Article marketing: naive question from a newbie

45 replies
I'd love to have some feedback from the veterans here on that perennial question: does article marketing work?

I've just carried out a fairly detailed analysis of 54 articles submitted both manually and by a submission service. I submitted both unspun and spun versions at various levels of 'uniqueness'. I placed unique tokens (syntagms) in each article so I could track every article's appearance across the web. I embedded long tail keywords (high search/low competition) in the five sacred places according to the best SEO rubrics and...

my candid conclusion is that article marketing does not work.

At least, it is not a time-efficient way to attract qualified traffic.
You can read my findings in tedious detail at my site writers-village plus org plus forward slash article-marketing. (Seemingly, I'm not allowed to post links here as yet.)

Where are the defects in my research? I know they must exist. I would be delighted to have my conclusions demolished by expert experience. Have I been a fool?

But please bear in mind that I'm a relative newbie at Internet marketing. So, folks, please be gentle in your scorn

Dr John Yeoman
#article #article marketing #article marketing advice #marketing #naive #newbie #question
  • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
    There are several points that make your conclusions faulty.

    First, that was an extremely low number of articles for that period of time so the results are not statistically significant.

    Second, you didn't seem to take into consideration all the small factors that can make a huge difference in results - the directory is one factor that can have a marked impact.

    Third, without seeing the articles, it's hard to know if they're the type of article that will get read. So many factors going into it - the title, the topic, the readability of the writing, how well the resource box is done - it's very hard to quantify such a thing but impossible without actually seeing the articles.

    Fourth, I don't know what "proponents" of article marketing you are following but there are wide variations of actual methodology.

    Article marketing can work well - very well - but there are a lot of factors at play and the results will vary from person to person. It is not that article marketing does not work, because it does for many people. It is finding the methodology that works for YOU that is the trick.
    Signature
    Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
    Fast & Easy Content Creation
    ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805196].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
    Originally Posted by John Yeoman View Post

    I'd love to have some feedback from the veterans here on that perennial question: does article marketing work?

    I've just carried out a fairly detailed analysis of 54 articles submitted both manually and by a submission service. I submitted both unspun and spun versions at various levels of 'uniqueness'. I placed unique tokens (syntagms) in each article so I could track every article's appearance across the web. I embedded long tail keywords (high search/low competition) in the five sacred places according to the best SEO rubrics and...

    my candid conclusion is that article marketing does not work.

    At least, it is not a time-efficient way to attract qualified traffic.
    You can read my findings in tedious detail at my site writers-village plus org plus forward slash article-marketing. (Seemingly, I'm not allowed to post links here as yet.)

    Where are the defects in my research? I know they must exist. I would be delighted to have my conclusions demolished by expert experience. Have I been a fool?

    But please bear in mind that I'm a relative newbie at Internet marketing. So, folks, please be gentle in your scorn

    Dr John Yeoman
    I'm not sure how you can justify the sweeping statement that "article marketing does not work", while there is a core group of Warriors here, in almost daily responses to posts such as yours who state categorically that it does.

    One thread immediately springs to mind: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-not-dead.html

    If you write informative, high quality articles that are properly researched, with "tight" prose, you will find them bringing you visitors. However, unless you are especially lucky, their benefit will develop organically over a period of months, rather than days or weeks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805211].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author desmond11
      Hey John, I thnk Tina summed it up well and i'd take her advice if I were you.

      I don't do as much article marketing as I used to because I find I have a little more control when a clients visits my blogs rather than an article in a directory.

      I agree, the test amount is way too low and you need to give it a bit more time before you can draw conclusions.

      Good luck anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author allenjohn
    Hi,

    Since Panda 'article marketing' is not what it used to be. If you look at the following tracking you can see that Ezine Articles no longer figures highly on Google....makes an enormous difference to the results you can get...

    Signature

    Make Money with Niche Blogs Auto Profit - Let us build YOUR auto blogging empire for you. BUY BACK GUARANTEE for Gold Orders! FAQ - NEW! - One Way Link Building Service

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805283].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thebitbotdotcom
      Signature
      Do Your Copywriting Skills Suck?

