Syndication - Is this a fair demand? | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

12 years ago

I guess the best place to publish your article first is your site itself. After it getting indexed, you can submit it to article DRs like ezine! Also the answer depends on your intention, whether it's for backlinks or traffic.
just my 2 cents

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5561105].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

That means i cannot publish or syndicate my article for the 1st 30 days.

It also means that they, not you, get credited with the initial indexation rights to the work. That would be my own reason for probably not doing it. That and the fact that I've never once done this since starting my business and am not particularly in a hurry to break what I hope may become "the habits of a lifetime".

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

I know that alexa rank is not exactly accurate

Even though it's only February, this may be the understatement of the year. It measures only users of the Alexa toolbar - in other words, only internet professionals and marketers. It can tell you nothing about any other sort of traffic at all.

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

but still we can get an idea about the traffic

No; we just can't - not at all. All we can get an idea about is the traffic flow from users of the Alexa toolbar. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

So is this a fair demand?

For me, this wouldn't actually be the relevant question. I don't really mind whether it's "fair" or "unfair", and am not even quite sure what those terms would mean, in this context, and how one would decide. One could argue that it's their site and they get to make up the rules and they can have any terms of service they like, and in that sense everything they do is "fair", by definition. Some people would actually argue it that way, too: I've seen similar conversations here, in other threads on the same subject. So, if you take that perspective, then yes: it's "fair". But that doesn't necessarily make it "reasonable".

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5561845].message }}

Hardik Jogi

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It also means that they, not you, get credited with the initial indexation rights to the work. That would be my own reason for probably not doing it. That and the fact that I've never once done this since starting my business and am not particularly in a hurry to break what I hope may become "the habits of a lifetime".

Even though it's only February, this may be the understatement of the year. It measures only users of the Alexa toolbar - in other words, only internet professionals and marketers. It can tell you nothing about any other sort of traffic at all.

No; we just can't - not at all. All we can get an idea about is the traffic flow from users of the Alexa toolbar. :rolleyes:

For me, this wouldn't actually be the relevant question. I don't really mind whether it's "fair" or "unfair", and am not even quite sure what those terms would mean, in this context, and how one would decide. One could argue that it's their site and they get to make up the rules and they can have any terms of service they like, and in that sense everything they do is "fair", by definition. Some people would actually argue it that way, too: I've seen similar conversations here, in other threads on the same subject. So, if you take that perspective, then yes: it's "fair". But that doesn't necessarily make it "reasonable".

Thanks for the insightful answer.

Although, i would like to disagree with you on 1 point.

We CAN get an estimate of popularity and traffic through alexa rank in all non-IM niche websites.

I have compared alexa rank, semrush rank, compete rank etc..etc..of 100s of websites and they are always the same (or the traffic estimates are same).

Thus, alexa rank is somewhat accurate for non-IM niche websites.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

===============================================
We Build Money Making Machines - We Do The Work For You! Website Setup + Installation + Initial SEO + Articles + Social Backlinks + Web 2.0 Backlinks and many more ===============================================

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563046].message }}

JohnMcCabe 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

I have compared alexa rank, semrush rank, compete rank etc..etc..of 100s of websites and they are always the same (or the traffic estimates are same).

Did it ever occur to you that these other services were getting their data FROM Alexa (the site)?

Just like so many keyword tools get their data from the Google keyword tool?

The only time the Alexa toolbar data is going to be even reasonably accurate is when, statistically, the toolbar users are representative of the web population at large. And that is going to be mainly on tech-centric topics.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563534].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It also means that they, not you, get credited with the initial indexation rights to the work. That would be my own reason for probably not doing it. That and the fact that I've never once done this since starting my business and am not particularly in a hurry to break what I hope may become "the habits of a lifetime".

What do you mean by this? The OP will still get credit for writing the article. Whoever gets credited with "initial indexation" doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Even though it's only February, this may be the understatement of the year. It measures only users of the Alexa toolbar - in other words, only internet professionals and marketers. It can tell you nothing about any other sort of traffic at all.

No; we just can't - not at all. All we can get an idea about is the traffic flow from users of the Alexa toolbar. :rolleyes:

When you are talking about low numbers (ie. Alexa rank under 10,000) it is very accurate. Also if you are comparing apples to apples it is very accurate. You cannot compare WarriorForum vs ESPN.com using Alexa (because one caters to webmasters and one doesn't) but you can compare ESPN.com vs ABC.com, because they both have appx. the same percentage of webmasters who use them.

