Offline SEO + Penguin 2.0

Joe,

The topic of the thread is SEO, if you don't like SEO then why are you trying to push the same content syndication pipe dream that has been pushed for years now? It isn't ideal for clients. It works for internet marketers, to some degree, and the extent of that probably doesn't go very far.

What DABK mentioned is a referral from a trusted company in the same area saying hey, we specialize in this but these people specialize in ______ so check them out. It is a trusted referral. Completely different than content syndication.

First, we need to differentiate online and offline. What works for internet marketers does not always apply to brick and mortar, in fact, it rarely does.

That being said, we also have to understand the difference between SEO and article marketing, and also understand the difference between content marketing and content syndication. Content syndication does not work for offline businesses, like your typical roofer, plumber, etc.

The whole idea of article syndication is a little weird... but I'm not discrediting it. However, the logic and defense that believers come up with are all the same. You would rather spread out content through a variety of websites, instead of depending on search engines, but the sites you're syndicating your content on, are definitely getting search engine traffic. Right? It doesn't make sense for a roofing company in California, or a pest control service in new jersey, to be syndicating their content.

Now, I AM a believer in having your own personal content syndication network setup in a way that you're curating your own content, vs. total syndication. I used to do a LOT of press release syndication as well, and it does help with citations but it brings you very little traffic.

Leads are the metric that, as marketers, we rely on. Because leads mean money!

For offline businesses, how many leads, and ultimately how much revenue will be generated from article syndication? Very little, if any.

What works for Alexa, Paul, and whoever else is in to that kind of thing, that's great. However, when you consider online vs. offline it is a different story. What works for them, won't work for everyone.

I'm also not saying to rely only on SEO... but to "Forget SEO" like you suggested is an awful idea. A #1 ranking in a populated city for a roofer, lots of seo work we did for that to happen, is generating over 300K/mo in revenue from SEO. But... they're not stupid... they understand marketing. If you're a marketer then you understand the importance of having different avenues of visibility and having them work together, for you.

This is the offline marketing part of the forum, so it is unlikely any client anyone here would work with has a real business just waiting on search engine traffic. Most businesses are successful without the internet, we just want to help them become more successful. At least, that's what I look for in a client. I want people that are already doing well.

Anyway... Nothing personal against you... There is just a huge difference

Think of it this way...

Person is sitting in their home and a tree falls down blocking their driveway... there are a few possible outcomes.
1.) A neighbor recommends a tree service.
2.) They open up a phone book and call a tree service
3.) They pull out their smart phone and search for a tree service
or... for you content syndicators...
4.) They have a chainsaw and a truck and they look for articles on best practices for tree removal so they can do it themselves. Sure.. maybe the article will be able to get them to opt in for some ebook on "7 Common Tree Removal Mistakes that Will Cost You Thousands", but how much value are they to your list?

If you owned a tree service company.... how would you be spending your marketing dollars? On content syndication? I don't think so.

You're right though... there is no guarantee that Google will be around tomorrow...there is no guarantee that the sites you syndicate content on, will be around tomorrow. Death and taxes... that's all you can expect to be guaranteed.