As an Article Marketer, Who Is Your Master?

13 years ago

Why is the sky falling for some?

Because they rely on the traffic generated from article directories which is just as bad as relying on google for search engine traffic.

They are only getting to first base instead of hitting a home run.

Sure, article directories can be used for traffic and backlinks but the real value of article marketing is getting your article syndicated and used on sites that have far more value and much better traffic than what an article directory receives.

I think many people fail to take a step back, look at what they are doing and really think about how they can get the most return for their work.

A poorly written or spun article will get you a backlink and maybe some traffic.

A well written article will get you the same backlink, you'll get traffic that actually converts and it could also lead to your article being syndicated on other websites. There is also a good chance that others like myself who aren't writers might be contacting you for guest blogging or freelance work.

I'm as lazy as anyone but sometimes that extra effort does pay off.

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

It buys my product or it gets the hose

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533446].message }}

mizesean

12 years ago

Originally Posted by christopher jon

Why is the sky falling for some?

Because they rely on the traffic generated from article directories which is just as bad as relying on google for search engine traffic.

They are only getting to first base instead of hitting a home run.

Sure, article directories can be used for traffic and backlinks but the real value of article marketing is getting your article syndicated and used on sites that have far more value and much better traffic than what an article directory receives.

I think many people fail to take a step back, look at what they are doing and really think about how they can get the most return for their work.

A poorly written or spun article will get you a backlink and maybe some traffic.

A well written article will get you the same backlink, you'll get traffic that actually converts and it could also lead to your article being syndicated on other websites. There is also a good chance that others like myself who aren't writers might be contacting you for guest blogging or freelance work.

I'm as lazy as anyone but sometimes that extra effort does pay off.

Christopher, I agree with you - folks should focus on the needs of the people, generating a real business, rather than just focusing on clicks and views. Write strong, original articles, and the traffic will follow

Sean

Thanks

Signature

Have you thought about starting a group coaching program, but don't know how?

If so, Watch This YouTube Video: Group Coaching Program

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672816].message }}

Andyhenry

13 years ago

I don't understand the logic...... I'm an article marketer and I've had no problems from Google's algorithm changes.

Google (and other SEs) still love unique and useful content and it's still what people want to read.

Where's the problem?

It's excellent that the SEs are working hard to remove crap content from the results - that's to our advantage.

Andy

[ 8 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533616].message }}

wtatlas

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

I don't understand the logic...... I'm an article marketer and I've had no problems from Google's algorithm changes.

Google (and other SEs) still love unique and useful content and it's still what people want to read.

Where's the problem?

It's excellent that the SEs are working hard to remove crap content from the results - that's to our advantage.

Andy

I agree with you entirely. However, my reading of tpw's post is that he is saying because Google has so much power to upset the applecart it's not a good thing to rely too much just on organic search engine traffic.

The recent changes are applauded by any good content writer but Google could have made changes that had the opposite effect. Unlikely, I know, but it doesn't pay to rely on just one traffic source.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533723].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Article marketers might not be reliant on Google, but they are completely reliant on themselves. You see it all the time here, they get sick or something happens in their personal lives, and they are up a creek.

To me, that's every bit as bad as relying on Google.

But look at a lot of the article marketers on this forum. Do you ever hear them talking about anything outside of syndication? Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534041].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Article marketers might not be reliant on Google, but they are completely reliant on themselves. You see it all the time here, they get sick or something happens in their personal lives, and they are up a creek.

To me, that's every bit as bad as relying on Google.

But look at a lot of the article marketers on this forum. Do you ever hear them talking about anything outside of syndication? Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all.

Oh look Dave's here to have a swipe at the syndicators, again. :rolleyes:

Well Dave, I own a company that's the largest supplier of envelopes in Britain, a big ecommerce website with a mailing list of 8000 buyers, no reliance on Google or syndication. I've over 40 sites that all rank very well, and run on autopilot due to outsourceing. I began article syndication a year ago, after failing miserabley with the "backlink/directory" model, this is virtually all outsourced. I have lots of other parts of my business, a local offline marketing company, high ticket tangible product sites, successful PPC campaigns etc etc, that are none of your business anyway. So as you can see, syndication is just one of many strings to my bow.

So you see Dave, I just join in conversations I know stuff about. An area of interest for me is syndication, having gotten to know Bill and Alexa and seeing how well they do...Despite them knowing very little, as far as you're concerned. (Or do you know very little about them?)

You see it all the time here, they get sick or something happens in their personal lives, and they are up a creek.

Never seen that even once Dave. I know a very well known article syndicator, that's been ill for months and the cash still comes in. Hasn't stopped that person working at all. Besides being sick or whatever can impact everyone no matter what their business model.

Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all

More hideous assumptions. So someone with a successful affiliate marketing business or any super affiliate, doesn't actually have a business at all, according to you? Explain to me, why your opinion creates a fact?

What do you do Dave? I only ever see you in article syndication threads argueing that syndicators don't know what they're talking about. I find it amazing you make assumptions on whether people have a business or not when you know very little about them.

...Especially when it's none of your business anyway.

[ 8 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534130].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Richard Van

Oh look Dave's here to have a swipe at the syndicators, again. :rolleyes:

Well Dave, I own a company that's the largest supplier of envelopes in Britain, a big ecommerce website with a mailing list of 8000 buyers, no reliance on Google or syndication. I've over 40 sites that all rank very well, and run on autopilot due to outsourceing. I began article syndication a year ago, after failing miserabley with the "backlink/directory" model, this is virtually all outsourced. I have lots of other parts of my business, a local offline marketing company, high ticket tangible product sites, successful PPC campaigns etc etc, that are none of your business anyway. So as you can see, syndication is just one of many strings to my bow.

So you see Dave, I just join in conversations I know stuff about. An area of interest for me is syndication, having gotten to know Bill and Alexa and seeing how well they do...Despite them knowing very little, as far as you're concerned. (Or do you know very little about them?)

Never seen that even once Dave. I know a very well known article syndicator, that's been ill for months and the cash still comes in. Hasn't stopped that person working at all. Besides being sick or whatever can impact everyone no matter what their business model.

More hideous assumptions. So someone with a successful affiliate marketing business or any super affiliate, doesn't actually have a business at all, according to you? Explain to me, why your opinion creates a fact?

What do you do Dave? I only ever see you in article syndication threads argueing that syndicators don't know what they're talking about. I find it amazing you make assumptions on whether people have a business or not when you know very little about them.

...Especially when it's none of your business anyway.

I never mentioned anyone in particular. Why did you think I was talking about you?

I also own e-commerce companies. I sell through retail stores, have an affiliate program, wholesale program, large email list, PPC campaigns, etc. But I also do quite a bit of SEO because that's some of the best convertingtraffic. Not to mention still have some crappy sites that bring in money from 2006. I have no idea why.

But if you haven't see those threads, then you haven't been paying attention. They happen frequent enough to where it stands out. Their business relies entirely on themselves and when tradegy strikes, they go downhill fast.

Besides, I think it's funny that you're saying that I'm making a lot of assumptions when you essentially do the same thing above. Talk about the "vast majority" of IM'ers who do things that you view as bad.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534217].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I never mentioned anyone in particular. Why did you think I was talking about you?

I also own e-commerce companies. I sell through retail stores, have an affiliate program, wholesale program, large email list, PPC campaigns, etc. But I also do quite a bit of SEO because that's some of the best convertingtraffic. Not to mention still have some crappy sites that bring in money from 2006. I have no idea why.

But if you haven't see those threads, then you haven't been paying attention. They happen frequent enough to where it stands out. Their business relies entirely on themselves and when tradegy strikes, they go downhill fast.