      Let Us Help You Develop Your Writing Skills!

      Submit Guest Posts With [ TheBitBot.Com ]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805319].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by John Yeoman View Post

      my candid conclusion is that article marketing does not work.


      With respect, you haven't tried it, John. All you've really tried is "article directory marketing". That's history - not news: it hasn't been a very good business model, for most people, for at least a couple of years. Sorry.


      Originally Posted by John Yeoman View Post

      Where are the defects in my research?


      You've taken a largely defunct business model ("article directory marketing") and imagined that it's "article marketing", I'm afraid.


      Originally Posted by allenjohn View Post

      Since Panda 'article marketing' is not what it used to be.
      No indeed ... it's improved a lot, now.

      That's why there are so many threads here full of comments from professional article marketers about how we've been the beneficiaries of Google's "Panda update". (So many people all saying exactly the same thing - now that doesn't happen too often around here, does it?).

      Clearly, it's easier for article marketers to get our own sites ranked now that some of the article directories have been swept a little further down the rankings.

      For article marketing, the Panda update is a considerable boost.

      For article directory marketing, of course, it was just yet another nail in a coffin that was already fairly well closed, most of the time, for most people.

      I was about to add "just my perspective" (as I sometimes do, when disagreeing with people) ... but of course, on this occasion, it isn't actually just my perspective at all: it's the perspective of a whole big group of successful article marketers here, and we've all been saying so pretty consistently for a couple of months, now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805355].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marketing Cheetah
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post



        With respect, you haven't tried it, John. All you've really tried is "article directory marketing". That's history - not news: it hasn't been a very good business model, for most people, for at least a couple of years. Sorry.




        You've taken a largely defunct business model ("article directory marketing") and imagined that it's "article marketing", I'm afraid.




        No indeed ... it's improved a lot, now.

        That's why there are so many threads here full of comments from professional article marketers about how we've been the beneficiaries of Google's "Panda update". (So many people all saying exactly the same thing - now that doesn't happen too often around here, does it?).

        Clearly, it's easier for article marketers to get our own sites ranked now that some of the article directories have been swept a little further down the rankings.

        For article marketing, the Panda update is a considerable boost.

        For article directory marketing, of course, it was just yet another nail in a coffin that was already fairly well closed, most of the time, for most people.

        I was about to add "just my perspective" (as I sometimes do, when disagreeing with people) ... but of course, on this occasion, it isn't actually just my perspective at all: it's the perspective of a whole big group of successful article marketers here, and we've all been saying so pretty consistently for a couple of months, now.

        Ditto. I was tired of seeing ezinearticles.com, ehow and other similar directories for every search result in Google.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805435].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Marketing Cheetah View Post

          Ditto. I was tired of seeing ezinearticles.com, ehow and other similar directories for every search result in Google.

          I still see a considerable ehow presence on page one. An eza article
          rarely. Not sure why ehow still seems to be ranking well for so many
          searches.

          But if you want to disagree with that... fire away.


          Ken

          PS - To the OP, if you want a more even opinion, see Tina's post.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805819].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

            I still see a considerable ehow presence on page one. An eza article rarely. Not sure why ehow still seems to be ranking well for so many searches.

            But if you want to disagree with that... fire away.
            Nothing to disagree with there, Ken. "EZA" is an article directory and "Ehow" isn't.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805851].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Nothing to disagree with there, Ken. "EZA" is an article directory and "Ehow" isn't.
              I'm well aware of that, Alexa.

              If you read my post, and the one above it - in which it was referred
              to as a 'similar directory,' you would understand why I said what I
              did. Even though you didn't see fit to correct one of your supporters.

              But, you're still free to comment, argue or disagree if you want.

              Perhaps G doesn't see ehow as a content farm even though it sure
              looks like one. G wants high quality content, ehow stretches the limit
              on that account as well as link spamming, as well. But whatever...


              Ken
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805876].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

                Even though you didn't see fit to correct one of your supporters.
                I didn't "correct" anyone, Ken. I simply agreed with your findings/experience and offered a possible, theoretical explanation for them.

                Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

                Perhaps G doesn't see ehow as a content farm
                Indeed. Apparently not.

                Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

                even though it sure looks like one.
                Well, there I don't quite agree with you, to be honest; but never mind.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805889].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  I didn't "correct" anyone, Ken. I agreed with your findings/experience.

                  Well, there I don't quite agree with you, to be honest; but never mind.

                  Of course, and it was nevermind from the beginning, Alexa.


                  Ken
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805895].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

                  - Winston Churchill
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805898].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                    Originally Posted by myob View Post

                    If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

                    - Winston Churchill
                    Thanks Paul, if I used a pile driver people would not recover.


                    Ken
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805906].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marketing Cheetah
    Article Marketing depends on a number of things

    1- Length of the article

    Some people keep it low to like 250 words so that their author resource link can be seen without scrolling down. This increases the click through rate

    2- Quality of the article and ending of the article

    Just a quality article isn't going to bring you any traffic. You have to proovide some incomplete information in the article which can be seen in a complete form at your own website

    3- Number of Articles

    As mentioned by Tina. You cannot judge article marketing by only 54 articles. On average, an article receives around 50 views at ezinearticles.com before it goes into the deep hole from where there is no coming back. So increase the number of articles if you really want to test out article marketing

    4- Niche of Articles

    You cannot write an ordinary article about a particulr technical issue. It must be of high quality otherwise don't expect readers to even read first line of your article. Niches like weight loss, acne etc etc (you know the rest of similar niches which are popular) usually receive high traffic so even ordinary articles will turn into golden words most of the times.

    5- Title of the article

    Can't write an interesting title?
    Forget about article marketing. Its that simple. People arrive on your article through the title

    There are many other factors. I just listed the main ones which you MUST take into consideration while doing article marketing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805424].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
    Originally Posted by John Yeoman View Post


    At least, it is not a time-efficient way to attract qualified traffic.
    In my opinion, I agree with this statement the most.

    Like anything else, it works depending on how you use it. For any subject, there are going to be some people who are successful with a given strategy and some who aren't. However, for most people, is it the most efficient way to attract targeted traffic? I'd say not.

    Google is very clear that it wants great content. Despite the linear thinking for many, content is not just articles though it can be. Content can be videos, audio, forum posts, software, etc.

    In regards to strictly article marketing, here's a quick little newbie tip. Post an article to ezine and post the same article to Scribd (which is instant approval with link links) and tell me which one ranks better without any backlinks. That doesn't even take into account the EZA hassle and the time you lose while they sit and wait to approve your content. When the user experience is essentially the same and the content is exactly the same but your Scribd article ranks 10x better, you tell me which is a better use of your time.

    The most important thing is to test on your own and you're doing that. For you, you've tested article marketing and what have you received as a direct benefit of your time? You have answered your own question. Everyone on the Warrior Forum has opinions about what's going to work and what's not going to work but you need to test and find out what works for you. There is no generic one size fits all blueprint online.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805909].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by frankfihn View Post

      Post an article to ezine and post the same article to Scribd (which is instant approval with link links) and tell me which one ranks better without any backlinks.
      There's no comparison at all. The Scribd copy ranks far better, of course.

      Originally Posted by frankfihn View Post

      When the user experience is essentially the same and the content is exactly the same but your Scribd article ranks 10x better, you tell me which is a better use of your time.
      EZA is of course a far better use of my time, because it's an article directory: it's where my work is found and syndicated to relevant high-quality sites where it can be seen by targeted traffic, and that's what builds my business, producing steadily increasing residual income from work already done.

      From the perspective of initial backlinks alone, of course, you're completely right. But using article directories for backlinks hasn't been a viable business model, most of the time, for most people, for at least a couple of years, now. It certainly wasn't only the "Panda update" that brought that about. As so many of us have been saying here, for so long now.

