Adsense is dead? No way...How did you get that idea?

This one cracks me up...

On September 13, 2006, I received an email from Joel Comm. It said:

"There is a brand new report circulating on the web saying that "AdSense is Dead". I recommend that you go download it, but not for the reasons you might suspect.

AdSense IS dead...

... if you focus on building garbage sites
... if you put no effort into creating your own original content
... if you expect to get rich quick

But, the reality of the situation is that AdSense is FAR from dead!

In fact, I had my BEST month EVER in August 2006!"

It went on to provide a link to a poll that tabulated people's perception of Adsense health where I also found a handy-dandy link to download Scott Boulch's "Death of Adsense" report, through Joel. Joel Comm made fifty cents by referring me. He deserved it. He did recommend that I download it, after all.

Yesterday, I found out about a new report, written by Joel Comm, proclaiming "Adsense is Alive."

Note: There is no contradiction here. Joel never said he agreed with Boulch on the fate of everyone's favorite giant contextual advertisint option. He did agree it was dead for those using certain methods, but always maintained its overall viability.

However, the actual language of the landing page for "Adsense is Alive" cracks me up...

It says:

"Somehow, a rumor was started that AdSense is dead. This rumor has spread like wildfire across the net, and has left thousands of marketers dazed and confused about the future of AdSense."

and

"Apparently some people CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, so they've decided to create their own version of "truth".

Well I'm not going to stand by and watch the facts get smeared and smothered any longer.

I'm here to set the record straight."

Give me a break. "Somehow" this story spread. Could it be, at least in part, because some Adsense guru named Joel Comm put his massive list in direct contact with the report in question, perhaps? Maybe the thousands of people Joel recommended to download that report and who then made it available to others to collect their pieces of fifty-cent referral pie helped it to spread?

Look, I don't begrudge Comm for pushing his pro-Adsense report in light of "The Death of Adsense" stuff, but I do find it less than compelling for him to feign some kind of shock and surprise after he told the world to check it out, knowing that there was some monetary value to continuing its distribution (which, by the way, is surely what led him to become a Boulch affiliate in the first place).

And then, the rest of it... It seems like a massive stretch to pull out this "I can't believe this is happening and I am gonna set the record straight!" language after playing a hand in the D of A report's distribution.

I am not saying it is dishonest or unethical, but it sure is beyond cheesy. And if I actually believed that Adsense may be on its deathbed, I would sure as hell use Comm's actions to support my position. Here's a noted Adsense guru who is willing to sell out for fifty cents a pop in support of a report lambasting Adsense. If his goose is so golden, why would he actively help spread the kind of bad publicity that could only drain his wallet?

I know the answer to that... It has nothing to do with Adsense it all. It has to do with making a few quick hundred off of a single email to one's list, and realizing that few people on the list will ever make the connection and hold it against him. The risk is small. And the controvery engendered by the "Death of Adsense" stuff (which doesn't, by the way, proffer an alternative that is actually mutually exclusive with Adsense) gives him a great opportunity to grab some spotlight with "Adsense is Alive."

You can call it good marketing. You can call it slimy. You can call it insulting. I call it funny. I just don't know whether it was intended that way.

By the way, in my humble non-Guru estimation, Adsense isn't dead and click flipping isn't really an alternative to Adsense so much as it is another potential revenue stream. Oh, and neither way can pack the eventual financial punch of owning and selling your own product, carefully written by a great writer who "gets it" or by you personally.

Add to: | blinklist | del.cio.us | digg | yahoo! | furl | rawsugar | shadows | netvouz

technorati tags: content done better content writer adsense adsense alive comm joel commboulch scott boulch marketing IM contextual advertising click flipping
del.icio.us tags: content done better content writer adsense adsense alive comm joel commboulch scott boulch marketing IM contextual advertising click flipping
icerocket tags: content done better content writer adsense adsense alive comm joel commboulch scott boulch marketing IM contextual advertising click flipping

Freelance content writer rates and snobbery...Again...

One of the first posts I wrote for this blog was about how I refuse to consider myself some sort of lesser being because I am willing write web content. One of the first posts to receive a great deal of commentary was one that provided a defense of what one might term lower-paying markets for writers, like web content.

Today, I revisited a few of those posts subsequent to a request for their permalinks, and decided it was a great time to take on the issue of writer snobbery again.

Before we get to the meat of the argument, let me do two things to make my position as clear as possible. First, I want to provide a little bit of background about myself and Content Done Better. Second, I want to clearly define the attitude to which I take such exception.

I write web content. I produce original, readable, informative, factually accurate material at prices that make sense. That isn't all I do. It is one of the things I do. I also write sales letters, other ad copy, press releases, ebooks and more. However, a significant percentage of my business involves writing what I term "straight content" for my clients. I have writing aspirations that don't involve either copywriting or "straight content" work. Those more literary pursuits inform my approach to content writing, as does my educational background, experience in other industries, etc.

I have been doing this for a few years now, and I have stumbled upon an approach and a business model that works for me. I would never claim that anyone who wants to write should "do it my way" or that all writers have identical skill sets making any portion of what I do a great fit for everyone.

The attitude with which I take exception is one frequently espoused by others who make a living writing. They look down upon content work. They make arguments about who should be allowed to carry the mantle of "writer." They immediately associate all content writing with churning out low-quality crap. They criticize those who work at lower per-word rates as being traitors to the writing cause. They profess their absolute inability to understand how or why anyone would ever write for "burger flipper wages."