Besides, I think it's funny that you're saying that I'm making a lot of assumptions when you essentially do the same thing above. Talk about the "vast majority" of IM'ers who do things that you view as bad.

I never mentioned anyone in particular. Why did you think I was talking about you?

Oh not just me Dave, you like generalising, so I was talking about me and anyone involved in syndication, which is what you mean't.

have an affiliate program

Well that's not a business, is it Dave. Sorry it's all the affiliates selling your stuff, that don't have a business.

But if you haven't see those threads, then you haven't been paying attention.

Oh I pay more attention than you think Dave, like today, you've only posted in this thread.

They happen frequent enough to where it stands out. Their business relies entirely on themselves and when tradegy strikes, they go downhill fast.

But yours wouldn't. So why are you so massively different, or are you the same, in which case, what's your point?

Besides, I think it's funny that you're saying that I'm making a lot of assumptions when you essentially do the same thing above. Talk about the "vast majority" of IM'ers who do things that you view as bad.

I'm laughing now Dave, you will in a moment, when I've explained.

I'm in a thread about article marketers, Ok I admit I talked about "most in IM" but most fail anyway and it was probably accurate. My point was that a vast majority of article marketers get it wrong, that's not an assumption, I was quoting you on that one...

Dave Rodman - And if 99% of the people do article directory marketing and it crashes, then "article marketing" has crashed.

99% do directory marketing, 1% syndicate. That's a vast majority Dave, even in your own words.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534327].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Richard Van

Oh not just me Dave, you like generalising, so I was talking about me and anyone involved in syndication, which is what you mean't.

Well that's not a business, is it Dave. Sorry it's all the affiliates selling your stuff, that don't have a business.

Oh I pay more attention than you think Dave, like today, you've only posted in this thread.

But yours wouldn't. So why are you so massively different, or are you the same, in which case, what's your point?

I'm laughing now Dave, you will in a moment, when I've explained.

I'm in a thread about article marketers, Ok I admit I talked about "most in IM" but most fail anyway and it was probably accurate. My point was that a vast majority of article marketers get it wrong, that's not an assumption, I was quoting you on that one...

99% do directory marketing, 1% syndicate. That's a vast majority Dave, even in your own words.

1) Some of the affiliates selling my stuff have a business. Some of them just have a short-term money maker.

2) My business would suffer, but not to the point where it'd be threatened. I have people in place, procedures in place, backups in place, I'm properly insured, and disaster planning. Not to mention money in the bank.

3) I don't think most people on the WF used article marketer for SEO, I think they used it for easy traffic. YOU Said the vast majority view it as backlinks.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534668].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Dave Rodman - 1) Some of the affiliates selling my stuff have a business. Some of them just have a short-term money maker.

Sorry Dave, I mean't when you said this...

Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all.

So most of your affiliates don't appear to have a business.

2) My business would suffer, but not to the point where it'd be threatened. I have people in place, procedures in place, backups in place, I'm properly insured, and disaster planning. Not to mention money in the bank.

Good for you. It wouldn't make any difference to me either. I was however responding to this...

Article marketers might not be reliant on Google, but they are completely reliant on themselves. You see it all the time here, they get sick or something happens in their personal lives, and they are up a creek.

Like I said and Jill said, she hasn't seen all these article marketers falling down sick. I also don't think it's fair you don't think others are as prepared as you. I certainly am, I know Alexa definately is. Can you just point out to me the successful (I'm not talking about 99% you mentioned, they're out the game now) article marketers that have been going down recently and why this applies to affiliate marketers and not people that run a business as a whole? Or non affiliate marketers for that matter?

3) I don't think most people on the WF used article marketer for SEO, I think they used it for easy traffic. YOU Said the vast majority view it as backlinks

You think they used it for traffic?

All my articles go on directories as well as my site, as well as others it's syndicated on. Trafficwise, the amount I get from directories isn't worth talking about, compared to the syndicated traffic, which is probably why their businesses have gone down hill. I guess Dave, I've just seen a lot of people on this forum saying how great the backlinks are and that's why they use them, I know this because I've explained many times why they're not as good as people think.

You may not have seen these threads Dave, just like I haven't seen all these threads about article marketers dropping dead everywhere.

As for traffic, as I've said before, if you wanted to make money online, would the first place you went to be an article directory? If you were a train spotter, would you go to an authority train spotting site to feed your passion or spend the day on article directories? If your dog has a problem, would you go to a dog health website, or would you be looking through article directories?

So is it really a good place for "easy" traffic? One thing that is gauranteed everytime though, when they get an article accepted, they get a backlink, albeit nothing amazing.

Finally, I just went onto the google keyword tool...

Article marketing for traffic has 480 global searches a month.

Article marketing for SEO has 1000 global searches a month.

Dave Rodman - I don't think most people on the WF used article marketer for SEO, I think they used it for easy traffic. YOU Said the vast majority view it as backlinks

That's not the WF but worth thinking about.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534996].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

I'm not sure why you think i"m talking about you or Alexa? I'm not sure why you'd even bring her up, since she's not involved in this thread.

I'm not going to give you specific examples. You can definitely find them if you look though. There's no sense in bringing someone's name up and rubbing their face in the fact that they weren't prepared. Either because their business totally relied on them or they were under-insured or uninsured.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3535314].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I'm not sure why you think i"m talking about you or Alexa? I'm not sure why you'd even bring her up, since she's not involved in this thread.

I'm not going to give you specific examples. You can definitely find them if you look though. There's no sense in bringing someone's name up and rubbing their face in the fact that they weren't prepared. Either because their business totally relied on them or they were under-insured or uninsured.

Because I notice you argueing with her a lot and you were refering to my comment earlier.

Anyway, who cares Dave? It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. We both have successful businesses, we're prepared and everythings hunky dory. Apologies if I assumed wrongly you were refering to me or Alexa.

As for these people that have been going down from the article marketing mob, you're right (yes, you read that correctly, I agree with you

). I shall have to have a search myself if I have a moment or feel so inclined.

Enjoy the rest of your day Dave. I'm off home.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3535378].message }}

Dave Rodman Banned 13 years ago

Sounds good. Have a good one.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3535414].message }}

Jill Carpenter

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

So who is your master?

Master or did you mean Daddy?

Article marketers might not be reliant on Google, but they are completely reliant on themselves. You see it all the time here, they get sick or something happens in their personal lives, and they are up a creek.

:confused:

Let's replace "article marketers" with "internet marketers" or "entreprenuers" while we are at it - shall we?

Maybe you see it all the time here - I don't. Maybe you can point it out to me where all these article marketers are catching some mystery virus or disease and dropping like flies?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534282].message }}

ELK 13 years ago

@ Richard Van

Well said!
- Thanks
Signature

Quality handcrafted PLR articles made by me, a mental health professional and freelance writer
http://healthhomeplrsite.com/
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534378].message }}

DireStraits

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all.

Please define a "real business", Dave.

Sounds to me like your believe that in order for a business to be "real", it has to be the creator/manufacturer/provider of its own products and/or services, and not merely engaging in (nor reliant on) the promoting/reselling of others'?

But by that logic, no retailer is a real business? 90%+ (if not 100%, much of the time) of the products they sell aren't made by them. They're a reseller. Without their wholesalers and manufacturers, they'll have nothing to sell!

And going up a few levels - is being a manufacturer a real business? Because they also usually have to rely on other companies to provide pre-made components and the like, in order to assemble products that are of any use to people. Without their suppliers, they can't make anything and have nothing to sell. I guess that makes them not a real business, then!

And what about components manufacturers? They're not making anything which, in and of itself, is of much direct use to anyone other than "end-product" manufacturers. Without the demand from them, they can't very well survive. I guess they're not a real business.

