Hmm. Whad'ya Think Folks?

[sanssecret]

Has anyone else seen this?

YouTube - Do you recommend article marketing as...

[iAmNameLess]

I don't think it has much relevance to what is happening now. His personal feelings on article marketing are entirely useless. Fact is, article marketing works. Press releases work. Things that work, people are going to utilize until they no longer work.

[Adam H]

Article marketing, Whats you perception of "article marketing" ? It can come in so many forms that it would be very hard for him to say "thats crappy" , Yes the one form that he is speaking of where people buy 20 articles all 300 words long which have been reworded from somewhere else on the web and then distributed across aloads of directory's and blog networks is crappy , it does get used on a large scale etc, but there are many other forms of "article marketing" .

Also those crappy ones are a good method for making things look more natural , google expects a site to have relevant but a mixed of low , medium and high qaulity links , it doesnt expect a site to have all authority backlinks, it doesnt look natural one bit.

So whether people like it or not if done the correct way even the crappy links can help towards your over all backlink profile which people should be thinking of.

[sanssecret]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

I don't think it has much relevance to what is happening now. His personal feelings on article marketing are entirely useless. Fact is, article marketing works. Press releases work. Things that work, people are going to utilize until they no longer work.

Of course article marketing works. I don't think for a minute Matt was saying it wouldn't. Assuming it's done correctly of course.

Originally Posted by Riverwire

but there are many other forms of "article marketing" .

Which is the point Matt was trying to make I think. Not that I'd use the word 'many'.

Originally Posted by Riverwire

Also those crappy ones are a good method for making things look more natural , google expects a site to have relevant but a mixed of low , medium and high qaulity links , it doesnt expect a site to have all authority backlinks, it doesnt look natural one bit.

So whether people like it or not if done the correct way even the crappy links can help towards your over all backlink profile which people should be thinking of.

Crappy? Define crappy for me. I'm not sure if you mean links that are not particularly relevant, or links from (how shall I put this) sites that don't show up in my search results. (yes I have my results filtered ppl. I'm British lol).

[Adam H]

Originally Posted by Riverwire

Also those crappy ones are a good method for making things look more natural , google expects a site to have relevant but a mixed of low , medium and high qaulity links , it doesnt expect a site to have all authority backlinks, it doesnt look natural one bit.

Originally Posted by sanssecret

Crappy? Define crappy for me. I'm not sure if you mean links that are not particularly relevant, or links from (how shall I put this) sites that don't show up in my search results. (yes I have my results filtered ppl. I'm British lol).

I was referring to crappy as the highlighted above , " relevant but low quality" Granted sometimes i get a little carried away and what sounds right in my head doesnt sound the same when i read it back haha.

[warner444]

A good title can build a lot of links as will good writing. If you search down people who pick up your articles, and then if they have a good site contact them directly and offer them original articles. A few of those in your pocket will build your link quality.

Guest blogging is super effective. I ran a big program for one client on 28 blogs, 2-3 new original articles a day, and they went from having 11 keywords #1 to having 18 in # 1 in about 5 weeks. Plus the posts drive direct traffic and expand the reputation of the company. Currently the monthly total traffic of the blogs they are on is 600,000 visits per month. Gradually I am leveraging the blogs to be higher profile and will be on blogs having over 1,000,000 monthly traffic in a few weeks. The blogs are much more niche targeted than any article directory and they have increased the higher PR links to the main site by about 10 times from what they initially had.

I think web 2 type sites like squidoo, wetpaint, etc are worth the effort. I put one article on about 5-7 of these.

Press releases is one area I plan to do more of, they have been very effective in past campaigns.

I also find articles as .doc or .pdf get a lot of reads if the title is catchy so do them even though thet are nofollow.

ezinearticles will always be good in my opinion, they will recover from the farmer hit and be just fine. The people at nichebot pointed out not all articles took a big hit. The better quality articles held position much better than the overall slam would suggest.

Like anything and everything, quality endures the test of time.

[tpw]

The end game of article marketing is whether you as a webmaster derive value from the process.

When you syndicate your articles, do those links at the end of the article deliver prospects and buyers to your websites?

If so, the process of article marketing will always have value despite Matt's opinion and Google's algorithm.

Spanking article marketing generically is silly on Matt's part, because article marketing is simply a process by which content is distributed far and wide on the Internet.

If that content is good and it delivers real value to the reader, then article marketing has brought benefit to the reader, the publisher, and the writer.

Google is just an external factor to the article marketing processes.

Since the entire Internet is driven by the availability of the written word, Google's attempts at saying that article marketing is not such a good thing is tantamount to saying words don't have meaning and words don't have value...

This video is a clear case of putting the politics of Google ahead of the realities of the algorithm. Yes, Google wants to be able to sort information on the web, without seeing junk turn up in its SERPS, but content is content is content, regardless of whether it is written in "article format".

[sanssecret]

Originally Posted by tpw

If that content is good and it delivers real value to the reader, then article marketing has brought benefit to the reader, the publisher, and the writer.

Google is just an external factor to the article marketing processes.

Since the entire Internet is driven by the availability of the written word, Google's attempts at saying that article marketing is not such a good thing is tantamount to saying words don't have meaning and words don't have value...

This video is a clear case of putting the politics of Google ahead of the realities of the algorithm. Yes, Google wants to be able to sort information on the web, without seeing junk turn up in its SERPS, but content is content is content, regardless of whether it is written in "article format".

I think Bill, that what Matt is referring to is the fact that most of the 'articles' used in article marketing are not actually 'good content'. The only reason they get published is because the author is submitting them to a zillion article directories which leads to them being published on a zillion never heard of websites.

If your articles are good, they will be published, linked to, and read () by real people. (you should know )

Content might be content might be content, whether in article format or not. But in the same vein, junk is junk is junk. If Google is going after the junk, all power to them. Leaves more room for quality, (whether in article format or not) imo.