Not much I know... I'm working on it! Quality takes time, right?

Thx - I assumed it was something like this, but you never know until you ask.

Apparently I am presumptuous and thought you used an autoresponder program to send all of your emails. So basically you do it the old school way.

It isn't difficult, because I use DNA and don't have to do much research as I know the niche very well.

So basically I have my answer: You offer the same article to everyone in each niche.

A good number of links; relevancy is somewhat questionable, hence the desire to go to a type of syndication system like you use.

I want everything to be legit with this site. No shortcuts. (I suppose using SYA is a type of shortcut).

Actually, it was quite helpful - TY Alexa.

That's kind of a weird interpretation of the thread title, I think. I'd assume, and what seems to have been meant, is that the OP would like to hear from those two specifically, but that by no means precludes others from chiming in.

As Paul did.

I'm guessing he just picked the names of 2 warriors he was sure were actually doing it.

You know how it can be, you ask a question and get 2 answers that really help you, hidden between 500 guesses. Then there is a chance that you will follow the advice of the guesser instead of the expert because it sounded impressive.

AndyHenry, he's probably busy adding your name to the thread title right now lol.

[DELETED]

C, mon Andy, not trying to get at you but just trying to be sincere. Why do you care now? This thread was most likely meant for people Joe Pace believe are responsive to his queries. A lot of times, help for information has been directly sent to you and your likes and no reply was ever gotten.

I can testify that Alexa is one of the most reliable person on this forum. EVER! Many people leave or don't care after getting what they want or don't bother when they know there is nothing IN for them.

Just saying the plain truth...

John

if you are talking about just changing the article on your site and adding in more longtail kyewords, i am pretty sure it would not do you any harm. assuming you are talking about editing the original article post on your site and not adding another article that is 90% the same but with a few longtail keywords added.

as far as syndication goes. i would not suggest trying to re-syndicate an article that has been only slightly altered with longtail keywords. that would essentially be article spinning and would fall much more in the realm of mass article submissions than article syndication as defined by the users in this thread.

but i will say this is only an educated guess on this, i have never actually tested and tracked any results on this.

I hope Alexa doesn't say that...

I am afraid that I may have seen her imply such before, but I am not real sure.

I know that Alexa has said before that you don't want to try to get your article on an article directory to the top of the results. I agree with that.

I agree that it is better to have the article on your website come up at the top of the search results.

But putting the article on your website is no guarantee that Google will rank your site the highest, because the article was found on your website, before it was found on other sites.

It is a myth to believe that putting an article on your own website first will ensure that Google will always rank your copy of the article higher in the SERPs. Myth, myth, myth!

The truth is that Google will rank your article on the website, with the highest credibility and link popularity value, at the top of the SERPs.

If your website is the website that has the highest credibility and has your article, then your website will be at the top of the results.

If your website is not the one with the highest credibility, the copy of the article on your site will not be at the top of the search results.

He deleted his contribution and used it to start a new thread found by clicking here.

This would of course depend on the intent of your article. IMO, unnecessary backlinks within the article body could be distractive to authoritative intent. None of my articles have any undertones of being "salesy", even within the resource box. This may seem counter-intuitive, but amidst the noise and clamor of competing promotions posing as "articles", subtlety in contrast shouts the loudest. Providing valued content without any overt self-promotion gives you the best chance for wide syndication.

Having said that, I often do have as many as 3-6 hyperlinks within the body of my articles particulary on high authority websites. Ostensibly, this gives readers expanded information of the topic or cited references, but more importantly for me it drives convertable traffic to my websites. And all articles have one simple call to action in the resource box, to go to my niche website. That is where the sales funnel process begins.

Thanks, Istvan.

To be clear you are saying I shouldn't disregard keyword research but not make it obvious that I am using a keyword?

This process was indeed glossed over, Will, and thanks for bringing attention to an important point. An RSS feed is a tremendous time-saver, and one of the principal methods I use for article distribution (see post #28). I believe most if not all commercial autoresponders do have an RSS feed to email option.

Will, your yap is fine, but if it stays open too long, you tend to attract flies...

RSS feeds are indeed an important component, although with the exception of promoting the feed, I tend to put this in the 'passive syndication' area. Don't get me wrong - passive syndication like having sites pick up the RSS feed or grab an article from a directory is wonderful. You just don't have much control over it once it's 'out there'...

Typically something like 75%.

It actually varies a little from niche to niche.

In a couple of my niches, in which I do well from fairly non-competitive, longer-tail keywords, I get significant organic traffic without doing any SEO to speak of, simply because when articles are syndicated to other websites, they tend more or less by definition to be relevant websites, and that gives the backlinks enormous link-juice compared with all the non-context-relevant backlinks I used to get from all the mass submission to article directories and so on which wasted my time for so long.