I mention that because I don't have a beef with everyone critical of straight content markets. There are those who have argued it doesn't work for them and that they feel they would prefer to focus their time and efforts elsewhere. I can respect that. I might disagree with some of the thinking that leads them to their conclusions, but I don't feel compelled to argue with them.

It's those who are so quick to climb atop a high horse and to cast aspersions upon those in the content writing field that irritate me.

Here is a synopsis of why that is the case.

• By and large, they aren't any more talented than the content writers with whom I have worked. For all of the blustering and snootiness, I rarely find their work that impressive. These "writers should demand more" people are often responsible for some of the lamest things you will ever read. Of course, they don't recognize that. They would undoubtedly disagree with my assessment, too. I won't claim to be an objective critic, but I do think that I can say with a high degree of confidence that they aren't really quite as hot as they might believe.

• They substitute their view of value for that of the marketplace. There is a reason why straight content carries a particular price tag. It has to do with market forces. There is a supply/demand imbalance that currently pushes prices to a certain level. It is then incumbent upon the writer to either work within those market limitations or to offer something that warrants and increased expenditure on the part of content buyers. That extra "something" might come in the form of performance guarantees or persuasive explanations of why a more expensive investment will actually yield greater returns than will lower-priced materials. Many of the snooty crowd have this bizarre idea that everything they write is automatically worth a fortune. That kind of back-patting might make one feel good, but it doesn't reflect reality. Those who are critical of writers working within certain lower-paying markets are merely disregarding market forces and are making the erroneous assumption that buyers are "bottom feeders" who don't understand their business models.

• Too often, these attacking characters are actually netting far less than those who are willing to stop griping about the fact the sun comes up every day than are those who are working for a living. All of that high-mindedness and they constant surveying of the contours of one's long pointed nose doesn't put food on the table. Meanwhile, those of us who have found ways to make the straight content industry work to meet our needs are either making or supplementing a real income that dwarfs theirs. I am not saying that as a way of bragging. Instead, I am pointing out that the elitist pity for those poor unfortunate souls who "don't know better" and who are working for "slave wages" is misplaced.

• The criticisms of the lower-paying markets are often stuffed with those kind of comments, too. "Burger flipping wages," "a few measly bucks per hour," "slave wages," etc. Of course, that isn't really the case. They make that argument after first building a strawperson argument built on job bid board prices that may not be reflective of the actual rates of talented content writers (and this is a volume business in which a penny per word does have a huge influence on profitability). They take more egregious examples of lower rates and hold them up as representative examples. They also fail to consider that many of us actually land jobs at rates a little higher than those posted at Rentacoder.com and elsewhere because we know our clients' business and how to make a decent pitch. Additionally, if one actually dares to do the math, those seemingly weak per word rates can actually add up to a fairly hefty sum. A person can make a living that way. People like me can use content jobs to fill scheduling holes, profiting in the process. I suppose it would be easier to bemoan how damn tough it is to make a buck as a writer, but I prefer cashing checks to commiseration.

I think that's a good start as to why the holier-than-thou attitude exhibited by some people is so irritating. There's probably more, but I will leave it at that for now.

I do want to add, however, that there IS a real argument to be had about all of this. I don't want to present my viewpoint as some kind of unassailable gospel truth. However, the real arguments about the issue are rarely raised by those who prefer to attack lower per-word market segments with snotty insults.

If you are a writer and think that what I would term "reasonable rates" are actually "slave wages," that's fine. I'd like to hear your argument. We could exchange ideas on the subject and try to reach some sort of conclusion about what constitutes a reasonable rate and whether it can be achieved at various per-word price points, etc. We could discuss how value for writing should be determined and what remedies might be in order if writers truly are underpaid. There are all sorts of neat things about which we could debate and and that we might discover. I'm down with that.

If you are a writer and are making that "something stinks" face as you read this post and are currently thinking of the snottiest, elitist response you can possibly concoct, don't waste your ultra-valuable finger-time. Elitism bores.

If you are a content buyer and have wondered why so many writers have been so obnoxious in response to your offers or who can't believe that so many writers don't have a grip on the nature of your business and what constitutes a fair rate, take heart. There are many of us who do "get it."

Oh... Am I a hypocrite for decrying snottiness while mocking those would spit (or worse, take mock pity) upon those of us who aren't above grinding out a living writing "straight content" at market prices? Yeah, maybe so. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, though, right?

Add to: | blinklist | del.cio.us | digg | yahoo! | furl | rawsugar | shadows | netvouz

technorati tags: content done better content writer content writer freelance writer ghostwriterweb writer web content freelance content paid content
del.icio.us tags: content done better content writer content writer freelance writer ghostwriterweb writer web content freelance content paid content
icerocket tags: content done better content writer content writer freelance writer ghostwriterweb writer web content freelance content paid content

Click flipping...Better options exist, regardless of Adsense's health...

I was one of the eighty-five kerbillion bloggers who mentioned Scott Boulch's "The Death of Adsense" report not too long ago. For those who missed this micro-tome, Boulch argued that smart pricing crushed the margins for those using Adsense as a primary moneymaker and that contextual advertising (at least over the Google content network, I suppose) was off of life support and well into its purgatorial stay.

I thought Boulch's report was worth reading because it did do a nice job of explaining how smart pricing was dooming some of the popular Adsense-based business models.

Well, Part II of the Boulch report was released. I think it is called "Life After Adsense" (if not, it is something similar). Boulch recommends that all of those people who are seeing their income falter as a result of the changes within Adsense should abandon ship and move on over to the exciting and profitable world of click flipping.

