Most Effective Article Marketing Resource Linking Choice??

[ObsidianKnight]

I have been using article marketing for some time now, and have been having decent results. But I wish to pose these questions:

When placing links in your resource boxes, have you had better results sending people directly to optin (squeeze) pages?

Better results sending to CPA?

Better results using some other options?

What was your highest resource box click through percentage?

Personally, depending on the niche, I have done a little of both. I have posted some articles with links to sales pages and some to squeeze pages.

A Few Stats:

75 Live Articles
12030 article views,

highest clickthrough 20.3%

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

When placing links in your resource boxes, have you had better results sending people directly to optin (squeeze) pages?

In the four niches in which I've tested, I had better results with a site landing page than with a squeeze page. (Fewer opt-ins but more income). I do have a reasonably prominent, incentivized opt-in on the landing-pages with which I was comparing, though.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

What was your highest resource box click through percentage?

I had a few over 50%, and for a long time an average of just under 40% over a large number of articles and niches. That was quite a while ago. I earn far more now, in 8 different niches, with a different style of articles which have a 17%/18% average click-through rate. "Writing for clicks" held me back dramatically.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

In the four niches in which I've tested, I had better results with a site landing page than with a squeeze page. (Fewer opt-ins but more income). I do have a reasonably prominent, incentivized opt-in on the landing-pages with which I was comparing, though.

I had a few over 50%, and for a long time an average of just under 40% over a large number of articles and niches. That was quite a while ago. I earn far more now, in 8 different niches, with a different style of articles which have a 17%/18% average click-through rate. "Writing for clicks" held me back dramatically.

How did the style of your writing change from the niches with 50% click through versus the ones with 17-18%?

Did you change the manner in which you write the resource box as well? I know when I first wrote articles I would forget to have effective call to actions in the reource box, which would kill my click rates.

I have also restructured some of my resources to make better usage of "article flow" making my click-throughs go up to the 20% I am getting now.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

How did the style of your writing change from the niches with 50% click through versus the ones with 17-18%?

More or less as explained in this post (actually answering a question about "writing for syndication").

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

Did you change the manner in which you write the resource box as well? I know when I first wrote articles I would forget to have effective call to actions in the reource box, which would kill my click rates.

Yes, indeed. My 40%-50% ones had a prominent call to action in the resource-boxes. When I dropped that (in conjunction with the other changes), my income went up really significantly. Not many people want to reproduce on their own website, in front of their targeted audience, an article with someone's "call to action" in the resource-box. Those articles just sit in article directories untouched by the people on whose sites my more recent work now appears (or, even worse, some of them may take the article and leave the resource-box behind, when it has a call to action).

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

I have also restructured some of my resources to make better usage of "article flow" making my click-throughs go up to the 20% I am getting now.

Yes, I do this. I try to run the article "into the resource-box" so that what's actually the first part of the resource-box (including a link with anchor text) looks like "the end of the article". This definitely helps.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that my 17.5%-CTR articles earn me so much more than my 40%-CTR articles because they have a lower CTR. Correlation is not causation. It's just that the changes that produced the higher income also halved the CTR. I'm just making the point that increasing the CTR doesn't necessarily increase the income, and may sometimes do the opposite.

It's easy to look at articles with a CTR of 20% and imagine that if one could just change the articles in such a way as to get that CTR up to 30%, one might be earning 50% more out of it - but of course imagining that that's true doesn't necessarily make it true, at all.

CTR in itself is a bad parameter to measure/study/target, precisely because it doesn't necessarily correlate with income in a causative way. Income itself is a much better one.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

More or less as explained in this post (actually answering a question about "writing for syndication").

Yes, indeed. My 40%-50% ones had a prominent call to action in the resource-boxes. When I dropped that (in conjunction with the other changes), my income went up really significantly. Not many people want to reproduce on their own website, in front of their targeted audience, an article with someone's "call to action" in the resource-box.

While I agree that these articles may have a greater propensity to hang out more within article directory, perhaps that is not always an entirely bad thing.

I think this might highly depend on which niche the articles reside in and what the link goes to.

If for instance, the desired result is to add names to your list, and a 50% CTR sends people to a squeeze page that gets you several hundred new names, which depending on upsells and backend sales funnel conversion rates may drammatically increase the value.

Those articles just sit in article directories untouched by the people on whose sites my more recent work now appears (or, even worse, some of them may take the article and leave the resource-box behind, when it has a call to action).

By default, removing the resource box in most cases is a breech of article directory usage, and should not count either way as you lose the potential for value if the link is removed. If people remove your link, you lose all potential CTR and sales for that article.