The point being, Dave, that most businesses aren't (and cannot be) 100% self-sufficient, and impervious to the effects of outside forces.

The beauty, though, is that subject to there still being market demand, suppliers, products, advertising opportunities and all the rest are (often) fairly easily interchangeable - and may have been diversified to begin with. If changes do need to be made, though, they can be executed without requiring that the business start over from scratch. Because they still have existing assets with which to work and leverage (or even to sell to someone who can!).

Having your own assets, and exercising as much control over those assets as possible, is what gives a business security and makes it fluid enough to adapt to outside changes over which it has little/no control.

That, to me, is the difference between a business and a money-making scheme/system.

Affiliates, usually, do not create their own products (unless they're vendors, too). That's obvious. But what they have is assets in their websites and mailing-lists. They can easily switch out dead/defunct products for new ones. And they have the option (especially in the online world!) of creating their own products if circumstances necessitate that.

They can harness traffic from a multitude of sources: search-engines; ad-swaps; referral-traffic from a whole (and growing) plethora of other sites - be it from articles, banner ads, or whatever; offline sources (perhaps); and the list goes on ...

So you see, they're not exactly (necessarily, anyway) reliant on any one outside entity (or even just a handful of them) over which they have no control. They're pliable and resilient; they're not rigid and reliant.

So, if you'd be so kind, could you tell me/us how they're not a real business? And furthermore, out of interest, could you tell me exactly what features something needs in order constitute a "real business"? :p

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3545862].message }}

aandersen

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Too Many Article Marketers

"Article marketing is a numbers game."

"Click-through rate is what determines the success of an article."

"The most important element in article marketing is search-engine ranking position."

"Article directories are only useful for backlinks."

"Spinning an article prevents 'duplicate content' and gives your links more weight."

They Laughed When I Said They
Were Dead Wrong
But When The Algorithm Changed!~

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

signature goes here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3545964].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Originally Posted by aandersen

They Laughed When I Said They
Were Dead Wrong
But When The Algorithm Changed!~

That would make a great headline!

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3545979].message }}

aandersen

13 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3546386].message }}

Jill Carpenter

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Yes, I am very much interested in understand why the first ten results are on page one and the second ten results are on page two. But to be honest, I haven't studied the results closely enough at this time to have any kind of gut instincts to drive an answer.

You mean you still haven't released your product on the Farming? Bill, hurry up already.

Thanks

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3546602].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by DireStraits

Please define a "real business", Dave.

Sounds to me like your believe that in order for a business to be "real", it has to be the creator/manufacturer/provider of its own products and/or services, and not merely engaging in (nor reliant on) the promoting/reselling of others'?

But by that logic, no retailer is a real business? 90%+ (if not 100%, much of the time) of the products they sell aren't made by them. They're a reseller. Without their wholesalers and manufacturers, they'll have nothing to sell!

And going up a few levels - is being a manufacturer a real business? Because they also usually have to rely on other companies to provide pre-made components and the like, in order to assemble products that are of any use to people. Without their suppliers, they can't make anything and have nothing to sell. I guess that makes them not a real business, then!

And what about components manufacturers? They're not making anything which, in and of itself, is of much direct use to anyone other than "end-product" manufacturers. Without the demand from them, they can't very well survive. I guess they're not a real business.

The point being, Dave, that most businesses aren't (and cannot be) 100% self-sufficient, and impervious to the effects of outside forces.

The beauty, though, is that subject to there still being market demand, suppliers, products, advertising opportunities and all the rest are (often) fairly easily interchangeable - and may have been diversified to begin with. If changes do need to be made, though, they can be executed without requiring that the business start over from scratch. Because they still have existing assets with which to work and leverage (or even to sell to someone who can!).

Having your own assets, and exercising as much control over those assets as possible, is what gives a business security and makes it fluid enough to adapt to outside changes over which it has little/no control.

That, to me, is the difference between a business and a money-making scheme/system.

Affiliates, usually, do not create their own products (unless they're vendors, too). That's obvious. But what they have is assets in their websites and mailing-lists. They can easily switch out dead/defunct products for new ones. And they have the option (especially in the online world!) of creating their own products if circumstances necessitate that.

They can harness traffic from a multitude of sources: search-engines; ad-swaps; referral-traffic from a whole (and growing) plethora of other sites - be it from articles, banner ads, or whatever; offline sources (perhaps); and the list goes on ...

So you see, they're not exactly (necessarily, anyway) reliant on any one outside entity (or even just a handful of them) over which they have no control. They're pliable and resilient; they're not rigid and reliant.

So, if you'd be so kind, could you tell me/us how they're not a real business? And furthermore, out of interest, could you tell me exactly what features something needs in order constitute a "real business"? :p

Haha. You just made a lot of assumptions about what I think of a real business. I never said any of those things.

Based on what I've seen in tax threads, there's lost of people that don't fit the IRS definition of a business.

I'm talking about the type of businesses that have no plan whatsoever, that if they ceased operations tomorrow, literally nobody would know or care. They have no list, no customers, no affiliates, no business plan, no assets, or their business is built on a flimsy model. An example would be someone who does "Bum Marketing".

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3547210].message }}

DireStraits

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Haha. You just made a lot of assumptions about what I think of a real business. I never said any of those things.

I know you didn't, but that is the impression one gets when reading this:

But look at a lot of the article marketers on this forum. Do you ever hear them talking about anything outside of syndication? Most are affiliate marketers and don't appear to have a real business at all.

If you weren't taking a jab at article-syndicating affiliate marketers by implying many/most of them don't have a real business (just because they're affiliates and not vendors?), what were you doing by writing that? :p

Anyway, no sweat.

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Based on what I've seen in tax threads, there's lost of people that don't fit the IRS definition of a business.

I'm talking about the type of businesses that have no plan whatsoever, that if they ceased operations tomorrow, literally nobody would know or care. They have no list, no customers, no affiliates, no business plan, no assets, or their business is built on a flimsy model. An example would be someone who does "Bum Marketing".

I absolutely agree with this, but then why didn't you say "bum marketers", originally, instead of talking about article marketers who write for syndication? They're lightyears apart!

One isn't even really article marketing by any stretch of the imagination.

And I think, anyway, that there's far less overlap between those marketers who recognise and appreciate the power of "true article marketing" and/or article syndication and those people who try to make a living from affiliate marketing without developing any assets of their own (i.e. their own website, mailing-lists, etc).

The people more likely to be doing that, as you rightly suggest, are bum marketers - and you won't see many of them talking about article syndication a whole lot, I can tell you that. :p

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3547342].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by DireStraits

And I think, anyway, that there's far less overlap between those marketers who recognise and appreciate the power of "true article marketing" and/or article syndication and those people who try to make a living from affiliate marketing without developing any assets of their own (i.e. their own website, mailing-lists, etc).

The people more likely to be doing that, as you rightly suggest, are bum marketers - and you won't see many of them talking about article syndication a whole lot, I can tell you that. :p

Despite what some people might think, I have no problems with article syndication/marketing or whatever. I have been doing it that way since I joined stompernet back in 2006 and Dan Thies taught his method. I think I'm questioning the strategy in threads because sometimes it's being presented as a panacea. Someone will ask a question about EZA being slapped and others will reply "Well, you're doing article marketing. NOT article syndicating!". As if that's really the root of the person's problems in the first place. On most of these threads, article marketing is not usually talked about in the larger context of THEIR business.

I don't know, I'm sure people will say I'm doing it wrong. But this is the experience of me and others that were in Stompernet when it first launched.