If you haven't heard about click flipping, get ready to grow acquainted. Boulch managed to get over 30K copies of his report out there, so it is bound to become a topic of discussion. I read one blogger, who I think was using some light variation of Boulch's own words define click flipping like this:

"Click Flipping is the process of identifying and maximizing, multiple profit pathways by using PPC traffic and converting that traffic into CPA (Cost Per Action) offers."

Yeah, internet marketers are as in love with jargon as those who get excited about delivering marketing strategy meetings in the conference rooms of Corporate USA. If you cut through the jargon, the basic idea is relatively simple. You buy traffic with pay-per-click campaigns and send it to various others willing to pay more for traffic on a cost per action basis.

Oversimplified example: You buy traffic via Adwords for a nickel per click. You then route that traffic toward a related CPA offer who is paying $10 per sale. If you can get more than one out of every 200 clickers to seal a deal with your CPA buddy, you make dough.

This really isn't anything different than what affiliate marketers have been doing for some time, in my estimation. They bought PPC traffic and tried to funnel it to sales pages for programs with which they had affiliations in order to earn bigger commissions. Admittedly, Boulch does dress his click flipping strategy up a bit and it is a little more complicated than I am making it out to be. However, that's the basic idea.

Now, I am not an internet marketing super-guru-mega-seller. I do, however, have many in the IM biz as customers and, as such, I think it is important for me to pay attention to the industry. Although I might not an expert, I am informed. And, it's my informed opinion that Boulch's second offering in "The Death of Adsense" series is a fine guide to click flipping. It's also my informed opinion that click flipping has absolutely nothing to do with the decline (real or imagined) of Adsense. I also think that click flipping still falls well short of an even better IM business model.

Let's say Adsense was dead, like Boulch argues. Personally, I think that is a bit of marketing hyperbole designed to feed his massive list-building campaign, but there is a legitimate argument to make about the decrease value of clicks for publishers in a post smart-pricing world. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say Adsense is d-e-a-d.

What does that have to do with click flipping? Nothing.

You could make money click flipping just as effectively if Adsense UPPED its payments over heyday levels. According to Boulch's analysis, click flipping should be a winner regardless of the Adsense climate. That matters for two reasons.

First, those who don't think Adsense is dead, dying, injured or past its prime can still get some insight from the Boulch book on click flipping.

Second, it just goes to show you that Scott is a talented marketer. He managed to drum up excitement about his click flipping guide by first making the basically unrelated announcement of Adsense's death--complete with creepy skulls in the graphics. He now has a 30K+ name list for when he decides to launch his next for-profit venture. Nice work, but unrelated to anything about Adsense if you think about it.

Boulch does argue that click flipping is as groovy notion because it avoids some of the issues that caused the alleged downfall of Adsense, but the analysis there is shady at best. The basic plan here was to tell all of those folks who are earnestly trying to build their Massive Adsense Empires to hop on over to the world click flipping instead.

Really, though, the more I think about click flipping the more second-rate the whole process seems to me. Boulch has concocted an internet marketing "food chain" that really doesn't make a great deal of sense to me (or to Alice Seba, apparently), but he seems to think that click flipping elevates one's place on that list. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Either way, his logic would seem to indicate that a different action would be superior.

Why remain satisfied with being the "middle guy," scavenging traffic to send to people who will pay you a percentage of their (bigger) take? Why not climb to the top of the chain and be the person who is actually providing the product and let guys like Boulch do the legwork for you?

Boulch knows that, on some level. After all, he's going to be sending out $15K plus in commissions for those who helped get the word out about his report. He is more than willing to let bloggers and others do his legwork and to pay them a half-buck per name because he knows that he can make that list worth a lot more $$$.

The logical conclusion to the whole story is that those who produce and own products are going to be those on top of the food chain, so to speak. They are the ones who will be able to run the CPA campaigns that will put some money in the hands of Boulch & Co. because they will be making even more.

It's long worked the same way in affiliate marketing. You can make a nice sum pushing other people's products, but the folks who are really cleaning up are the ones who are producing and maintaining control over the products themselves. Yes, that route does require a creative spark and comes with development costs, etc. that can be avoided by being an affiliate or a click flipper, but the payout MUST be higher when it is done correctly. Otherwise Boulch's whole argument falls flat because CPA will die out faster and more violently than Adsense ever could.

So, as a non-IM guru, I would posit the following for those who want to make a living in the IM field--whether Adsense is thriving or dying.

Don't bother flipping clicks to someone else. Be the person who finally translates those clicks into actual payments.

Content Done Better writes ebooks. I have people come to me with ideas and plans they want translated into readable guides, manuals, stories, etc. Why? Because they then sell those ebooks. Guess what? They don't do it all themselves. They use affiliates. They buy their own PPC traffic. They'll even run CPA campaigns (whether you want to call it commissions or whatever). They are willing to spread the wealth when someone else is generating it for them.

Guess I've been rubbing shoulders with those on top of the IM food chain, huh? No wonder they always pay on time!

This might be a good place for a self-serving plug. If you have an idea for a great informational product, get in touch. I can write it for you. We can put together a monster of a sales page and promotional materials to go with it. You can then start your affiliate program, CPA campaigns, etc. and situate yourself a little higher up the line. Interested? Fill out the form on the right sidebar, email me at cdbrack [at] gmail.com, or use the contact form at Content Done Better.

