Even "Article Syndication" Is Dead!

63 replies
Why not republish your content on as many places as possible? It's a simple way for you to generate more traffic and exposure, right?

We did this at KISSmetrics. Can you guess what happened to our search traffic? It tanked by 225,418 visitors!

We got hit by a Panda update, which caused our search traffic to plummet.

So yes, although it sounds like a great idea, the penalty you incur will lose you more traffic than you gain from the republishing of your content.

Instead of trying to republish your content, focus on picking the right spot. Choose the blog that you think is the best for each piece of content you write, and only publish it on that site.
This is what one of the most famous IM bloggers, Neil Patel, recently wrote in his blog.

Now, there goes your dreams of Article Syndication.

In short, article marketing and article syndication does not really work these days. You have to publish original content everywhere to be in Google's good books.

Instead, we are moving to a new adage these days.

"Original Content Is King."
#article syndication #dead
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    For SEO, its been dead for years...

    That's not why the current breed of syndication specialists use it though. In otherwords, you're only telling half the story...
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570651].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Shadowflux
      Original content has always been king, even before any of these major updates. A lot of the cheaper articles were written based off of information found in original content. People would search for high quality articles and then try to copy them.

      I wonder when people are going to understand that even a single piece of high quality, original material will always beat out large numbers of low quality content.

      In fact, if the content is good enough it can beat out many other forms of marketing and advertising. That's been my experience, at least.
      Signature
      Native Advertising Specialist
      Dangerously Effective
      Always Discreet
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570663].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author writeaway
      Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

      For SEO, its been dead for years...

      That's not why the current breed of syndication specialists use it though. In otherwords, you're only telling half the story...
      Content syndication done right doesn't mean putting a copy on your site. Agreed.

      Content syndication is still doing well. A lot of major online brands do it. The problem is most people who try to do it end up doing it wrong. Here's a hint: it doesn't involve putting a copy on your site.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573608].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by writeaway View Post

        Content syndication done right doesn't mean putting a copy on your site. Agreed.

        Content syndication is still doing well. A lot of major online brands do it. The problem is most people who try to do it end up doing it wrong. Here's a hint: it doesn't involve putting a copy on your site.
        Good point!

        Then what is content syndication? I am not talking about creating infographics or videos and spreading them on visual.ly or YouTube, because practically that's how it works.

        I am talking about "article syndication" and if you think I am defining it wrong, please do correct me.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573818].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tom Addams
    See directly above.

    Content marketing (distributing original content, and encouraging viral distribution) is the ticket, and always will be.

    However, article syndication is still strongly viable. You just have to do it differently that suggested above.
    Signature

    I Coach: Learn More | My Latest WF Thread: Dead Domains/ Passive Traffic

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve B
    Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

    In short, article marketing and article syndication does not really work these days. You have to publish original content everywhere to be in Google's good books.

    Maybe that has been your experience. Mine has been just the opposite.

    Done correctly, both article marketing and syndication continue to work well.

    Of course you need to publish original content, no one is denying that, but how you distribute that content around the Internet is the reason for doing article marketing and syndication.

    To say that both those distribution strategies are dead is to simply admit that you're doing them wrong.

    Steve
    Signature

    Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
    SteveBrowneDirect

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570667].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hometutor
      I usually use the first five pages of Google as my guideline as to where to submit.

      Rick
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570693].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alast
        Originally Posted by hometutor View Post

        I usually use the first five pages of Google as my guideline as to where to submit.

        Rick
        I don't. These are the websites who rely on SEO rankings (a lot of the time), and mostly refuse to accept your content because they are misinformed, and believe it's "duplicate" when there is a distinct difference between duplicate and syndicated articles.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570728].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by Steve B View Post

      Maybe that has been your experience. Mine has been just the opposite.

      Done correctly, both article marketing and syndication continue to work well.

      Of course you need to publish original content, no one is denying that, but how you distribute that content around the Internet is the reason for doing article marketing and syndication.

      To say that both those distribution strategies are dead is to simply admit that you're doing them wrong.

      Steve
      Steve, that has not been my experience.

      That is one of the best internet marketers, Neil Patel, speaking.

      Also, can you name one great blog with lots of authority and thousands of viewers that accepts republished content? I guess no.

      Even I have submitted my articles in article directories, as guest posts, or even as videos (not that much though!). The most popular websites don't accept republished content (heck! they don't even accept your post at times), and the smaller blogs who do accept your republished content are really worth it.

      If not for SEO or for traffic, then why would we do syndication?

      I rest my case there.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571792].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by artflair View Post

        I'm surprised that Alexa Smith still didn't reply to this thread...
        Ron ("schttrj") and I have been "debating" this subject, on and off, for 4 years. During that time countless successful article marketers have tried - to absolutely no collective avail at all - to explain to him the underlying concepts involved. I don't understand his motivation for continually alleging that "article syndication is dead" and frankly I'm tired of it.

        In my opinion, his nonsense on this subject has actually reached (or even surpassed) the point of trolling.

        So, in general, I'm no longer willing to dignify his ill-informed ramblings with responses, and that was why I hadn't replied, until you specifically asked me to.

        Originally Posted by artflair View Post

        What are your thoughts Alexa?
        Well, since you ask ... just this one time ...

        Originally Posted by himanuzo View Post

        No duplicate content.... original content only!
        You don't know what "duplicate content" is. You've been confusing it with "syndicated content" in almost every post you've ever made here, in which you've mentioned it in this context. You're nearly as confused about this whole subject as Ron, who started this thread (and he's been bullshitting on this subject here, on and off, for 4 years, now).

        And believe me, that's really saying something.

        Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing Blog

        Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

        That is one of the best internet marketers, Neil Patel, speaking.
        On this subject, like so many other "gurus", he actually has very little idea what he's talking about.