--It obviously takes a lot more work to get articles syndicated on "real sites".
--Most of those real sites are good for a link, not necessarily for converting traffic.
--If you have a niche topic, you typically have to bring the article topic up a level in order to appear to more sites. This broadens the audience, but lowers the conversion.
--Most articles placed on other sites wind up bringing trickles of traffic, not necessarily swarms of traffic. (Don't let spider activity fool you).
--To me, it's more about the relationship with the site owner, then about article syndication. For the people that are really qualified to send me converting traffic, almost the lowest thing on my list is getting an article placed on their site. Don't get me wrong, I'll TAKE it. But I'm interested in them mailing to their list or them giving me extra breaks on products I promote for them.
--Success begets success. Especially if you're involved in any kind of IM related field. To get placement on TRULY high value sites, you need to be successful. Look at the Shoemoney.com blog, Justin Goff (Warrior) and Rebecca Kelly are the only 2 regular posters. Justin was making $30K/month and Rebecca Kelly was a prominent poster over at SEOmoz for years by the time Shoemoney let them post. If you have no experience and you're not a "name", do you think you'll get swarms of traffic from the type of sites that will prominently post your content?.
--In order to really have value, you need to have a product/service with margins in the first place.

So I'm not AGAINST article marketing at all. I just don't think that it's somehow an answer to prayers. In order to make a lot of these things work, you need a business that has some kind of margins and funnel in place.

So here's the bottom line. Some businesses are PERFECT for syndication. If you're a high profile personal trainer and have been putting out your content into article directories. It makes sense to team up with other trainers and trade content. IF you're in SEO, it makes sense to do the same thing. Those niches have people multiple high traffic websites and blogs that people visit every day. But the flipside is, you have to be qualified to write on those sites that will make a TRUE difference in your business. And if you have a business selling Paper Shredders, your opportunities are probably somewhat limited.

[ 8 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3547860].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by DireStraits

I absolutely agree with this, but then why didn't you say "bum marketers", originally, instead of talking about article marketers who write for syndication? They're lightyears apart!

It is almost like saying that everyone from Oklahoma is a redneck...

YouTube - Oklahoma Catfish Noodlers

p.s. Lee McFarlin is also from Stillwater, Oklahoma...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3548024].message }}

Andyhenry

13 years ago

Originally Posted by wtatlas

I agree with you entirely. However, my reading of tpw's post is that he is saying because Google has so much power to upset the applecart it's not a good thing to rely too much just on organic search engine traffic.

The recent changes are applauded by any good content writer but Google could have made changes that had the opposite effect. Unlikely, I know, but it doesn't pay to rely on just one traffic source.

Right. I guess I just assume that this is common sense and not really something people would call a reasonable approach to creating an online business.

My nephew who's 13 is always asking "but what happens if that stops working?" whenever I show him new traffic strategies - and since he knows nothing about marketing, business or IM, I'd have thought it would be safe to assume that anyone taking their online efforts seriously would be asking the same questions.

It doesn't take some Google algorithm changes or scaremongering to make most business owners ask how robust their income stream is - does it?

Thanks

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534306].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

I don't understand the logic...... I'm an article marketer and I've had no problems from Google's algorithm changes.

Google (and other SEs) still love unique and useful content and it's still what people want to read.

Where's the problem?

It's excellent that the SEs are working hard to remove crap content from the results - that's to our advantage.

Andy

Hey Andy...

The problems (questions) are:

A. If there's 20 unique and useful pages of content in the Google index, which 10 articles are on Page 1 on the SERPs and which are on Page 2? Why?

B. How does Google determining useful, interesting, quality content?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3539761].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

A. If there's 20 unique and useful pages of content in the Google index, which 10 articles are on Page 1 on the SERPs and which are on Page 2? Why?

B. How does Google determining useful, interesting, quality content?

Kurt: Those are interesting questions, but that changes the dynamic of the discussion from article marketing to SEO.

Yes, I am very much interested in understand why the first ten results are on page one and the second ten results are on page two. But to be honest, I haven't studied the results closely enough at this time to have any kind of gut instincts to drive an answer.

If you have made some heads or tails on the latest change, drop me a PM or point me to your analysis.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3539834].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Kurt: Those are interesting questions, but that changes the dynamic of the discussion from article marketing to SEO.

Yes, I am very much interested in understand why the first ten results are on page one and the second ten results are on page two. But to be honest, I haven't studied the results closely enough at this time to have any kind of gut instincts to drive an answer.

If you have made some heads or tails on the latest change, drop me a PM or point me to your analysis.

Hi Bill,

Here's the very first words of your first post on this thread:

In light of Google's recent algorithm change,

Plus, there's about 10 other posts before mine that use "google" in them.

There's a number of folks saying Google wants quality on this thread and implying that it has affected the SERPs that claim the algo was about "quality".

A point I was making is that SEO will always be a factor, and even if someone writes a great article, someone else can too. And this is where SEO plays a role.

My own theory is the updates weren't so much about rewarding quality as much as removing/lowering the rank of spammy content. I think it's easier to detect junk than quality.

And I generally tend to think Google uses more "People Rank" than are given credit. By this I mean that I believe Google uses more human intervention and isn't all formula. IOW, I think they just went after some of the big guys. Like I posted elsewhere, it's the easiest to do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3544607].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Hi Bill,

Here's the very first words of your first post on this thread:

In light of Google's recent algorithm change,

Plus, there's about 10 other posts before mine that use "google" in them.

There's a number of folks saying Google wants quality on this thread and implying that it has affected the SERPs that claim the algo was about "quality".

A point I was making is that SEO will always be a factor, and even if someone writes a great article, someone else can too. And this is where SEO plays a role.

My own theory is the updates weren't so much about rewarding quality as much as removing/lowering the rank of spammy content. I think it's easier to detect junk than quality.

And I generally tend to think Google uses more "People Rank" than are given credit. By this I mean that I believe Google uses more human intervention and isn't all formula. IOW, I think they just went after some of the big guys. Like I posted elsewhere, it's the easiest to do.

Kurt: I also have been saying that quality content is the winner from the latest algorithm change.

From what I have seen it is very clear that more of the quality articles are coming in above the junk articles in Google's search results.

I tend to disagree with you on the idea that they simply negated specific sites. The reason for that disagreement is three-fold:

The big article directories saw a loss of search rankings in the range of 70% to 95%. I think if they were targeting "names", then the destruction would have been more complete.
Many believed that Google was hoping to also put eHow in its cross-hairs, but eHow won more traffic (15% increase in its Google search rankings footprint) in the latest algo change.
Even Google admits that the reshuffle only impacted 84% of its target websites.

I think these three factors completely rule out a "hand adjustment" of the search results.

I also think it is easier to target the junk for elimination than it is to spot the "good stuff"...

Shortly after this algorithm change was implemented, I hypothesized that Google was using a PeopleRank algorithm as described here.

I still suspect that there is a certain amount of truth to my hypothesis in that blog post, but eHow is a horse fly in the ointment.

There are other smaller flies in the ointment too...

So I am still looking for a more comprehensive understanding of the latest algorithm change...

Quality content won, I believe, in the Panda Update...

But HOW did it win? That is the important question before us today...

HOW did Google reshuffle the stack?

If we can understand that, we can better understand the bigger picture and how to apply it going forward.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3545601].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Kurt: I also have been saying that quality content is the winner from the latest algorithm change.

From what I have seen it is very clear that more of the quality articles are coming in above the junk articles in Google's search results.

I tend to disagree with you on the idea that they simply negated specific sites. The reason for that disagreement is three-fold:

The big article directories saw a loss of search rankings in the range of 70% to 95%. I think if they were targeting "names", then the destruction would have been more complete.
Many believed that Google was hoping to also put eHow in its cross-hairs, but eHow won more traffic (15% increase in its Google search rankings footprint) in the latest algo change.
Even Google admits that the reshuffle only impacted 84% of its target websites.