I'd say go for it. You get a popular site to syndicate your content, which will lead to visitors, natural backlinks, and you can syndicate it further afterwards.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563097].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by cardine

Whoever gets credited with "initial indexation" doesn't really matter.

To many of us here, making our full-time livings from article marketing, it matters very much indeed. (It's true, though, that there are many people who feel that it ought not to matter.)

Originally Posted by cardine

When you are talking about low numbers (ie. Alexa rank under 10,000) it is very accurate.

The only visitors it can measure at all are users of the Alexa toolbar. This is simply factual.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563156].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

To many of us here, making our full-time livings from article marketing, it matters very much indeed. (It's true, though, that there are many people who feel that it ought not to matter.)

Ok, educate me. Why does it matter?

The only visitors it can measure at all are users of the Alexa toolbar. This is simply factual.

Does that change anything that I said? When comparing sites with similar demographics, and especially high traffic sites, Alexa is reasonably accurate.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563617].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563675].message }}

fin 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It relates to the importance of the gradual accrual of initial indexation-rights.

I've always wondered what would happen if - someone who syndicated your articles/ a thief - takes your content and puts it on their site before it's actually indexed, and it was indexed on their site first.

I wonder what would happen then... would they be seen as the owner? Would the thief, even if they get made to take it down? Would your syndicate site, even if they have your resource box?

For this reason, I don't think it would be the end of the world, not that I'd take the chance.

Maybe someone other than Alexa could explain why it's important to be indexed first. I'm not trying to prove someone wrong - I'm genuinely interested for my blog. I know there's a thread, above, but it's over 11 pages long :p.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564096].message }}
- Alexa Smith Banned 12 years ago
  
  [DELETED]
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564233].message }}
  
  fin 12 years ago
  
  OK, I get the gist of it. You want the time stamp and the authority that goes with it.
  
  I'm cool with it. Call me a digital romantic, but I think there's something nice about building up your 'real estate' first and having the initial index/date stamp.
  
  I'll always throw the best articles to my site first. If I want to post on a site which wants original, I'll write up a shorter 'guest' post.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564316].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

It relates to the importance of the gradual accrual of initial indexation-rights. With apologies, I'm a little too busy, today, but if you care to read the following thread, you'll find large numbers of successful, experienced article marketing Warriors explaining at length and in detail why we always want the initial indexation to be on our own site, before the material's syndicated elsewhere: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html

What is the worst thing you lose out on? An article? If they are linking back to you, it shouldn't matter in the long run anyways. Even if it does, an article costs very little to produce compared to the traffic it'll bring if this site is really that high traffic. If it isn't, oh well you lost $15 in time and you know for the future. It seems like the risk/reward align towards accepting the deal.

If the whole point of the article was to get traffic, getting the traffic from this article (from the syndication) should trump any abstract "initial indexation" bonuses.

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Personally I have eight main "money sites" in eight completely unrelated niches, none of them connected with what people sometimes call the "internet marketing niche" in any way, and I don't expect any of my visitors to have the Alexa toolbar installed or even to have heard of it. Clearly, it isn't possible for that site even to begin to measure my own sites' traffic at all, let alone "very accurately", even the highest traffic ones.

I can't add much more to the points Paul has kindly made in post #9 above.

Do your sites have more than 100,000 unique visitors/day, are they unrelated to internet marketing, and are they under 20,000 Alexa ranking? I said that Alexa is accurate for high volume sites. Having owned (and still owning) multiple sites that consistently get anywhere from 100,000-1,000,000 visitors I can say that the Alexa rankings on those sites directly correlated with the traffic they received. And when talking to other webmasters who owned other sites in similar niches, I have found their data also correlates with mine.

Alexa is perfectly accurate if you are comparing sites in similar niches (apples to apples). If X% of users in a niche have the Alexa toolbar installed, then you can directly compare the Alexa rankings of those users. Even if only 1 in 1,000 users have the toolbar installed, with high traffic sites you have a big enough sample size that you can start to compare numbers.

Finally, I have found that Quantcast and Compete give ridiculous numbers with regards to pageviews and impressions. I have had sites that get 500,000 pageviews/day, and both of those tools approximated that the site got 50,000 pagevews/mo. Quantcast/Compete are useful for demographic info; they are terrible for estimating a sites popularity.

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

Do you have the source about compete, quantcast and semrush taking their data from alexa (the site)?

Quantcast/Compete work completely differently from Alexa and don't use each others info.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564318].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by cardine

Do your sites have more than 100,000 unique visitors/day, are they unrelated to internet marketing, and are they under 20,000 Alexa ranking?

If you perhaps read my post above, instead of just arguing as a reflex, you'll find the answers to all but one of those questions (and that one I don't answer in public).

