Do you recommend any of the fiverr gigs that provide spinning and distribution?

Randall is totally right.

If you are going to get into a niche that has a lot of competition in terms of articles written then you need to have that much (2000) to see some great results.

I know some people who have a lot more then that and get anywhere between 100-500 visitors per day.

20 articles in not going to do you a whole lot in my view.

Isn't article marketing more about Backlinks, not traffic?

In my niche I see Article marketing being used daily and they're achieving very good rankings in G.

I don't think that article marketing is effective in nowadays. You have to do lots of work in selling your article and 20 article is very small amount. I am not discouraging you but try to sell any kind of service or product or even better if you want to earn money just promote your referral link and earn money.

Its a sub-niche of the health market I plan to submit articles and have the links point to a sells letter. I downloaded articles from the vendor and I plan to have them rewritten.

The most important thing is not all about the "quantity", but it's the "quality" of the article.
Google has been very clear: They want articles that actually help people. Spinning articles and things of that nature just for the sake of having a lot of articles won't help you much.

Just do a Google search of the top products or services in any niche and you'll see the difference in the content that they create and the content that others create/distribute.

You do need a certain amount of content, but the content needs to be epic content.

Hi I don't want to hijack the thread but I have a question for Alexa that I think others may have as well. Are you saying I post a unique article on a on a page on my website like www.mywebsite.com/stocks and then also post the article to one of the top article sites like goarticles and google won't penalize me?

This may be a dangerous tactic for those of you want to get top Google rankings. It may get you some or even loads of traffic from other sites who have published your content, it also means lots of duplicate content. I know you are having it indexed on your site first but down the line Google's algorithm may start confusing whose content was the original.What if your site goes down and needs re-indexing? It will mean all your content will be considered duplicate.

Its a dangerous tactic.

I believe the real question would be - Why limit yourself to just an article? In other words, if you are taking the time to write the article, why not leverage that article into a video as well?

Even something as simple as a slideshow, text-driven video with some background music is still better than nothing if the content is of high quality. Spread these videos around the web with a particular focus on YouTube and you'll have a nice flow of traffic you'd have otherwise missed out on.

Reserve yet another batch of your articles to send out as Guest Posts on other popular blogs and you have yourself one heck of an action plan.

Posting 20 articles per day is good but only on that are working and create traffic if it is done on the good pr sites...

I disagree.

20 of the right articles, placed in front of the right audiences, is a great start.

Unlike what Alexa dubbed 'article directory marketing', which really isn't marketing but a form of link building, article marketing relies on how many targeted eyeballs you can put your content in front of.

I'd much rather have a handful of quality articles placed on a bunch of highly relevant locations (websites, blogs, newsletters, etc.) drawing traffic to my site hungry for more than thousands of pieces of keyword gibberish scattered on thousands of directories, most of which will never be seen by human eyes.

As for the 'I never post on sites without X rank or Y PR', that's not always a wise move, either.

> Smaller, lower PR sites may have exactly the audience you want, and not care about search rank (heresy, I know...:rolleyes.

> Smaller, lower PR sites don't all stay small or low PR.

Create the content that adds value to real websites, blogs and other publications and makes your ideal prospects want more. Put it in front of as many of those ideal prospects as you can. Provide a way for those prospects to get more of what you offer.

Strange, though, how many of the people who say they think that are the ones selling articles to marketers, who post in threads like this with their signature-files advertising that fact. The people like John McCabe and myself who are actually making a living from doing article marketing don't believe that at all.

Readers of threads like this can see for themselves that some people have a direct financial incentive of their own for marketers to imagine that it's about quantity as much as quality.

1. Not to get into the gun violence debate, but if you need that many
bullets, it's not the ammo that is your problem, it is your utter lack
of accuracy.

2. You don't need a plagiarism checker if you aren't stealing anything.

With apologies, and with absolutely no hostility at all, Susan, this simply isn't right at all.

I write three articles per niche, per month, and that's more than enough to serve and satisfy all my content needs for a very flourishing and expanding affiliate marketing business.

