If you were guest blogging would you prefer a link or revenue share

[Craigseo]

Hi again Diane

Guest Bloggers in 90% of cases offer poor quality content, probably even copied and pasted, this is dont as part of their link building campaigns.

I wouldnt want my site full of adsense, where do you benefit from this other than getting content, which you would need to run through copyscape or something to check it wasnt copied and pasted.

Id personally stick to providing good quality content, and if someone wants a link for that then you are getting content and they get a link, its mutually beneficial.

[sprynewmedia]

I would prefer the link only because it's simple and fundamental to the Web.

What happens if you decide to drop GA or their account gets banned?  Too many things taken out of your control there. The poster too, has to trust you will always use their account which isn't going to be an easy sell.

As to quality content, what topics?

[DanielFreedman]

May I make a shocking and radical suggestion?

Are you sitting down?

Are you ready? Really, really?

If you really want good content, pay cash money.

[sprynewmedia]

That is far from a universal rule. If there is a mutual benefit, then the barter system works just fine.

The same thing happens on TV shows: sometimes the story is sought after and the guest is paid, other times the publicist pays the show for the exposure.

Back links are a currency of the Internet (even if it annoys Google) and I would be happy to provide high value content to the right site for the links/exposure.

[DanielFreedman]

I respectfully disagree -- mostly.

And I know all about TV contra deals. I used to produce TV shows and often made such deals: a promotional announcement in return for a prize, wardrobe, etc...

I later became a TV news director. Had I heard of a publicist paying money for exposure on a show, I would have been all over the story: it's unethical, scandalous, and in some cases illegal.

I do agree that providing high value web content in return for exposure can be a great strategy. I often formulate such strategies myself since so many of my clients are authors or subject matter experts.

But it kills me that so many people are so reluctant to take so obvious a step to ensure high quality content: paying professionals writers to write it. And by paying, I mean paying them with money. Why is this possibility so seldom even on the table?

Many people will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to come up with complex revenue sharing schemes on how to divide the non-eixtsent profits of the mythological product. Cue Mel Brooks and The Producers. What gets lost in all this is the opportunity cost. In some cases it would be cheaper and easier and more productive to pay cash money. Really.

I can't agree that "back links are the currency of the web (even if it annoys Google.)"

Forgive the rant. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. But I feel strongly about it.

[ClaireH-184886]

cheers for that craig. yes we have been getting a lot of rubbish content, found myself sending loads of emails over the past couple of weeks explaining to people if you are going to write content then make sure it is good quality.

[ClaireH-184886]

thank you for that, yes one of the things that worried me about google adsense was them clicking the ad again and again, i think i will just stick to offering a link on good quality content.

[ClaireH-184886]

i have had lots of companies offering to buy links over the past few weeks, we get on average around ten a week but the past couple of weeks this has turned into 70 plus a week and we turn them all down.

[sprynewmedia]

Whoa, I should clarify.

I was not talking about news but the tons of other "entertainment" shows that have all sorts of intrusive sponsors. Even if money isn't exchanged, there are tons of ways to "pay" people in media.

I too wouldn't suggest taking money for back links directly but that doesn't shut the door on paid content.  Again, back to the sponsorship concept where the high value content is made possible by taking money from a company that then gets credit for it.

I respect your attempt, Diane, to compensate authors more directly but through a piece rate method still.  Cracked uses the concept quite successfully: http://www.cracked.com/article_19955_we-want-to-pay-you-to-write-us.html

I don't think swapping GA accounts would be the vehicle I would use however.

[AnnSmarty]

If you really want good content, pay cash money.

That's just looking in only one of many possible directions... One of guest posts placed on my site brought me a mention in NYTimes, another one brought me 10000 visits from SU (and still counting since then). Another one ranks top in Google = constant stream of free traffic.

I am advocate of guest blogging (the quality one) because it's what makes content social. It's like comments: I don't like blog posts that disable them because they take the social aspect of content marketing away.

Yes, paying for content is one of the ways to get it, but even paying for it you will get lotы of low-quality articles (especially you build up the base of reliable writers which takes time). It's also an investment many bloggers simply can't afford, so there's nothing groundbreaking in your advice, sorry, I do respect it...

[AnnSmarty]

To me, revenue sharing has been low-effective, so I don't think it will increase the value of incoming requests. Here's what I suggest:

• Make your requirements very strict (e.g. many people choose NOT to allow keyword-rich anchor text because that turns the "SEOs" who are only looking for a link off)
• If a person obviously doesn't read your guidelines prior to emailing you, simply ignore it (your time is valuable!)

Thus you'll see fewer low-quality requests and save your time as well

[ClaireH-184886]

thanks for that ann. i am at the moment making a page with strict guidelines in place that will stop time wasters.

[DanielFreedman]

Thanks, Ann.

I agree it's all about time and opportunity cost.

I'm a great fan of MyBlogGuest. it's worked well for me -- and my clients.

The time it takes to wade through the opportunities is time well spent, IMHO. Which is more than can be said for revenue sharing deals.

My clients include both authors and publishers.

One of my weirdest professional moments came when my clients included both a publisher for whom I had written the guest blogging guidelines and a guest blogger!

I felt like a Hollywood agent! It was so weird and ridiculous we all had a good laugh about it.

[DanielFreedman]

Here's an excerpt from author guidelines I wrote for one site:

Links: Our high standards are based on integrity and common sense. We always put the reader first. A link or two from the text of your article to your own site can be fine. So can a carefully chosen link or two from the text of your article to related articles on other sites. Just make sure that all links make editorial sense. Do not include awkward or unnatural links that seem  to “come out of nowhere” for purely promotional purposes. Do not use rich anchor text links or manipulative search engine optimization techniques. Do not include affiliate links. The best place to link to your site is usually from your author’s note or byline.

[DanielFreedman]

Ann:

I agree that paying for content is only one way of getting it. And I, too, am an advocate of guest blogging when done right.

I also think it's unwise to post on your website "We pay for articles." You will get a lot of crap that wastes your time. Since I am a writer and editor,  I usually just write the article myself. If I am too busy to do so, I just commission the article myself with a single phone call to a writer I already know. I appreciate not everyone is in the same position.