        He's looking at article marketing as an SEO strategy. And that's frankly silly, because article marketing isn't an SEO strategy. (I've been telling Ron this for 4 years, since he joined this forum, but he doesn't listen.)

        If anyone wants to see how well article syndication can work, in 2014, even for people comparatively new to it, here's a fairly typical little thread from the end of last year, in which someone pretty new to article syndication set out to make $1,500 by article syndication over a period of a few weeks. It's a kind of blow-by-blow account of how it worked out for her. I can't recall the details now, and I think I didn't post in it at all, but as I remember she actually made about $4,500, instead of her target $1,500, during those weeks. Try telling that thread's author that article syndication is "dead"!

        Not everyone wants to start a thread about it (understandably enough), but I get messages from other people doing the same, here, every day of every week, and I have done, for years.

        "It only happens all the time": in another six months' time, he'll find another "guru" with another blog post saying that "article marketing is dead" and he'll do the same exact thing all over again. He's been doing this almost ever since he joined this forum (many of these threads have been deleted, though, over the years - eventually they get too argumentative and too potentially damaging to people, and that's another reason for my not wanting to spend long posting in them, even to correct the factual misinformation - sorry.)

        The overwhelming irony is that - as so many of us have been saying and showing here, over the last year or two - article syndication (thanks in part to the benefits for article marketers of the very Panda updates that "Ron's gurus" apparently blame for its so-called demise!?!? ) is actually easier, more productive and more profitable to do, now, in 2014, than it was when I started doing it for a living, back in 2008/9.

        And that's probably enough from me: I don't want to sound unfriendly or arrogant about it, but honestly my time is too valuable to use it up replying to Ron: years of experience has shown me and many other pro-article marketers here that whatever anyone says, there just isn't a way to stop him from repeatedly posting this nonsense. So, no more from me in this thread though that's usually Ron's cue to ask me "specific questions" and then tell people I "ran away without answering them"!! Watch and see: they'll perhaps be along later, IF he's bothered checking for replies (he sometimes doesn't) - I've seen it all so many times before (and I don't play that game with him anyway, because I don't appreciate conversations with people who change their posts after I've replied to them. I'm serious: these things are all very, very trollish, not to mention tiresome).

        http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5035794

        "You win some; you lose some".

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9572203].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          I'm familiar with Neal Patel, and I read the post that was taken from. Since Neal is a SE specialist, he sees everything through Google blinders.

          Like many who have found that syndication doesn't work for them, he's focused on high ranking blogs and their effect on his own rankings. Since he depends so much on organic search, I don't doubt his numbers.

          But he's missing the point. He's still looking at article syndication as a SEO strategy.

          The idea that syndication is about putting content in front of targeted people you might not reach otherwise doesn't make sense to him.

          He completely ignores the idea that you can place already-published content on sites focused on bringing content to their readers without regard to possible Google consequences. Places like niche portals, trade association sites, and the whole gamut of emailed and even print publications.

          If your entire traffic strategy revolves around organic search, and Google in particular, there are worse people you could listen to than Neal Patel.

          But to take one facet of a method and claim that the entire methodology is dead is ludicrous. Take off the Google goggles and look around.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9572497].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author raffman999
    You've just got to do it right; though Guest Posting is generally safer as a rule of thumb in my experience.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570691].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author @tjr
      Originally Posted by raffman999 View Post

      You've just got to do it right; though Guest Posting is generally safer as a rule of thumb in my experience.
      Gee, I wonder why:

      50 High PR Websites that accept Guest Posts - Any Niche You Want: Fiverr Link Removed
      Originally Posted by Alast View Post

      I don't. These are the websites who rely on SEO rankings (a lot of the time), and mostly refuse to accept your content because they are misinformed, and believe it's "duplicate" when there is a distinct difference between duplicate and syndicated articles.
      That really depends on the niche that you are in. That dude selling ceramic plates of forgotten vice presidents doesn't care though. He just wants something good that his customer base wants.

      When you step outside of IM circles you'd be amazed at how many people aren't worrying about Google and its algorithms. Heck, maybe they're the ones that have it right.

      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      Exactly! You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it. Come on, let's face the truth here.
      The truth? Seems to me that you're saying that you either own one of those big websites or call it a day, as smaller ones are not really worth it.

      I've got bad news, hopscotch. I've never heard of you. I asked 10 strangers. They haven't either. You're not a big website owner. Pack it in, according to your own philosophy.

      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      1. You cannot republish your content on any of the BIG sites.
      No. Maybe you cannot. As I said before, that's not necessarily a method problem. Either the ideas behind your content suck and provide nothing to a reader in the niche or you just don't have the talent to write something worth republishing. It can be a hard pill to swallow, I know. But if you're going to keep painting with a wide paint brush without providing your own testing, I'm going to have to do the neutral thing (remember, you asked for that) and assume that like everyone else not providing concrete evidence one way or the other that you've learned to speak from the wrong orifice.

      Originally Posted by Claire Koch View Post

      Original content has always been the way to go. the other is spam period
      Spam(noun): irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.

      Spam(verb): to send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.

      That's a pretty wide paintbrush you're trying to use there to fit republishing articles under the definition of spam. Hysterics like that are why there will almost never be a productive conversation on this topic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9577073].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BizMath
    I removed some sentences from your thread... Isn't it telling the real truth now?

    Originally Posted by schttrj View Post


    Now, there goes your dreams of Article Syndication
    ,

    "Original Content Is King."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9570705].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

    This is what one of the most famous IM bloggers, Neil Patel, recently wrote in his blog.

    Now, there goes your dreams of Article Syndication.

