Questions on Article Marketing

I would say look for FREE training first using the blogs on warrior forum as you will find all the information you need at hand.
Regards
vivi62

Spinning is actually something that's been made popular by people who don't understand the difference between duplicate content and syndicated content. These people (mistakenly) think that if their articles get posted verbatim on a bunch of different websites, that it's somehow going to hurt them. It's not. Spinning turns your articles into gobbledy-gook and, because it's not combating duplicate content, it's really just a waste of your time.

You can get the same backlinks whether you post the same exact article to 10 directories or spun versions of an article to 10 directories. However, if you're publishing low-quality spun articles, they won't get syndicated - and you'll wind up missing out on the "meat" of the backlinks you get when your articles get re-published.

Only Google can answer exactly what its spiders can "read". However, the links from article directories aren't any less potent now than they were before Panda. Before Panda, your articles were being published on their own PR0 pages - and they're still being published on those individual PR0 pages today. The only difference after Panda is that the PR of the article directories' home pages have gone down.


With "article directory marketing", you're banking on quantity over quality. You're hoping that a ton of PR0 article directory links will be enough to give you a boost. That's why you see people "churning out" or "blasting" articles to every big and small directory they can find - without really taking the time to make sure they're publishing something of value. They just want a quick backlink.

With "article marketing", you're banking on quality and quantity. You're not just relying on a ton of PR0 article directory links. You're also relying on links from sites that syndicate your content - and will have much higher value than the PR0's.


Why would it? Even if you're getting a low-PR link, a link is a link. It may not give you a major SEO boost, but I can't see why it would hurt you. If it did, all you would have to do would be to publish your competitors' articles on low-quality blogs and damage them. Luckily, that's not how it works


I have no idea! It may take additional skill, but it is certainly possible to write quality content that's also properly optimized. You absolutely should be targeting keywords in each of your articles. Even though you don't want your business to completely rely on the search engines, why would you shut them out entirely? If you do that, you're passing up traffic and sales.


Again, that's a question that can only be definitively answered by Google. I would imagine that if your disease article is re-published on a health website that you're going to get more "credit" than if it were re-published on a website about widgets. Honestly, I don't worry about that much, because I can't control who syndicates my articles. If someone wants to put my article on a website that has nothing to do with the topic, that's their choice


Whatever is most useful for your readers. Lots of people think you always have to link to your home page, but that's not true. If you have an internal page that's more relevant to your article's topic than the home page, link to it. Plus, you'll benefit more SEO-wise from linking to internal pages - because it shows the search engines that all of your pages have value, not just the home page.


Doing article marketing based on syndication is certainly not a "unique" or "new" idea. It's what the article directories were originally created for - to be a place where site owners could go to get free content for their own sites.

When you look at it that way, it's actually the backlink-hungry, sub-par article publishers who are "unique" and "unconventional".

No clue... I'd start with Anne's recommendation.


You'll need to develop an entire marketing strategy that relies on several different methods. Yes, article marketing (when done the right way) is an amazing way to get your name, your link, and your expertise out there for the world to see. However, that doesn't mean you put all of your eggs in one basket!

1. Answering whether it is actually read by Google or not is a question for Google. However, many spun articles, that are done with software are so poorly written and such jumbled phrases, that yes they do harm your chances of being linked. Human readers will report them when they run across them and that will turn up flags for your domain. You may get some initial juice from it but eventually it will catch up with you. Articles spun by hand have a better chance of surviving because most of them continue to make sense and can beat the duplicate content rules.

2.High quality articles, syndicated, re-posted or otherwise used wisely continue to drive traffic and get links to your site.

3. Article marketing is actually a big part of SEO work. Making sure that you are producing quality articles with a good keyword and phrase density helps to bring attention to your articles when they are posted. Stuffing your articles with keywords and phrases does not help.

4. The absolute strength of placement would have to lie somewhere in the search algorithms, but if you have a highly placed article on a health blog about a particular subject with links to it from an introductory piece on an respected article directory. I believe you are helping yourself grow.

5. If you are going to push out enough links to get you noticed and you don't care about the long term effects on your domain. You can get noticed in a hurry. But hope that you make enough sales to cover your costs because your star will flame out in a hurry.

6. If the strategy you are talking about is Article Marketing, yes there are a lot of courses out there that cover it. It the strategy is massive attack without worrying about long-term reputation then there are even more courses available.

7. If you are going to do your own writing then almost any course you find in the pages here will do you well. However, the hardest part of a concentrated and effective article marketing program is the ability to continually write and post articles that are fresh and provide quality information that would make others want to link to your sites and content.

8. Article marketing, product creation, content creation, SEO, link building, page rank, joint venture marketing, list building, autoresponders, copywriting, page design, web design and the list goes on. There seems to be an unlimited number of tasks to accomplish in order to produce a package. There are multiple courses to learn each one of these items here in the Warrior Forum. If you have a good idea outside of the IM niche then often you do well by learning one or two of the main tasks and then outsourcing and managing the development of your site while you concentrate on what actually goes into the site and the strategy to promote it.