Anyway, I don't know that Adsense is dead, although it certainly has changed. I don't know if click flipping is a panacea, although it does make sense and follows some basic principles that have worked in other situations. But I do know, with relative certainty, that there is a slot above those who are flipping clicks and that it's occupied by people who create and own the actual products--the ones with whom the buck actually stops.

Technorati Tags:
content done better, click flipping, flipping clicks, death of adsense, adsense, boulch, scott boulch, writer, writing, contextual advertising, CPA, PPC, information products, IM, internet marketing, marketing
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, click flipping, flipping clicks, death of adsense, adsense, boulch, scott boulch, writer, writing, contextual advertising, CPA, PPC, information products, IM, internet marketing, marketing

Adsense and keyword content...an addendum to the keyword density discussion...

Recently, I wrote a series of posts about the notion of optimal keyword density. In short, I maintain that there is no such thing as an optimal KD and that there is no particular need to insist upon content that utilizes designated keywords at a particular rate. You can read the whole story here, here, and here, if you'd like.

I will write content at any required keyword density to comport with client expectations, but I personally don't feel that it is a necessity and I find that those who advocate a particular density as a "magic bullet" for better SERPs are off-base.

However, that doesn't mean that there isn't at least one good reason to use content that emphasizes a particular keyword to the exclusion of other terms. Sometimes, that strategy can make a great deal of sense--particularly when one is writing with contextual advertising earnings in mind.

Although the idea of keyword-targeted text to help assist in controlling contextual advertising relevance isn't contradictory with the stance I took in my earlier arguments, it does represent a circumstance in which keeping a very close eye on word choices does make a difference, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

Let's say you have an Adsense site that is devoted to the topic of "sock monkeys." Let's also assume for a moment that "sock monkey" and its more obvious derivatives are high competition terms and that clicks can bring as much as five dollars each. You want to cash in on that potential bonanza, so you get in touch with me to write some articles about sock monkeys for your site.

Meanwhile, Puppet Productions, Inc., is working on their pay-per-click campaign over at Adwords. They have sock money patterns they'd like to sell, but are aghast at the huge cost of targeting the obvious keywords. They do some research and find a few related terms that they can capture less expensively, reasonably believing that those who use those terms will still want to buy sock monkey patterns. Among their finds is that they can buy clicks from "stocking ape patterns" for a mere five cents per click!

Well, while that is happening, I am writing content. You didn't bother giving me much in the way of direction in terms of keywords for your Adsense material, and I am now working on the 150th sock monkey article. It's title? "Stocking Ape Patterns: Choosing the Best."

It's a wonderful, well-written and information-rich article. It does use the term "sock monkey" a few times, but it uses "Stocking Ape Patterns" with an even greater frequency. You read it, like it, and put it right on the main page of your site!

When you look at what ads are being served up on your page, you'll notice the very first one there belongs to the good people at Puppet Productions.

Everything seems to be working perfectly. You are getting a nice traffic flow and your click-through rate is above expectations. But there is a problem. Those clicks are netting you no more than three cents most of the time! Where are the ultra-valuable five dollar clicks????

Well, you aren't getting them because your visitors are clicking on Puppet Productions' ad, which they bought for a nickel. You have the title of the "Stocking Ape" article bolded and in an H1 tag. You have the whole article, filled with its numerous references to "stocking ape patterns" out there for all to see. Google is reading that page and saying, "hey, this is a great place to serve up 'stocking ape patterns.'" and that is exactly what they are doing.

Those big money clicks are buried under the equally relevant cheapies.

The point to this extended hypothetical is that it does make sense, under particular circumstances, to commission content with tighter word choice controls and attention to keyword density. If you had told me to make sure the predominant keyword was "sock monkey" and to stay away from less common related synonyms like "stocking ape," those clicks would be worth a lot more...

Yes, that is a gross oversimplification of how things work. I understand that. However, there is a definite truth at its core. If you are buying content with the primary purpose of generating contextual advertising revenues, make sure your writer is talking about sock monkeys and isn't prattling on about stocking apes.


Technorati Tags:
content done better, content, writer, content writer, contextual advertising, adsense, articles, keyword density, keyword, freelance
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, content, writer, content writer, contextual advertising, adsense, articles, keyword density, keyword, freelance

Welcome friends of Deb's Freelance Writing Blog...

Hi. I just happened to notice that Deb's Freelance Writing Blog is sending me a healthy stream of visitors today and thought I would welcome all of you first-timers to the Content Done Better Blog.

You might be wondering about Deb's comments about the two of us not always seeing eye to eye... I think we are probably simpatico on most issues, but we have been known to disagree about appropriate rates and the nature of the online content marketplace from time to time.

She does offer one helluva service at her blog, though, and is a real friend to all writers.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Take a few minutes to look around. If you write for the web, or are interested in doing so, there should be something here to interest you--even if you don't agree with it.

By the way, if you are a writer who works for an online customer base and you have a blog or website, I would love to know about it. Feel free to spam me with your URL in the comments to this post, or you can drop me a line at cdbrack@gmail.com. I'm always looking for new reading material and new names to add to my blogroll.

Hope to see you again sometime. Feel free to bookmark and/or add a link to the Content Done Better Blog if you think it's a good fit for you.

Will write articles for links...When exposure matters and when it doesn't...

A little while back, I wrote a post criticizing one freelance writer's take on producing articles for distribution at article repository sites (see: "Article marketing IS a good idea...").