    In short, article marketing and article syndication does not really work these days.
    Yeah, tell that to Yahoo, MSN, Huffington, Drudge and thousands of others. And not that it matters much what Google does anyway but the sites I mentioned all get ranked even with syndicated content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571640].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      Yeah, tell that to Yahoo, MSN, Huffington, Drudge and thousands of others. And not that it matters much what Google does anyway but the sites I mentioned all get ranked even with syndicated content.
      Have you heard about Domain Authority? That makes the difference.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571800].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Luke Dennison
    Article syndication is extremely hard, if not impossible.

    But content marketing is actually alive and well.

    It's not hard to persuade someone to publish a guest post, but it's hard to persuade someone to publish an article that has been published elsewhere.

    Deffo not for beginners.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571708].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
    I don't agree or disagree with Neil on this one, but what he left out in that article is that not everyone can get their content published to big websites. If those people can build an ongoing submission relationship with a bunch of smaller sites, at least they have some exposure.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571791].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author schttrj
      Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

      I don't agree or disagree with Neil on this one, but what he left out in that article is that not everyone can get their content published to big websites. If those people can build an ongoing submission relationship with a bunch of smaller sites, at least they have some exposure.
      Exactly! You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it. Come on, let's face the truth here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571796].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alast
        Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

        Exactly! You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it. Come on, let's face the truth here.
        The many making full-time incomes through article syndication (as a main traffic source) will disagree with you.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571812].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author schttrj
          Originally Posted by Alast View Post

          The many making full-time incomes through article syndication (as a main traffic source) will disagree with you.
          Not to undermine anyone Alast, this is a data-driven age. And we are simply moving towards higher efficiency over time.

          You can move a 100 lb stone with your bare hands but then again, why not use the lever, right?

          To add to that, yes, it is also to be noted that while some are indeed authentic in their business claims, many are NOT.

          So, it's good to weigh in the negative at times, and go by hardcore evidences.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571872].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alast
            Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

            Not to undermine anyone Alast, this is a data-driven age. And we are simply moving towards higher efficiency over time.
            And getting your articles in the eyes of those with similar interests isn't efficient? You can, for all I care, build a website without developing a relationship with your potential customers (audience) but I would rather not, and to insinuate that article syndication doesn't work is baloney.

            You can move a 100 lb stone with your bare hands but then again, why not use the lever, right?
            I fail to see any relevance. The aim for article syndication isn't to get your stuff out in front of the biggest audience possible; rather the right audience with similar interests. Many niche-related websites have, and are always developing their audiences - and I would rather have my content in front of 100 of those people, than 10,000 other random people, who probably won't be interested in making a purchase.

            I could reference many of Alexa's posts on this, but I'll let you find them.

            To add to that, yes, it is also to be noted that while some are indeed authentic in their business claims, many are NOT.
            Even if one person is making a killing through article syndication, it debunks your claim, "You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it."

            Just because a website does not have a good SEO ranking, doesn't mean it doesn't have a large audience.

            So, it's good to weigh in the negative at times, and go by hardcore evidences.
            I'm not denying that many don't want syndicated content (different to duplicated content), but to say that article syndication is "dead" is asinine.

            ----

            Just to clarify: I am not, in any way, saying I am a professional in this area. It is evident from one of my recent threads, actually.

            Still learnin'!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571884].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author schttrj
              Originally Posted by Alast View Post

              And getting your articles in the eyes of those with similar interests isn't efficient? You can, for all I care, build a website without developing a relationship with your potential customers (audience) but I would rather not, and to insinuate that article syndication doesn't work is baloney.

              I fail to see any relevance. The aim for article syndication isn't to get your stuff out in front of the biggest audience possible; rather the right audience with similar interests. Many niche-related websites have, and are always developing their audiences - and I would rather have my content in front of 100 of those people, than 10,000 other random people, who probably won't be interested in making a purchase.

              I could reference many of Alexa's posts on this, but I'll let you find them.

              Even if one person is making a killing through article syndication, it debunks your claim, "You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it."

              Just because a website does not have a good SEO ranking, doesn't mean it doesn't have a large audience.

              I'm not denying that many don't want syndicated content (different to duplicated content), but to say that article syndication is "dead" is asinine.

              ----

              Just to clarify: I am not, in any way, saying I am a professional in this area. It is evident from one of my recent threads, actually.

              Still learnin'!
              Good points, actually. I love a good discussion any day.

              Let me explain to you.

              1. You cannot republish your content on any of the BIG sites. Small websites? Most of them that are presently working towards creating a substantial audience are fearful of the Google updates and won't accept any syndicated content.

              Again, even when some of them accepts your article but have you heard about the Penguin update? Bad links from bad sites can actually hamper your own SEO.

              Remember, the BrightEdge study found organic search drives 51 percent of all visitors to B2B and B2C websites, trumping all other non-organic search channels, including paid search (10%) and social (5%).

              2. Most of the websites that are HUGELY popular are also on the first or second page of Google. Do you know why? Because hugely popular sites garner social links and that enhances their ranking. Simple.

              Actually, it's interesting that with solid SEO, you can still increase your SE ranking without massive social popularity. But things are changing, to be honest.

              3. From your post, I think you are talking of "article syndication" in a different meaning. What I mean is republishing your articles in many blogs or websites or eZines at the same time.

              What are you talking of?

              One more thing, since you are a newbie, I would suggest you to take a neutral view to everything or everyone (including ME) and don't follow something or someone blindly. Try and see what works. Do your cost-benefit analysis and then find out whether it is worth it or not.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571907].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alast
                Originally Posted by schttrj View Post


                1. You cannot republish your content on any of the BIG sites. Small websites? Most of them that are presently working towards creating a substantial audience are fearful of the Google updates and won't accept any syndicated content.
                What are you defining as big sites? I had numerous of my articles published on a website with 1.2 million Facebook likes, and only got 80~ subscribers and no sales. Sure - there could have been an issue with my email sequences or many other factors, but from those who I trust ensured me that was not the case.