Article marketing simply isn't about how many articles you have.

It's about who reads them.

Article directories aren't part of the "target" at all.

They're simply a small, additional stepping-stone to reach some targets you might not otherwise find. For all the reasons explained in so many article marketing threads here, there's nothing to be gained by submitting to multiple article directories anyway. No point in trying to use directories for their own backlinks (think Penguin penalties) and clearly counterproductive, as explained here, to try to use them for their own traffic (we all lose most of that traffic, which we could choose to keep instead by using article marketing instead of article directory marketing).

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

As pointed out above, this is actually a misguided approach, and all the people like John McCabe, Mike Tucker, myself and increasingly many others here who are actually making a living from doing article marketing don't believe that at all.

If you manage to get your article published in the right places, where your targeted traffic is already looking, you can actually get floods of highly targeted traffic after "several days of doing".

Article marketing isn't about putting large numbers of articles on your site and submitting them to multiple article directories and waiting for search engine traffic to find them there: it's about taking your articles to where the targeted traffic you want to attract is already looking.

Yes, I absolutely agree, let's think about the logic here:

1. WHAT would be the point of going through the effort of writing
an article at all, for a mere backlink!? !? Have you never learned
anything from human history?? Good articles have felled tyrants low and risen
nations. They have shaped the hearts and minds of billions of people
for thousands of years. They have gotten Presidents elected and
forced massive and powerful corporations to bow to public demand.
They have created religions and formed the backbone of what we
now know as "Science".

...And you want to take that kind of power and turn it into a mere backlink?????


2. WHY would you build your business around SEO at all, when:
a. search engine traffic is extremely low quality;
b. it is very competitive and full of cheaters;
c. the rules are constantly changing;
d. the work doesn't last and has to be re-done constantly.


I was getting new tires for my car this morning and waiting in the
lobby reading some of their old magazines. One of them was from
1987 and I read an article about getting your oil
changed, and why Fram Oil Filters were superior to the other
ones that were tested.

When the guy came in and asked if I wanted an oil change,
what do you think I said? And which oil filter did I ask for?
That article worked what... 26 or 27 YEARS LATER??

(Hint: I didn't pull out my phone and ask Google)




Now I know that Alexa and some of the other Article Syndication experts
around here are still getting their sites ranked in Google for the extra
traffic, which is fine. I don't even want it at all anymore... Not when I can
write a couple of good articles per week, get them placed
in the right publications, and build better lists with far less work.

What's more, as I develop relationships with publishers based
on mutual respect, mutual benefit, and genuine appreciation
for competency, they happily publish my content with less
hoops for me to jump through.

Over time I'm building larger syndication networks, doing less
work, and building my own lists (where my autoresponder
is able to handle about 80% of the marketing effort for me).


...Now, it's true that I started with a few advantages here.
I already had money, successful marketing experience,
and I actually knew a few publishers. Still, I have been working
on this for less than two years, and most people would start calling
me a liar and demanding the Internet version of "proof" if
I told you the range of income that I am making.

So instead, I want to issue a challenge to all of those people
who are trying to use articles for backlinks, trying to keep
up with Google, or are just lost and trying to figure out how
this whole "make money online" thing can actually work?

Try it. Put in the dedicated, focused, organized work
for 120 days, and then look back at the results of your effort.
I sincerely believe that most people will be surprised.
Personally, I felt like I won the freaking lottery!

Can also be very successful. Dependent (of course, to some extent) on the availability of blogs in your niche. I do plenty. It's only really article marketing under another name. Except it can be a bit better, because you can get an "intro" as well, sometimes, and can sometimes even go back after the post, to "answer readers' questions" and so on.

There are many threads on it ...

It's one of the reasons I still like to do some "blog comments" when I have time, because "today's blog comment might be tomorrow's guest post".

