Is Article Syndication still alive

So did I, but all of them weren't actually discussing what article marketers call "article syndication" at all: they were discussing what we all call "article directory marketing", i.e. the idea of submitting mass articles to article directories (and other, similar places) in an attempt to get traffic and/or backlinks from the article directories themselves. They were just mistakenly referring to it as "article syndication". :rolleyes:

That business model is indeed dead, as everyone days. (It was only ever based on a fundamental misunderstanding in the first place).

Article syndication itself (as professional article marketers use the term) is alive and well. In fact more alive and well now than it has been ever since I've been online.

The Google updates that finished off "article directory marketing" were and are consistently beneficial to article syndicators - and of course there are reasons for that (which is doubtless a small, additional part of the reason why large and increasing numbers of us, here, are making our livings through article syndication, now).

Here's a one-post overview of "how it works", if that helps: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

And here's a one-post overview of "how article directories work": http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

The problems arise when people try to use article directories (and similar sites) for purposes they were never intended to serve in the first place (i.e. "their own backlinks" :rolleyes: and/or "their own traffic" :rolleyes: ).

More the opposite, actually, Joe: the effectiveness of "article marketing" has improved considerably since Google's last couple of years'-worth of algorithm change: it's "article directory marketing" which has deteriorated so markedly (but that never worked very well, even in 2009/10, anyway).

I think I read what Alexa said on it while ago but as article syndication wasnt of any interest to me, thats why didnt read it deeply... but I will search her posts..

meanwhile I am also looking forward the current feedbacks / situations of article syndication as we all know the techniques / effectiveness of techniques changes rapidly...

Very true. This is of course a good thing, not a bad thing: no article marketer should want to get potential customer traffic to their own website via an article directory anyway, for all these reasons. (That isn't what article directories were ever there for in the first place, though.)

You must prefer eventual SEO traffic to direct, responsive, pre-targeted traffic, then, for some reason. Ok.

Indeed. We all have them.

Unless those low-traffic directories are very tightly focused on something related to your niche, those links are not going to be worth much. [Cue the backlink sellers to chorus "Are too!"]

Even at the big dog of article directories, EzineArticles.com, any juice from your link is going to be spread among 20-30 additional links on the page.

If you want to get the most bang for your buck (or time), you need to put your articles in front of people who want to read them. You do that by allowing other publishers (web, email and even offline) to publish your content with a link back to your chosen landing page. If you do it right, they've done the hard work of identifying and attracting an audience for you.

Of course, you have to provide something worth republishing.

That, and finding and creating relationships with suitable publishers is a lot more work than stringing together a few hundred words of keyword loaded pablum and spraying it across the web. I'm not saying that's what you do, mrgoe, but that's what most SEO acolytes think of when you mention syndication.