Article Marketing Question

It's definitely an article directory.

I didn't say that I don't use article directories at all - I said that some people aren't using them. I do use EZA myself, but after everything else I do with my articles, just to try to get additional passive syndication from it (because it's free, after all - and I do actually get some extra syndication that way, when other webmasters re-publish some of my articles to their niche sites). I'm not using them for their traffic, and certainly not for their non-context-relevant PR-0 backlinks.

Thank you Alexa!!

I'll try to follow your example.

Neo

Terry,

Because articles submitted to directories may have minor modifications/additions - namely (and especially) a resource-box, etc. Articles on your own site won't have that resource-box, because they don't need it. Without syndicated copies of one's articles bearing a resource-box (especially one worded exactly as you intended it), you could never expect to receive any traffic from those syndicated copies.

Prospective customers might see those articles on your own sites, but other webmasters/ezine-compilers probably won't. Why/how would they? They go to EZA and other directories to source their content, where they expect all content to be freely available to them for republication ... they don't just sporadically visit others' sites on the off-chance that their content is going to be generously licensed for syndication. The content on most sites isn't - it's protected by copyright - so what'd be the odds of them ever finding any that way? Talk about looking for a needle in a haystack.

More like a big time-waster.

The articles on your own site rank well because you build backlinks to your own site, rather than someone else's.

It's rare for syndicated copies of articles to outrank the original, providing proper SEO has been carried out at their original source.


So what?

Many other successful marketers engage successfully and profitably in syndication, too.

Don't like syndication, can't make it work or can't be bothered to write good content? Too bad.

Just because you're insecure from your apparent inability to make a success of it, it doesn't mean you have to put forth a series of ludicrous, nonsensical arguments to try to discredit it.

You cannot prove anything of the sort, Terry. You might be able to prove that you're having success with other things, but you cannot prove that others can't/don't/won't have success with article syndication, however much your insecurities and flawed conclusions drive your attempts to do so.

You mean "I demand and am entitled to see inside your business, and I will continue my nagging and attempts to discredit you until you make it happen"?

Yes, I suppose people successful with article syndication are just spewing lies for their own enjoyment. Because they enjoy being the targets of your ongoing slanderous attacks day after day. :rolleyes:

Also, Terry ... what would you say to the even greater number of people who pop up in these "Article Marketing Is Dead" threads? You use one lady's problems as justification for your argument against syndication, yet you conveniently overlook the fact that those trying and failing with article directory marketing seem to outnumber them by a huge majority, and continue to support that regardless?

Hi Terry,

I'm slightly surprised to see you having a "third go", after the deletion of both your two earlier posts from this thread, but there it is.

I do appreciate that it seems terribly important to you to try to dispute the long-standing, successful article marketing experiences of Paul Uhl, Bill Platt, Barry Unruh, John McCabe, Richard Van, DireStraights, Allen Graves, myself, and so many others here who have abandoned article directory marketing in favour of article marketing, and have become so successful by syndicating our articles instead. This doesn't, however, change the reality.

For two main reasons, Terry:-

(i) My websites aren't where potential syndicators look for content. That purpose is served by article directories. That's what they were set up for, and why they exist;

(ii) It isn't true, anyway: I have other content on my sites which people are not welcome to reproduce.

I hope that's all ok with you.

What you call "chasing down webmasters" I call building relationships with syndicators of my work, Terry, because that's how I and many others here have built our businesses and how we make a living, in many cases after failing at article directory marketing for all the usual reasons so many don't achieve success with it.

As have a huge number of other professional article marketers here, Terry. Including the ones who taught me and through whose help I became successful myself. You can see what many of them have to say on the subject in this fine thread.

There's even a post there which gives (as I remember) 25 reasons for doing things that way round, and it's certainly been an enormous boost to the SEO of all my own niche sites.

To you, perhaps.

Others here have great and increasing success with it, apparently.

They're posting every day, in many threads.

In the last couple of days alone, there've been two or three posts from people who've recently switched to this model of article marketing and are just reaping their initial rewards from it. Nothing unusual there.

Well, I certainly seem to be in some pretty illustrious and successful company there.

And meanwhile, I won't buy a new car, just in case someone steals it. Obviously motoring is an unproven and unsuccessful form of transport which never got anyone from A to B. :rolleyes:

One doesn't have to have Einstein's reasoning powers, nor to have an electron microscope, to deduce from many threads here that most people who fail at "article marketing" tend to fail in more or less the same way, and it's a way broadly characterised by ...

(i) depending on article directories for traffic and backlinks;
(ii) using "spinning" and/or "mass-submission" software;
(iii) using a "rinse and repeat" model of "article directory marketing";
(iv) writing/submitting large numbers of shorter articles which are sometimes "salesy" in tone and have a prominent "call to action" in the resource box.

In fact, you can be almost certain, every single time you see one of the ever-increasing plethora of threads we regularly have appearing here with titles like "Article Marketing Doesn't Work Any More" or "I'm Not Sure About Article Marketing Any More", that the person starting it off has been doing at least three of the four things mentioned above. This is simply factual and irrefutable.

If you'll excuse me, I won't dignify your other "questions" with replies.

First of all, be clear, you are submitting your articles to publishers/blogs/websites. Agreed, however, there is a chance that for example an ezine publisher could also be an affiliate of the same program you are promoting, but I have not seen this to be significant nor personally experienced such conflict of interest.

The reason publishers accept articles is to provide relevant content to their readers. Just as it is a common practice for newspapers and magazines to accept articles from freelance writers, the same principle applies online. The trade off is both the writer and publisher mutually benefit.

You, as a writer get the benefit of promoting your resource box at the end of the article, and the publisher benefits by having relevant content for their audience. The secret in the sauce is don't submit your articles to your direct competitors.