I just came across a website that just came into one of my niche and has published over 60 good quality post between Dec 1st and Jan 13th.
These post are well written, properly interlinked and well researched because I can see the owner is targeting low hanging fruits which is why I can see the site because I am too 😂
I'm afraid of you guys now because how are you guys able to churn out good quality post that fast?
My question is how are you guys able to write so much post in such a short time?
I know you hire writers but writers can be headache to get to write right and meet up with deadline.
I use a high quality content agency and then edit the content to make sure it's well formatted and internally linked. I've published about 60 posts on my site sinc
e December all targeting low comp stuff. Hope we aren't competitors 🙂
Was your site sitting without content for a long term and then sudden start publishing content in December?
Howard » Akinola
Nope! had a trickle going from April to Dec, but published a whole lot more in Dec-Jan. Home niche.
Akinola ✍️ » Howard
Nah we are not competitors 😂
This is an outdoor/beauty niche
Mucha » Howard
This is what I find confusing, when someone says something like, "all targeting low comp stuff". This translates on my end to a negative 0ROI, even at budget rates of $0.02 you publish content to lose money?
1,500 @ 0.02 = $30
1,800 on content
MV under 200 I guess for low comp I guess. Say you rank for every single article in 1st. You get 30 clicks for every single article.
1,800 clicks, traffic, translates to
1800/1000*$30 (RPM) = $54
You've spent 1,800 to make $54 a month while ranking 1st for every article (give or take). And realistically this will never happen, it'll likely be half that.
The above confuses the hell out of me. Worse anything really classified as 'low-competition' is just waiting for literally anyone else to write the content and adios rank/traffic/revenue.
Howard » Mucha
I've personally found that Ahrefs and other tools vastly underestimate the actual volume a keyword gets. They're trying to do better with the "traffic potential" metric.
A lot of these keywords I'm targeting are question-answer, how to, or comparison type stuff. There are dozens of different ways people search those queries.
I can show you a dozen keywords I've targeted in the last couple of months that have search volumes of 80-200 that are going to bring far more traffic.
One post is a comparison and will bring in 400 hits this month (published on December 26th I think). The search volume is
Some of these posts will never bring in more than 30, but there will be enough outliers that bring in 1-2k hits that it will end up being well worth it.
Plus, since publishing a lot of this, my other content on the same topic has all started to move up.
1. Build the foundation with lower competition, lower volume stuff.
2. Move onto higher volume info stuff
3. Layer affiliate content on top to drive more sales.
RPMs for my niche are also $40 right now and that's the lowest point of the year.
Padawan » Mucha
Yeah. It's more about the bigger picture. Achieve topical relevance and later on reap the benefits with your „harder to rank" articles …
Mucha » Padawan
All of my research/data suggests doing this in reverse (high competitive/high volume take 4-6 months to mature). And I've done hundreds of tech/content audits and have an enormous amount of data..
We invest money to make money and factor in Lifetime Value (LTV). I can't imagine dumping thousands of dollars into a site, and running negative Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) at the hopes of someday publishing high volume/harder to rank content.
The above seems more like a dog chasing its tail in circles.
2021 audits all identify a similar pattern.
Someone like yourself (or anyone publishing low-comp). For the sake of examples you published 6 months ago.
Within the past 6 months there are 6 new competitors, 3 of which rank instantly in top 10, pushing you down in Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs). The other 3 grow slowly, pushing you down over time.
The 3 sites, that rank in top 10 instantly. Already published their high-comp articles ages ago (matured) and are adding supporting content. (which also happens to instantly rank), obviously.
You're essentially chasing your tail, while other competitors have already locked down the cluster with high, medium, and low comp articles/keywords.
Padawan » Mucha
Good point. But, I found for my site, that articles once" surrounded" by all kind of supporting articles rank better.
This could be anecdotal. I don't know the answer. But I see an impact that clusters and internal linking has an impact on how my „important" pages rank.
Mucha » Padawan
If you have 'important pages' then you're ahead of most. The key is actually having 'important pages' first. Which actually make you money…
Akinola ✍️ » Mucha
A part of me want to disagree with you based on long term gains but another part of me is strongly agreeing with you to actually let high Cost Per Click (CPC) and competitive money keyword be the main target and they should be the determining factor of what cluster you build.