      It could, of course, be argued that the comparison between EZA and Scribd even just "by link-juice available" is itself a slightly misleading one, because the EZA copy can end up spawning 50 other backlinks, some of them even on authority sites, which certainly doesn't tend to happen to the Scribd copy ... but this is a different point altogether.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805923].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        There's no comparison at all. The Scribd copy ranks far better, of course.



        EZA is of course a far better use of my time, because it's an article directory: it's where my work is found and syndicated to relevant high-quality sites where it can be seen by targeted traffic, and that's what builds my business, producing steadily increasing residual income from work already done.

        From the perspective of initial backlinks alone, of course, you're completely right. But using article directories for backlinks hasn't been a viable business model, most of the time, for most people, for at least a couple of years, now. It certainly wasn't only the "Panda update" that brought that about. As so many of us have been saying here, for so long now.

        It could, of course, be argued that the comparison between EZA and Scribd even just "by link-juice available" is itself a slightly misleading one, because the EZA copy can end up spawning 50 other backlinks, some of them even on authority sites, which certainly doesn't tend to happen to the Scribd copy ... but this is a different point altogether.
        Can and will be syndicated are two different things. I believe that even for the best writers, it is the exception and not the rule. My point is that of course it works if done well, but is it the best use of your time? It depends on the writer but I would say for most people emphatically no. Like I have also said, that is not a generic answer to be applied to all.

        Especially post-panda, the love affair with EZA to me hardly makes any sense. They don't rank well, the direct traffic on one article for most niches is not much, and even still, the chances of getting syndicated on a quality authority website is also low. The purpose of your content is to put eyeballs in front of it and ultimately result in conversions. While there is certainly the possibility of doing that through EZA, for most average people in IM, it's just not likely to happen. Consequently, they're just spending lots of wasted time and energy based on false hope. That hope is rooted in what worked on the internet a few years ago more commonly.

        If you are going to put all you time and energy into creating your absolute best content to syndicate, then it can certainly work as it has for many top notch article marketers here on the WF.

        Personally, I'd much rather place great content on my site and then drive targeted SEO traffic to it and convert it.

        In regards to the OP, it's much more beneficial that he tests methods that work for him instead of trying to clone what works for anyone else on the WF. Even if he is a strong enough writer to get syndicated on authority sites, there is always the possibility that he is in the wrong niche to even make it work.

        ...just my two cents.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806006].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by frankfihn View Post

          Personally, I'd much rather place great content on my site and then drive targeted SEO traffic to it and convert it.
          That's pretty safe ground: I don't think many of us will be disagreeing with that comment, even if some might prefer not to insist that it's "SEO" targeted traffic, as there are other kinds of targeted traffic whose credit-cards are just as valid. But that certainly seems to be a wise objective for all of us (for whatever purposes we may also be using EZA and whatever results we may be getting from that).

          I do also strongly agree with you that, given the purposes for which many people are using them (or trying to), the love affair with articles directories is a largely inappropriate one. Which really brings us back to the central problem of the OP, I think? "Article marketing" is apparently being dismissed, where only its severely limited and notoriously unreliable cousin "article directory marketing" has actually failed.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806040].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            "Article marketing" is apparently being dismissed, where only its severely limited and notoriously unreliable cousin "article directory marketing" has actually failed.
            Actually, as you well know, you engage in article syndication. That's a far
            more accurate term for what you do. It's more accurate than article marketing.
            So, it can be said you're an article syndicator - since you're so keen on making
            distinctions in the service of accuracy.

            His method of article marketing could have failed for any number of reasons,
            including all the reasons you have mentioned a million times. But there could be
            other reasons as well.

            It's not so much that you drone on saying the same thing. I think it is that you
            misrepresent the overall situation with article marketing. It is a misrepresentation
            by omission as you well know. So in that sense, your incessant disparaging of
            marketing methods others choose to use, and apparently have some success
            with, is not really a good public service or fair to those who don't know.

            I've read the responses of others who have explained this and pointed it out. But
            you insist on ignoring it in favor of presenting the world according to you, for
            what ever reason.

            I don't understand it, but the good news for me is I don't have to know or understand
            why this is so.