Yes, I do this. I try to run the article "into the resource-box" so that what's actually the first part of the resource-box (including a link with anchor text) looks like "the end of the article". This definitely helps.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that my 17.5%-CTR articles earn me so much more than my 40%-CTR articles because they have a lower CTR. Correlation is not causation. It's just that the changes that produced the higher income also halved the CTR. I'm just making the point that increasing the CTR doesn't necessarily increase the income, and may sometimes do the opposite.

Ok, I agree that cause and effect may vary. Bt the point is, did your income increase because of the changes to your resource box? or because of the writing style of the given article?

If for instance, you changed the format of your articles, added more content, or corrected massive spelling issues, these could have major impact.

If all you did was change the resource box to a new format, and hence increased your profits, then this become a direct correlation.

Now imagine if the articles you have that are getting greater distribution, could also get a higher tweaked CTR.

It's easy to look at articles with a CTR of 20% and imagine that if one could just change the articles in such a way as to get that CTR up to 30%, one might be earning 50% more out of it - but of course imagining that that's true doesn't necessarily make it true, at all.

CTR in itself is a bad parameter to measure/study/target, precisely because it doesn't necessarily correlate with income in a causative way. Income itself is a much better one.

I was not looking to count on CTR as a singularity of concept. Simply interested in how it can play a roll in the process.

If I have articles doing 10% CTR that are making me money, and can increase the rate to %15 or higher, while still maintaining high quality content that is relavent and in use, then it should have an increased effect.

I concede that a doubling of CTR does not mean a doubling of profits. However, having a retail background, I understand that the more "people viewing my offer" mean I do have greater potential for increased sales.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

While I agree that these articles may have a greater propensity to hang out more within article directory, perhaps that is not always an entirely bad thing.

Perhaps not for everyone, but it certainly was, consistently, for me, in each of the four entirely unconnected niches in which I tested it thoroughly.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

I think this might highly depend on which niche the articles reside in and what the link goes to.

I suspect not, actually. To me, it seems far-fetched to imagine that if I did the same testing in my other four entirely unconnected niches, having initially chosen to test the four with the most traffic, that my results would be dramatically opposed to my previous observations.

I measure this by monitoring income, rather than opt-ins, and I measure it over a long enough period to check the longer-term effect of upsells, and so on.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

By default, removing the resource box in most cases is a breech of article directory usage, and should not count either way as you lose the potential for value if the link is removed. If people remove your link, you lose all potential CTR and sales for that article.

Clearly. Maybe it "should" not count, but the reality is very different: if (as my own research suggests) the webmasters of high-PR, context-relevant sites with already-targeted traffic (or their outsourcees, who undertake this task for them) are sometimes going to omit an overtly call-to-action resource-box but include a different one, I'll use the different one, thanks. If they're sometimes going to "leave" an article with an overtly call-to-action resource-box but "take" the same article with a different resource-box, again I'll use the different one and get my work syndicated.

The fact that you lose the potential for value if the link is removed (and obviously if the article isn't used at all) is very much my point.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

Bt the point is, did your income increase because of the changes to your resource box? or because of the writing style of the given article?

Both.

To achieve widespread syndication with resource-boxes intact, the articles have to confirm, more or less, to the structure/style described in the post linked to above and have a resource-box that doesn't dissuade people from re-publishing it on their site.

To me, the point is that my income is far higher one way than the other.

To many people, this can make the difference between making a living and not making a living.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

If I have articles doing 10% CTR that are making me money, and can increase the rate to %15 or higher, while still maintaining high quality content that is relavent and in use, then it should have an increased effect.

"Should", again. My testing tells me the opposite.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

However, having a retail background, I understand that the more "people viewing my offer" mean I do have greater potential for increased sales.

With respect, I think your retail background leads you astray, here, the point being that in this case they're not the same people.

Broadly speaking, two sorts of readers go through the articles at EZA (for example).

There are people who've done a Google (for example) search for their relevant search-terms (our keywords), alighted on an article with a high position in the SERP's, clicked the link and found that it takes them to an article on the subject. I want and plan for that to be the article on my own site, not the one in EZA, but sometimes it isn't. These people are potential customers, some of whom are inevitably lost to EZA's AdSense and other distractions, while others, who may respond to a call-to-action resource-box, will arrive at my website and become potential opt-ins and customers.

The other, far more valuable group, are people searching not from Google but within EZA. These people are webmasters, ezine/newsletter compilers, researchers, and so on. This group and their actions represents the bulk of my income and almost all its longer-term growth.

The second group finds the article at EZA because it's at EZA and that's where they're intentionally looking, not because of its off-page SEO.

