IM: A Science Or An Art?
Howdy cowboys and cowgirls...
I'm curious. I'd like to pick your brains and perhaps uncover a bit of your own marketing philosophies.
Specifically, I'm wondering if you consider highly effective internet marketing to be more of a science (the product of intensive data research, algorithm savvy, and general precision) or an art (playfulness, passion, and a sort of "poetry").
For example, take keyword research and competition analysis. While one crop of seemingly effective SEO marketers will adhere to (and recommend adhering to) a strict focus on keyword density, strength of competition, strategic LSI application, specific backlink anchor text variation, precise backlink scheduling etc...
... other equally effective SEOs will suggest writing from the heart and "letting the keywords take care of themselves," declaring that Google will find all the right long tails merely by you staying on topic.
Some will state that just being yourself and allowing your words to captivate, excite, and elicit a buying response from your readers is all you need to do. They'll often claim that backlinking is for the birds and as long as you write lots of fun, informative content, the traffic will take care of itself.
And others proclaim that the "sandbox" for "too many links at once" is a myth and that you should just link however the heck you want to, and as much as you want to.
I think the obvious answer is that it takes both science and art to create effective marketing campaigns. But which do you think is more essential and why?
Does any of this make a lick of sense, or was my shrink right to throw up her hands and walk out of the room?
I'm curious. I'd like to pick your brains and perhaps uncover a bit of your own marketing philosophies.
Specifically, I'm wondering if you consider highly effective internet marketing to be more of a science (the product of intensive data research, algorithm savvy, and general precision) or an art (playfulness, passion, and a sort of "poetry").
For example, take keyword research and competition analysis. While one crop of seemingly effective SEO marketers will adhere to (and recommend adhering to) a strict focus on keyword density, strength of competition, strategic LSI application, specific backlink anchor text variation, precise backlink scheduling etc...
... other equally effective SEOs will suggest writing from the heart and "letting the keywords take care of themselves," declaring that Google will find all the right long tails merely by you staying on topic.
Some will state that just being yourself and allowing your words to captivate, excite, and elicit a buying response from your readers is all you need to do. They'll often claim that backlinking is for the birds and as long as you write lots of fun, informative content, the traffic will take care of itself.
And others proclaim that the "sandbox" for "too many links at once" is a myth and that you should just link however the heck you want to, and as much as you want to.
I think the obvious answer is that it takes both science and art to create effective marketing campaigns. But which do you think is more essential and why?
Does any of this make a lick of sense, or was my shrink right to throw up her hands and walk out of the room?
If you do any kind of blogging and want to try the next big thing, PM me.
nothing to see here.
Want 50% Open Rates and 30% Click Rates with All Your Emails?? Click Here
nothing to see here.
nothing to see here.
-=-Dennis-=-
DLx Business Reviews