It varies enormously. The bottom line here is that I haven't yet been doing it for long enough (only two-and-a-half years successfully) to know the answer to this. In contrast to the "rinse-and-repeat" method of trying to use article directories for their own traffic and their own "backlinks", it's a business model which gradually builds and builds.

Of course, there's also some luck involved with individual articles and what they'll bring in. It feel like the longer I do this for, the less I'm able to judge that (or perhaps I should say "the more aware I am that predictions with individual articles are guesswork"!) Fortunately it doesn't matter - it's the gradual accumulation that counts.

You can get an article which (to your surprise) never brings in very much, and another (which might seem a marginally less interesting one, if anything) which can surprise you and pull in 30,000 new visitors.

Paul is a far better source of information on that, than I am. I'm a newbie by comparison. It's a real, asset-based business, though ... not a "rinse and repeat", not a "hit and run" ... it genuinely produces increasing residual income from work already done.

For me, so far (and here I think my business is a little different from Paul's - and I don't know to what extent that should concern me! ), it's never "without SEO", though. It's just that other people are doing some of your off-page SEO for you, sometimes even behind your back.

Even my short experience is enough to have confirmed over and over again that with this sort of article marketing, although SEO isn't by any means the primary objective at all, you can actually end up with far better SEO and (with careful keyword selection) some higher rankings across the board than you can from mass-submitting to irrelevant, poor quality directories, blog networks, or whatever. Having done both, in my experience there's simply no comparison at all - even in "pure SEO terms". So what I'm saying, simplifying it a lot, is that even the 20%-25% of my income that's still Google-dependent or partly Google-dependent is more than I ever managed to earn without article syndication, when SEO was the primary objective for me.

I also agree with all Paul's points above: I don't normally comment on this in case it sounds a bit "complacent" but once you're up and running, it's actually easy to take a couple of months off and do very little without your income dropping at all; and it took me 1 - 2 months to start generating some real income from this, once I more or less "got it right" (after plenty of relative failures with other methods, of exactly the types that so many people comment on here).

As Alexa mentioned, my business model is a little different, but the basics are essentially the same. Rather than repeat much of what has already been posted, however, read my previous post #28. Our model really is about building assets in the form of syndicated outlets. These are real business assets, just as for example chainstores are building new outlets within their target markets. Each outlet can have hundreds or hundreds of thousands of potential buyers.

I've been doing this for a very long time; nearly 15 years. Every day I have been averaging 3-5 new syndicated outlets for my articles. Over the years these outlets have grown to currently more than 25,000 spread over 62 different niches. Every article will be submitted to 200-600 relevant niche publications such as websites/blogs, ezines/newsletters, offline magazines, trade journals, newspapers etc.

Almost all traffic is generated from my online/offline articles. Direct traffic from the search engines is relatively so insignifant as to be irrelevant for a marketing source. None of my sites rank within any practical position in the SERPs because of the intense competition for keywords/phrases by deep-pocket, entrenched advertisers.

But I also agree with Alexa, this is never without SEO considerations, although with a slightly different strategy. I've got backlinks from high PR sites that would turn most SEO enthusiasts green with envy, and the effect is starting to show in ranking. As the competition for my niche key words continues, the top sites often change relative postitions in the SERPs. For now, there is just no better place I can imagine to be than consistently having articles on websites that rank among the top 5-10, no matter how Google dances.

As far as the potential for article syndication, I dunno. Some people are doing much better than me with this method, but I generate an average 40,000 new subscribers per day in the aggregate across all my niches.

It's not always easy to know this accurately, as an affiliate. (It used to be a little easier, when ClickBank gave affiliates more information). But I've always estimated it - on average across my niches - as 90% of the sales coming from my lists, and I have no "new information" that's changed my overall impression of that.

It does to me: I wasn't able to make any money, to speak of, without lists. Without lists, you can't keep the traffic returning to your site (very few people "buy at their first visit", so you have to get them back somehow?); you can't offer people a range of other products at increasing prices (that's where a lot of the money is), and so forth. For me, it's an almost entirely list-based business model.

Hmm. If, as you suggest, people simply don't want whatever is being offered in exchange for their email address, how would that problem be overcome through the use of a squeeze page instead, anyway? :confused:

Either someone wants what's offered or they don't; if they do, they'll have no choice but to opt in, whether that be through a squeeze page or an opt-in form integrated into your site.

And why would they click away instead of opting in if what you're enticing them with is of relevance and interest to them? I wouldn't think "G'ah, I really want that free report, but instead I'll just click this and disappear".