The first group finds the article through its off-page SEO, which is why I do all the off-page SEO for the copy on my own site, having origianally published it and had it indexed there, prior to EZA submission.

With a choice between a 40%-CTR from EZA, and a 20%-CTR from EZA together with additionally getting my articles gradually republished on several other sites each of which is of far more long-term value to me (for both backlinks and pre-targeted traffic), it's a complete no-brainer which to aim at.

[WillR]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

To achieve widespread syndication with resource-boxes intact, the articles have to confirm, more or less, to the structure/style described in the post linked to above and have a resource-box that doesn't dissuade people from re-publishing it on their site.

I'm interested as to what you are talking about in regards to the resource box? How do you structure them for maximum syndication?

[owenlee]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

In the four niches in which I've tested, I had better results with a site landing page than with a squeeze page. (Fewer opt-ins but more income). I do have a reasonably prominent, incentivized opt-in on the landing-pages with which I was comparing, though.

Hi Alex..

You say you have a better results with a site landing page..the landing page refers to the product sales page or a blog?

Thanks

[sylviad]

I've had the best results sending people to a landing page with valuable content and a link to an offer. The conversion rate was quite high when I took that route. I'm talking, like, one in 5 visitors bought the product.

This was the mental health niche. I also found that putting something in my resource box that indicated that I could relate helped a lot. My landing page carried on with that theme and provided solutions that worked for me.

When I dropped all the personal stuff in my resource box, my visits and sales dropped significantly. If I sent them to the main page with many options instead of to one specific targeted page, that affected my success, too.

Sylvia

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by owenlee

You say you have a better results with a site landing page..the landing page refers to the product sales page or a blog?

No.

My sites are "only technically" blogs, in that I've actually made them using blogging software (not Wordpress) as a content management system, but there's absolutely nothing "bloggy" about them, and nobody looking at them would ever imagine they were "blogs" in any meaningful sense of the word.

And I would never send any traffic directly from an article resource-box to a sales page.

Every site has a "landing page". A landing page is the page (often the home page) on which your traffic "lands" because that's where you direct the off-site links.

I've done better with landing pages which contain an incentivized opt-in and other relevant content (product review, personal story, niche information, links to other pages, whatever).

On testing, with pure "squeeze-pages" (which, of course, can also be used as landing pages) I've built bigger lists but made less money, even over the longer-term, allowing for upsells and so on.

It's easy for email marketers to imagine that building a bigger list will necessarily lead to higher long-term income, but it isn't actually true: it's a lot more complicated than it appears, the point being that both the "extra people" and some of the "people already counted" may be different people, if one uses a squeeze-page. I appreciate that that may help some people, but it doesn't help me.

There are specific reasons for this, of course, at least some of which I understand. I sell a lot more by showing people my websites before or while asking them to opt in, rather than only after. It's because of the demographics of the traffic I attract, across a broad variety of niches.

[Michael Curran Smith]

Here is my take.

If you hit somebody that you have no relationship with with a squeeze page right away (unless in a very desperate niche) they might think that things are moving a bit too fast, right?

Kind of like going in for the first kiss at the beginning of the first date.

Perhaps trying giving away a FREE report with viral links inside -- no opt-in. Ask them to sign up for your RSS. Baby steps.

In the end it depends on your niche, your freebie, your squeeze page, etc. Was it video? Audio? Text? It's a tough call. Study your niche and they'll tell you what they want and how they want it.


GM

[owenlee]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

No.

My sites are "only technically" blogs, in that I've actually made them using blogging software (not Wordpress) as a content management system, but there's absolutely nothing "bloggy" about them, and nobody looking at them would ever imagine they were "blogs" in any meaningful sense of the word.

And I would never send any traffic directly from an article resource-box to a sales page.

Every site has a "landing page". A landing page is the page (often the home page) on which your traffic "lands" because that's where you direct the off-site links.

I've done better with landing pages which contain an incentivized opt-in and other relevant content (product review, personal story, niche information, links to other pages, whatever).

On testing, with pure "squeeze-pages" (which, of course, can also be used as landing pages) I've built bigger lists but made less money, even over the longer-term, allowing for upsells and so on.

It's easy for email marketers to imagine that building a bigger list will necessarily lead to higher long-term income, but it isn't actually true: it's a lot more complicated than it appears, the point being that both the "extra people" and some of the "people already counted" may be different people, if one uses a squeeze-page. I appreciate that that may help some people, but it doesn't help me.

There are specific reasons for this, of course, at least some of which I understand. I sell a lot more by showing people my websites before or while asking them to opt in, rather than only after. It's because of the demographics of the traffic I attract, across a broad variety of niches.

Hey...Thanks for the great explanation..