            But you do reduce your self to being a mere propagandist, or at least that's the
            way it seems to me and probably others, maybe. I know you don't care about that,
            and you may disagree which is your prerogative. Or maybe you're just using that
            approach you mentioned once in a thread a while back. You write to stir controversy
            to get eyes on your content. Maybe you just like the spotlight or arguing.

            When new people ask questions, I think you would help them better by offering a
            more balanced response such as Tina, Dr Mani, Jeremy and Frankfihn have. I know
            others have, and they seem to be summarily ridiculed by a certain few. At least that's
            my impression.

            For what ever it's worth...


            Ken
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806189].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

              Actually, as you well know, you engage in article syndication. That's a far
              more accurate term for what you do. It's more accurate than article marketing.
              So, it can be said you're an article syndicator - since you're so keen on making
              distinctions in the service of accuracy.

              His method of article marketing could have failed for any number of reasons,
              including all the reasons you have mentioned a million times. But there could be
              other reasons as well.

              It's not so much that you drone on saying the same thing. I think it is that you
              misrepresent the overall situation with article marketing. It is a misrepresentation
              by omission as you well know. So in that sense, your incessant disparaging of
              marketing methods others choose to use, and apparently have some success
              with, is not really a good public service or fair to those who don't know.

              I've read the responses of others who have explained this and pointed it out. But
              you insist on ignoring it in favor of presenting the world according to you, for
              what ever reason.

              I don't understand it, but the good news for me is I don't have to know or understand
              why this is so.

              But you do reduce your self to being a mere propagandist, or at least that's the
              way it seems to me and probably others, maybe. I know you don't care about that,
              and you may disagree which is your prerogative. Or maybe you're just using that
              approach you mentioned once in a thread a while back. You write to stir controversy
              to get eyes on your content. Maybe you just like the spotlight or arguing.

              When new people ask questions, I think you would help them better by offering a
              more balanced response such as Tina, Dr Mani, Jeremy and Frankfihn have. I know
              others have, and they seem to be summarily ridiculed by a certain few. At least that's
              my impression.

              For what ever it's worth...


              Ken
              Most scintillating, in context with the OP's own summary and conclusion from his website.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806218].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                Most scintillating, in context with the OP's own summary and conclusion from his website.
                Well, it was not designed to be scintillating, Paul. Just being candid about
                my observations and impressions and offering my opinion.

                Yes, I read the OP and understand your point. But there are some whose
                results do seem to be in contrast with the OPs' experiences.


                Ken
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806263].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

                  Well, it was not designed to be scintillating, Paul. Just being candid about
                  my observations and impressions and offering my opinion.

                  Yes, I read the OP and understand your point. But there are some whose
                  results do seem to be in contrast with the OPs' experiences.


                  Ken
                  Just trying to help out the good Dr John Yeoman. That's all. For now....
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806284].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
                    mass article leveraging
                    Love the terminology!

                    Yeah, I could have just hit thanks but then he wouldn't know exactly what I was thanking, would he?:p
                    Signature
                    Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
                    Fast & Easy Content Creation
                    ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806316].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author neojr
                      I suggest you submit a few unique and high quality articles to a few top article-directories (Ezine Articles, Article Dashboard and a few other), instead of mass-submitting low quality articles to a bunch of low quality directories.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806333].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
                      Originally Posted by Tina Golden View Post

                      Love the terminology!

                      Yeah, I could have just hit thanks but then he wouldn't know exactly what I was thanking, would he?:p
                      It's the thought that counts. Anyways, I have finished writing the post on "mass article leveraging". Please take a look at it.

                      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post3806598
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806602].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
                        Frank,

                        That's an excellent post. Be sure to save it to your hard drive, just in case, as they rather frown on posting article type threads.
                        Signature
                        Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
                        Fast & Easy Content Creation
                        ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806743].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
                          Originally Posted by Tina Golden View Post

                          Frank,

                          That's an excellent post. Be sure to save it to your hard drive, just in case, as they rather frown on posting article type threads.
                          Good point and thanks Tina. It's been saved.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806790].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author John Yeoman
                        A quick reply to Frankfihn: I geatly appreciated your excellent post on 'article marketing leverage', following my own - deliberately ingenuous - post here: 'article marketing doesn't work'. As many veterans in the forum have pointed out (and I anticipated this), my research was flawed. However, I did not know precisely in which areas. Your article has clarified this issue enormously. Thank you!