In the end, what you think/do and what your visitors think/do are two different things.

I don't ... I did split-test them (in each of 4 niches with the same findings in all) and built bigger lists with a squeeze-page than with my normal landing-page, but made less money over a 6-month period from the bigger lists. So I reverted to my normal landing-pages for all my niches. And will continue with that in future niches, because the customer demographics will be similar.

Well, it depends what you mean by "only". They're on every page, and on the landing-page they're prominently displayed and incentivised, with a detailed explanation of all the advantages of "opting in", assurances that their email address will be safe and private with me, that every email will contain an unsubscribe link in case they change their minds, that in addition to the free report (or whatever - I don't actually call them that) they'll hear from me every 5 days with "more of the same" type of information they can find on this site, and so on ... not altogether unlike "squeeze-page wording" but a bit more wordy and a bit less "salesy", I suppose.

It's undoubtedly true that I do make occasional sales to people who simply don't want to opt in. But they're a really small minority: I couldn't really build my business that way.

Nooooo ... I suspect (but don't know for sure) that my syndication-rate would go down, if I did that. I'm happy just to attract targeted traffic without trying to "sell" them on anything before they arrive, and take my chances with them when they do arrive.

Why not? They do work very successfully for thousands of marketers, you know ...

The reason I do better without them myself (I'm pretty sure) is because of something connected to my traffic demographics, which probably wouldn't apply to most people.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with squeeze pages. And in some ways they're easier than what I do.

Well, like everything else, "the devil is in the detail" and it depends how you do it, I think ... but I really don't think you should start off by assuming this!

(i) On your landing page, it can be more than just "on the sidebar", perhaps?

(ii) I feel my "you are not your customers" speech coming on, but Michael already said it, just above ...

And ... last point ... the fact that I make 90% of my sales to people who have opted in doesn't mean that anything like 90% of my visitors opt in, you know? It just means that 90% of the ones who buy are people who did opt in.

How about selling physical products too?

For example, if you are in the woodworking niche, you could sign up for an affiliate program with Amazon and sell them the equipment to use with their woodworking projects.... "I use the xyz router, and this is why..."

For example, in weight loss, "My friend used the abc supplements, and it helped by..."

As Istvan said before after a similar moment of epiphany: It's starting to show more and more how simple this process really is and the sound marketing and logic flow of what we're talking about. I build my niche lists with initial sales of inexpensive Clickbank products. These buyers are then led on a journey of discovery with daily promotions and valuable content to incrementally higher end products using other related CB products and from affiliate programs such as Linkshare, Shareasale, Amazon, etc. Some of my subscribers for example started years ago through $17 Clickbank products and a few are now even buying 5+ figure Amazon products. Choosing the wider niches offers more options and diversity in product selection. I just like to keep everything simple.

(i) One can (to some extent) select niches in which that isn't the case (not always easily, I agree);

(ii) One isn't limited to ClickBank for one's promotions: one of the (many) advantages affiliates have over vendors is our freedom to select/combine as we wish, and to build asset-based businesses which are not dependent on the continuing success and availability of any specific, individual product.

I do. I've been slow in doing so (have been doing this for only 8 months of my business's 30-ish months' existence) but it's going well, and it's something I'll do more in future, partly for the reason we're discussing here and partly because I dislike being entirely dependent on any one company, and if by any chance ClickBank were to disappear tomorrow it would be pretty inconvenient for me and produce a big drop in income, at least for a couple of months, I think.

The easiest way to get your articles syndicated is to first write articles worthy of syndication. I'm not being facetious here. You must write within the expectations of your targeted publishers. Submit your articles to EZA and begin building up a portfolio. Also, have a complete profile of your expertise and accomplishments on EZA as well. This is important for reasons given below.

It may seem trite, but publishers do pay attention to these details and weight their choices significantly on author profile and status along with article quality and relevance. Using EZA as a showcase for your writing ability, you are prepared to approach potential syndicators.

Keep in mind, there are lots of publishers looking for quality content just as you are looking for publishers. It's not essential to submit articles to EZA, but I highly recommend it especially when first starting out. My articles get picked up by new syndication sources about once or twice a week.

For prospecting ezine publishers, it works best for beginners to first subscribe to the ezines and get familiar with the type of the articles that get published. Then it's usually just a matter of emailing the publisher with something like this;

"Dear {ezine publisher's name}, As one of your subscribers I see that you have published articles relating to underwater basketweaving. This is my specialty, and I think fellow subscribers might be interested in some articles I have published on this topic. Below is my latest article for your consideration for insertion in the next available issue:

{text of article body, with resource box}

Please advise if you would consider regular weekly or other periodic contributions. For your further review, some of my syndicated articles can be seen on Ezine Articles:
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Wally_Weaver

Regards,
Wally Weaver
wally@waterworld.com"

Approaching authority type websites is comparatively more difficult, but can be done with an impressive EZA portfolio and published articles in a few established ezines. Generally, contact information can be found on the website, and the approach is similar. This would never be a good time to be humble; you really need to show and tell them what you've got, ie Master Underwater Basketweaver, Diamond Expert at Ezinearticles (oooh, yeah!).