I have one qns that i would like to ask..let say i have 20 keywords and i plan to write articles on it...should i have 20 different resource box with the keywords in it pointing to ONE landing page? (ie . a blog)

or should i have the same resource box with a general keyword in it?

Many thanks

[sylviad]

Originally Posted by owenlee

Hey...Thanks for the great explanation..

I have one qns that i would like to ask..let say i have 20 keywords and i plan to write articles on it...should i have 20 different resource box with the keywords in it pointing to ONE landing page? (ie . a blog)

or should i have the same resource box with a general keyword in it?

Many thanks

You would be better off modifying your resource box to utilize each one of your keywords. Then, you will get back links coming to your site based on more relevant and targeted keywords.

Sylvia

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by owenlee

Hey...Thanks for the great explanation..

I have one qns that i would like to ask..let say i have 20 keywords and i plan to write articles on it...should i have 20 different resource box with the keywords in it pointing to ONE landing page? (ie . a blog)

or should i have the same resource box with a general keyword in it?

People do this different ways. For myself, I have to write a different resource-box for each article anyway, because I end the article in what's technically the resource-box (the author gets to decide where one ends and the other starts!), but I'd prefer to use different resource-boxes for that purpose anyway, to be able to get each article's specific main keyword into anchor text therein.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Perhaps not for everyone, but it certainly was, consistently, for me, in each of the four entirely unconnected niches in which I tested it thoroughly.

I suspect not, actually. To me, it seems far-fetched to imagine that if I did the same testing in my other four entirely unconnected niches, having initially chosen to test the four with the most traffic, that my results would be dramatically opposed to my previous observations.

I measure this by monitoring income, rather than opt-ins, and I measure it over a long enough period to check the longer-term effect of upsells, and so on.

I agree that your testing may have showed that the changes you made increased your profits and increased your distribution.

Which is the reason to test in the first place. A person should always be testing teh effectiveness of both their content and their sales funnel.

Clearly. Maybe it "should" not count, but the reality is very different: if (as my own research suggests) the webmasters of high-PR, context-relevant sites with already-targeted traffic (or their outsourcees, who undertake this task for them) are sometimes going to omit an overtly call-to-action resource-box but include a different one, I'll use the different one, thanks. If they're sometimes going to "leave" an article with an overtly call-to-action resource-box but "take" the same article with a different resource-box, again I'll use the different one and get my work syndicated.

The fact that you lose the potential for value if the link is removed (and obviously if the article isn't used at all) is very much my point.

I think you might have missed my point with regards to the "removed link"..

I understand the point of you creating the article is to have the link there.

What I meant was "for this discussion, to not count anything with a link removed "CURRENTLY". Being that presently if I had your articles on my site, but without the link, you can't count that in your CTR or your income.

I absolutely agree that the point of writing articles is to have the links in place in order to increase income.

Both.

To achieve widespread syndication with resource-boxes intact, the articles have to confirm, more or less, to the structure/style described in the post linked to above and have a resource-box that doesn't dissuade people from re-publishing it on their site.

As I stated previously. A resource box can conform to the manner in which you use it, and still convert at a higher rate then what you are getting.

Perhaps further testing would reveal that you could maintain the link, increase the distribution AND INCREASE CTR.

There is a balance. You could still be losing money by completely discounting CTR.

To me, the point is that my income is far higher one way than the other.

To many people, this can make the difference between making a living and not making a living.

"Should", again. My testing tells me the opposite.

I agree. Perhaps your testing showed this for you. Again, this may not be the case for all people who have done the testing. You also mention 4 niches. Even though they are unrelated niches, this may not be indicitive of all niches.

With respect, I think your retail background leads you astray, here, the point being that in this case they're not the same people.

Broadly speaking, two sorts of readers go through the articles at EZA (for example).

There are people who've done a Google (for example) search for their relevant search-terms (our keywords), alighted on an article with a high position in the SERP's, clicked the link and found that it takes them to an article on the subject. I want and plan for that to be the article on my own site, not the one in EZA, but sometimes it isn't. These people are potential customers, some of whom are inevitably lost to EZA's AdSense and other distractions, while others, who may respond to a call-to-action resource-box, will arrive at my website and become potential opt-ins and customers.

The other, far more valuable group, are people searching not from Google but within EZA. These people are webmasters, ezine/newsletter compilers, researchers, and so on. This group and their actions represents the bulk of my income and almost all its longer-term growth.

The second group finds the article at EZA because it's at EZA and that's where they're intentionally looking, not because of its off-page SEO.

The first group finds the article through its off-page SEO, which is why I do all the off-page SEO for the copy on my own site, having origianally published it and had it indexed there, prior to EZA submission.