Originally Posted by cardine

As I said before, Alexa is perfectly accurate if you are comparing sites in similar niches

The fact that you said it before doesn't make it true.

And it isn't.

If you read my post above, you'll see that I said that none of my main money sites is connected with what people sometimes call the "internet marketing niche" in any way; and that I don't expect any of my visitors to have the Alexa toolbar installed or even to have heard of it; and that clearly, it isn't possible for Alexa even to begin to measure my own sites' traffic at all, let alone "very accurately". This is simply factual.

Please excuse the observation that you seem to be ignoring the reality that Alexa traffic measurements can begin to monitor only the traffic arising from users of the Alexa toolbar. Maybe you do acknowledge (perhaps just to yourself?) that that's so (albeit that you haven't actually openly admitted it in any of your posts), but even if so, you still seem, somehow, not quite to appreciate that this does actually render some of your statements incorrect.

If you want to digest those comments, and then tell me yet again that if I compare two of my sites in similar niches, Alexa will measure their traffic "very accurately" (your words), then be my guest - but I'll warn you now: people will laugh at you (not me - as I've now spent enough time debating the point with you, a pleasure though your company is ... so do feel free to have the last word: knock yourself out). Your call.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564570].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

If you perhaps read my post above, instead of just arguing as a reflex, you'll find the answers to all but one of those questions (and that one I don't answer in public).

The fact that you said it before doesn't make it true.

If you read my post above, you'll see that I said that none of my main money sites is connected with what people sometimes call the "internet marketing niche" in any way; and that I don't expect any of my visitors to have the Alexa toolbar installed or even to have heard of it; and that clearly, it isn't possible for Alexa even to begin to measure my own sites' traffic at all, let alone "very accurately". This is simply factual.

Please excuse the observation that you seem to be ignoring the reality that Alexa traffic measurements can begin to monitor only the traffic arising from users of the Alexa toolbar. Maybe you do acknowledge (perhaps just to yourself?) that that's so (albeit that you haven't actually openly admitted it in any of your posts), but you seem, somehow, not quite to appreciate that this renders some of your statements incorrect.

If you want to digest those comments, and then tell me yet again that if I compare two of my sites in similar niches, Alexa will measure their traffic "very accurately" (your words), then be my guest - but I'll warn you now: people will laugh at you. Your call.

I will answer all of that with some very easy to understand math.

If approximately 0.1% of all sports fans have the Alexa toolbar installed (either because they are webmasters, or because they just happen to have it installed, either way if you take the amount of people in the US using the internet vs. the amount of toolbar installs Alexa has in the US you get about 0.1%), and one of the sites gets 5,000,000 visits/day and the other one gets 2,000,000 visits/day that means that the first site will have 5,000,000 * 0.1% = 5,000 Alexa users/day. The second one will have 2,000,000 * 0.1% = 2,000 Alexa users/day.

That means, even though the sites have nothing to do with webmasters, Alexa can tell the difference between the traffic of the two sites. And since the demographics of the site are the same, the approximate percentage of Alexa users is also about the same.

It does not matter that Alexa can only count Alexa users. Because once your site becomes big enough, even if it has nothing to do with webmasters, you will have lots of people with the Alexa toolbar installed who browse it. And using something that mathematicians like to call "sample data", you can make much bigger predictions with very high accuracy. When polling companies do political polls, they only poll 0.1% of the population (usually much less), yet they have 96%+ accuracy. How is Alexa any different?

Please point out what part of the above equation is wrong. I think you don't understand how statistics (and statistical analysis) work more than I don't understand what you are talking about.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564608].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564946].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

You blew your entire argument with that one conditional statement.

I can make up all sorts of "What if" scenarios, but am not about to start a statistical analysis of something when the data itself is unknown, especially when, as in your argument, you're assuming the data conforms to certain conditions, when you cannot prove it does.

That said, Alexa (the cute one) is right and Alexa (the website) is grossly wrong.

That is not a "what if" scenario. It doesn't matter whether that number is 0.1%, 100% or 0.0001% or any number in between (and it absolutely is a number between 0.0001% and 100%). I was giving an example value, but that number could be anything and everything I said would still be completely right. You just saw the word "if" and assumed I was giving a "what if" statement without understanding the concepts behind it.

Harping on words like "if" are a good way of avoiding talking about the actual fact being discussed, which is that just like how polling companies like Gallop work, Alexa gets a small sample size, and are able to extrapolate it across larger numbers with a very high degree of accuracy.