Offline magazines are a different animal, and the submission and article requirements vary widely depending upon the publication. As a rule, however, the writing quality standards are much higher than seen online. A source I use frequently is "Writers' Market", which does list thousands of magazines and regional newspapers including how to query the editors and their writing style requirements.

It is good practice to obtain a few recent copies to get an idea of their topic slant. What's great about offline publications is most of them actually "pay" for your work in addition to generally a much wider exposure. Most of them also have online components which does often contribute high PR backlinks. Most online article marketers are not using these very powerful offline publisher outlets.

@Joshua,

There is another Paul here that you Need to Know.

That isn't duplicate content, within that context, Art. It's syndicated content. Anyway, it's "penalty-free", obviously. This one isn't really much of a "myth", as "myths" go, because almost anyone thinking it through can see it for what it is. Reuters and Associated Press and all the leading international news sites which syndicate their reports kind of clarify it, too?

You've surely seen this little article before?

They get it free, instead of paying for high quality content all the time. All they have to do is give us a backlink or two. And don't forget they're by no means all "competing marketers". There's all sorts of other stuff on the web, apart from just marketers.

Don't think so ... certainly nothing spectacular or fundamental, anyway ... :confused:

I think you clarified it yourself, really ...

Astron,

Just a few quick ideas for defibrillator:

Danger of heart attacks; Heart attacks occur more frequently than you think; This simple tools helps to save XX% of people after a heart attack; Heart attack: First medical help until the emergency arrives

(I'm not a physician, so please approach the topic with caution!)

In short, everything that points out how a certain tool will be important to people. With an entertaining/informative article about a topic that relates to the reader's lifes.

Cheers,

Regine

Of course, some of those types of articles are not appropriate for general article directories such as EZA. If you do a google search, however, for example "medical technology journals", you will find millions of publications for medical equipment reviews. Also, I use "Writers' Market" to find publications to syndicate my articles. This same method applies to all niche markets in which I sell affiliate products; physical products are not any different in this approach. It always comes back to the simple basics of getting your articles in front of and read by your targeted readers and decision makers.

I think the trick here would be to target medical stuff people actually buy. Defibrillators are probably not worth the effort, but scooter and electric wheelchairs might well be, or diabetic testing meters.

If you're targeting these kind of niches, I'd work from the top down - find places that are addressing these kind of issues and see what articles and content they're using.

Alexa explains her method here
Read the entire thread for additional valuable tips and insights.

Give publishers reasons why they should publish your articles, and show them what you've got.
Some recent tips were discussed here

Reviews kind of fall into a special category. For a review, I might direct traffic to a semi-squeeze page with something like "Now that you've read the review, here's a link to a source I trust (or to the vendor's page). If you aren't sure yet, or you'd like to know how to get them most from an XYZ, just enter your email below, and get the info you want in your inbox."

Most of the time, the sequence will be more like:

Article > review with prominent opt-in > vendor via affiliate link.

What you don't want is for someone to read a review or article, click you link, take two seconds to tell themselves 'hey, this is what I just read' and click the back button.

Yes, I see your point, of course: if you have an article reviewing specifically "product X" you naturally want them clicking a link and landing on something to do with "product X".

I don't do "product review" articles. I have some product reviews on my sites, but I don't consider them articles and wouldn't really expect anyone to syndicate them.

I wouldn't think so; no. No point in sending them to a copy of something they just read, surely? They'll be "outta there" in seconds, I'd think, saying to themselves "What's going on here? I just read this ...".

Have been reading Michael's and John's comments above with interest and agreement. My own input here is no use to you, Tedwood, I'm afraid, because all my articles are about the niche, not the individual product.

That's very much my impression.

Yes indeed ... you have good reason for that, too.

(I'm a regular visitor, too).

They vary enormously. In one niche I now have over 20 "regulars"; in other niches, fewer. (And ezines separately, but they're not really "sites" apart from some which do have a copy archived online, somewhere, but you can't really count that ... well, not in the same way, anyway).

Many of my "regulars" I've originally found because they syndicated an article of mine from EZA, so I contacted them offering them more (which, in principle, they're always pretty likely to want, given that they were scouring EZA for publishable content in the first place).