                        One query, if I may: your post states 'HTML is spinnable as well. I use 50% my anchor text, 25% my secondary keyword, and 25% the raw URL'. You lost me there I can understand the spinning of links (presumably the same domain plus a different suffix in each case?), and of keywords, but I could not relate this to your percentages. (Eg: given four available URLs, do you have two alternated in the anchor text and one each in the secondary keyword, etc?)

                        As I've said, I'm a newbie. Pl forgive my naivety. But many thanks again.

                        Also, my warm thanks to everyone who commented on my post - and who valiantly withheld their justified derision!
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3809540].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
                    Originally Posted by myob View Post

                    Just trying to help out the good Dr John Yeoman. That's all. For now....

                    Excuse me if I find that hard to believe regarding your good will
                    for the doctor.

                    I have no doubts...


                    Ken
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806350].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author frankfihn
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            That's pretty safe ground: I don't think many of us will be disagreeing with that comment, even if some might prefer not to insist that it's "SEO" targeted traffic, as there are other kinds of targeted traffic whose credit-cards are just as valid. But that certainly seems to be a wise objective for all of us (for whatever purposes we may also be using EZA and whatever results we may be getting from that).

            I do also strongly agree with you that, given the purposes for which many people are using them (or trying to), the love affair with articles directories is a largely inappropriate one. Which really brings us back to the central problem of the OP, I think? "Article marketing" is apparently being dismissed, where only its severely limited and notoriously unreliable cousin "article directory marketing" has actually failed.
            Agreed. Although, I am big fan of "article directory marketing" personally. I think you have inspired me to write about how to properly do the latter since it seems that is not well understood either. I much prefer the term "mass article leveraging".
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
      - Winston Churchill

      The Article Marketing Truth; Can You Handle It? (451 Words)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805935].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
        - Winston Churchill

        The-Article Marketing Truth; Can You Handle It?
        LOL. Didn't know your maiden name was Stuckey, Paul.


        Ken
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805944].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

          Didn't know your maiden name was Stuckey, Paul.
          LOL, Paul wouldn't have an article like that with a resource-box link to a non-existent/non-renewed site, which EZA will be deleting from their database when they notice it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805960].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            LOL, Paul wouldn't have an article like that with a resource-box link to a non-existent/non-renewed site, which EZA will be deleting from their database when they notice it.
            Clearly, you don't know the Paul some of us know and love.


            Ken
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805979].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
        - Winston Churchill
        That is a GREAT quote, thanks for posting it!

        Another one I like is by Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

        Re article marketing vs article directory marketing ... those two terms get thrown around without a clear definition of what is meant.

        From what I've been able to gather, article marketing is mostly used for getting traffic while article directory marketing is used for getting links.

        Anyone disagree?

        Marvin
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806119].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston View Post

          From what I've been able to gather, article marketing is mostly used for getting traffic while article directory marketing is used for getting links.
          I suspect this tends to be true, overall.

          Call me facetious, but I admit I think of "article directory marketing" for the most part as a form of "attempted article marketing, commonly aimed at both backlinks and traffic, but in reality limited to sites which are (to put it politely) not exactly reliable producers of either".

          The Pascal quotation is wonderful ... widely under-appreciated, I think, and actually very profound indeed.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806150].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            With very specific reference to Dr John Yeoman's post and his "research" results on the website (link hyperlinked from text) http://www.writers-village.org/article-marketing.php with this conclusion:

            This pilot independent study confirms, within the acceptable limits of commercial rigor, that article marketing - as popularly practised - is not a time-efficient methodology for achieving the primary aim of a site owner: a profitable volume of qualified visitors to his or her site. The manual submission of articles to selected quality blogs and web sites might well be time-efficient and this will be the focus of a further study. However, it can be conclusively demonstrated at this time that the indiscriminate distribution of articles through article directories does not work.
            It is rather apparent that he will at some time expand his research from "article directory marketing" model to article marketing on "selected quality blogs and websites". With bated breath, article syndicators await his conclusion for this model.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806168].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author The Content King
            This subject will always bring a heated discussion. On one hand you have those who have been involved with some aspect of Internet marketing for a year or maybe a little more. These individuals have toiled away at article marketing for months, writing and submitting on topics they may or may not care about. Mostly, it's tedious work and they have no real idea if it's going to work.