With a choice between a 40%-CTR from EZA, and a 20%-CTR from EZA together with additionally getting my articles gradually republished on several other sites each of which is of far more long-term value to me (for both backlinks and pre-targeted traffic), it's a complete no-brainer which to aim at.

In Retail, Everyone is a potential customer. There are different types of customer in retail as well. I would consider webmaster more as a distribution method, and in fact would write articles that appeal to both.

This can be done. Webmaster still need to have content that is "readable" to the end user. SO in fact, my retail experience does not detract from my understanding of how EZA works in the least.

I understand the difference between types of customers.

In fact, I count on it. But again, the webmaster still has to appeal to the end customer.

Article content, can be structured in a manner in which to appeal to both, customer who might wander in and webmaster who will in fact want to use the article.

A resource box can also be structured in a manner as to which not be "overtly" or overly pushy.

By call to action, I did not specifically say "pushy". In that a call to action to only click the link.

Not all call to actions are created equal.

Further testing could in fact show you that an increase of CTR could also increase your sales WHILE maintaining the level of syndication you are currently getting.

While I am not a master copywriter,but I know of several. Why is copywriting such a high dollar industry? Because they know that the right combination of words will have considerable impact on both your CTR and your income.

The entire point is not to argue, but to discuss the possibilty that CTR can and does impact potential income.

I was mearly curious about the numbers involved. I appreciate your discussion on the points you make. Most of which I do in fact agree with.

Most people will go for the money when they see an increase in profits. However, I am still a firm believer that you could still be potentially leaving money on the table.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

I concede that a doubling of CTR does not mean a doubling of profits. However, having a retail background, I understand that the more "people viewing my offer" mean I do have greater potential for increased sales.

I worked my way through college in a quasi-retail environment. I worked at a shop that sold lighting fixtures and accessories. Our primary customer base was actually building contractors, who would send their home buyers to our shop to pick out lights and such. We were also open to the public.

About halfway through my tenure, the shop changed ownership. Normally, we were closed on Sundays. The new owners were in on a Sunday afternoon to do some work on the showroom and noticed a lot of cars coming into the lot, seeing that the shop was closed, and driving away.

They got the idea that they should be open on Sunday.

The first Sunday we were open, the place was a zoo. People everywhere. The new owners were patting themselves on the back for their smart business decision. At the end of the day, they eagerly added up the days receipts. Other than a couple of contractor orders they would have gotten anyway, they didn't make enough to cover the cost of being open.

So what does this have to do with article marketing?

It's simple. More traffic doesn't always mean more money, and money is the score that counts. I've never been able to pay a dinner tab with a click-through stat, nor have I been able to pay a credit card bill with the number of people on my mailing lists. The restaurants and credit card companies have this stubborn insistence on cash...

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by sylviad

I've had the best results sending people to a landing page with valuable content and a link to an offer. The conversion rate was quite high when I took that route. I'm talking, like, one in 5 visitors bought the product.

This was the mental health niche. I also found that putting something in my resource box that indicated that I could relate helped a lot. My landing page carried on with that theme and provided solutions that worked for me.

When I dropped all the personal stuff in my resource box, my visits and sales dropped significantly. If I sent them to the main page with many options instead of to one specific targeted page, that affected my success, too.

Sylvia

Sylvia,

When you removed the "personal" aspects from the resource you are not "connecting" as well with the person reading the article.

Connecting with your reader will have a considerable impact on income and response rates.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

No.

My sites are "only technically" blogs, in that I've actually made them using blogging software (not Wordpress) as a content management system, but there's absolutely nothing "bloggy" about them, and nobody looking at them would ever imagine they were "blogs" in any meaningful sense of the word.

And I would never send any traffic directly from an article resource-box to a sales page.

Every site has a "landing page". A landing page is the page (often the home page) on which your traffic "lands" because that's where you direct the off-site links.

I've done better with landing pages which contain an incentivized opt-in and other relevant content (product review, personal story, niche information, links to other pages, whatever).

On testing, with pure "squeeze-pages" (which, of course, can also be used as landing pages) I've built bigger lists but made less money, even over the longer-term, allowing for upsells and so on.

It's easy for email marketers to imagine that building a bigger list will necessarily lead to higher long-term income, but it isn't actually true: it's a lot more complicated than it appears, the point being that both the "extra people" and some of the "people already counted" may be different people, if one uses a squeeze-page. I appreciate that that may help some people, but it doesn't help me.

There are specific reasons for this, of course, at least some of which I understand. I sell a lot more by showing people my websites before or while asking them to opt in, rather than only after. It's because of the demographics of the traffic I attract, across a broad variety of niches.