Others I've found just with blog-searches and site-searches through Google, and written to them offering them content, trying to make it sound as attractive as possible, and so on.

But it's going to vary a lot, from niche to niche. And I think it's fair to say that in niches in which most of the high-traffic sites belong to competitors, it's not going to be so easy (something to take into account in niche selection, of course). But far from "all sites/blogs" belong to marketers, of course: many belong to enthusiasts, people running information services, people promoting ezine subscriptions (not necessarily "competitors" at all) and so on.

I'm slightly concerned/interested by your comment "some of them only on particular topics". For myself, I only really want the ones that publish articles only on particular topics, the "particular topics" being in the same niche in which I'm trying to promote my opt-in and (affiliate) products. Otherwise the traffic isn't "targeted" (and the backlinks aren't "relevant" ones, and therefore not typically worth anything much to me).

It sounds to me like you are treating these blogs as just another article directory - a place to dump an article for a backlink.

How do I overcome it? I don't. I work with it. If they want short pieces, I give them short pieces. Long ones? Yup, they get long ones. Particular topics? Sure. If it's a topic I don't want to cover, I move on. Not published elsewhere? That depends on how bad I want to be included on that site. Most, I don't want it that bad, so I move on.

How many out of 100? It varies. Sometimes you get on a roll, and several say yes. Sometimes you hit a slump, and no one says yes. It happens.

You have to keep your eyes on the prize. You want to be building a personal syndicate to which you can continue sending content. It's a cumulative endeavor built over time, not a digital one night stand...

First, a hearty thanks to all for everything here!

One more question for Paul/MYOB....

You mention:

"Most of my subscribers are soon sold off as leads for example to specialists in real estate, mortgage, insurance, medical, industry, technology, MLM, IM, etc because I don't have many affiliate products to sell them. Lead generation is an additional profit center."

Would you elaborate on what you're doing here? I know you're not selling off your list subscribers, right?

That's an excellent set of guidelines. Thanks a bunch! Gonna do my best to market my articles from now on.

Certainly you've heard of lead brokers before? This is where a website (or other data collection point) is setup with the only purpose of collecting the information of people interested in a type of product or industry.

Think 1 800 dentist . com or zillow . com.

These are not really any different from a list building type of landing page. The only difference from what I can tell is that it exists only to collect your information to be sold to businesses or marketing lists.

For instance, zillow collects information on people looking to buy a home. If you want to view the details of a property on their site, you need to opt in first. Your information is then sold to a real estate agent that will be happy to call you about the property and other properties in the area.

From my understanding, it's very lucrative.

Josh, another way to go about it is to a) not make a big deal about that and b) make it an option on the opt-in.

A lot of big companies are using contests and sweepstakes to build their lists. These entry forms are basically squeeze pages. Your choices are fill out the form or leave, right?

At the bottom, right above the submit button, you'll often find a series of check boxes.

> I agree to the sweepstakes rules and privacy policy.
> I want to receive updates and special offers from Company.
> I want to receive updates and special offers from Company's partners.

<Submit>

Many times, these boxes are pre-checked, and you uncheck them to opt out. Actually read the privacy policy, and you aften find a clause stating that information may be sold.

It's a bit different than the usual IM-type come-on, in that the person filling out the form genuinely wants to receive further offers, coupons and new product updates.

There is an option for subscribers to request their names not be released to business partners. Nearly all of my marketing is ultimately targeted toward the high end business, professional, engineering, industry, scientific, medical, telecommunications and finance arenas. Based on their buying patterns, these are selectively sorted for being marketed as leads for offline professional sales for example; capital equipment, finance, investments, insurance, real estate, business/industrial/medical supplies, etc.

Wow, is this thread awesome or what? Glad I found it, so much useful information. (and I am still on page 2!)

Q quick questions for Alexa, Paul and others who use this method. Also I guess it doesn't really matter (after all, traffic = money) but how do you monetize the traffic/email list you get? Do you push your own offers? cpa? Affiliates?

Do you think it matters? I want to give this a try, but I kind of think that having say adsense as the main way to monetize the site would make it seem less of an authority site. (in a way it'd be similar with cpa offers too I guess, or other's affiliate products)

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!

Absolutely - go for it. If you don't ask, you don't get. What is there to lose?

Don't be half-arsed with your approach, though - sell yourself and your content well. I tend to send quite lengthy, in-depth emails introducing myself, talking about my site and about theirs, why I think my articles are a good match for their audience, and really cease the opportunity to better my odds. Along with a link to my EzineArticles "portfolio" for that niche and pen-name, I'll also mention that if they don't feel my articles' style is suitable, I'd love to hear how they could be made so.