                Just because a website appears to be big, does not mean other websites are suddenly obsolete. It's quality, not quantity.

                Again, even when some of them accepts your article but have you heard about the Penguin update? Bad links from bad sites can actually hamper your own SEO.
                I don't care about SEO, and never will.

                Remember, the BrightEdge study found organic search drives 51 percent of all visitors to B2B and B2C websites, trumping all other non-organic search channels, including paid search (10%) and social (5%).
                Biased - not interested.

                It's one of those things where many would disagree.

                2. Most of the websites that are HUGELY popular are also on the first or second page of Google. Do you know why? Because hugely popular sites garner social links and that enhances their ranking. Simple.
                What the hell do you define as hugely popular? A large social media presence? You don't know how much traffic any website is getting, so you cannot make that claim.

                Actually, it's interesting that with solid SEO, you can still increase your SE ranking without massive social popularity. But things are changing, to be honest.
                I don't care about SEO, and never will.

                3. From your post, I think you are talking of "article syndication" in a different meaning. What I mean is republishing your articles in many blogs or websites or eZines at the same time.

                What are you talking of?
                That is exactly what I'm talking about.

                One more thing, since you are a newbie, I would suggest you to take a neutral view to everything or everyone (including ME) and don't follow something or someone blindly. Try and see what works. Do your cost-benefit analysis and then find out whether it is worth it or not.
                Me being a 'newbie' has nothing to do with anything, and your logic is absolutely flawed. I suppose I better not listen to my teachers, parents, or anyone I believe can lead me in the right direction. Instead, I should listen to those who clearly don't know what they're talking about (I know, I'm new and I'm making that claim; sue me), and learn absolutely everything from anyone, simply because you said so.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571921].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author XponentSYS
        Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

        Exactly! You cannot get published on the BIG websites. And the smaller ones are not really worth it. Come on, let's face the truth here.
        Really?

        I don't think it's true that one can't get published on big websites. I've done it - but NOT using the methods most tout here.

        What method do I use then?

        Easy.

        A phone call. I call them, tell them who I am and I ASK FOR an agreement. I say something like.....

        Hi. My name is Ben Pedersen and have been a DRM consultant for 15 years. I want to write for your BLOG. What is it your readers want- I will write it....... by the way, obviously I want a BIO".

        Know what?

        I close 90 percent of them.

        Know why?

        This is a business and most of the time, in business, a phone call is akin to 100 "cold emails" .

        So is content syndication dead? NO. Not for those of us willing to WORK (if you can call it that - it's actually EASY. Building a restaraunt chain is WORK))

        Are the half-assed, lame "short cut" methods that used to work finally dead because everyone caught on?

        Yes. Thank god for that.

        Above, I gave you the real method. Now go do if.
        Signature
        "Hybrid Method" Gets 120,846 TARGETED VISITORS
        To Any Site in ANY NICHE!

        NOW FREE IN THE WAR ROOM! CLICK HERE!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571935].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author himanuzo
    No duplicate content.... original content only!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571818].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnnyPlan
    The purpose of article syndication is not SEO or attracting search engine traffic but to expose your article and content to a group of readers who are currently loyal to another site. If you get your article published on another person's blog, then their readers will see your content and react favorably (assuming you have something relevant to say) and are likely to click through on your link to visit your site to see what you have to offer. This is the only relevant use of syndicating your articles. And, that has nothing to do with SEO but direct traffic, as the owner of the blog where your article is published will be the one in charge of getting people to your page on his site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571899].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9571930].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claire Koch
      Original content has always been the way to go. the other is spam period



      Originally Posted by artflair View Post

      I'm surprised that Alexa Smith still didn't reply to this thread...
      What are your thoughts Alexa?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573974].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

        As I mentioned above, my question or rather opinion was, is it worth it? After weighing in all the pros and cons, I guess no.

        That's my opinion and I do respect yours as well.
        It's not worth it to you. Fair enough. I can respect that, and we can agree to disagree.

        Calling the entire methodology "dead", though it might make for a dramatic subject line, is an overstatement.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9574392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author @tjr
    I too have an opinion on the matter that favors one extreme over another.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9572019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve B
    Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

    In short, article marketing and article syndication does not really work these days. You have to publish original content everywhere to be in Google's good books.

    Instead, we are moving to a new adage these days.

    "Original Content Is King."

    schttrj,

    You are welcome to your opinion. It's obvious you're so set on proving you're right that you're not open to considering opposing views on the subject from others on this forum that have many years of experience on the topic.

    Article marketing and article syndication are NOT right for you. Period. You don't know how to do it and you're not willing to learn.

    For the rest of you out there that spend the time to learn how to effectively distribute your content around the Internet, article marketing and syndication can expand the reach of your content greatly and aid you in reaching prospects that you might not otherwise find.

    The best to all of you,

    Steve
    Signature

    Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
    SteveBrowneDirect

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9572654].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author schttrj
    Alexa, hi...how's your health? Hope you are fine.

    But truly speaking, you lost your case when you said Patel does NOT know his subject. Ha ha...!

    If you are an internet marketing expert, you know about article marketing, PPC advertising and SEO...Okay, not to sound like a sponsor here, let's just say that he is one of the most genuine IM experts in the field.

    And unfortunately, I have passed the stage where I have any gurus. But yes, I am not an expert. I claim to be very, very experienced STUDENT of Internet Marketing.

    Now, onto what I was saying...

    Even I am surprised how most of the "article marketers" over here keep on harping on the same note that it works, but while I can still give evidences and data on behalf of my argument, no one else can. That's a surprise, Alexa!