I am curious how you tested the fact that your larger list produced less money?

Did you create another list in the same niche? offer different e-mail content? Could the sales be attributed to other aspects? such as the email followups you sent? Did they have low conversion rates versus a much higher conversion email?

E-mail marketing has so many factors that can also impact the balance sheet. Knowing how you did direct a/b testing would be quite helpful.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by owenlee

Hey...Thanks for the great explanation..

I have one qns that i would like to ask..let say i have 20 keywords and i plan to write articles on it...should i have 20 different resource box with the keywords in it pointing to ONE landing page? (ie . a blog)

or should i have the same resource box with a general keyword in it?

Many thanks

Owen,

The general consensus is to have articles that cover all the keywords you wish to rank for. However, don't forget that there are multiple sites out there to submit too. Don't be afraid to use different resource boxes at different submission sites.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I worked my way through college in a quasi-retail environment. I worked at a shop that sold lighting fixtures and accessories. Our primary customer base was actually building contractors, who would send their home buyers to our shop to pick out lights and such. We were also open to the public.

About halfway through my tenure, the shop changed ownership. Normally, we were closed on Sundays. The new owners were in on a Sunday afternoon to do some work on the showroom and noticed a lot of cars coming into the lot, seeing that the shop was closed, and driving away.

They got the idea that they should be open on Sunday.

The first Sunday we were open, the place was a zoo. People everywhere. The new owners were patting themselves on the back for their smart business decision. At the end of the day, they eagerly added up the days receipts. Other than a couple of contractor orders they would have gotten anyway, they didn't make enough to cover the cost of being open.

So what does this have to do with article marketing?

It's simple. More traffic doesn't always mean more money, and money is the score that counts. I've never been able to pay a dinner tab with a click-through stat, nor have I been able to pay a credit card bill with the number of people on my mailing lists. The restaurants and credit card companies have this stubborn insistence on cash...

Ok, I agree that cash is needed to pay the bills. However, what you specify is also contradictive to the "list-building mantra".

While I agree that a "BIG list" is not a gauranteed income. I will however state that I would rather have a list of 2000 people interested in "keyword choice" then a list of 500 interested in the exact same keyword.

By default, even if only 500 people are buyers, then having the extra 1500 people being potential buyers is still better then not having them.

This is still an issue with how the list was built. Perhaps the list is not "people interested in the topic", perhaps they are not pre-qualified buyers.

There could be any number of factors involved.

All other factors being equal, I will still take a larger list and then work the list in a better manner.

Making money (online or anywhere in truth), is still a numbers game. Your example proves that. They did not make the "numbers" to remain open on Sunday.

In fact, the Sunday traffic took away from likely weekday traffic. However, they still need the traffic.

This was the reason I used retail as an example. If you open a store, and no one comes in, then no one "EVER BUYS".

If "no one ever CLICKS Through to your offer" Guess what, no one ever buys.

CTR is and can be an important factor. Hence, a zero CTR means no money. While a 50% CTR may not mean more money, it does mean more "POTENTIAL" money.

As stated in this topic, a CTR dropped and money went up. But was this specific to the article, or to the landing page copy?

Could we get numbers? Which is better:

Option A
1000 visits with %50 CTR and a 1% landing page sales conversion?

or

Option B
1000 visits with %20 CTR and a 2% landing page sales conversion?


If the item is a $10 item for sales page conversion you get:

option A: 5 sales = $50

Option B: 4 sales = $40

While there are many factors involved. A higher click through means that more people have "seen" your offer. Conversion of that viewing is a completely different matter altogether.

[JohnMcCabe]

The list-building aspect of it correlates more closely with the difference between walk-in traffic and contractor referrals.

A walk-in could be there for many reasons - looking for ideas, wants to pick the designer's brain, needs a replacement part, or even just killing time.

A contractor referral was pretty much a guaranteed order. Once we knew the lighting allowance, we could pretty much predict the size of the order. That's why I spent a portion of my Sundays going to open houses and making nice with contractors and developers.

I worked part-time during school sessions, mostly nights and weekends. We had a couple of full-time gals who had professional design experience. It really used to cheese them off when someone would come in on a referral and ask for me personally. Sometimes even wait while I finished up with someone else. And if someone came in from a contractor who didn't yet have an account asking for me? Not a pretty sight (even though both gals were knockouts)...

The difference was that I spent the time building relationships. I also spent my own time doing favors, like installing back-orders so that the contractor didn't have to call back an electrician. I once spent Christmas Eve day hanging a ceiling fan so a home buyer could have a Christmas Eve party - gratis. I think I got about 80% of that builder's referrals for months after that.

Okay, I'm rambling...