Basically, I took exception with her perspective that writing for "free" never made sense and defended the concept of article marketing. I stand by those conclusions. Article marketing is a great way of pseudo-synidicating material across a wide variety of sites and snagging a series of SERP-boosting backlinks along the way. It's a good strategy for businesses of all sorts, including freelance writers, who'd like to see more search engine traffic.

The method works because of its viral nature. The free article is picked up by a series of webmasters looking for content and can spread fairly quickly. It isn't a "true" viral distribution model, in that the "infection" is limited to a single level, but it still gets results. One good article can produce countless valuable backlinks.

So, I support writing for "free" in that case, because what I am really doing is creating an effective SEO and advertising tool.

I also can understand writing without financial compensation in exchange for a link in the right spot, under the right circumstances. That's really my topic for this post.

Today, at a writing forum, I saw someone trying to convince writers to offer original material for a niche site that wasn't related even tangentially to writing. The webmaster was offering a tiny bit of compensation and was dangling that oft-presented carrot of "future work" once things were making money, but the primary benefit was, ostensibly, exposure.

This is a situation where free writing doesn't make a great deal (if any) sense to me. I can't see a great deal of benefit in producing free content under those circumstances. Here's why...

Limited backlink quantity. Unlike articles "donated" as part of an article-based marketing strategy, this kind of arrangement only provides one use of the content. I'd get one backlink for my article. Not very inviting.

Limited thematic consistency. A backlink to my site from a niche site unrelated to writing, SEO, web design or some other content-related site doesn't do me a lot of good. The overlap between visitors to the particular niche site and those who would be interested in what I do is limited, if it exists at all. There is little likelihood that my donated article would ever directly produce a client. Additionally, the search engines have this alleged tendency to value thematically similar links more than strange ones that seem to "come out of left field." That single lonely link doesn't even pack a whallop.

Limited link value. Well, I just mentioned one reason why the link wouldn't be particularly valuable, but there are others. First, a new page designed primarily to warehouse a single article isn't likely to tote a lot of PR. Even if you don't worship at the temple of Page Rank, the link wouldn't carry a lot of cache by any standard. Traffic is also a big question mark, as you have no idea of the webmaster's actual competency or commitment to driving any traffic to the article pages. Thus, there isn't really even a strong likelihood of the previously-mentioned "irrelevant" exposure.

So, based on those factors, I would never make that kind of deal. I don't understand why any freelance writer would.

There are a few possible exceptions to the rule, I suppose.

One could be interested in branding himself or herself as an expert on that particular topic. If the site turned out to have serious name value and people respected it, I suppose inclusion of one's article(s) there might have some value.

Also, if the writer was also running a site of his or her own on a related topic and was given the opportunity to get the link back, it could make sense under the right circumstances. Again, though, that's unlikely in this kind of situation. The webmaster wants a freebie about "cheap American beer." I happen to run a site about "cheap American beer" (I don't, really, but play along...). It might be reasonable to offer up my article for free in hopes of siphoning some of the webmaster's traffic to my own for-profit "cheap American beer" endeavor.

Even if that strange convergence of events were to happen, I fail to see why I would get more mileage out of the pro bono article than I would from using the same material as part of an article marketing campaign. The soliciting site would have to be very good. If it was that good, they'd probably be willing to pay for content.

Another variation where it might make sense to do some pro bono work would be in a guest blogging position or something similar. If you can communicate, front page, with the other site's readers and get to meet them, add them to your social network, etc. when your work and the host blogger's compliment one another, that could be a different story--under the right conditions. Clearly, that sort of arrangement is pretty distinct from the one under consideration here. We are, again, talking about distinct niches with very little overlap and materials that might end up buried where three people and one robot for a second-tier search engine ever see them.

That's why this kind of "writing for exposure" doesn't excite me.

Short version: Writing for multiple links as part of a marketing strategy--good. Writing a niche article for site of unknown or uncertain quality that is unrelated to your business--bad.

If I wanted to write for exposure, I would write for exposure and get alot more of it than I ever would as an article donor for someone's niche site.


Technorati Tags:
content done better, content, writer, content writer, links, backlinks, articles, article marketing, syndication, viral marketing, free writing, free content
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, content, writer, content writer, links, backlinks, articles, article marketing, syndication, viral marketing, free writing, free content

Ghostwriting success offer...What would you pay for information on content writing? A waitress (waiter) speaks out...

Today, I uncovered an offer from Kelly McCausey and Nell Taliercio. Well, it's actually from "Kelly and Nell," but I was able to determine that "Kelly" was McCausey and I am assuming "Nell" is Taliercio, because wee bit of research indicates that they probably work together with at least some regularity.

The offer: "The Ghostwriting Success Teleseminar."

$27 buys you an MP3, a transcript of that MP3 and an additional special report. The teleseminar is designed to answer the numerous questions people have about a career in online ghostwriting. It also provides the authors'/compilers' perspective on what it takes to make it as a ghostwriter.

The write:

Both of us (Kelly and Nell) have been making heavy use of ghostwriters in our online businesses. We have experienced really good ghostwriters and we've ran into some really bad ones. We've given a lot of thought to what it is that made the difference for us as a ghostwriter's client.

I don't have a problem with the idea or the price tag. Personally, I am willing to wager that a great deal of the insight provided could be gleaned from completely free sources. Content writers' blogs, various writing forums (easily discoverable via the search engines) and other readily available resources are out there. However, it might be worth the $27 to have the most valuable information organized for you.