I still get something extra (indirectly, I mean) from submitting to EZA, myself. I completely hear what you're saying, but the way I look at it is that it takes me only about 30 seconds to paste an article into EZA's submission box, it doesn't cost anything, and "you never know". So I dump a copy of every article in there as my "last step", after everything else I do with them. I do still get some articles syndicated from there, and whatever I get from it is "something extra, for nothing", after all. There's no downside for me.

If you're going to plan and select your business model on the grounds that "your own sites might get de-indexed", then maybe article marketing isn't for you at all, just like list-building apparently isn't either (and clearly nobody should advise you to try article marketing without list-building, anyway - that would be extraordinarily wasteful of just about the best traffic you can get).

"I love the swirl and swing of words as they tangle with human emotions."

- James Michener

I was going to respond to your posts, but then I realized
you are never going to read it anyway. :rolleyes:

It just doesn't: it takes very few.

Post #51 above explains this point in detail.

Article marketing isn't about how many articles you have: it's about who reads them. Sorry to go on about it, but it strikes me that one really doesn't need to be Einstein to see the logic of this self-evident fact?

Spinning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. It's a "solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist". A solution of benefit only to people selling spinning software and services.

It's without value. It can damage your business, but it can't help you. Everyone who actually makes a living from article marketing (rather than from supplying spinning software or services) says the same things about spinning. And there are reasons for that. The whole thing is based on a fallacy, and a misunderstanding about what "duplicate content" and "syndicated content" mean and signify.

The value of a backlink doesn't depend on whether the content to which it's attached is "unique" or "previously published": it depends on many other things, but that isn't one of them, and Google says so openly.

For people open-minded enough to read them, the following six items explain much more, at greater length and in greater detail.

• this post explains the benefits of spinning
• the first half (or so) of this thread contains a good discussion of what you can gain from spinning articles
• the advice on this subject given by so many people throughout most of this thread has been really helpful to many people here
• on the meaning and significance of "duplicate content", in this context, this little post from expert article marketer Anne Pottinger includes direct quotations from Google's WebMaster Central Blog on the subject (not easy to find a more authoritative source than that!)
• this little article is also a very useful and accurate explanation of the subject
• this post, and its links, explain in detail the closely related subject of how article directories really work and why they exist

And the large and increasing number of us making a living from doing so? We're all collectively confabulating, for some mysterious and unspecified reason, are we?!

And Reuters and Associated Press, they're just imaginary, fictional businesses, are they?

Not just from any major site. From any site at all. There are copyright laws. However, that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about, here, and misses the point just as much as all your other trolling nonsense does.

People willing to spend three minutes looking at the reality for themselves will see with no difficulty at all how ludicrous that assertion is. Is that really the best trolling you can come up with?! I have news for you: you're not doing too well, denigrating article marketing (and you're not going to, either, because too many of us earn such good livings from it), so I think you'd better go back to starting off more of your threads to explain to people why you don't think list-building works at all, for internet marketing!

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7766317

:rolleyes:

Depending on where an article is republished, I've seen the exact opposite. If you are being republished on a site or blog with active readers, you'll often get a surge of traffic from that site/article in the first couple of days. After that, it will taper off until you get the occasional visitor. If your article ends up in an email newsletter (a broadcast), again, you'll get the majority of your visitors within a couple of days. If there's an online archive, you'll get some visitors for as long as it remains.

This isn't about hitting one out of the park, although it can happen if you get picked up by a major print magazine or something. It's about the steady accumulation of those surges and trickles until even in the slow times you get a fair number of people seeing your offers.

This is dead on. Good job...

I agree. It has it's place but it's not as powerful as it once was. Duplicate content slap from Google really hurt this method of marketing BIGTIME!

Nope ... you must be thinking of article directory marketing - certainly not "article marketing": all those Panda updates and the Penguin update were very helpful to us professional article marketers. Which is why, over the last nearly two years, so many successful article marketers have been making countless posts here explaining exactly that.