    If you really want to convince me, then here are the points below. Refute them with proper evidences and not just saying that we have been arguing for the last 4 years and you are tired

    1. Where would you republish? Blogs, article directories, eZines? Show me one hugely popular AUTHORITY blog with thousands of followers that accept republished non-exclusive content.

    Note: You can always guest-post fresh articles on those sites. That's not a problem.

    2. You are saying, SEO is not your main traffic strategy. Well, if we are going to ignore organic traffic that supposedly contributes 50% to your overall traffic, then we are being fools, to be honest. And by the way, when you are submitting top quality content in someone else's blog, then you are making his website popular instead.

    3. BTW for your information, do also know how Google treats republished content. Most of the time, when the same article gets "duplicated" (yes, it's duplicated), though the whole page is not duplicate, remember, Google ultimately sends some of the small websites back in the Supplemental Pages category.

    And that's the reason why most of the established blog owners won't accept non-exclusive content.

    4. Right there are a list of site owners who still accept content. I have myself done so in the last couple of years. And I can vouch that while they claim their readership to be in thousands, it still doesn't amount to significant traffic.

    Why? Because they are still very niche-oriented and "small" to be honest.

    Alexa, it's 2014! I am sure, your article marketing strategy was working back in the 2000 but not right now.

    But then again, if you want, do prove me wrong. I will be more than happy.

    And oh...

    ...So, no more from me in this thread though that's usually Ron's cue to ask me "specific questions" and then tell people I "ran away without answering them"!! Watch and see: they'll perhaps be along later, IF he's bothered checking for replies (he sometimes doesn't) - I've seen it all so many times before (and I don't play that game with him anyway, because I don't appreciate conversations with people who change their posts after I've replied to them. I'm serious: these things are all very, very trollish, not to mention tiresome).
    Frankly speaking Alexa, when it comes to meaningful suggestions, I would ask the Sears cashier about how to build a solid PPC campaign, but NOT you. I am sad to say this but you don't measure up to my expectations.

    Oh BTW it's always helpful to search your name on Google...Ha ha!

    Anyway, don't bother yourself. I understand you are not in good health. I wish you take rest and get well soon. All the best.

    Now, having said this all, a NOTE TO ALL THE NEWBIE MARKETERS:

    No, article syndication is NOT dead...if and only if you want to stick to trickling traffic and depend on a small set of small site owners. (Well, that's my and many others' experience actually!)

    Just for an example, even Steve Shaw of Article Marketing has changed his business model after all the Google updates. If he could gather a huge list of blog networks, he would not have left his dear business!

    Learn from what's going around, my friends.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9572937].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      3. BTW for your information, do also know how Google treats republished content. Most of the time, when the same article gets "duplicated" (yes, it's duplicated), though the whole page is not duplicate, remember, Google ultimately sends some of the small websites back in the Supplemental Pages category.
      When it comes to search traffic, I have two outcomes that I'm happy with.

      1) I like my content to show on my site, obviously.

      2) I want content to show, even if it's on another site.

      As far as the Supplemental index goes, there isn't just one bin called supplemental. For example, geography can play a role. Ron, you're in India; I'm in the USA. Other things being equal, I would fully expect an Indian site carrying my content to outrank my US site for an Indian searcher. And I'm fine with that. As long as my content shows up, I'm happy.

      Edit: Looking back at the Patel article, Neal never says what type of sites he republished on. If he truly followed the idea of "as many places as possible", including blog farms, link farms, spammy article directories, etc., then I don't doubt he got hit with a Panda penalty.

      It's about using a rifle, not a shotgun.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573120].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        When it comes to search traffic, I have two outcomes that I'm happy with.

        1) I like my content to show on my site, obviously.

        2) I want content to show, even if it's on another site.

        As far as the Supplemental index goes, there isn't just one bin called supplemental. For example, geography can play a role. Ron, you're in India; I'm in the USA. Other things being equal, I would fully expect an Indian site carrying my content to outrank my US site for an Indian searcher. And I'm fine with that. As long as my content shows up, I'm happy.

        Edit: Looking back at the Patel article, Neal never says what type of sites he republished on. If he truly followed the idea of "as many places as possible", including blog farms, link farms, spammy article directories, etc., then I don't doubt he got hit with a Panda penalty.

        It's about using a rifle, not a shotgun.
        Hi John,

        True indeed, location matters.

        But then again, this is not what I am saying. This is someone who stays and operates his business in US only.

        Having said that I also understand your point of not following SEO and just spreading your article in other sites.

        As I mentioned above, my question or rather opinion was, is it worth it? After weighing in all the pros and cons, I guess no.

        That's my opinion and I do respect yours as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573821].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      No, article syndication is NOT dead...if and only if you want to stick to trickling traffic and depend on a small set of small site owners. (Well, that's my and many others' experience actually!)
      Your failure in article syndication is due to a marketing style that apparently never was quite alive. Submitting semi-coherent articles to publishers with the hope they will accept them is not what article marketing is about.

      The fact is, publishers (including the "BIG" sites) are hungry for quality content. But just like any product, it requires marketing to make a sale.

      Well, in my experience actually, insistence on "original" content by editors is just a ruse to discourage SEO spammers. You need to provide content that meets the expectations of publishers and demonstrate value to their readers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573231].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        Your failure in article syndication is due to a marketing style that apparently never was quite alive. Submitting semi-coherent articles to publishers with the hope they will accept them is not what article marketing is about.

        The fact is, publishers (including the "BIG" sites) are hungry for quality content. But just like any product, it requires marketing to make a sale.

        Well, in my experience actually, insistence on "original" content by editors is just a ruse to discourage SEO spammers. You need to provide content that meets the expectations of publishers and demonstrate value to their readers.
        Yes, every product needs marketing and as a marketer yourself, you must know when the consumer can avail high quality products somewhere else, you can NOT sell sub-par product.