I think these three factors completely rule out a "hand adjustment" of the search results.

I disagree with your conclusion that it rules out a hand adjustment.

1. As I posted before, it could easily be written into the algo to "give a minus 30 UNLESS _______". Something like "unless the page has good links". To say certain sites weren't targeted...Where's everyone else that's been affected?

2. Total hearsay. It's people saying what they think google thinks. Even if true, it doesn't exclude ehow may be addressed in the future.

3. "84% of their target web sites"? Seems to indicate they were targeting specific sites to me. And "only" is a relative word. "Only 84%" sounds pretty successful to me. And it isn't like the other 16% can't be addressed in the future.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3546950].message }}

Racquel_McFarlane07 Banned 12 years ago

Stronger restriction simply means that there will be more quality content online which there should be anyway. It won't put an end to article marketing, it will just make sure that there is better content out there to read.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3673018].message }}

pyrmontvillage

13 years ago

I love Algo Changes. It always thins out the competition in my markets. Evolutionary Biology in Action.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

http://pregnancyacupuncturemelbourne...ure-melbourne/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533632].message }}

Richard Van 13 years ago

There is a sad fact that a vast majority in IM think the entire picture revolves around...

1) Being #1 on Google.

2) Submit articles to EZA for lots of "views" and "backlinks".

Therefore, when Google moves the goal posts (in what I think is a brilliant direction) their whole business strategy falls out of bed and we get to read 7,326 useless "Is article marketing dead" threads in a 2 week period.

The good part is, while I'm off doing quite nicely, my competition is here writing threads about the death of their "business".

You know how I feel on this, it's eyeballs all the way. Doesn't hurt to get free traffic from the big G, it's nice if someone at EZA reads my article and buys from me but they are just a bonus and to some extent beyond my control. Neither, are what I'm trying to achieve on a daily basis. I have sites that rank well and get free traffic but I can't sit back and expect that to go on forever, I need to control it.

Trust no-one, rely on nothing and have some control on your own life.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533667].message }}
- Andyhenry 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Richard Van
  
  Trust no-one, rely on nothing and have some control on your own life.
  
  Not sure about the 'trust no-one' part - but I'm with you on the rest
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  nothing to see here.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533679].message }}
  
  Richard Van 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Andyhenry
  
  Not sure about the 'trust no-one' part - but I'm with you on the rest
  
  Well yes, you're right Andy.
  
  I do trust people, I was more thinking Google and EZA, can I trust them to bring in all my business? I can't and won't.
  
  Nothing wrong with trusting your own Mother.
  
  Mind you, she lied to me for years about Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533701].message }}

Kecia

13 years ago

If you are doing your article marketing correctly, the changes won't affect you so there is no worry. It's the "sit and spin" marketers that need to worry about having their content ignored. I'm glad about the changes Google, EzineArticles and others have made in an attempt to have only quality content on their sites.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

KeciaHambrick.com - Blogger. Content Creator. Social Media Enthusiast.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3533646].message }}

christopher jon

13 years ago

I agree with you entirely. However, my reading of tpw's post is that he is saying because Google has so much power to upset the applecart it's not a good thing to rely too much just on organic search engine traffic.

Or more importantly, you should never rely on a singe site for all of your traffic or base your entire business model on something you have no control over.

It's inevitable for most that they need to rely on something to get the ball rolling but you can't get lazy and become dependent on it.

But I'm just as guilty. I rely primarily on google but with each of the previous updates I haven't noticed much of a change. I do put a lot of effort into backlink diversity and obtaining both good and generic backlinks so every time google picks something new to devalue it only effects a small piece of my puzzle.

But, who knows, next month I may be screaming The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Google, why hast thou forsaken me!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

It buys my product or it gets the hose

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534124].message }}

Marvin Johnston

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

So who is your master? Google? Or you?

That question is easy ... me.

So far, I've been able to trace all of any bad results directly to me ... and some ... uh ... misguided decisions on my part.

And of course that applies to successes too with good decisions on my part

.

I made a decision early in my business career not to ever build a business that would live or die due to the fluctuations of one customer ... or supplier.

Marvin

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3534829].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Richard: Don't feed the article marketing troll...

He has a bone to pick with article marketers. Let him snipe unanswered. He is just trying to get under your skin, and you are letting him win.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3539719].message }}

Richard Van

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Richard: Don't feed the article marketing troll...

He has a bone to pick with article marketers. Let him snipe unanswered. He is just trying to get under your skin, and you are letting him win.

Naaah. Doesn't get under my skin at all Bill. :p

Thanks

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3539745].message }}

veenafurtado

13 years ago

Perfect logic in what you say -
and of course -
one cannot argue with logic!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3544641].message }}

AllThingsArePossible 13 years ago

Assuming I write good unique content, how many minimum words do I need to get my articles syndicated?

I've been writing at least 900 words minimum per article
- Thanks
Signature

peak short video - Im ready...are you?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3544776].message }}

donhx

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

In light of Google's recent algorithm change, article marketers around the world are crying foul, and in many cases, just crying, "Woe is me..."

Others are crying, "The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"

...

I don't let Google run my business... They don't tell me how I should get my customers.... They are only one website in millions that can put buyers into my websites...

No one gives Google power, until first they relinquish their own power to make decisions for their own businesses...

So who is your master? Google? Or you?

If I am wrong, tell me why...

I'm a lemming. I run with the crowd. Always have my nose in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Google knows best, so I follow their lead. I never lose sleep over what Cutts says because I always do what he wants. My goal in life is write material that gets ranked by Google, and I'll open a vein to make that happen.

By the way, price is important to me--I want to blow away the competition by being the cheapest writer in the Universe. All the best stuff is written quickly too. I can blow out the candle on my desk and have an article written before the room gets dark.

Not.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Quality content to beat the competition. Personalized Author Services

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3548258].message }}

JohnMcCabe

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

My own theory is the updates weren't so much about rewarding quality as much as removing/lowering the rank of spammy content. I think it's easier to detect junk than quality.

You've just laid out the main principle in panning for gold.

For those not familiar with the process, here's how it works...

The prospector travels to a watercourse they believe holds (or is proven to hold) gold. They stake a claim on the shore. To start panning, they scoop some gravel and sand from the stream bed into the pan and begin swirling it around. Soon, the swirls are carrying loose sand and silt over the edge of the pan. When no more can be swirled away, the prospector looks at what's left in the pan. If you've chosen you spot well, what remains will be rocks, sand and flakes of gold.

I think you may be right in that Google may be looking for the gold in their results by getting rid of the mud.

Originally Posted by veenafurtado

Perfect logic in what you say -
and of course -
one cannot argue with logic!

You've never followed a political campaign? On either side?

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I'm talking about the type of businesses that have no plan whatsoever, that if they ceased operations tomorrow, literally nobody would know or care. They have no list, no customers, no affiliates, no business plan, no assets, or their business is built on a flimsy model. An example would be someone who does "Bum Marketing".

That type of business isn't restricted to purely article directory marketing, bum marketing or any other online endeavor. There are a lot of companies in the real world who base their whole future on supplying one component to one manufacturer, particularly in the automotive industry. If designs change, and that part becomes obsolete or someone invents something better, the company dies.

Going back to Bill's original post, being reliant on one source of income (or traffic, which with a good process is the same thing) is never a good plan...

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3549644].message }}

Jill Carpenter

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Haha. You just made a lot of assumptions about what I think of a real business. I never said any of those things.

Based on what I've seen in tax threads, there's lost of people that don't fit the IRS definition of a business.