Hope this helps.

David

I actually have the same questions i think that article marketing is not a bad method of marketing though

If it is, then it's grotesquely misguided, because the value of a given backlink on a given page of the web isn't somehow magically improved by the content to which it's attached being spun. (And even the people selling spinning software/services aren't alleging that).

When people claim "backlinks" as an advantage of spinning, their attribution of causation is just plain wrong. They could get exactly the same backlinks, and exactly the same link-juice value from them, without the spinning.

People confuse correlation with causation. They spin articles and mass-submit them and get the backlinks and then they proudly announce "I'm getting backlinks from spinning". There's just no logic there at all. Some are people who just don't realise, and others are promoters of spinning services.

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...necessary.html

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-articles.html

No; it really isn't.

The idea of having high quality articles syndicated is to get targeted traffic.

Article marketing is a traffic-generation method in its own right, not primarily a method of SEO (getting Google traffic).

One of the great attractions of article marketing is that it produces a business which isn't dependent on Google for its primary traffic. (As so many Warriors have been discovering, especially this year, businesses which depend on Google for their primary traffic are only ever one algorithm-change away from a potential disaster).

It's true that I have some high rankings, but if Google de-indexed all my websites tomorrow, I'd still have at least 80% of my traffic.

This post explains the difference between trying to use articles for SEO and using them to attract traffic.

Yes, this is also true - but that's a side-benefit, not "what the business is all about".

Only Google can answer this question. Anyone else will be guessing. I think that Google don't answer this directly, but recent Matt Cutts videos I've seen have strongly suggested to me that the answer's "yes" (others may disagree) and people who have have previously worked for search engines certainly seem to think it is. That's my opinion only. Others may interpret these things differently.

"One works and the other doesn't", I suspect, is good enough for many here.

There are 100+ threads with titles like "Article Marketing Is Dead" and what all their starters/contributors have in common is that what they've been doing is actually article directory marketing.

That doesn't altogether answer your question, though.

That's certainly true. Whether or not it's "the main reason" we can't tell. I prefer to leave the causality arguments to others. What matters to me is the result, because I have a mortgage to pay.

It's certainly true that article directory backlinks have very, very little value compared with those from relevant sites.

I think they can, but I can't prove it, and to me it doesn't matter anyway.

Blogs don't "have page rank". Only pages have page rank.

Page ranks have very little to do with SEO, these days.

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5084431

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ll-matter.html

But having your articles syndicated to "bad sites" as well as to "good sites" doesn't carry any downside, anyway.

I think so, yes. Because it's so much more than SEO.

As so many of us here have discovered, it's true that the SEO that arises through successful article syndication is (ironically?) incomparably better and more helpful than that arising from "article directory marketing" whose main aim is SEO, but there's no great surprise there, I think - not once you appreciate (as so many of us now do) that relevance is what primarily determines link-juice.

Yes, indeed - very much so.

No.

Sites don't "have PR". Only pages have PR.

The reason for it is mostly that they're relevant sites.

Again, perhaps nobody can prove it. But I read what Google says, what Matt Cutts says, what textbook writers say, what the SEO consultants I know and trust and successfully rely on say, my own experience, and the experience of others I know and trust is all telling me this. So that's kind of a "yes, but I can prove it only circumstantially, not directly" (which is the best answer you're going to find, I think, because nobody else can, either?).

I don't think anyone can seriously question that. I don't think even the director of studies at the Urban Myth School of internet marketing can question that one.

My landing page.

The page where I want the traffic.

I'm not that up-to-date, but most of the "courses" I've seen and/or know much about are teaching "article directory marketing" and calling it "article marketing". I hope there are some better ones I don't know about.

There's a lot of very valuable information about article marketing on Anne Pottinger's blog.

(I can't comment on your Question 7 so I've missed that out).

Certainly - and not one that will suit everyone. You need to be able either to write or to buy the articles. As against that, you need far fewer of them to attract targeted traffic this way, if you're not depending on Google. Again, as explained/illustrated here.

Well, article marketing is the "traffic generation" part of the business ... so "everything else other than generating the traffic", really. (Sorry, not much of an answer, but it's a huge question ).

Hey a wso came out recently about article marketing. You might want to check it out. I think it was called article traffic explosion or article marketing explosion. It was one of those two names, but it's a video course and it's pretty good.

My recent experience is that I sent a fiverr guy an article that he spun and submitted to a bunch of article sites - yay for links.

I found some of them using google and was horrified. Not only was the article crap but the page was crowded with other ads and my link at the bottom of the page. From that experience I've vowed to only go with quality for future article marketing.

Those articles are out there like little billboards for my site. Links are important but first impression is even more so.

Alexa don't you ever get tired of writing? You say you only write 1 piece of content a day yet you post just as much if not more here in multiple posts individually and combined.

I don't suppose you spin your answer posts with reference to article marketing and directory marketing?

-Chris