I also don't doubt Kelly's or Nell's ability to provide quality perspective on how to be a good content writer. My cursory research shows that both have a track record of involvement with some successful and interesting projects. They undoubtedly know their way around the net and I have every reason to believe that they could provide some quality insight from a buyer's perspective.

So, is this as sales pitch for "The Ghostwriting Success Teleseminar?" Not quite.

I'm fairly neutral about the whole thing, although it did get me thinking... Oh, and there was one thing that sort of irritated me...

They write:

I have affectionately referred to Ghostwriting as the 'Waitressing job of the Internet'. Very few of us would want to waitress for a lifelong career - and the same would probably apply to ghostwriting. Just like an aspiring actress who has to wait tables to keep food on the table while they go to auditions, many very talented up and coming internet marketers and writers turn a quick profit offering their skills on the side. I think it makes perfect sense! That being said - some people fall in love with it and end up making a career of it, as do a few very devoted and people friendly career waitresses ;)

How about a show of hands from any professional online content producer who finds that language at least a wee bit insulting? All of you? Thought so.

Portraying ghostwriting as little more than a stepping stone to something "bigger and better" reveals a lack of perspective about the nature of the industry.

I'm not going to go into all of this in detail. However, I can think of a whole heapin' helpin' of reasons the analogy falls flatter than the blue plate pancake special.

I also think that's a weird addition to a sales page. It would seem to work to dissuade people from learning more about the industry and its potential. Perhaps Kelly and Nell should have found a freelance writer who does some copywriting to handle that special order. As long as they left a 15% tip on the keyboard, that could be arranged...

The page also led me to think about the actual value of that information. I think I could write a whale of an ebook about how to carve out a healthy living as an online writer. I even considered doing so once upon a time, but my preliminary market research and the lunch-hour rush led me to file the project away in the "probably not" cabinet (which is overflowing, by the way).

Anyway, I would love to know what that kind of information would be worth to those who stumble across this blog looking for a little information about being a better content writer and to those who are already working in that capacity.

Who knows... If there appears to be a strong interest, I might be able to put together a JV with Kelly and Nell... Right after they kill the "waitressing job of the internet" thing.

In the meantime, the people at table four need more coffee...


Technorati Tags:
content done better, ghostwriting, ghostwriter, content, content writer, writer, freelance, freelance writer
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, ghostwriting, ghostwriter, content, content writer, writer, freelance, freelance writer

Technorati comes back to the Content Done Better Blog...

Twenty-five days ago, Technorati left me. It stopped noticing my posts and pretended as if I wasn't updating. I tried to get in touch a few times. Technorati continued to ignore me.

Tonight, Technorati found me again. Their customer service rep. sent an email. They have a backlog of service requests, so it took awhile to get to my pleas. They apologized for the delay, indicated that they had made "an adjustment," and sent their friendly spider over to see what had been missed over the last month.

I don't know what the adjustment was, but it worked. Technorati came back and noted every previously ignored word of this blog.

So, here's the moral to the story. If Technorati has stopped updating your blog or isn't indexing it correctly, don't give up on them. Drop the support people a line. Then wait. It might take them a few weeks, but they will get to you. And they can fix the problem. At least they could fix this one.

Way to go Technorati. Sure, a fix within five minutes would have been nice, but all's well that ends well.

Technorati Tags:
content done better, technorati, social bookmarking, tags
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, technorati, social bookmarking, tags

Experimenting with word verification...Opening the comment floodgate...Increased participation or just more spam?

Ever since I decided to require word verification for comments on this blog (see: "Reluctantly creating a barrier to participation..."), I've felt that the number of legitimate comments has been decreasing. That might be a byproduct of boring blogging (I hope not), but I think some people just aren't interested in going through the hassle of trying to decipher the "captcha" codes Blogger.com provides.


So, I have removed the word verification requirement. It's open season for comments again.

I'm going to let things stay word verification-free long enough to ascertain whether the extra step has been serving as a disincentive for comments and interaction. Or until I find that the number of "I like your blog. It is cool. You can buy V1agra and C1alis HERE!" comment spam messages grows beyond my capacity to delete them in a timely fashion.


Technorati Tags:
content done better, comments, comment spam, spam, c-spam, word verification, captcha
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, comments, comment spam, spam, c-spam, word verification, captcha

The "optimal keyword density" story...Part three...Living in a density-free zone...

Here we are...Part three of the multi-part series of posts dismissing the idea of "optimal keyword density." For those joining us late, feel free to read Part one and Part two.

First, a few caveats. There probably are keyword density extremes that make a difference. For instance, the search engines do check local data for keyword spamming. Thus, while there might not be an optimal density, filling a page with keywords won't get you far. Second, although the idea of a perfect keyword percentage is illusory, using the desired keyword phrase at least once is a good idea. I know, two obvious points... But I wanted to make sure we covered all of the bases.

So, if telling your writer to produce articles with a keyword density of 3.5% isn't really helping you, what should you tell them instead? How should content creators and buyers behave in a world without keyword density?

Here are my recommendations...

• Use desired keywords naturally.
• Focus on quality instead of keyword quantity.

USING KEYWORDS NATURALLY. The primary gripe you hear about traditional SEO content is that it doesn't read well. It sounds stilted and unnatural. You can sense that the writer was trying to squeeze particular keyword phrases into the text. Now, I don't think that is inevitable. I believe it is possible to use designated keywords within a piece at a predefined frequency while retaining high levels of readability and overall quality. However, it is sort of tricky and there is a great deal of nearly unreadable keyword density-guided content out there.