For some sites, it's the only way it's going to happen because not all of them go out looking in article directories for content. However, that doesn't mean they're not open to receiving it. I'm not actively advertising for a million dollars and a trophy nymphomaniacal girlfriend right now, but if a kind donor or suitable candidate came knocking at my door, I wouldn't say no.

This may sound stupid but what is meant by Syndication ?? Is that where you take an article and go to a submit articles site and they blast it out to over a 1,000 article directories with your name and link in a resource box. Or is it when you go to one article directory and write an article and then you get publishers who use your article on one of their own sites ??

Thanks

This doesn't make any sense, really. Just get creative. Let's say your "niche" is 1 eyed blue betta fish.

You could write 1,000 articles about evolution that caused them to be 1 eyed, blue, their history.

Another 1,000 on care tips.

Another 1,000 on the psychology of children who have their 1 eyed blue betta fish die.

Another 1,000 on how much more success or failure in life the fish owner's have.

Another 1,000 on why 2 eyed green betta fish make great substitutes if you can't find the 1 eyed betta fish.

Obviously I'm having a little fun with this, but really, no matter how small a niche is (I assure you it's a lot bigger than you think), there are an endless number of topics.

Don't confuse highly searched keywords for "topics". Readers in your niche care about a lot of things. If you really understand your market, you'll never run out of things to write.

What I've found is that you can always drill deeper for more topic ideas. There is always something to say about something, if you know what I mean.

I'll try and use packerfan's blue betta fish idea as an example. Let's try the 'caring for blue betta fish' niche and we'll drill down from there:

basics of caring for blue betta fish
- how to ensure your fish is happy and healthy
- different types of fish food
- fish food A: pros and cons
- fish food B: pros and cons
- is fish food C really poisonous?
- more about ingredient X in fish food C: why it's so deadly
- what kind of fish food is best?

These article titles about fish food are all from the top of my head, and it's just one small sub-niche on the topic of caring for blue betta fish, which is in itself a sub-niche of betta fish in general.

I made a mistake before in not drilling hard enough, and consequently wrote a few articles that I cringe at nowadays before cannibalizing the whole thing and turning it into 4 unique articles. The fact is, if you think hard about it, there's always something to say.

Hope this helps.

First off, your list of syndication partners is not the same as a list of auto-approve directories, and should not be treated the same. Regardless how good or creative your articles are, not every partner is going to use every article you send them.

I'm going to give you a little different slant on things that you just got from packerfan and stong. Instead of, or in addition to, drilling down in your subject, look at 'spreading upwards' in your selection of potential partners.

You may be focused on a very narrow niche, but I'm guessing that it's part of a bigger niche which is part of an even bigger market, right?

Instead of trying to create 4-5 articles per week for a small number of partners within your very narrow niche, try to create one really good article per week and look for new partners to send them to.

Take the betta fish example...

Starting from the narrowest niche and working toward more broad topic areas:

> 1 eyed blue betta fish
> blue betta fish
> betta fish
> aquarium fish
> aquariums in general

At each level, you may find the perfect home for one of your best quality articles, one that will send you real human visitors for years.

It's really not uncommon to use multiple pen names for writing articles in widely unrelated niches. For example, I use several dozen pen names for the niches in which I market. Some of these "virtual personas" have become well known of themselves in not just EZA, but also as "authorities" in highly competitive arenas. This marketing strategy is effective particularly when you are targeting the same demographic for disparate niches.

For me, there'd be two ...

(i) I'd be concerned that if customers in my (fictitious) cauliflower soup recipes niche saw that I'm also the expert in the (equally fictitious) domestic desalination niche, it might impact my credibility in both niches, as some might think that instead of "just being a cauliflower soup enthusiast", I'm "just a marketer who'll write about any niche in which I think people will buy stuff", and ...

(ii) I wouldn't want anyone who knows my real name (which I use only here and very occasionally in a couple of other forums in which also I don't discuss my niches - and of course I had to use it for my writing business, when I did that, so that I could get paid) to know what my niches are.

I see exactly what you mean. Alexis Riley and Alexis Bourdaine are clearly the same person, and I think Alexis Smith probably is, also (judging by the subject of her one article being the same niche as Alexis Riley's?).

I'm none of them, though.

Even closer to my own name, there are also an "Alexa Smith", a "Courtney Alexa Smith" and an "Alexa M. Smith" all listed at Ezine Articles, and I'm none of those either (those are the ones I'm more used to "being asked about" in this context!). :p

I do have 8 different pen-names at EZA, but none of them is anything like Alexa (or "Alexis").

First of all great thread.

This concept is clear to me in all but one aspect, which I may have missed somewhere.