        And technically, since these HUGE sites obviously want to provide value to their readers, they do NOT accept non-exclusive content because that is sub-standard. Not because it is badly written but because it is already published on someone else's site and they are barraged with thousands of other high-quality yet FRESH articles everyday.

        To clarify myself further, this is over seven years of experience that still manages the e-marketing department of an ecommerce company speaking.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573828].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Magnatolia
          Dude, if you genuinely let people have their opinions, then stop trying to shove yours down their throat.

          Oh, and clearly your post was about Article syndication being dead in terms of SEO. Cool, I agree with that for the most part. Although I was under the impression that Google looked at the posted date of the content to find who the real owner is. Let's face it, it's pretty damn easy to copy and paste an article thee days. For the cost of about $10 and a few bucks a month someone can get a web host and domain. So no I don't believe it's as simple as Google sees a duplicate of your content and drops you.

          Now, if you wanted to write a post about article syndication being dead with regards to SEO, then write a better heading. Your post makes a very broad statement that in its current form, is incorrect. Because there are other ways of getting traffic than just SEO.

          And if people want to use direct traffic then who are you to argue with them? Clearly it suits their business strategy. Oh, and here's one link for you to visit. Connecting Site...

          Shows a very small, roughly 1/3 of their traffic is from search engine. And of the top 10 organic keywords used to find them, 9 of them are brand related.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573957].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author schttrj
            Originally Posted by Magnatolia View Post

            Dude, if you genuinely let people have their opinions, then stop trying to shove yours down their throat.

            Oh, and clearly your post was about Article syndication being dead in terms of SEO. Cool, I agree with that for the most part. Although I was under the impression that Google looked at the posted date of the content to find who the real owner is. Let's face it, it's pretty damn easy to copy and paste an article thee days. For the cost of about $10 and a few bucks a month someone can get a web host and domain. So no I don't believe it's as simple as Google sees a duplicate of your content and drops you.

            Now, if you wanted to write a post about article syndication being dead with regards to SEO, then write a better heading. Your post makes a very broad statement that in its current form, is incorrect. Because there are other ways of getting traffic than just SEO.

            And if people want to use direct traffic then who are you to argue with them? Clearly it suits their business strategy. Oh, and here's one link for you to visit. Connecting Site...

            Shows a very small, roughly 1/3 of their traffic is from search engine. And of the top 10 organic keywords used to find them, 9 of them are brand related.
            I couldn't get your point here.

            The example that you gave receives 30% of their traffic (that is the highest share BTW, followed by direct traffic) from search engines. And you are talking about FourHourWorkWeek.

            That's a HIGHLY POPULAR site. Nobody searches for Google on Google, remember.

            We are talking about small business owners here. I am sure, Jeff Bezos won't have time to talk about article syndication on WF.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9574505].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

          And technically, since these HUGE sites obviously want to provide value to their readers, they do NOT accept non-exclusive content because that is sub-standard. Not because it is badly written but because it is already published on someone else's site and they are barraged with thousands of other high-quality yet FRESH articles everyday.

          To clarify myself further, this is over seven years of experience that still manages the e-marketing department of an ecommerce company speaking.
          Give my condolences to your company for having you as manager of the e-marketing department.

          Speaking from over 16 years of experience in article syndication marketing, publishers (including the "HUGE sites") reject articles mostly for reasons other than non-exclusive content.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9574878].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author schttrj
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Give my condolences to your company for having you as manager of the e-marketing department.

            Speaking from over 16 years of experience in article syndication marketing, publishers (including the "HUGE sites") reject articles mostly for reasons other than non-exclusive content.
            Ha ha...! Still to get any solid evidence, Paul.

            Anywhere you blog?

            Any website you run?

            Anything AT ALL?

            Personal statements don't really matter. You sound like a kid.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575680].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

              Ha ha...! Still to get any solid evidence, Paul.

              Anywhere you blog?

              Any website you run?

              Anything AT ALL?

              Personal statements don't really matter. You sound like a kid.
              There already are mountains of solid evidence all around you that article syndication is vibrantly alive and well. For any given viable niche, there are hundreds, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of online/offline publications that are hungry for quality articles.

              It's quite clear you either have no understanding of article syndication or else your writing skills are below the standards expected by your targeted publishers.

              If this marketing model is not working for you, then my suggestion would be to get off the dead horse you're riding instead of continuously beating it. Contrary to your stubborn insistence, article syndication was never about SEO, search traffic, ranking, or Google.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575980].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        You need to provide content that meets the expectations of publishers and demonstrate value to their readers.

        Bingo!

        Perhaps the OP'S junk content is not news worthy and of a quality standard.

        Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about duplicated content! There is no such thing as duplicated content unless it's duplicated on your own site. People always mistake curated content and syndicated as duplicated content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575645].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
          Hi, I'm sorry to have to tell you that content syndication is not dead.

          If it is then someone had best alert my accountant.

          Thanks, Patrick
          Signature
          Free eBook =>
          The Secret To Success In Any Business
          Yes, Any Business!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575652].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author schttrj
          Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

          Bingo!

          Perhaps the OP'S junk content is not news worthy and of a quality standard.

          Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about duplicated content! There is no such thing as duplicated content unless it's duplicated on your own site. People always mistake curated content and syndicated as duplicated content.
          Did you see the title of this thread? Content marketing per se is very different from article syndication.

          And while content marketing is up and alive, article syndication is not, since only a few website owners (or those who are new to IM) would accept a republished article.

          Note, I am talking about articles here.

          And I am seriously concerned about how the "content marketers" over here really don't keep up with the news. Instead of listening to people who clearly don't know what they are talking about, check this video.


          And while checked this video, also read the blog post below.

          http://www.searchenginejournal.com/g...ion-seo/80773/

          Maybe that will clear your definition of Duplicate Content.