An alternative to utilizing a proscribed keyword density level is to write quality material on the designated subjects, using the keywords as naturally as possible. This is going to result in better stuff. The author will not be worrked about flipping grammar to get that phrase in there one more time to hit the 5% mark. The author will be able to focus exclusively on producing more entertaining and informative content. Meanwhile the search engines will still find the material.

I have a theory about why most people tend to wrongly believe that there is an optimal keyword density that falls between 3% and 7%. It's because a well-written piece will tend to naturally use essential keywords at a rate in that range. Shhhh... That might be the dirty secret behind the keyword density myth. It isn't really about hitting a number, it is about writign naturally. The problem and "clunkiness" comes into play when a writer starts to try to bend his or her language to hit a percentage.

FOCUS ON QUALITY: You probably don't need to read another essay on the value of good content. Just remember, that good material creates links, which fuel SERPs, and it does so organically. People voluntarily link to good content. It also creates trust, which fuels repeat visitors, longer page views and an increased chance of even more links. It does all sorts of other good things, too. Things like contributing to branding, pre-selling, etc. It's also super-flexible in that it can be used in article marketing campaigns to create direct traffic flow as well as SERP-buttressing backlinks and can be syndicated via RSS to get you more attention. That's just scratching the surface. Content is versatile and good content combines that versatility with effectiveness.

Quality also seems to correlate with SERPs. Joel Walsh and others have noticed that there does seem to be a link between the quality of content on a given page and its rank in the search engines.

But what if your keyword research has turned up a phrase that is going to be tough to use naturally. You know, one of those phrases that seems impossible to use in a quality piece of writing. Something like "monkey pattern using sock," for instance. You don't need to surrender on that keyword.

What you need is material that uses that phrase at least once--just to make sure it's on-page. Although it might be tough to use that phrase well, it is possible. There are ways to make it work. If it appeared in every paragraph, you would have a clear case of the lousy old-school SEO content people hate. Done well, and sparingly, it can be pulled off. It just requires a good writer.

Living in a "density-free zone" means focusing on natural language use and text quality instead of being focused on the percentages. The uptick in quality will improve SERPs and the use of natual language should insure adequate keyword density representation.

Technorati Tags:
content done better, seo content, keyword, density, keyword density, content writer, freelance writer, search engine, google, serp
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, seo content, keyword, density, keyword density, content writer, freelance writer, search engine, google, serp

The death of Adsense? Taking a break from discussing keyword density...Download a free ebook about Adsense...

I get as many, if not more, of those "FREE MONEYMAKING TOOL" as you probably do, and I have become pretty talented at making them disappear within seconds of receipt.

However, I think it is important for me, as a content writer and copywriter for many online entrepreneurs, to keep tabs on new developments in industries other than writing.

I'm also an Adsense user. I don't run contextual advertising on this blog, but I do on a small network of other sites and I like to stay up-to-date on related matters.

So, today I got an email from Joel Comm. For those of you who aren't familiar with the name, Joel is something of an "Adsense guru" and has done very well for himself selling people various tools, ebooks, etc. on mastering Adsense. Some people love him. Others think he's prone to packaging freely available information and peddling it to those who don't know any better.

I've seen Joel back some ideas that look pretty interesting. I have also seen his name associated with some products that didn't appeal to me very much (he backed some article ghostwriting software that I didn't think looked too impressive for and I think he has been involved in a "word cloud" script that seems downright silly to me). In any case, when I see Comm involved in something, I know that it is going to get widespread exposure. So, I generally take a look at what he has to say.

Today's email wasn't actually for anything Joel's doing directly. It was an offer to download a free report called "The Death of Adsense." Considering that many of my clients utilize Adsense as a monetization strategy and the fact that I make a few hundred bucks with Adsense every month, I decided to take a look at it.

Scott Boulch wrote the report and he provides some insight as to why people are seeing their Adsense revenues drop and why some of the changes with Google's Adwords program spells doom for the program.

Personally, I think that some of the standard "high volume, low margin" methods of Adsense income creation are severely crippled for a number of reasons. Scott addresses some of the main reasons why things are going downwhill for people embracing that model.

Anyway, it's a quick read and it's absolutely free. Only takes a few seconds to snag the download. I think it is worth looking at if you are:

• Currently using Adsense or thinking about doing so.
• A writer who works for those utilizing Adsense as a moneymaking strategy.
• Interested in a perspective that's likely to get a lot of attention in the near future.
• Like ebooks with creepy skull graphics (perfect for Halloween).
  

So, I recommend downloading it and giving it a read. That goes for my customers, prospective customers and writing colleagues.

Although the report doesn't peddle any products (something tells me that will probably come with Part II), it is definitely from an internet marketer. That means you will have to wade through a little bit of hype and a somewhat ego-driven mini-biography of the author, but the core message is interesting and sheds some light on why the late 2005 shift in Adwords campaign purchasing (allowing content network opt-outs) was a nail in the coffin of Adsense.

Oh, and I do believe in full disclosure. I get a whopping FIFTY CENTS if you download the free ebook. If that makes you jealous, you can do the same thing after you grab your copy.

Would I have mentioned the ebook without the fifty cent per download bounty? Yeah, probably. I know that at least one other big name in the industry is planning to unload a bigger report on why it's time to re-think Adsense and I believe it's the kind of thing people should check out. But, if I make enough to buy a few tacos on Taco Tuesday at Taco John's, so much the better.