When you write a new article and post it on your own website first, do you wait for it to get indexed before you send it out to your syndication list? or does google know you posted it first on your site even if it indexes your site later than someone elses?

This is still my favorite thread of all time. Thanks so much to Alexa and MYOB.

Can you point me to any examples of what a site like this might look like?

I do get the concept of using a relevant landing page instead of a squeeze page, but I'm curious as to how the entire site looks and is structured.

Does it have a blog? Are there lots of other tabs with links that lead to other pages? Does it aim to be an authority site of sorts? Or is it comparatively simpler to keep visitors focused?

I'm not expecting anyone to reveal their sites, but if you know of any other site that serves as a good example to give me a more concrete idea, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Thanks again.

I don't know how to ... I don't really see a way to know this, when it's someone else's site. I can tell how many clicks I get from anywhere, of course (you can see this with Google Analytics or any equivalent) but not a click-through rate.

Can't find this one ...

I like that one (apart from the obnoxious pop-up, of course).

Not as much as I should, but my technical skills are limited, I don't like outsourcing, and after many and varied experiences over a few years, I'm a firm believer that website design is really unimportant to my business and for the most part to my customers. I'm a real skepchick on this subject. I think "website design" is of far more interest and significance to marketers than to customers. I've tested a few different styles, but evolved a basic one that works well for me, is easy to put up, and looks good (I think). I have a small opt-in box on every page and a big one, prominently incentivized, on the landing page.

Yes, exactly - I agree completely.

About 4 pages is enough for me to start a site and attract traffic to it.

As I'm gradually producing articles, the site will grow, because I'll publish every article there first (even though not always "prominently on display").

Here are two Warriors who are good writers and have surprisingly good prices: Dee Jones and James Logan. I'm sure both of them will know what you mean if you say you want "articles for syndication". The problem with answering this question is that there are so many good writers with good prices here that it's sooooo easy to offend all the people you don't mention, each time. :rolleyes: Anyway, these are two people both of whom, I think, should charge more than they do.

After a day a frustration, I found this thread. Thank you to the OP, Alexa, Myob and others who contributed.

I cannot tell you what this thread means to me. I know now that I am NOT crazy.

Charles

The system I use is actually quite simple in concept. For every niche I'm marketing, article syndication is the primary source of targeted traffic. These articles serve only to demonstrate or establish my "expertise" within the particular niche, and are never product-oriented or promotional. And because of the generic characteristic of these articles, they are readily accepted for syndication by literally tens of thousands of publishers. Leveraging articles in this manner through wide distribution is maximizing the full potential of article syndication.

How this massive amount of traffic is processed may differ among professional article syndication marketers, and my own internal processing method is not recommended for even the moderately experienced. What I suggest is use this traffic to build lists of incentivized opt-in subscribers, then nurture them with value-added messages or freebies before hitting them up with your offers. Some of the best practices in list-building are discussed in this thread and elsewhere. Also, I strongly recommend this timeless classic: Turn Words Into Traffic by Jim Edwards. Although quite dated (older than Google), it is eerily more current than any similar marketing handbook I have read, especially regarding SEO relative to Google's recent and ongoing algorithm updates.

In my marketing model, nothing is ever blatantly "sold"; only recommended on the strength of credentials perceived as a result of my article writing. No real credentials are claimed in any of my niches, but there is a subtlety of assumption reflected by the quality of the articles and the type of publications in which they appear. Coupled with quality articles accepted by quality publications is a kind of implied endorsement by the publisher. This is an unbeatable combination in even the most hotly competitive markets because of its virtually unlimited range, market reach, and highly convertible warm traffic.

Traffic from articles is directed to niche-specific websites which offer additional, in-depth resources and a relevant, nominally priced Clickbank product ($20-$47). Buyers of these products are incentivized to optin for additional information and niche updates with a short report, generally covering how to maximize the benefits of the Clickbank product. This report also contains a number of other "recommended" Clickbank and Amazon products.

Subscribers receive messages on a daily basis which includes niche information, tips, resources, jokes, and increasingly hard hitting promotions for the next product in line. Non-buyers are culled from lists every 90 days. The remaining active buyers continue to be processed, and promotions are incrementally increased to higher end products. As new buyers are added to the lists, the process begins again. This may seem like a "meat grinder", but in reality this model has proven to be quite effective in promoting hundreds of products up to and including Amazon products in the high five-figure price range. Nearly 60% of my subscribers have been buying regularly for five years or more.

The important point to understand here is that article syndication can be an extremely powerful traffic-generation tool in its own right; completely independent of SEO considerations. As I mentioned in my opening sentence in this post, article syndication is a simple concept. Unfortunately in recent years it has been denigrated and misused by the misguided and nefarious article spinning crowd. Essentially everything Alexa and I as well as other professional article syndication marketers have written in this thread can be summarized right here: Quality articles published in quality publications drives quality traffic.