          And this is the reason why the BIG sites won't allow republished content. Now go figure!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575725].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author joseph7384
            Originally Posted by schttrj View Post


            And this is the reason why the BIG sites won't allow republished content. Now go figure!

            You're talking apples and oranges, Matt is talking about just randomly throwing up key worded automated content via rss feeds, a horse of another color.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575758].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author schttrj
              Originally Posted by joseph7384 View Post

              You're talking apples and oranges, Matt is talking about just randomly throwing up key worded automated content via rss feeds, a horse of another color.
              Matt is talking about curating "duplicate" content on your site. I guess you didn't read the article linked below.

              Remember, curating is synonymous with content syndication from another viewpoint.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575866].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IDoTheLegWork
    This discussion is as useful as discussing whether an
    apple is an orange and is a result of the proliferation
    of the ambiguous use of language.

    Success and failure is being argued based on two
    completely different methods of implementation and
    measures of results.

    Kudos to Alexa for at least sticking to the consistent
    terminology of syndication.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9573403].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author talfighel
    Article marketing could be dead.

    You just have to write 100 of them and then see if you are getting any results.

    You would be better off with PAID ads and track to see which places are good and which ones are not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9574909].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author XenG
    I thought that when CONTENT IS KING was said, it meant original content. With articles, I am still doing the manual re-writing thing. Our traffic has been up and down since August and I am still doing the same SEO strategies. Right now, traffic is beginning to spike again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Peter Lessard
    I have been doing full time online marketing since 2001. BEFORE Google was important lol
    I laugh every time I see a post about something being dead.

    Doing things stupidly has always been dead. Every single method I have heard of and done since 2001 either works or fails based on small changes and methods.

    Yes I ABSOLUTELY agree that filters change and tolerance changes and some things become considered stupid or spammy that once were not but I strongly encourage people to dig deeper into methods that interest them rather than accept blanket statements that a particular thing is dead. I make money for clients every single day using "dead" methods ;-)
    Signature
    Ready to generate the next million in sales? The Next Million Agency
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9575704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author @tjr
    I wonder if anyone ever asked themselves if part of the problem with the method is a problem with talent...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9576544].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      Did you see the title of this thread? Content marketing per se is very different from article syndication.

      And while content marketing is up and alive, article syndication is not, since only a few website owners (or those who are new to IM) would accept a republished article.

      Note, I am talking about articles here.

      And I am seriously concerned about how the "content marketers" over here really don't keep up with the news. Instead of listening to people who clearly don't know what they are talking about, check this video.

      Is it useful to have a section of my site that re-posts articles from other sites? - YouTube

      And while checked this video, also read the blog post below.

      Your Guide to Content Curation for SEO - Search Engine Journal

      Maybe that will clear your definition of Duplicate Content.

      And this is the reason why the BIG sites won't allow republished content. Now go figure!
      Ron, you're making the case FOR article syndication done the right way.

      The video and article make the case against auto-generated content (aka, 'autoblogging'), something most of us have been saying is dead for years. Cutts also makes a strong case for properly curated content, as does the article.

      I think that, for purposes of this discussion, we need to differentiate between "syndication" by submitting to autoaccept sites and submitting to properly curated sites, where publication is at the discretion of the publisher. The latter tends to result in the kind of value-added curation that Cutts recommended.

      I truly think that the main reason many otherwise savvy publishers insist on unpublished content is the same misinterpretation by said publishers.

      No one, with the possible exception of the sellers of submission software and the owners of those autoblogs, is recommending the spray and pray distribution of content to anywhere that will take it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9576637].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9576659].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steve B


          "Stubbornness and stupidity are twins."

          Sophocles, 496 B.C.

          Steve
          Signature

          Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
          SteveBrowneDirect

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9576713].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Ron, you're making the case FOR article syndication done the right way.
        ^^This, precisely.

        Words are powerful, and those who have learned how to effectively use article syndication marketing for directly driving traffic and sales are making fortunes.

        Much like a narcotic, words have the power to change the way another person thinks, feel, and even to influence them to do or feel things that are not normal for them. (Throughout history it has been done for both good and bad purposes)

        But only in recent times has this method been twisted and diluted for gaming the search engines. Many marketers (and perhaps even some publishers) still consider content in terms of SEO, search engine traffic, and ranking. In my not so humble opinion, it was always such a waste to use this potential power for backlinks and not for people.

        "I am, by calling, a dealer in words; and words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize, and paralyze, but they enter into and colour the minutest cells of the brain."
        - Rudyard Kipling
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9580538].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author schttrj
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          There already are mountains of solid evidence all around you that article syndication is vibrantly alive and well. For any given viable niche, there are hundreds, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of online/offline publications that are hungry for quality articles.

          It's quite clear you either have no understanding of article syndication or else your writing skills are below the standards expected by your targeted publishers.

          If this marketing model is not working for you, then my suggestion would be to get off the dead horse you're riding instead of continuously beating it. Contrary to your stubborn insistence, article syndication was never about SEO, search traffic, ranking, or Google.
          Of course, not. If someone else wants to syndicate their articles, they can.

          And while my experience says, guest blogging is worthwhile, article syndication is not and much less accepted in the elite circle of bloggers.

          There are very FEW large websites that will accept articles that has been republished on a number of sites, from a small blogger (not much known already).

          We forget the fact that while we don't care about SEO, other website owners do.

          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Ron, you're making the case FOR article syndication done the right way.
          I think no. There are several aspects to this situation. SEO, marketing and so on...

          Check this posts below.