But then these type of keyword mostly need backlinks to even appear on first page unlike the low comp quick win
Mucha » Akinola
We do not build backlinks and routinely rank content in 10-50k MV range. And even have some above this.
Akinola ✍️ » Mucha
You do this by targeting a high competition keyword with mouthful traffic by powering up the important page targeting the main keyword using similar cluster topics?
Mucha » Akinola
Build clusters around high, medium, low, not just low.
Akinola ✍️ » Mucha
Thank you for this information.
Mark » Mucha
Really?…that's impressive…for clustering do you generally write supporting articles covering every supporting question and related topic until you exhaust the topic?…or is it more methodical with specific supporting pages?
Mucha » Mark
No, or our budget would be exhausted and our ROI would be shit.
we monitor data at the top of our cluster, and add content to support this, how much and what depends on what we need to rank the top level
And how you approach this really depends on your domain and niche. I recently completed an audit for a site ranking a single cat breed, with 1,000+ articles full of high, medium and low competition keywords. This site does 15k a month give or take.
Mark » Mucha
1k articles for a single topic!? That's insanity…guess it's a good keyword 😅
Mucha » Mark
Jesus who on earth is publishing content under 1k these days. It has been a freaking long time since I've seen a ranking article on P1 under 1k words.
Mark » Mucha
I was talking about articles, just was surprised someone had 1k articles to go after a single keyword
Mucha » Mark
Don't be, healthline has 2,000 articles about apples.
Mucha…omg 😳 that's intense 😅
Nick » Howard
I'd love to know the agency if you're willing to share
Sacha » Howard
Who do you use if you don't mind me asking? Struggling to find any agency that actually delivers anything resembling quality 😅
I've been using Craig Dewart's agency, MyContentPal. I've used some of the other popular ones and they're the best I've used.
Creating Ten Articles a Day May Help SEO
Four Tips for New Websites! Create Useful Infographics, Interview Some People If Needed, Social Media, Backlinks!
Create Meaningful Content That Google Will Want to Serve to Its Users, and You Will Be Golden!
Old Content May Get New Prepending Additional Content As Long It Keeps Relevant As Previous
The Summary of Discussion 1: SEOers Always Lead With Add More Content as a Kind of Cure-All Solution for a Lot of Situations
Will it ever end?
A lot of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is based around content, so of course agencies and individuals always lead with "add more content" as kind of cure-all solution for a lot of situations.
The thing is, it just feels like milled content. Sure it contains keywords, call to actions, and internal links, but I feel 90% of the content I've received or viewed for work. I mean, I know it's just marketing and I shouldn't take it to heart. Fill the gap well and move on. It's just… feels so empty. I hate doing a general search for something and sifting through 10 different sites and 3 different queries because all of the top results have fluff for content. It feels like enthusiasts and experts from yesteryear are being buried under blah and baloney.
Maybe I'm being cynical. Maybe it's just the way things are. I dunno, I guess I just needed to vent.
Stop reading the words and just buy what the brands are selling.
That's why I do Search Engine Optimization (SEO) for businesses that I believe matter.
Currently marketing for a visionary artist.
How'd you get into that if you don't mind me asking? Also, what have been some of your more favorite projects to work on?
• Cannabis Dispensary
• Visionary Artist
• Surf Mind/Body Coach
Learned online, then reached out.
Matt Diggity, Charles Floate, Darryl Rosser are some of the top SEO users to learn from.
When I am working on SEO focusing on keywords, I just throw mud pages at the Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs) and sees what sticks. In terms of the actual process, making the initial page and properly interlinking the pages is the most time consuming first step. Who knows- maybe that's what they are doing? And then the keywords that get traction they spend real time on?
So by mud, you mean pages that are content/keyword appropriate but lack depth or polish?
What I typically do is find someone else of the same target audiance and look for what keywords they are ranking for easily, and then use those keywords to make my own page. Traditionally, 300 words of garbage, 2 unique header images, 1 unique image, and a video that is kind of relevant but typically isn't really relevant.
Come back in a week and see where I rank. If I rank high, I invest more time updating the page.
Thanks for the honest answer. I mean, it confirms a lot of what I've experienced and have seen. What do you do with derelict pages that gain no traction? Let them just sit and become forgotten?