Here's the creepy looking banner. You can click on that to grab your report.

Technorati Tags:
content done better, adsense, ebook, free download, content, adwords, content network
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, adsense, ebook, free download, content, adwords, content network

The "optimal keyword density" story...Part two...There's no magic number...

So, we've noticed that there are as many opinions regarding the optimal keyword density percentage as there are people talking about it. Some will say 2% is perfect. Others will tell you to shoot for 10%. What's the right number?

There isn't one. Anyone who says they have uncovered the perfect keyword density percentage is wrong. Bold statement? Not really. There are some fundamental reasons why the quest for some magic percentage is doomed.

First, search engines don't really use keyword density in their algorithms. It's not quite that simple. They rely on term vector analysis, which is a slightly more complicated proposition. I am not a math wizard, but I was able to slowly but surely make my way through some interesting research by information retrieval experts that explain exactly what term vector analysis is and how it works. Both local information from individual documents in a set is evaluated. So is more global information derived from the whole of the database. There is also weight given to linkages in order to accurately assess what Dr. E Garcia referred to "the degree of connectivity between documents."

The localized keyword density isn't overvalued because, in part, it opens the door for abuse. This is why search engines have evolved from using more simple density calculations after people adopted keyword spamming practices. They are counterbalanced by the global factors considered in the calculation.

Term Vector Theory and Keyword Weights is a great introduction to the actual mathetmatics underlying information retrieval algorithms. I'm going to skip all of the really juicy math stuff and present a few key statements from the analysis:

[It] is evident that keyword weights are affected by

1. local term counts
2. the shear volume of documents in the database.

Therefore, the popular notion that term weights are or can be estimated with "keyword density values" is quite misleading.

...and..

Frankly, SEOs/SEMs that spend their time adjusting keyword density values, going after keyword weight tricks or buying the latest "keyword density analyzer" are wasting their time and money.

...finally...

To conclude, keyword density values should not be taken for term weights. As local word ratios, density values are not good discriminators of relevancy.

Basically, keyword density is a gross oversimplification of the process used by search engines to assess the relative value of individual pages and sites. It may seem like a relevant proposition, but in reality it isn't very helpful.

One could argue that the authors of the quoted material are wrong and that the keyword density crowd are on the right track. However, I think that even a cursory examination of the more serious scholarly research on the topic should dissuade us from embracing that belief. Even if it doesn't, a few other factors should compel us to look at keyword density solutions with a very suspicious eye.

Consider, for a moment, the purpose of a search engine. If you get down to the core of search engines, it's all about putting users and information together. Google and the rest can only attract their necessary audiences by providing results that allow users to find the information for which they are looking. When search engines begin to serve up results that aren't relevant to the user, they start to lose market share.

If there were a perfect keyword density that fell somewhere between 1% and 20%, one of the thousands of people who focus their career efforts on getting sites ranked highly would undoubtedly stumble upon it. If you drop the highs and lows off the range of espoused optimal densities, that is not that huge of a range to carefully research and split-test to see what number really works.

So, what would that mean? It would mean that the search engines were heavily reliant upon a publicly determinable factor that could be intentionally manipulated to improve search engine rankings. It would be kicking open the door for those with the "magic number" to shoot up the charts just by making sure their targeted keyword phrase logged in at 4.25%, or whatever.

At that point, the entire concept would be irrelevant, as it would become an intentionally created norm by anyone running a website with an eye cast toward success. If you KNEW that a 4.25% density was truly optimal and had a real effect on search engine rankings, how long would it take you to optimize your content for the "magic number." You'd be on task right away, tweaking and adjusting to game the search engines.

That's exactly the kind of thing that could lead to a decline in search engine query result relevancy. Suddenly, the world's greatest expert on widgets--someone offering insightful, brilliant commentary on all things widgety--would be leap-frogged by a slew of fifteen-year-old kids with mini-sites running Adsense simply because they hit the 4.25% mark, all other things being equal. That is what the search engines DON'T want. It's also why the idea of a predetermined optimal keyword percentage doesn't make a lot of sense.

Additionally, search engines and their algorithm's are not static concepts. They are constantly shifting and changing as their owners look for ways to improve results and stay one step ahead of search engine gamers. Thus, even if there was a perfect percentage, you certainly couldn't count on it remaining optimal as the algorithm underwent its updates. Let's say you don't agree with the analysis of why having a set number doesn't make logical sense. Let's say you don't buy the IR experts' explanation of term vector theory. You should still be suspicious of the idea of a knowable optimal density, because that number could be subject to constant change.

Jill Whalen, from High Rankings, summarizes nicely:

If it weren't so prevalent, and there weren't so many people paying good money for training that teaches crazy things like this, it would actually be pretty funny. The thought of writing copy with a particular keyword density percentage in mind is ludicrous on so many levels.

Whalen goes a step beyond where I do. She actually encourages writers to refuse to write with a predetermined keyword density in mind, even when the client desperately wants material with a 3.5% (or whatever) density. I don't push it that far. As long as I believe their requested target number can be met without sacrificing the overall quality of Content Done Better's work, I will accept the assignment and meet the keyword density request. I might not believe those extra machinations are working, but I will do what it takes to keep a client happy.

So, if there is no optimal keyword density figure, how should one handle content needs? That's the next post in this series... So, stay tuned.


Technorati Tags:
content done better, seo content, content, writer, keyword, density, keyword density, search engines
Del.icio.us Tags:
content done better, seo content, content, writer, keyword, density, keyword density, search engines