          Does Article Syndication Create Duplicate Content? - Everyday Marketing Everyday Marketing

          Dino Dogan, co-founder of Triberr makes a good argument against syndicating with extremely large and authoritative sites (i.e. Huffington Post, Mashable) as the link to your article may still not be enough to transfer authorship back to you.
          This is what Google says..."If you syndicate your content on other sites, Google will always show the version we think is most appropriate for users in each given search, which may or may not be the version you'd prefer."

          If you ask the website owner to use NoIndex tag, this will turn off many who care about SEO. Note, the large websites have more bargaining power than the small blogger!

          And most importantly, if the syndicating site is a more authoritative site (more backlinks, older, etc), which is often the case, it may rank the syndicated copy higher than your original copy.

          Having said that it is understandable, in many cases, not going after SEO is okay. Sometimes, you just want to enhance your exposure. But then again, submitting on a lot of small insignificant sites or eZine owners who don't bring you substantial traffic, it's always wise to keep posting original (or at least exclusively guest syndicated) articles to a popular website.

          That improves your authority in the community and also improves your SE ranking.

          As I said in the previous email, is it worth my time and energy? Well, no. But if you think you are right, then you must be.

          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

          Ron,
          I tell you what you do have a lot of nerve. Really.

          I mean Article Marketing via Syndication is very alive and well in mainstream IM.

          It is definitely not for everyone ,and you have to develop some specific skills and experience to make it a go.

          But the evidence is just irrefutable in that it truly works.

          I just do not understand your stubbornness on this issue ??
          Are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable ??
          Actually, it's not about being disagreeable or having a lot of nerves, it's about sharing one's experiences on an established forum like WF.

          I don't mean to undermine anyone else and I don't expect anyone to do the same.

          And you know, we could have discussed in a much better way if someone would have just come up and said these are the sites or these are the stats, look at it.

          Who said I was stubborn? It's foolish to be stubborn in a fast changing world like the Internet. Evolve or die, remember?

          Yes, I saw the link sent by Alfred, Somewhere, I read that the person was having problem publishing in large websites, right?

          And you know what, we are moving in circles here. We are NOT progressing at all.

          When someone says something does not work, we don't just jump saying saying "It works! You don't have any talent."

          We want to understand why he is saying so, and provide him with a logical argument on the case.

          And if we can't even hold a simple argument on a simple marketing tactic, we should stop calling ourselves "marketers".
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9580706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alfred Shelver
    I just want to reiterate the suggestion by Alexa to read http://www.warriorforum.com/member-c...ndication.html for Anyone who maybe fooled by the OPs ill informed opinion regarding Article syndication.

    It seems Rons biggest issues is that there is no income proof from Article syndication specialists, for me this is the biggest proof of concept as they really don't need to create a IM product they just make money and come on here and help others out.

    However that thread where a newbie gives in depth daily details has some very telling statistics that show the immense power and reliability of Article Syndication without the fear of Google ruining your business. With out any benefit to the person documenting her journey she gave detailed analysis of her income earned which is more reliable than any income claims I have yet to see.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9576824].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author discrat
      Ron,
      I tell you what you do have a lot of nerve. Really.

      I mean Article Marketing via Syndication is very alive and well in mainstream IM.

      It is definitely not for everyone ,and you have to develop some specific skills and experience to make it a go.

      But the evidence is just irrefutable in that it truly works.

      I just do not understand your stubbornness on this issue ??
      Are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable ??


      - Robert Andrew
      Signature

      Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9577012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author schttrj
    Hi Robert,

    I think we would be better off if we do a bit more study before claiming statistics here.

    Groupon recently published a study showing 60% of their ‘direct’ traffic is actually organic search. With this new finding in mind, Conductor updated an earlier study of 310 million visits and reallocated 60% of the study’s ‘direct’ visits to organic search. The original study showed that 47% of visits were organic search; the updated study suggests that organic search traffic might be responsible for closer to 64% of website traffic.
    Check this link: Update: Organic Search is Responsible for 64% of Web Traffic

    While you are reading this, check this article below as well.

    310 Million Visits: Nearly Half of All Web Site Traffic Comes From Natural Search [Data] - Conductor Blog

    Our analysis showed that natural search drives the most traffic of all channels, responsible for nearly half (47%) of all visits. In breaking out social visits from overall referral visits, we can see that referrals drive 15% of visits, while social actually drives 2%.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9580722].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by schttrj View Post

      Hi Robert,

      I think we would be better off if we do a bit more study before claiming statistics here.
      I have the statistics, I've been doing this for more than a decade. groupon may well rely on one source of traffic doesn't mean the total traffic overall is coming from google.

      For instance facebook already has more traffic than google, so does pinterest and I personally can send you 10 thousands of visitors over a year without any input from google.

      Traffic is all generic from where ever it comes from.

      google just one conduit for it, after they did a google search and go to groupon where do they go then? do they just turn off their computer....no they go somewhere else.

      Hence my point find out where your target market hangs out and have that traffic redirected to you. all traffic including search traffic is redirected from somewhere.

      google just found a way to put content in front of their target market and monetise the redirection of it.

      Instead of paying to learn how to do SEO pay groupon to redirect their traffic after there done with it.

      don't pay for facebook traffic, find sites with your target market who are good at getting paid traffic to their site and pay them to redirect some of it to you.

      google traffic can go to 50 other places after their google search in a surfing session, I know I do I have lots of places I visit all the time online don't need to google it because I already know about it, but I'm traffic that can be redirected some where else if the incentive is good enough.

      So are you, try analysing your own movements around the net and see just how little of it is motivated through any so called organic search patterns.


      PS: I agree with chris about the troll thing, but this reply is aimed at those people who think that google or any search engine is where they need to get their traffic.

      you go through all that SEO crap and then I will come along and find a deal that will encourage you to send me the traffic when your done with it. its cheaper than doing either seo or paying for google ads.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9581074].message }}

Trending Topics