understanding was:

• SEO growth for the existing website;
• Providing content, promotion, or backlink resources;
• Jointly exploring advertising, affiliate marketing, or other traffic monetization methods;
• Sharing revenue based on new traffic or new revenue.

However, at the time, they did not specify that their so-called “incubation” actually meant having the webmaster build a new short drama website.

2. I Clarified the Cooperation Boundaries Upfront

Before diving into detailed discussions, I asked them about the specific type of cooperation, including:

• SEO consulting;
• Content cooperation;
• Backlinks or sponsored posts;
• Advertising cooperation;
• Website growth services.

At the same time, I clarified several explicit boundaries upfront:

• No gambling, borderline content, counterfeit goods, or other gray-area projects;
• No participation in black-hat SEO;
• No providing website backend access;
• No providing server or domain access;
• No providing site management access like Google Search Console.

The other party replied that these boundaries were not a problem, stating they would not take over the website and did not need backend, server, domain, or search platform access.

They then introduced two cooperation models.

1. Incubation Model

The platform provides upfront funding and resources; the webmaster does not need to bear too much cost themselves, and both parties share revenue later.

2. Independent Operation Model

The webmaster invests their own funds and effort, while the platform provides resources, ad monetization, and settlement support, with the webmaster receiving a higher revenue share.

They also mentioned that the product they were currently promoting mainly was short dramas.

Although “short dramas” did not align with my tech blog’s focus, they still indicated at the time that they could further evaluate a cooperation plan based on my existing website’s type, traffic, indexing, update frequency, and available ad placements.

Therefore, I continued to compile a complete overview of my website, proceeding under the assumption of “existing website cooperation.”

3. The Website Data I Provided

At that point, I gave them an overview of the blog.

It is a long-running personal tech blog with 2,619 published articles, primarily covering:

• WordPress;
• Server operations;
• CDN;
• PHP;
• Go;
• Website performance optimization;
• VPN;
• AI tools.

The website has generally been updated daily recently, with multiple articles published on some days.

Over the last 28 days, Google Analytics recorded approximately:

• 46,000 active users;
• 44,000 new users;
• 47,937 page views.

During this period, because of a WordPress theme switch, the tracking code failed to load for about 5 days, so the website’s actual traffic volume may be higher than the data recorded in the backend.

The website’s users mainly come from mainland China, with desktop visits accounting for about 97.1%, primarily technical users accessing via Windows computers.

In terms of organic search, over the last 28 days:

• Bing brought about 1,400 organic search clicks and 32,000 impressions;
• Baidu PC search brought 311 clicks and 12,144 impressions.

I also explained to them that the website’s current main commercial direction is not purely relying on display ads, but rather building trust through long-term technical content to take on:

• Technical consulting;
• Website development;
• System maintenance;
• Architecture optimization;
• Long-term remote technical cooperation.

AdSense and affiliate marketing are currently just supplementary monetization attempts.

I am open to content cooperation, brand promotion, ad placement cooperation, affiliate marketing, technical service lead generation, and other legal, compliant traffic monetization methods that do not affect the website’s positioning.

Finally, I asked them to provide a relatively specific cooperation plan based on this data, including:

• Cooperation model;
• Funding or resource support method;
• Budget range;
• Cooperation period;
• Settlement method;
• Relevant case studies.

4. They Continued to Ask About Daily UV

After receiving the complete information, they asked:

What is your average daily active UV data?

I replied that the current daily UV is around 2,000.

They then continued to ask:

If we provide upfront financial support, can the traffic you are generating be scaled up, and in what way?

“Scaling up traffic” is not a very clear industry term.

Based on the context, I initially understood it as: if they provided a budget, did I have the ability to get more traffic for the existing blog through content building, SEO, topic planning, and channel promotion.

However, a key question arose here:

Why would the other party pay to help my website expand its traffic?

Any commercial capital investment should have a clear logic for return.

For example:

• They want to promote their own products;
• They want to gain ad impressions;
• They want to share revenue based on registrations, payments, or transactions;
• They want to participate in website ad or affiliate marketing revenue;
• They want to invest in the website and share future commercial revenue.

If these issues are not clearly explained, it is difficult for the webmaster to determine where the funds should be used, nor can they assess the cooperation risks.

Therefore, I asked them further:

After you provide funds to expand website traffic, what main method do you plan to use to get a return?

Is it brand promotion, ad or affiliate revenue sharing, product lead generation, technical service lead generation, or another model?