The point is, I would much rather have a "list" of a smaller number of people most likely to buy, and who would refer their friends, family and customers to me, than all the walk-ins on a Sunday afternoon just killing time...

[Michael Curran Smith]

John, thanks for that "ramble" -- treating people like gold never goes out of style.

Think Zig Ziglar style -- always help people solve their problems and you'll make a fortune; big list, small list, doesn't really matter all that much (but, I hear ya on responsiveness). In my humble opinion that's just great biz.

The principles never change, just the mediums.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

The list-building aspect of it correlates more closely with the difference between walk-in traffic and contractor referrals.

The point is, I would much rather have a "list" of a smaller number of people most likely to buy, and who would refer their friends, family and customers to me, than all the walk-ins on a Sunday afternoon just killing time...

John,

The point I am making is I Would rather have a BIG list of, as you put it "people most likely to buy", then a small list of "the same people most likely to buy".

The people who come in, are still customers. Again, to go back to the other point, those people "who ask for you" where you "built relationships" are part of your list in which you "took the time to build that relationship".

There is no reason why you cannot "build that relationship" with the guy who walks in off the street.

If you build the relationship right for anyone coming in the door, then you turn them into "your customer".

This is a customer service issue, not a "customer coming in the door issue".

As a business owner, your employer wants to see "As many people as possible come into the store". As the employee, it was your job to "see to their needs".

In this example, you become a "conversion issue". If you cannot do the job well enough to "convert the looker into a buyer" then this will impact all business, not just that business.

This applies directly to IM. The rate of conversion from person LOOKING at the website into a BUYER is paramount to income. This is why good copywriting is so critical.

But the point is still the same as before. Even if you have a "gauranteed buyer" in the contractor, there is still no gaurantee he goes to your store. Any number of things could affect his decision to go there.

The point that they have a relationship with that store might be the deciding factor. But that relationship was not inherently there. It had to be established at some point. Just ask anyone opening a new store how long they sat there without anyone coming in and losing money.

How do you know that the next person walking into the store is not going to be your biggest and best buyer? you don't.

I spent many years is retail for the point of learning to "excel at customer service". This can be an aspect lost online. Dealing with people face to face is much harder then dealing with a list of people.

Building a rapport with your list is still critical to getting that list to be willing to buy from you.

I agree that having a small list of "qualified buyers" is better then a large list of "lookers".

But even that list of buyers was a list of lookers at one time.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

John,

The point I am making is I Would rather have a BIG list of, as you put it "people most likely to buy", then a small list of "the same people most likely to buy".

Obviously...

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

The people who come in, are still customers. Again, to go back to the other point, those people "who ask for you" where you "built relationships" are part of your list in which you "took the time to build that relationship".

There is no reason why you cannot "build that relationship" with the guy who walks in off the street.

If you build the relationship right for anyone coming in the door, then you turn them into "your customer".

This is a customer service issue, not a "customer coming in the door issue".

First off, not everyone coming in the door is a customer - yet. They're just someone who walked through the door.

Am I more likely to sell them something than I am to someone who never comes through the door? Sure...

With those contractor referrals, though, the relationship had a huge head start - the builder told them to come to us and to trust us.

Originally Posted by ObsidianKnight

As a business owner, your employer wants to see "As many people as possible come into the store". As the employee, it was your job to "see to their needs".

In this example, you become a "conversion issue". If you cannot do the job well enough to "convert the looker into a buyer" then this will impact all business, not just that business.

Maybe in some situations, especially ones where all of the transactions were for fairly low prices. In this case, the owners wanted as many high-value buyers as possible. Our job was to ethically extract as much money from each customer as possible, not necessarily "see to their needs."

They much preferred that we spend our time writing up a $2,000 order for lighting a whole home vs. spending a half hour wading through catalogs to sell a $10 piece of replacement glass.

Some lookers are only lookers. Be-backs almost never are.

I will say this, though...

I always maintain at least two lists - prospects and buyers. My main goal with the prospect lists is to sort people into either buyers or prospects on someone else's list (aka 'affiliate referrals').

I treat the prospects well, because I don't know for sure which one might become my biggest customer. I treat my buyer lists like gold, for that's quite literally what they are...

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Obviously...


First off, not everyone coming in the door is a customer - yet. They're just someone who walked through the door.

See, I can't do this. I always treat everyone as a customer. While they are not yet, tis better to treat them decently instead of "blowing tehm off".

Am I more likely to sell them something than I am to someone who never comes through the door? Sure...

With those contractor referrals, though, the relationshipyou had a huge head start - the builder told them to come to us and to trust us.

Yes. This referral is a trust builder. Just like a JV online, someone who "trusts" you referred business to you, and they are putting their trust in you.