I'm talking about the type of businesses that have no plan whatsoever, that if they ceased operations tomorrow, literally nobody would know or care. They have no list, no customers, no affiliates, no business plan, no assets, or their business is built on a flimsy model. An example would be someone who does "Bum Marketing".

Just WoW. What a generalization. So anyone who is doing Bum Marketing for their primary source of income is not to be considered a real business?

You feel Bum Marketing is flimsy? Or is it that everyones business model needs to have lists, and affiliates, and assets, and a formal type business plan?

Tell me, do you think it is possible to write ones business plan on a post it note?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3550093].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Jill Carpenter

Just WoW. What a generalization. So anyone who is doing Bum Marketing for their primary source of income is not to be considered a real business?

You feel Bum Marketing is flimsy? Or is it that everyones business model needs to have lists, and affiliates, and assets, and a formal type business plan?

Tell me, do you think it is possible to write ones business plan on a post it note?

I view BUM marketing as a money-maker and a way to make some cash when you first start out. Is it a "real business"? I don't know. Have you been making consistent and sustainable money? Does the IRS view you as a real business?

It's a personal preference I guess. If your business can be totally wiped out by one, somewhat likely occurrence, then I won't say it's not a "real business", but it's not really a viable business.

My personal opinion is that I'd rather be the guy that has a blog, with readers subscribed to my RSS, with an email list, traffic from the SERPS, my own ebook (or affiliate), and content partners. Rather than the guy that just puts a link at the bottom of somewhat low-quality articles and submits them to directories.

Which business would you want?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3553336].message }}

Jill Carpenter

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

My personal opinion is that I'd rather be the guy that has a blog, with readers subscribed to my RSS, with an email list, traffic from the SERPS, my own ebook (or affiliate), and content partners. Rather than the guy that just puts a link at the bottom of somewhat low-quality articles and submits them to directories.

Which business would you want?

So, are you saying that Bum Marketers are only capable of writing low quality articles?

Also, why do you think that bum marketers only submit articles to one directory? Because the alternative is that you are saying these article directories (thousands of them on the web) could all get knocked out in one shot.

One business is just more focused than the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, you can have multiple streams of income - but a bum marketer can as well through going full scale with all kinds of affiliate products.

I have also seen mention of some article marketers who say some articles they have had up for years still bring them income.

As John pointed out here:

That type of business isn't restricted to purely article directory marketing, bum marketing or any other online endeavor. There are a lot of companies in the real world who base their whole future on supplying one component to one manufacturer, particularly in the automotive industry. If designs change, and that part becomes obsolete or someone invents something better, the company dies.

Generally you are saying that if someone does not diversify enough they are in danger and perhaps are not running a real business.

I really hope people like dairy farmers don't run out to spread themselves too thin thinking selling just milk is not enough.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3553489].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Jill Carpenter

So, are you saying that Bum Marketers are only capable of writing low quality articles?

Also, why do you think that bum marketers only submit articles to one directory? Because the alternative is that you are saying these article directories (thousands of them on the web) could all get knocked out in one shot.

One business is just more focused than the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, you can have multiple streams of income - but a bum marketer can as well through going full scale with all kinds of affiliate products.

I have also seen mention of some article marketers who say some articles they have had up for years still bring them income.

That's what most BUM marketers do it seems is put out low-quality articles. So you're telling me that you've seen mention of some article marketers that have had articles up for years that bring income? So I take it you haven't had that experience?

Generally you are saying that if someone does not diversify enough they are in danger and perhaps are not running a real business.

I really hope people like dairy farmers don't run out to spread themselves too thin thinking selling just milk is not enough.

Well you're quoting someone else and then telling me that I'm saying something. I never said that. If you have one customer or sell one product, then I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T do that, but be aware of the risks and try and mitigate them. Sometimes there's nothing you can really do other than just making a bunch of money, saving a bunch of it, and selling the business when things start to go bad.

If you want to believe that BUM marketing is a viable business, then go ahead and maybe we can revisit the topic in a few years. My business has real customers, mailing lists, email lists (prospect and customer), wholesale customers, affiliates, link partners, offline traffic, PPC traffic, SEO traffic, established manufacturing procedures, YEARS of expenses in the bank, and a list of people that want to buy my business. Sure, I could drop out of the SERPs tomorrow, but my business will still have value.

Personally, if you want to run a business around Bum Marketing, then that's fine by me. I'm just saying that I like to sleep at night knowing that there is no single event that can hurt my business substantially. If you can live with the risk (or can hop from opportunity to opportunity), then that works for you.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3553569].message }}

Jill Carpenter

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

That's what most BUM marketers do it seems is put out low-quality articles. So you're telling me that you've seen mention of some article marketers that have had articles up for years that bring income? So I take it you haven't had that experience?

I will admit I am not a big article marketer. I do however see the massive advantages to it and know what it can do.

Any articles I do put out are far from low quality IMO - as would be the case if I were a full time Bum Marketer.

Could a "bum marketing business" have money or be worth selling?

Absolutely!

One method within bum marketing requires one to buy domains. If you own these domains and you are creating backlinks to your articles with more articles then you now add value to the domain. Which that domain could be sold and redirected to a offer by the buyer or could be developed into it's own website.

Even if you don't buy a domain - lets say you start up a free blogger blog. Do you think there are perhaps some free blogger blogs that may have value?

There are many ways to expand on the initial business plan - which any good plan should have some level of fluidity in it.

I would hesitate to point my finger and say "bum marketers have no business plan what so ever and no way to grow or expand their processes."

Well you're quoting someone else and then telling me that I'm saying something. I never said that. If you have one customer or sell one product, then I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T do that, but be aware of the risks and try and mitigate them.

Well, everyone needs to be aware of risks. Everyone will have different risks based on their business model. I certainly don't want to put any words in your mouth but I am trying to understand more clearly your stance on the matter - which appears to be that you believe there is much greater risk in not diversifying ones business and those who don't expand or diversify are lower on the 'this is a real business' totem pole.

Would I be correct in believing that is your stance?

Sometimes there's nothing you can really do other than just making a bunch of money, saving a bunch of it, and selling the business when things start to go bad.

If you want to believe that BUM marketing is a viable business, then go ahead and maybe we can revisit the topic in a few years. My business has real customers, mailing lists, email lists (prospect and customer), wholesale customers, affiliates, link partners, offline traffic, PPC traffic, SEO traffic, established manufacturing procedures, YEARS of expenses in the bank, and a list of people that want to buy my business. Sure, I could drop out of the SERPs tomorrow, but my business will still have value.

Personally, if you want to run a business around Bum Marketing, then that's fine by me. I'm just saying that I like to sleep at night knowing that there is no single event that can hurt my business substantially. If you can live with the risk (or can hop from opportunity to opportunity), then that works for you.

No single event. Hmm. I have to get back to you - but I bet someone would have a single event that might put you in a tough spot.

No one is invincible.

Also, if those are not real customers clicking on affiliate links and buying things with money, what are they?

Define real customer please.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3553877].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 13 years ago

Well, everyone needs to be aware of risks. Everyone will have different risks based on their business model. I certainly don't want to put any words in your mouth but I am trying to understand more clearly your stance on the matter - which appears to be that you believe there is much greater risk in not diversifying ones business and those who don't expand or diversify are lower on the 'this is a real business' totem pole.

Would I be correct in believing that is your stance?

I'll leave the definition of "Real Business" up to the IRS. I'll deal with sustainable business. There's nothing wrong with making money doing one thing, selling one thing. But those activities should provide the seed money to expand your business into something more profitable. If you see an insanely profitable opportunity to exploit, then do it until you can't do it anymore. But I don't see BUM Marketing as one of those opportunities.