Will the funds be mainly used for content building, SEO, channel promotion, or buying traffic?

What are the expected budget, cooperation period, target traffic, settlement method, and what content, links, or code need to be placed on the website?

I also emphasized again that my website mainly relies on long-term technical content and organic search for traffic, and I will not use click farms or traffic from unknown sources.

5. Only Then Did They Clarify: They Mainly Do New Sites

After I pressed for the cooperation logic, they replied:

Then this probably isn’t suitable for us.

We are mainly talking about building new sites; yours is a personal blog.

It was only at this stage that I truly understood that their so-called “SEO incubation” was not about investing in my existing tech blog, but rather:

The platform provides the funds, and the webmaster builds a new short drama website, which is then monetized through short drama ads or related products.

In other words, what they really needed was an operator willing to build a new vertical short drama site, not a webmaster who already owned a mature website and wanted to expand their existing business.

There is a fundamental difference between these two needs.

Existing Website Growth

Main focus:

• Existing content assets;
• Existing search authority;
• User demographics;
• Brand positioning;
• Historical articles;
• Existing business model.

New Site Incubation

Main focus:

• Willingness to build a new website;
• Willingness to produce content in a specified niche;
• Acceptance of the monetization products provided by the platform;
• Willingness to take on long-term operational work;
• Acceptance of revenue sharing.

If they had clearly stated from the beginning:

We provide funding to find webmasters to build new short drama websites and monetize them through short drama ads.

Then it would have only taken a few words for both sides to judge whether it was worth continuing the discussion.

There would have been no need for me to compile the existing website’s article count, Google Analytics, Bing, Baidu search data, and technical service business model.

6. Why Short Drama Ads Are Also Unsuitable for My Tech Blog

After confirming that new site incubation was not a fit, they then suggested:

For ads, I feel our product, short dramas, is quite suitable for you.

However, looking at my website’s user demographics, the match between short drama ads and a tech blog is not high.

The website’s users are mainly:

• Developers;
• Webmasters;
• Server operations staff;
• WordPress users;
• Technical personnel interested in CDN, programming languages, and website performance.

Additionally, desktop visits account for about 97.1%.

These users visit the website mainly to solve specific technical problems, not to consume short drama content.

Even if short drama ads could get some clicks, they might cause the following issues:

• The ads would be severely irrelevant to the main content;
• It would affect the overall professional image of the website;
• It would reduce the trust of long-term readers;
• It would occupy ad space that could otherwise be used for technical products;
• Click-through rates and conversion rates would likely be poor.

For a long-running personal tech blog, advertising is not a matter of “anything goes as long as they pay.”

What matters more is whether the ad product matches the readers’ needs.

Compared to short dramas, my website is more suitable for the following types of cooperation:

• Cloud servers and CDN;
• Developer tools;
• WordPress plugins and themes;
• Enterprise software;
• AI tools;
• Database and operations products;
• Website development and technical services;
• Training, recruitment, or remote work platforms aimed at developers.

These products are closer to the website’s content and are more likely to gain user trust and real conversions.

7. My Final Reply

After confirming that both sides’ directions did not match, I replied to them:

Understood, thanks for the explanation.

My blog is mainly technical content, and the users are predominantly desktop developers, webmasters, and tech practitioners, which probably doesn’t match the target audience for short drama products very well. To maintain the website’s content positioning and user experience, I am currently not considering cooperation like short drama ads.

If there is future cooperation related to developer tools, cloud services, enterprise software, AI products, website development, or technical services, you can contact me again.

The other party ultimately also confirmed:

It’s just a bit of a mismatch. Same with the incubation; we invest the money and you build the site. Let’s see if there’s anything suitable later, and we can cooperate then.

At this point, the communication came to a normal end.

8. Problems Exposed in This Communication

The fact that this cooperation was not reached is not the issue; the real problem is that both sides spent a considerable amount of time before confirming that their basic needs did not match.

Looking at the other party’s communication process, there are at least a few obvious problems.

1. They Did Not Specify the Cooperation Target at the Very Beginning

What they were really looking for was webmasters willing to build new short drama websites, but initially, they used rather broad terms like “SEO incubation,” “scaling website traffic,” and “financial support.”

This easily led webmasters who already owned mature websites to mistakenly believe that the other party was preparing to invest in existing websites.

2. They Did Not Carefully Identify the Website Type

The other party had already viewed my “About Me and Cooperation” page initially.