Originally Posted by travlinguy

I'd say spending the time to set up a syndicated article marketing business and then reaping a five-figure a month income from it makes these folks experts, but that's just me.

I've been around IM for a long time and when the these people speak (or post) I stop what I'm doing and take notes.

That's great. A five-figure a month income does not impress me that much. They are certainly doing well, but that is not special at all. Furthermore, just because a person makes five figures a month does not mean that everything they say is true. I also happen to make a completely passive mid five figures/mo and you certainly aren't taking notes when I talk

I'd much rather do some critical thinking and go against the grain than to be a sheep who bleets the approval of what other experts think. That isn't to say that experts are always wrong (they are very often right), but it is lazy thinking to agree with someone because they are an expert.

Originally Posted by NicoleBeckett

OK, I'm going to skip over the percentages, what ifs, and hypotheticals and get back to the original question

Hardik, you're going to have to weigh the pros and cons. I know some here will disagree, but if you're talking about being published on a website that's going to bring you exposure that you never could have gotten otherwise, it might be well worth your time to play by their rules.

Let me give you an example - I publish articles on Site Pro News. In return for publishing my articles on their website first and agreeing not to syndicate it anywhere else for 10 days, I get featured on their home page, tweeted to their followers, and have my article submitted to their newsletter subscribers. They have a non-exclusive article submission option, but it doesn't come with any of those perks.

I just had an exclusive article published there on Friday, and my traffic tripled as a result. So, to me, spending some time writing something for a site other than my own was well worth it. And, in a few days, I'll be able to publish the article anywhere I want. Plus, in the meantime, I've had dozens and dozens of websites that have syndicated the article on their own.

And back on topic, I completely agree with everything in this post. The time spent writing a good article (which is not that much in the grand scheme of things) is well worth the increase in traffic. It is the same idea behind guest posting.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5565229].message }}

myob 12 years ago

In my own syndication marketing, I encounter many such demands for unique articles by website editors. Although often such unreasonable demands can be overcome through "salesmanship", sometimes I just forget about it rather than waste very much time or effort. For most viable niches, there are perhaps millions of potential syndication candidates.

I'll usually try to present them with the advantages of receiving high quality content for their visitors/subscribers on a regular basis, and a short portfolio of previous articles that have been published on similar websites. Try to get this editor to syndicate your article without restrictions, but just walk away if he continues to be adamant.

The reason I refuse to provide "exclusive" content is because my articles can generate far more revenue when widely distributed within syndication networks than they ever could through any one outlet, no matter how popular or how high it may rank.

Writing exclusive content for anyone is always a very poor return on investment in comparison to the very powerful leverage advantages of syndication. Succumbing to these demands by apparently alluring one shot wonders pales to relative insignificance when compared with the ongoing dividends of finding syndication outlets who will accept articles on a regular basis. But, that's just me.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563532].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

I was looking to syndicate my article on highly popular websites and i stumbled upon this specific website.

Website editor is asking for exclusive content for 30 days. That means i cannot publish or syndicate my article for the 1st 30 days. (starts from the date the article is published on their website).

Website is highly popular and gets tons of traffic. (alexa rank is in top 1000. I know that alexa rank is not exactly accurate but still we can get an idea about the traffic).

So is this a fair demand?

I would want only unique content from anyone who guest blogged on my blogs. I don't use syndicated content on my blogs, so since he does, I think it's more than fair.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5561955].message }}

yourreviewer

12 years ago

Rather than relying on Alexa, I would recommend you to use the tools below to have a better idea of the site's popularity and demographics.

Home | Compete

Home | Quantcast

and also use Google Ad Planner

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563643].message }}

Hardik Jogi

12 years ago

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Did it ever occur to you that these other services were getting their data FROM Alexa (the site)?

Do you have the source about compete, quantcast and semrush taking their data from alexa (the site)?

Originally Posted by yourreviewer

Rather than relying on Alexa, I would recommend you to use the tools below to have a better idea of the site's popularity and demographics.

Home | Compete

Home | Quantcast

and also use Google Ad Planner

Yes,
i use both compete and quantcast. Not sure about google ad planner.

Anyways, i don't want to make this thread for comparing different services.

I have decided to mail the editor of the website and use the "salesmanship" method that paul described.

Thanks

Signature

===============================================
We Build Money Making Machines - We Do The Work For You! Website Setup + Installation + Initial SEO + Articles + Social Backlinks + Web 2.0 Backlinks and many more ===============================================

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564268].message }}

YasirYar

12 years ago

There are sites which do not allow republishing content and demand original content and when you republish those articles elsewhere they quietly remove your content. It is entirely up to you if you want to remain associated with these sites or want you spread your links on multiple sites. The issue is not if this practice is fair or not, because they will never change their policy for you. That is why they have not been labeled as content farms.