A few years back when the economy was kicking, I was getting $75 CPA payouts for leads for business software. I was making $5K per month on that site alone. I KNEW that it wasn't sustainable because no other CPA company was doing anything close to that. But I just sent them a ton of traffic and exploited the opportunity. About 6 months later when they realized they couldn't convert the leads profitably, they dropped down the payouts.

This site was one of the first ones I had ever started. It was filled with average content and definitely was not the authority in the niche. I had no customers, not really that many return visitors, no list, etc. If that site dropped off the face of the earth, I doubt anyone would even notice.

I've had that site for close to 4 years and it's always made between $1K-$5K per month. I haven't updated the content in 3 years. Sure, it might keep bringing in income, but I'm under no illusion that this is a business. It's a money-maker.

No single event. Hmm. I have to get back to you - but I bet someone would have a single event that might put you in a tough spot.

No one is invincible.

Also, if those are not real customers clicking on affiliate links and buying things with money, what are they?

Define real customer please.

Sure, there are things that would put me in a tough spot. If I lost all my serps, it would suck, but I've been selling for over 5 years now. I have a viral product that is branded. My customers and prospects have direct lines right to me. Every year, a larger % of my products comes in directly as opposed to through another site.

But I define real customers as people you can contact. If your an affiliate, are these people at least on your mailing list and taking your recommendation? If not, then you know NOTHING about "real customers". They are people that passed through your affiliate link that have no idea who you are. Maybe you don't care. But you can't tell me a transaction like that is as valuable as someone who has a blog, has regular readers, recommends a produt, and has people purchase based on their recommedation.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3554067].message }}

tpw

13 years ago

Article Marketing and Bum Marketing are not businesses, in and of themselves. Rather, both are only a method available for "marketing a business".

To suggest that anyone who uses either as a marketing method "does not have a real business" is wrong.

Maybe we ought to diversify our marketing channels with PPC, paid advertising, press releases, video marketing, etc., but the lack of additional marketing channels does not mean that we don't have a real business.

Instead, a lack of diversification in our marketing methods and channels only indicates a short-sightedness that may one day bite us in the butt.

I have always been an advocate of diversifying your traffic sources and marketing channels. And, I do practice what I preach.

Does that in and of itself qualify mine as a "real business"? It does not.

However, I do suspect that the IRS does qualify mine as a "real business", because they do allow me to deduct my expenses from my revenue each year when I do my taxes.

While Article Marketing is not exactly a business, 8 years of article marketing permitted me to maintain high levels of traffic to my websites and sales in 2009, even though I did hardly any promotions in 2009.

2009 was the year my dad got sick, and I was out of the office for weeks at a time, while taking him back and forth to doctors appointments, etc.

With almost no marketing in 2009, my business survived my persistent absences. New customers kept coming to my websites and buying my stuff.

That experience taught me that article marketing has a real potential for developing a sustainable business model, even when paid advertising ceases to be a real factor in the continued growth of a business.

Given the fact that article marketing breeds the possibility of sustained revenue -- even when one is absent from the business... Does that mean that I have a real business?

LOL

I shaved my head bald, so that I would not get so wrapped up in "cutting hairs"...

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3555781].message }}

darrenmonroe

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

So who is your master? Google? Or you?.

Twitter is my master LOL KIDDING old tweet buddy. really good. you know I think of it like this if Google were an actual person would you STAND THERE and let a real person SLAP you?

Of course not you would go to more prosperous waters.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

IF you need a Fast Cash Solution Here are Ethical and Legal Honest Solutions that Work Click Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3555827].message }}

Simon Ashari 13 years ago

Originally Posted by darrenmonroe

Twitter is my master LOL KIDDING...

Was about to say the same with facebook.

To answer the OP, the only people complaining about these changes would be those who put out rubbish article content in order to scrape as much traffic as possible from google.

As many posts in this thread have stated, good quality content has not been harmed.

-Simon
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3555865].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

12 years ago

Are some of you working on the same Internet I'm on?

What's changed?

When I heard that the update was coming, I thought that we might have to reevaluate the way we did things - We spin, pump, and dump a TON of content, so I thought that if anyone we would feel the effects...

NOPE

Not even on EZA have we seen even a slight change in the amount of traffic we are getting.

Crappy parasite hosting blogs still gaining PR

Crappy Press release sites still banging traffic for days after submission

What happened?

When does the update actually start?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672594].message }}

tpw

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Are some of you working on the same Internet I'm on?

What's changed?

When I heard that the update was coming, I thought that we might have to reevaluate the way we did things - We spin, pump, and dump a TON of content, so I thought that if anyone we would feel the effects...

NOPE

Not even on EZA have we seen even a slight change in the amount of traffic we are getting.

Crappy parasite hosting blogs still gaining PR

Crappy Press release sites still banging traffic for days after submission

What happened?

When does the update actually start?

LOL

I wondered how you were going to fare in the update.

Actually I figured you would be okay in your Google rankings, despite the fact that you utilize crap content and crap links.

Before you get offended, hear me out...

You remind me of that fellow Vitaly Borker of DecorMyEyes... :p

He was certain that he was getting his top Google rankings from all of those people who were trashing him in the Rip Off Report.

Now, I am NOT saying that you are a crook or a con man... So please keep reading....

Borker was absolutely certain that he was getting his #1 Google ranking from all of those people who were trashing him in the Rip Off Report. He was so certain of that, that he was bragging about it to the New York Times reporter.

When Google discussed this case on their blog, they were quick to point out that the real reason this guy had a #1 ranking in Google was due to the links to his website and mentions of his company (citations) in major news portals -- the New York Times and Bloomberg.

The citation that actually carried the most weight in the early days was the mention in the legal section of another newspaper about DecorMyEyes.com being sued.

What you have in common with Borker is that you may not even understand yourself why you have great Google rankings. You just know that you have them.

I will tell you what I do know about your Google rankings...

You throw a lot of **** against the wall to see what sticks... Right?

I test stuff...

I have taken a couple of strategies that I know you utilize, and I tested them against new domains in an effort to get to the truth of your rankings...

I know that one thing that you swear by is totally worthless...

But I also know that one other thing that you swear by totally rocks...

LOL

You are successful in Google, because you throw a lot of **** against the wall to see what sticks... And you do not get lost in trying to figure out what works best...

You just keep throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the problem, and it works out for you... And it works well.

I will admit that I cringe when I hear you throwing crap content and crap links into the marketplace. But it works for you, and I know that it works for you... LOL

Those things that you do that I know work are things that I do also.

What can I say.... It works...

And I don't have to use crap content to pull it off...

My point is this:

You say, "I flood the internet with crap articles, crap press releases and crap links, and I have not been hurt in Google."

From that you conclude that the Panda Update is not what it claimed to be.

And I suggest to you that "crap articles, crap press releases and crap links" are just part of what you do, and you probably still don't know what your winning formula actually is.

And herein resides the secret to your success in Google...

You just keep throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the problem and it works.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672906].message }}

Jeremy Kelsall

12 years ago

Hey Bill,

I know exactly what I'm doing it, why I'm doing it, and what kind of results to expect from doing it.

I just think that Google is FOS. If you watch the videos that matt cutts posts etc, it doesn't take long to figure out that it is their status quo to say one thing, and do another.

Google indexes pages that have words (most of the time), but the bottom line is that they absolutely suck at ensuring a good user experience, or stopping their index from being gamed. It's been proven time and time again, and I don't imagine that anything will change anytime soon.