Later, I explicitly stated that the website had been operating long-term and provided:

• 2,619 articles;
• Traffic data for the past 28 days;
• Search traffic;
• User demographics;
• Commercial direction.

This information was sufficient to show that this was not a new site waiting to be incubated.

3. They Did Not Confirm Basic Conditions Before Collecting Data

The normal cooperation screening order should be:

1. First, confirm whether it is an existing site cooperation or a new site build;
2. Then, confirm the industry direction;
3. Confirm whether the website accepts the corresponding products;
4. Finally, collect traffic and indexing data.

Instead of having the webmaster spend time compiling complete information first, only to find out at the end that the cooperation target fundamentally did not meet the requirements.

4. The Temporary Pivot to Ad Cooperation Lacked User Demographic Judgment

When new site incubation was not suitable, they immediately proposed short drama ad cooperation.

However, my users are mainly desktop technical users, and there is no obvious connection between short drama products and the website’s content.

This shows that their judgment on ad matching might still be mainly stuck on “the website has traffic,” rather than “what kind of traffic the website has.”

9. What to Ask First When Encountering Similar Cooperations in the Future

This communication also made me realize that when encountering “financial support,” “webmaster incubation,” or “traffic cooperation” invitations in the future, I can use a few questions for quick screening.

1. Is It Investing in an Existing Website or Requiring a New Site Build?

This is the most important question.

If it is a new site build, you should also continue to confirm:

• What type of website to build;
• Who provides the domain and server;
• Who owns the website;
• Who produces the content;
• Who the website belongs to after the cooperation ends.

2. What Is the Commercial Purpose of the Funds They Provide?

Needs to be clear on:

• Ad monetization;
• Product sales;
• Membership recharges;
• Affiliate marketing;
• Customer leads;
• Brand exposure;
• Other revenue models.

If the other party cannot clearly explain how they profit, it is not suitable to rush into investing time.

3. What Specifically Are the Funds Used For?

For example:

• Content creation;
• Editing and translation;
• SEO tools;
• Backlink building;
• Ad placement;
• Server resources;
• Personnel costs;
• Buying traffic.

It is especially necessary to distinguish between a normal promotion budget and the purchase of traffic from unknown sources.

4. Are Website Permissions Required?

It needs to be confirmed in advance whether they require providing:

• WordPress backend;
• Server;
• Domain;
• DNS;
• Google Search Console;
• Google Analytics;
• Ad platform accounts;
• Payment receiving accounts.

Long-running websites should not easily hand over these core permissions.

5. Does the Product Match the User Demographics?

You cannot just look at daily UV.

With the same 2,000 daily UV:

• Tech blog;
• Entertainment website;
• Novel website;
• Tool website;
• Finance website;

Their user value and the products suitable for placement are completely different.

10. There Is No Need for an Existing Blog to Change Direction for Financial Support

For a new website, accepting platform funds and producing content in a specified direction might be a viable startup model to try.

But for a website that has been operating long-term, the situation is different.

My blog already has:

• Over 2,600 articles;
• Stable organic search traffic;
• A clear technical content positioning;
• A fixed reader base;
• Domain and content assets accumulated over years;
• A gradually forming technical service business model.

If, just to get a so-called “upfront fund,” the website were pivoted to short drama content or ads that completely mismatch the users, the actual loss could be far higher than the short-term gain.

The true value of a website lies not just in how many visits it gets per day, but also in:

• Why users visit;
• Whether users trust the author;
• Whether the content can generate search traffic long-term;
• Whether the website can bring in real clients;
• Whether the brand positioning is stable.

These assets take a long time to build, but can be destroyed very quickly.

11. Summary

This communication ultimately did not result in actual cooperation, but it also helped me further clarify my own direction.

I am willing to consider funding, resources, advertising, and traffic cooperation, but only if:

• The cooperation is legal and compliant;
• The products match technical users;
• It does not affect the website’s professional positioning;
• It does not require handing over core permissions;
• The business model and settlement method are transparent;
• It can bring long-term value to both parties.

Not all “financial support” is worth accepting, and not all websites with traffic are suitable for placing the same product.

For individual webmasters, before focusing on how much money the other party can provide, they should first ask clearly:

What exactly do they want you to do?

Why are they willing to pay?

What will they ultimately use your content, website, and users to exchange for?

Only when these questions can be clearly answered are the subsequent traffic goals, budget, and revenue sharing truly worth discussing further.

系列导航