The Panda updates, which decimated the SEO potential of article directories, have made it much easier for us to use directories for the purpose for which they were intended. The losers were the people trying to use directories for their own backlinks and/or their own traffic (not what article directories were ever there for, of course): http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

And the Penguin update has helped us out more, by effectively removing from the SERP's as our competitors all the people who'd been doing "spinning" and "mass/automated submission" to article directories (presumably not understanding how they worked at all).

Nope ... completely wrong. The exact opposite's the case. This is explained in some detail in post #51 (and in post #65) above.

Just a little tip, Nasuryono: sometimes it helps to read the thread (or at least the most recent few posts!) before replying to it.

Strange that so many of us are making our livings using it as a core (or even "sole", in some cases) strategy, then?

One thing it isn't is "part of a link-building campaign". Article marketing isn't an SEO-based system: it's a traffic-generation method in its own right, which transcends SEO.

Nonsense. Just nonsense, sorry.

On the contrary - this is completely wrong.

Please excuse the emphasis, but it's already been explained many times in this very thread exactly why that's such a deeply mistaken approach. The people doing that are the ones also starting off all the threads with titles like "Is Article Marketing Dead" (and, for them, it is), and there are reasons for that.

Nobody who understands how article directories work would dream of submitting to them any articles which hadn't already been published and indexed on their own site first, for all the reasons explained in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...marketing.html

It makes no sense at all to give any article directory the initial indexation rights to previously unpublished content, when you can have those for yourself first. That's helping article directories more than it's helping you.

For all the reasons explained in detail, with examples, in this post, no article marketer would want their potential customer traffic coming to their site from an article directory: we all lose most of that traffic, but can equally easily choose to keep it instead. That isn't who the article directory articles are there for, at all.

When you have time, if you read through this longer thread, in it you'll find a whole succession of experienced, successful article makreters explaining all their shared reasons for never doing what you suggest above: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eza-first.html

And I'll tell you something else: they're right, too.

Apologies for all the repetition, but when people keep adding on their own repetition of the nonsensical urban myths of internet marketing without having read the thread at all and therefore without having seen that eight or ten or others have previously said exactly the same thing and that this misinformation's already been corrected multiple times by various people who are actually making our livings from article marketing, what else can one do?

You know, one thing that keeps coming up when people ask me questions on this topic off-forum, is that they keep getting handed the 'no duplicate content' excuse. This reminds me of a story...

A man answered his door and found one of his neighbors standing on his front step. The neighbor asked to borrow his lawn mower.

The man refused. When asked why, he said "because the train is always late."

"What on Earth does that have to do with you lending me your lawn mower?"

"Nothing. But since it's my mower and I don't want to lend it to you, one reason is as good as any other."

People running popular blogs, especially in or around niches popular with typical IMers, get bombarded with would-be syndicators looking to add backlinks. So they offer a reason they figure the wannabe will accept - fear of losing ranking.

Run your syndication campaign as a win-win-win proposition and approach would-be partners with respect and humility, and it may not matter if the train is late or not. The subject will never come up.

Ok ... not biting your head off at all, but just mentioning that if that's so, then probably either the places to which you're trying to submit them aren't actually article directories (like many of the sites mentioned throughout this thread, which people wrongly imagine are article directories), or you've slightly misunderstood the reason for their being declined. This commonly happens, for example, when people get articles rejected for not being "original", and they don't quite appreciate that that means something completely different from their not being "unique", and as a result they often mistakenly imagine - even after reading the "explanation" - that it was the fact that the articles had previously been published elsewhere that was the cause of their being declined.

There are several threads here in which people report - totally incorrectly - that Ezine Articles rejected their articles because they'd already been published on their own blogs, but when you look at what EZA actually said, of course, it wasn't that at all.

The reality is that EZA would clearly never have meant that, given the lengths to which they go to invite authors to submit as articles their already-published blog-posts.

I agree that the article directory marketing method you describe
here is not a huge traffic source, but the idea that it is worth
the effort is just not true... Even outsourcing the submissions is
a waste of time. Time spent looking for someone to babysit
could have been invested on adding another person to a proper
syndication network, instead.