            These individuals submit and pray and maybe they've seen some success. But most I would bet have not. Most people getting their panties in a bunch on this thread have seen zero to moderate success with article marketing, but they need to justify all the hours of their lives they've wasted on writing articles that most people will never read.

            The fact is, article marketing worked when only a handful of people were doing it. Today, the market is saturated. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a computer, some semblance of the English language, a dream of making it big online and lots of time on their hands thinks that if they just submit articles and throw them online that people will read them and buy what they're selling.

            The thing is, most people are not good writers, and it's obvious that most of the crap online is from people who don't know what they're doing throwing crap on the net like you throw spaghetti at the wall to tell if it's done. What we get left with is a convoluted internet filled with crap, crap and more crap. And most of that crap is spun from the original crap.

            The thing is, you have to separate yourself from everyone else. Create your own website and use attraction marketing to bring your target audience to you.

            Article marketing used to work when people just soaked up information online no matter what the source. Thanks to platforms like Facebook, most people are very web-savvy today. They can spot crap content a mile away. If you just submit articles to article directories and nothing else, you're not going to see the same success as someone would have three or four years ago.

            The Internet is saturated with nothing but garbage. Don't add to it. Writing hundreds of articles isn't going to produce quality. Google came with Panda and tried to wipe out the crap. It worked on some, but there is still a lot of garbage out there. Google will come again, you can bet on that. They didn't get it exactly right this time, but they will figure out a way to cleanse the Internet and make the experience more enjoyable for users. They have to if they're going to stay on top.

            All the advice you've read and are now putting into practice in your IM business has been used and is being used by tens or hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. You must set yourself apart.

            Just my $.02. But maybe I'm just jaded.
            Signature
            Check out our Acne WSO | Our Anxiety WSO | And Our Muscle Building WSO
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806233].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Simpleton
    @OP: Do not give up on article marketing. If you're not comfortable with the idea of article marketing, use your writing skills for something else; remember that no matter how many updates the Google algorithm goes through, content will always be king, so as long as you have the skill to produce content, you can make it big in IM
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      May I request that the distinguished gentlemen from the great state of OT take a few deep breaths and remember they're in a foreign land?


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3806395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Your analysis can be seen here by others.

    Tina made a lot of good points in her post.

    You have not given us a clear and transparent ability to judge the nature of the work you had done in your test.

    I have done a more comprehensive analysis of the factors that could affect the performance of your articles here.

    Since I fall into the group defined in your general conclusions, my input will be without value to this discussion.

    Article marketing appears to have been promoted as an effective methodology largely by those with a commercial interest in services related to article marketing.

    ...

    No quantified research appears to have been published in this topic area to date, except by those with commercial interests in the promotion of article marketing.
    Regardless of my pre-supposed position as being someone who benefits from the article marketing industry, I will address each of your conclusions individually.

    1. Article marketing is not a time-efficient strategy for traffic promotion.
    This follows the 80-20 rule.

    20% of people attain 80% of the value gained from article marketing.

    If your case study was built following the practices of 80% of article marketers, then your case study was flawed in its foundations.

    Several people in this thread have alluded to suggestions that you have followed the techniques of the 80%, and I feel that perhaps you did use the strategies of the 80% of article marketers who have no clue as to how to be successful with article marketing.

    Your results were absolutely dismal !!

    With just one article that I wrote under a pen name, I was able to generate 1800 click-through's, 40 phone calls, and $8500 in direct sales within 3 days.

    2. 'Flat' unspun articles are more time-effective, in results achieved, than highly spun articles.
    Agree 100%.