Thanks

Signature

>>>Get your websites ACTUALLY ranked by checking these out: Quantum SEO Labs, Home Page Link Building & SERP Ability. Want to get rid of negative listings? Check out Reputation Enhancer.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5563773].message }}

HorseStall

12 years ago

Its only a fair/reasonable demand if one of these factors are satisfied -

1. your content is going to reach a targeted audience you don't have access to
2. its a high traffic site and they will give you a backlink to your site

Thanks

Signature

Horse Gifts :: Dog Gifts :: Wild Animal Gifts :: Mythical Creatures

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564579].message }}

travlinguy

12 years ago

This isn't about Alexa ranking or their silly toolbar. This is a business model where you're able to get maximum leverage from your work. The experts here have literally laid out a solid and proven plan but still some people either don't get it or they like to argue for some reason. So it goes...

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564615].message }}

myob 12 years ago

Originally Posted by travlinguy

This isn't about Alexa ranking or their silly toolbar.

^^^ This, precisely so. It appears cardine has very little understanding of even the basics in article syndication, and chooses instead to pursue this invalid premise for argument only. The amount of traffic or ranking of a site as measured under any source or parameter has little value in determining its relevance or conversion factors. It is a rather common fallacy which often shows in disappointing results.

Quality traffic with highly favorable conversion ratios comes from targeting outlets for relevance, not the amount of traffic or position in ranking. Besides websites, there are also numerous other very effective sources for article syndication such as niche ezines, on-topic blogs and even offline publications such as magazines, trade journals, professional newsletters, newspapers, etc.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564659].message }}

cardine

12 years ago

Originally Posted by travlinguy

This isn't about Alexa ranking or their silly toolbar. This is a business model where you're able to get maximum leverage from your work. The experts here have literally laid out a solid and proven plan but still some people either don't get it or they like to argue for some reason. So it goes...

Sorry that I am not conforming to what other 'experts' here have to say. The only reason I entered this thread was to point out that a very bold statement that was made is not true when you look at how Alexa collects their data, what sample sizes are and how they effect the accuracy of data.

I apologize if I derailed the original discussion (that was not my intention), but I do not like to see the spread of misinformation.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564710].message }}

travlinguy 12 years ago

Originally Posted by cardine

Sorry that I am not conforming to what other 'experts' here have to say.

I'd say spending the time to set up a syndicated article marketing business and then reaping a five-figure a month income from it makes these folks experts, but that's just me.

I've been around IM for a long time and when the these people speak (or post) I stop what I'm doing and take notes.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5564836].message }}

NicoleBeckett

12 years ago

OK, I'm going to skip over the percentages, what ifs, and hypotheticals and get back to the original question

Hardik, you're going to have to weigh the pros and cons. I know some here will disagree, but if you're talking about being published on a website that's going to bring you exposure that you never could have gotten otherwise, it might be well worth your time to play by their rules.

Let me give you an example - I publish articles on Site Pro News. In return for publishing my articles on their website first and agreeing not to syndicate it anywhere else for 10 days, I get featured on their home page, tweeted to their followers, and have my article submitted to their newsletter subscribers. They have a non-exclusive article submission option, but it doesn't come with any of those perks.

I just had an exclusive article published there on Friday, and my traffic tripled as a result. So, to me, spending some time writing something for a site other than my own was well worth it. And, in a few days, I'll be able to publish the article anywhere I want. Plus, in the meantime, I've had dozens and dozens of websites that have syndicated the article on their own.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sick of blending in with the crowd? Ready to stand ahead of the pack? The right content writing services can get you there...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5565096].message }}

JohnMcCabe 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Hardik Jogi

Do you have the source about compete, quantcast and semrush taking their data from alexa (the site)?

To be fair, no, I don't. I was simply postulating one explanation for why several different services would have identical data.

I also said that services like the Alexa rankings could be accurate only if the sample used was a valid statistical representation of the population at large. Basically the same thing cardine said, without the numbers.

And even if cardine was right, all his example would say is that you could use the rankings to measure the traffic each received relative to the other, not the actual traffic each received.

As has been pointed out, though, this is a side track to the actual topic of discussion, so I'll let this dog go back to sleep...
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5565263].message }}

Syndication - Is this a fair demand?

Trending Topics

How is best to manage multiple GMB logins?

delegate ads to freelancers

Best quote I've heard in a while...

What Do You Think Is the Best Way to Promote Digital Products for Free?

Marketplace thread approval