For me, once they are on my list they are sent articles that have been posted from the beginning. This obviously requires an evergreen kind of niche; but I personally wouldn't enter any other kind. The article isn't the only thing they get with my emails though. I run mine in an almost newsletter like format, with different subjects handled throughout. So when they see the same article again, they still have reason to read.

You don't have to worry too much about repeat viewers anyways. Fans that like you enough to subscribe usually do so fairly quickly, not after reading everything you've posted. The most likely scenario is that they see two or three articles more than once. Not too bad, and in my personal experience people don't complain when they see it.

It would be a lot more work, and why would we want to do that? The whole crux of article syndication is to leverage each and every article as much as possible. We want to do whatever we can to not limit a piece of content.

Well, it's not going everywhere immediately. My list and my website receive the content first, almost always on the same day. After the article has been indexed, then I start to send it out to syndication outlets. I don't know if other article marketers do this; but my publishers are in tiers. Those who I am closest with and who have been helpful and willing to post my work get first dibs, and then the article moves on down the line. EZA gets a copy last.

Again, you're right that there is a chance of people seeing the same post more than once. If they dislike it though, they're doing a great job keeping quiet about it.

I include the entire article, I'll explain why when answering your next question:

I link directly to the offer when I email. I don't send standalone offer emails very often though. Rather, product recommendations will get a plug in my newsletter format. It blends in with the content well, but it certainly isn't "hidden." The last thing I would want is for readers to think I am misleading them.

Easiest option is to just use a stock photo site. Asking a friend works pretty well too. You'd be surprised how many people are flattered by the idea of being internet famous.

I email in plain text. Works for all email types.

No, fin, not at all. In case you haven't read it, here again is where my article syndication traffic is directed:

My take is that the numbers are really irrelevant. It's the concepts being shared that matter most.

^^^THIS is what matters.

[DELETED]

I feel the same way about that. I have always said, I share numbers on a "need to know basis", and unless you are my wife, accountant or the IRS, you have "no need to know."



The fact is whatever numbers you throw out there will be questioned by some, laughed at by others, and denied by many.

It doesn't matter if we are talking $500, $500,000 or $500 million, there will always be people who doubt what you said.

The problem Paul has created is not just the $500 million this year, but also the 42,000 sales a day and the 1400% increase this year.

Someone will always be there to try to run those numbers backwards, and if they cannot see your numbers as your accountant sees the numbers, people are going to find fault with the numbers given.



p.s. Interestingly, no one has questioned DM's screen shot. I am not saying I don't believe it; I am simply making a point.

People have not questioned DM's screen shot, not because they believe its authenticity, but because Paul used bigger numbers.

If people were not so busy looking at Paul's numbers, I guarantee you someone would be trying to call DM's numbers a fake screen shot. But since Paul has labeled himself the bigger fish, DM will get a pass.

DM clearly makes a lot more money than I do. But, I make more money online than the majority of people on this forum.

In the end, it is all relative isn't it?

I do, and we are all good.

We are simply having an interesting discussion here.

There are two types of bloggers in the world. Those who:

1. Think the only way they will succeed is with Google's blessing; and
2. Those who understand that more important than Google is their audience.

The first type will require exclusive content.

The second type will require great content.

IMO, getting targeted prospects is more important than the "just in case" way. For the sake of better SEO, and keeping things more manageable (content etc), a large authority site would be better...but if syndication is what you're after then you are already sending the right traffic to the right site (targeted).

Normally you'd send them to your homepage. As you'll know, a large authority site has more than one path for the visitor to take (often too many conflicting paths).

The less directions, the better. The less directions/distractions, the easier it is to keep the attention (vital for a homepage).

If I were passionate about baking, and I had just read an article about baking, which site would you take more seriously as a reader?

1) a site that dealt with cooking, restaurants, adverts galore blah blah blah (i.e. not 100% focussed)

or

2) a basic site that dealt purely with baking and everything baking related

?

The only exception to this is if the niche over-laps quite a bit with a very similar one, or just can't be "dug into" very far. In that case it'd be better to merge a little.

It's all about stepping into the shoes of your demographics/customers.

Speaking only for myself, and only as a publisher, a list of just links in different categories like you posted likely wouldn't fly with me. I wouldn't post the piece without checking out all of the links, both for content and to make sure they worked. Unless we had a history, such a list would be too much work for the potential return.

On the other hand, a list of 5-10 links, along with your own commentary on what to expect from each link (in other words, pure curation as opposed to simple aggregation) would stand a far better chance of me publishing it.

FWIW