    3. Simultaneous submission is more time-efficient than staggered submission, for web placement.
    If you are staggering submissions manually, then you are right.

    If you are staggering submissions via software, then the time spent does not change.

    I stagger my own submissions over 45 days.

    I don't believe the value of staggered submissions is in greater web citations, but rather a more natural appearance for the search engines.

    In other words, if 100 links are built in a day, the search engines will see fully automated submissions. If 100 links are built over 30 days, then that appears to the search engines to suggest that some of the links were selected by humans, as opposed to having been auto-approved by software.

    4. Publisher cheating vitiates the effectiveness of article marketing.
    Your analysis here is greatly flawed.

    In the worst case, an article was published 2532 times yet only 89 of those published items included the author's name or URL (96.5% name deletion). In the best case, 1899 articles were published and only 1456 included an author reference (23% name deletion).
    Did you validate all of the references to "name deletion"?

    If Google shows the article published 2532 or 1899 times, that Google information is deceptive in and of itself.

    Some of the references are blogs that captured an average of 125 words of text from the original article and dropped a link to the article elsewhere.

    Some of the references are nothing more than a link to the article.

    Some of the references are a set of words captured from the article, mixed with words captured from other articles.

    Whenever I run a title or sentence from an article through Google, less than 20% of all returned results actually contain enough of the original article to be considered a valid reprint.

    And of the 20% valid set, "name deletion" tends to happen in fewer than 10% of cases.

    Of course, your results may be different because you utilized EzineArticles as your "article syndication" channel. I generally do not use EzineArticles at all.

    Maybe EzineArticles publishers are comprised of many more scammers than I am used to seeing through my own channels of syndication.


    In your final conclusion, you said:

    This pilot independent study confirms, within the acceptable limits of commercial rigor, that article marketing - as popularly practised - is not a time-efficient methodology for achieving the primary aim of a site owner: a profitable volume of qualified visitors to his or her site.
    I think your conclusions may have been more indicative of the value of "article spinning" and sending "low quality articles" to the article directories, rather than a wholesale condemnation of "article marketing".

    But as you indicated, my point of view probably cannot be trusted because I have a commercial interest in article marketing.

    I have commented here just to give you another point of view. Take it or leave it.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3808059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      ...Your results were absolutely dismal !!

      With just one article that I wrote under a pen name, I was able to generate 1800 click-through's, 40 phone calls, and $8500 in direct sales within 3 days.
      Dismal indeed! Jeesh, Bill. If you could write more intelligibly, maybe more of your articles might get those kind of results consistently. Every article I write generates an average $3,000-$7,000 per month in residuals. :p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3808811].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author leadmonster
    Applause to Tinas first post! Really I totally agree that the Title, Content, Type of article and the directness and value of the article is crucial. You must like she says find what works for you whether it is going after entertainment niches with keywords that are searched plenty. But no or low competition (minimal tapped niches) are the way to go for me as I have been ranking sites for the last 4 weeks for specific keywords.

    Before that as well but really going hard in the paint now. So I can enjpy my vacation lol. But thats irrelevant . Went off on a tangent there but I am back and back to say go hard in the paint (AKA do your research and implement) you will then see results. Hope this helped but anyways I am outta here!

    Jermaine "Lead Monster" Steele
    Signature

    (1) See How We Recruit 2-9 People DAILY + Learn To Become a SUPER AFFILIATE <~~~

    (2) Get $497 Worth OF VALUE BECOME A SUPER AFFILIATE or MAKE YOUR 1st SALE FREE Here <~~~

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3808840].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    There are no naive questions to ask for articles.

    here are my tips, tricks and strateiges.

    1) dont write crap, there is enough crap out there on the internets.

    2) Dont spin, yes see no. 1

    3) do not post other peoples articles...a big no no.

    4) Make sure you articles are actually that good that people could pay for the infromation.

    5) Make sure to try 'top ten tips' or 'top way to' style articles. Tehy work very well for me, are easy to write and get huge responses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3809685].message }}

Trending Topics