I never said "crap content".....

i said CRAPPY PARASITE HOSTING BLOGS, CRAPPY PRESS RELEASE SITES - I said nothing about the content that went on them.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

A Blog With Reviews, Drama, and a Few Swear Words.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672934].message }}

tpw

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I never said "crap content".....

i said CRAPPY PARASITE HOSTING BLOGS, CRAPPY PRESS RELEASE SITES - I said nothing about the content that went on them.

Good. I am glad I was wrong on that point.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I just think that Google is FOS. If you watch the videos that matt cutts posts etc, it doesn't take long to figure out that it is their status quo to say one thing, and do another.

Google indexes pages that have words (most of the time), but the bottom line is that they absolutely suck at ensuring a good user experience, or stopping their index from being gamed. It's been proven time and time again, and I don't imagine that anything will change anytime soon.

I agree. There is a lot of deliberate misinformation from them.

They cannot tell us the real truth, and if they did, everyone would be able to manipulate them making them worthless to everyone -- advertisers and users.

I have always said that when Google speaks, we must pay more attention to what they do not say, and less attention to what they do say.

Understanding Google-speak requires us to be able to read between the lines.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672962].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert 12 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

And herein resides the secret to your success in Google...

You just keep throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the problem and it works.

Need some popcorn...

Originally Posted by tpw

I have my popcorn. I am happy.

Found some!
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672937].message }}

O0o0O

13 years ago

No one here is my master. Rather, they are my relationships with people. Ultimately, that's what it is. In the end, word of mouth is the most robust method of marketing because it outlasts any algorithm change. The stronger the relationships, the more effective the message will get through. So if there's an algorithm change, do you know someone who can help you get your online organic searches back on track? How strong is your business relationship with your SEO provider or your webmaster? There is no master for me, but rather there is the importance of having good relationships with people.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

[FREE] 8 Winning Strategies for a Killer Online Marketing Campaign (and the tools that go with them!) Get it now! (No opt in needed)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3556102].message }}

cellington

12 years ago

With internet marketing, it's a Google algorithm change. In the 70s for retailers, it was a move away from Downtown and into Malls. In the 30s it was when the highway moved to the other side of town. In the 1850s it was when the railway moved two counties over.

Every business faces change in every era. The question is, how do you adapt? Do you even need to adapt?

70s retailers with a loyal clientele didn't have to worry about mall traffic. They were fine because they did what was necessary.

On the other hand, wholesalers in the 1850s moved two counties over to stay close to shipping channels.

There are obstacles to running a business. One can either deal with them or fold. Our members have benefited from the Google Farmer Update. Their articles are being found on more specific, more interesting, more robust sites, and their "antique crystal" articles are no longer buried among Forex, ****, and lapband articles.

We applaud the Google update. It's a perfect match to the SmartDistribution Platform.

Thanks

Signature

Go Forth and Prosper!
Chris Ellington

Grow your business in a way that is safe, simple and effective. Discover how the unique synergy of DistributeYourArticles makes you irresistible to customers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672528].message }}

H.Miller

12 years ago

Excellent post! Two thumbs up...

Thanks

Signature

Experience Black Friday Early! - High Quality 500 Word Articles Just $5

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672536].message }}

mizesean

12 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

In light of Google's recent algorithm change, article marketers around the world are crying foul, and in many cases, just crying, "Woe is me..."

Others are crying, "The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"

Let me twist this story a little bit for you...

Why do you do article marketing?

Don't you do article marketing to capture eyeballs and deliver prospects to your websites, etc.?

So, who is your real master?

Are you doing article marketing to win the favor of Google? Or are you doing article marketing to reach more potential customers?

Except for those measly Adsense checks, Google doesn't send us much money...

Yeah, they might send us more prospects, but if we can get those prospects from other places through our article marketing efforts, why do we want to jump through hoops to please Google?

Now, don't get me wrong... I am not saying we should kick Google out of our beds, but I am saying that we should not let Google tell us what is good for us, and more importantly, we should not let Google dictate to us how we should run our businesses...

So why do we care if Google changed its algorithms, in an attempt to diminish article marketing...

I could care less to be honest...

I don't let Google run my business... They don't tell me how I should get my customers.... They are only one website in millions that can put buyers into my websites...

No one gives Google power, until first they relinquish their own power to make decisions for their own businesses...

So who is your master? Google? Or you?

If I am wrong, tell me why...

Great post! I wish I had written this one! You have hit the nail on the head...what are people writing for??? People? Real people? Clients? Or Google?

I love it!

Sean

Thanks

Signature

Have you thought about starting a group coaching program, but don't know how?

If so, Watch This YouTube Video: Group Coaching Program

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3672789].message }}

KenThompson

12 years ago

Jeremy Kelsall is my master...

Ommmmm.... Ommmmmmmmm...

Ken

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3673043].message }}

ritaj

12 years ago

I wish someone would come along and REALLY give Google a run for their
money, but until that day (not holding my breath) we have to work within
their rules - unfortunately.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3673046].message }}

cellington

12 years ago

There is really no point in trying to "understand" Google. The issue is fundamental. They are a search engine.. an advertising machine. Therefore they NEED relevant content to show searchers.

Just provide content that is relevant to the topic and place it on sites that are relevant to the topic. The rest is automatic.

Thanks

Signature

Go Forth and Prosper!
Chris Ellington

Grow your business in a way that is safe, simple and effective. Discover how the unique synergy of DistributeYourArticles makes you irresistible to customers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3674759].message }}

Benjamin Ehinger

12 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

In light of Google's recent algorithm change, article marketers around the world are crying foul, and in many cases, just crying, "Woe is me..."

Others are crying, "The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"

Let me twist this story a little bit for you...

Why do you do article marketing?

Don't you do article marketing to capture eyeballs and deliver prospects to your websites, etc.?

So, who is your real master?

Are you doing article marketing to win the favor of Google? Or are you doing article marketing to reach more potential customers?

Except for those measly Adsense checks, Google doesn't send us much money...

Yeah, they might send us more prospects, but if we can get those prospects from other places through our article marketing efforts, why do we want to jump through hoops to please Google?

Now, don't get me wrong... I am not saying we should kick Google out of our beds, but I am saying that we should not let Google tell us what is good for us, and more importantly, we should not let Google dictate to us how we should run our businesses...

So why do we care if Google changed its algorithms, in an attempt to diminish article marketing...

I could care less to be honest...

I don't let Google run my business... They don't tell me how I should get my customers.... They are only one website in millions that can put buyers into my websites...

No one gives Google power, until first they relinquish their own power to make decisions for their own businesses...

So who is your master? Google? Or you?

If I am wrong, tell me why...

My master is my freedom. I can take my writing anywhere I want and I do not have to use vacation days to do so. I can go wherever, I want whenever I want and still make money with my writing. I LOVE IT!!!!

Benjamin Ehinger

Thanks

Signature

FREE GUIDE - How to Start a Blog that Makes Money: 12 Easy Steps to Blogging Success
FREE GUIDE - How to Get Paid to Write: 100+ Websites That Pay Writers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3675132].message }}

cellington

12 years ago

My master is my freedom.I can take my writing anywhere I want and I do not have to use vacation days to do so. I can go wherever, I want whenever I want and still make money with my writing. I LOVE IT!!!!

This is a great attitude. As a guest blogger, anywhere you can get to the internet, you can be makin' money.

Thanks

Signature

Go Forth and Prosper!
Chris Ellington

Grow your business in a way that is safe, simple and effective. Discover how the unique synergy of DistributeYourArticles makes you irresistible to customers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3677216].message }}

As an Article Marketer, Who Is Your Master?

Trending Topics

Advice on getting first clients for Marketing Agency

Has your business fully embraced AI?

Is it the right time again for SMS marketing?

5 ChatGPT prompts for ramping up your SEO

Hello