Maybe in some situations, especially ones where all of the transactions were for fairly low prices. In this case, the owners wanted as many high-value buyers as possible. Our job was to ethically extract as much money from each customer as possible, not necessarily "see to their needs."

They much preferred that we spend our time writing up a $2,000 order for lighting a whole home vs. spending a half hour wading through catalogs to sell a $10 piece of replacement glass.

Some lookers are only lookers. Be-backs almost never are.

I agree, it is better to ring up sales of $2000 versus none. But I have also sold cars and managed retail stores. I know personally that sometimes a "looker" is a buyer who has not hit the right trigger yet. In fact, I myself have been that way.

There is still a manner in which to "treat" that looker as a customer, by excusing yourself politely and still build a rapport with them.

It is amazing how effective a simple statement, " Sir, I am here to help you, but please let me take care of this gentleman who was here before you first. Then I will be able to give you some assistance if you need it.", can be when appealing to both.

I worked in fast paced commissions sales. Just because a looker is a looker, does not mean he should be treated as a looker.

How many times have you been treated nicely but not bought anything? I know I have gone out of my way to go back to places that made me "feel welcomed" even when I was just looking.

I will say this, though...

I always maintain at least two lists - prospects and buyers. My main goal with the prospect lists is to sort people into either buyers or prospects on someone else's list (aka 'affiliate referrals').

I treat the prospects well, because I don't know for sure which one might become my biggest customer. I treat my buyer lists like gold, for that's quite literally what they are...

Yes. I agree. Two lists should be maintained. Moving people from prospects to buyers lists.

And you are abolutely correct that the buyers list is Gold. But again, they only became buyers after they were prospects. Everyone starts out the same. How they end up is a direct result of how you interact with them.

[JohnMcCabe]

I never said anything about "blowing them off"... Anyone who walked in the door got the chance to prove they were a customer. I'm guessing we may be talking about different things here.

You are talking about the way you treated people, and I'm talking about a mindset. Whether someone walked through the door with a roll of blueprints or a Walmart sack full of broken glass, they were still people deserving of respect.

If someone walked into the shop, said they were just looking, took a three-minute tour and left, or said they'd be back, I'd take them at their word.

If someone signs up for one of my prospect lists, downloads the freebie, and I never hear from them again, I also take their word.

They were just looking...

[JacksonRiddle]

Yes, for me each niche is different so there is no general "squeeze pages" work the best.

What you can do is some testing by having the link in your body go to a squeeze page and and the one in the resource box to something different, then after a while switch them, and find out which works best where.

Hopefully if you have other articles in the same niche the results should be similar, but you'll have to repeat the process in other niches.

[ObsidianKnight]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I never said anything about "blowing them off"... Anyone who walked in the door got the chance to prove they were a customer. I'm guessing we may be talking about different things here.

You are talking about the way you treated people, and I'm talking about a mindset. Whether someone walked through the door with a roll of blueprints or a Walmart sack full of broken glass, they were still people deserving of respect.

If someone walked into the shop, said they were just looking, took a three-minute tour and left, or said they'd be back, I'd take them at their word.

If someone signs up for one of my prospect lists, downloads the freebie, and I never hear from them again, I also take their word.

They were just looking...

Was not implying that you blew them off, nor did I say you did. Was stating the extreme. No offense intended or expressed.

Yes, all people are deserving of respect. Again, not saying you do not. But not all "salespeople do" give respect and I can assure you that not all customers would agree that they are always respected.

However, many people often feel like that they are "less valuable" simply because they are not there to spend thousands.

Me personally, I try to treat all customers as "important customers". I have hosting resellers that would call me at home when they had problems with a service rep and other customers who have written me some wonderful letters of praise.

All I did for them was to give them "better service then what they expected".

If a looker is "expecting" to get a generic response, and then "generally left alone", and then gets that generic response, they may not be dissapointed, but they may never come back either. In this case a possibly lost opportunity.

Where as a looker who receives a "little nicer interaction", may often remember that is was "that nice rep who was so busy that he could not help me, but he was nice to me" so I will go back when he is less busy.

Think of your own shopping experiences when you are in a store. Most people "look before they buy".

I might be in a Best Buy a hundred times a year. I do not buy something everytime I go there. But I remember when people offer help and I remember also being in need of help and not being offered it, only to have to wait forever to get the help I did need.

Lookers will not always "ask" because they might be nervous, shy, giving a conditioned response like just looking, or just not know what to ask for. But if a person came into my store, they should at minimum be warmly greeted and thanked for stopping by.

Given them a good initial impression and a lasting one when they leave.

Customer service is becoming a lost art form.