Yeah typically. I think that is something I'm not suppose to do but typically my end goal isn't to have the best website, it's to get a lot of people into the High Funnel area (finding us through search terms).
I've been groaning a lot about it, but getting great off page SEO has seemingly gotten impossible with out buying it, so over investing time into the over all website when the website itself will be gone in 5 years seems like a mistake.
I think right now is a saturation point in content marketing, everyone's writing mediocore articles and ranking through sheer volume – this works for big brands that can toss millions of dollars a year on content farms, about 20% of those articles will hit some niche term with high traffic and rank well.
But I'm still optimistic on the process, I think deep content with high backlinks will win out.
This gives the advantage to smaller companies or agencies that can pay well for high quality content and then promote it in a sea of crap articles. It just takes more legwork and research, which is the counterbalance to a huge budget.
For the most part I'm happy with the research content Google shoots out on the first page…
It already did end. Google relies on backlinks and other metrics to measure the quality of content. So even if there is plenty of 'fluff' there are other metrics in place to back it up.
You essentially have to pay for backlinks it feels like. No matter what you write, you need to more or less pay to play. I mean, with an SEO agency they'll want beaucoup bucks to provide you with a "high quality" back link that essentially drives little to no traffic. Great, now I have a couple links on the WSJ but nothing is happening. Know what I mean?
Yes, backlinks are important but there is so much more, without knowing what you are doing the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) on it is hard to say for sure. But you could be competing a very well established brand, the subject matter may be something Google doesn't actively endorse (p0rn, gore, etc), or the market could be crowded. There are also factors involving local, national, or regional; targeting one hurts the others.
Additionally traffic to the site is a factor.
These are things that take time. SEO is not an overnight process.
Oh, I know that. It's a slow burn. But when everything is lean and other teams are seeing direct Return of Investment (RoI), management starts to look at you and wonder why you're spending so much money on links that bring (to them) seemingly little value. How do you justify the slow burn in their eyes?
You can't understate that it is a show process.
Without know the company, branding, etc, I can't offer anything specific. But for somethings there just isn't good ROI at all stages of marketing. There is a possibility that the project could be a money pit at the moment.
I'm with you.
I felt like this way back when I first started in 2006. I refused to do writing blog posts because I'm in the creative field it wasn't what I wanted to do.
I wasn't a writer I was a graphic designer. I let it go and saw my website tank over the years.
Google did it for a way to measure I guess because keyword stuffing was bad.
But people found what they were looking for. I never had bad results and always got work back in the day.
Now I get shit and people who see my blog post jump because they are just reading the posts.
This is what you get from engineering and not a creative way of doing things. I think it's all f*cked up since the beginning.
Now people with less experience get a post on Forbes, Inc. or whatever site with high Domain Authority (DA) they are an expert and get pushed up in the Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs) they know more than you. That's BS but it's happening. I see all the time. I got 20+ years as a graphic designer and not on page 1 because I didn't go outreach and share my knowledge. Crock of you know what.
Because now they know to get ranked it's not experience that matters it's what high DA website to get a backlink on.
That's just bananas 🍌
But I have to play the game and do backlink research and learn SEO to get my rankings back which I'm doing but don't enjoy it. :(
Keep on hustling.
I think that's another itch I have in my head. The mentality, "if you do it right, they will come," really irks me. So what if you do it right when someone has the resources to do it more "right"? Their content is more or less identical to yours except they have resources to drown you out. For every good campaign or article that you drum up, there seem to be dozens of well funded ones done "right" but certainly aren't good. I feel like since there's so much people just accept it as the norm and don't protest it. Once again, just ranting, but still.
You're right you have to be producing all the time and promoting all the time.
That's why Google always doing algo updates to keep it from one time winners. They want experts with constant updates not one time Charlie's.
I feel your point. I'm sure many too. Not alone.
That's why these platforms do well Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, etc.
I think adding more good content will win in longterm. Not just adding more content, but rather improving the old content (making it up to date) and adding new content when it's necessary – that means, you select permalinks and titles wisely, perform 2 or 3 A/B tests and make the best compromise between having content SEO and viral-proof.
Keyword Research, Keyword Cluster, and The Group of Topics for Content Niche
Get Clients Through Infographic Evergreen Content
The Content Quality Needs to Meet the Probability of People to Look For This Content
How Do You Judge Content Quality Before It Is Published Online?