The Three Pillars of Great Content
The Three Pillars of Great Content
H/T Jason Darrell SEMrush
_Great Content Strategy + SEO Is King
There are basically three pillars to producing successful content that drives traffic and increases sales.
1. Create a Great Content Strategy
2. Create Amazing Content That Solves A Problem
3. Create Search Engine Friendly Content_
Worth reading Jason's introduction on the 4th pillar of Value Added.
Originally shared by Jason Darrell
The 3 Pillars of Great Content - with a 4th from YT
Great article on SEMrush, which doesn't expunge the need for great content as the title perhaps suggests.
But it does go a way to explain why content on its own won't necessarily see you reach Google summits.
As a frequenter of the digital freelance agencies often, I can see exactly where the author's coming from (sorry Adam White - can't find your G+ profile anywhere :-().
The Fourth Pillar
Even today, you wouldn't believe the amount of clients asking for content for content's sake.
And as for persuading them to spend anything more than a tenner on a blog article?
Well - they sure need an additional strategy to rank for their desired keyphrases if cheap copy is all they're willing to buy.
The one addendum I'd make to the article is that content must add value.
Yep, the article touches on the topic in this quote:
"Sure we're not adding any value to the internet or to our users but content is king.
"Google will love us.
"While were at it, let's hire a writer to create 100 pages of content that all say pretty much the same thing as our home page just reworded to trick the search engines."
Why we must add value
Let's not dwell on the fact that Google can appraise a page at concept level, thus eradicating any benefit from spun articles.
I mean, if content adds nothing to the web, why rank it?
And that's my point. In an otherwise smashing article like this, adding value should be stressed further.
Yes, as a writer or business owner, we must solve problems for our potential customers
But we must also add value to the knowledge bases over and above that which search engines are corroborating info they find on page in order that they can rank pages with greater confidence.
IMHO, value-add is an invisible pillar in itself that goes beyond satisfying the prospect…
…which, upon consideration, is probably why clients don't (or won't) 'see it' (or pay for it). Good stuff! ☺
https://www.semrush.com/blog/why-content-is-king-is-the-biggest-myth-in-seo/
H/T Jason Darrell SEMrush
_Great Content Strategy + SEO Is King
There are basically three pillars to producing successful content that drives traffic and increases sales.
1. Create a Great Content Strategy
2. Create Amazing Content That Solves A Problem
3. Create Search Engine Friendly Content_
Worth reading Jason's introduction on the 4th pillar of Value Added.
Originally shared by Jason Darrell
The 3 Pillars of Great Content - with a 4th from YT
Great article on SEMrush, which doesn't expunge the need for great content as the title perhaps suggests.
But it does go a way to explain why content on its own won't necessarily see you reach Google summits.
As a frequenter of the digital freelance agencies often, I can see exactly where the author's coming from (sorry Adam White - can't find your G+ profile anywhere :-().
The Fourth Pillar
Even today, you wouldn't believe the amount of clients asking for content for content's sake.
And as for persuading them to spend anything more than a tenner on a blog article?
Well - they sure need an additional strategy to rank for their desired keyphrases if cheap copy is all they're willing to buy.
The one addendum I'd make to the article is that content must add value.
Yep, the article touches on the topic in this quote:
"Sure we're not adding any value to the internet or to our users but content is king.
"Google will love us.
"While were at it, let's hire a writer to create 100 pages of content that all say pretty much the same thing as our home page just reworded to trick the search engines."
Why we must add value
Let's not dwell on the fact that Google can appraise a page at concept level, thus eradicating any benefit from spun articles.
I mean, if content adds nothing to the web, why rank it?
And that's my point. In an otherwise smashing article like this, adding value should be stressed further.
Yes, as a writer or business owner, we must solve problems for our potential customers
But we must also add value to the knowledge bases over and above that which search engines are corroborating info they find on page in order that they can rank pages with greater confidence.
IMHO, value-add is an invisible pillar in itself that goes beyond satisfying the prospect…
…which, upon consideration, is probably why clients don't (or won't) 'see it' (or pay for it). Good stuff! ☺
https://www.semrush.com/blog/why-content-is-king-is-the-biggest-myth-in-seo/
In #2, remove "amazing". Content doesn't need to be amazing, it just need to do its job for the user the best.
ReplyDeleteلك كل التحيات عزيزتي
ReplyDeleteDavid Kutcher Agree. Glad you commented because this article gave me pause in several places.
ReplyDeleteI posted because I felt other people's views on this were important.
This article gives me all sorts of pauses also.
ReplyDeleteI just realized I should probably tell you where and why but I have a feeling you know without me telling you.
I don't mind it, and I think it's got some very valid points. On a basic level I think it's a decent counter to the dozens of articles I see daily that try to convince businesses to become publishers of endless content.
ReplyDeleteTrue, good, valid points. But. The pauses are not for the main premise (s) but more because he also seems to be falling prey to regurgitating instructions we have heard plenty like those he is perhaps critical of.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the best takeaways and what gave the piece the most value were the few content examples he gave and the justification he gave for long articles. Those will be helpful.
I would have appreciated the article more if he'd gone on to offer link building strategies since that's what's kingier than content.
Gina Fiedel how about this: how many different ways to Sunday can "experts" in our field rewrite the same damn articles while trying to make us believe they're saying something new and noteworthy?
ReplyDeleteHm?
There's the pause, David Kutcher. (I'm not very articulate tonight)
ReplyDeleteIt's also one of the reasons I haven't been writing lately. ;) I wait for the thing I'm not bored with.
ReplyDelete"You must take the time to generate a piece of content unlike anything that exists on the internet." He said that.
Gina Fiedel even that I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI need to say something for my audience, in my voice, that creates value for them and value for me.
The rest of the internet is inconsequential; what matters is your relationship with your audience. If you start there you can't go wrong.
Hear hear David Kutcher. I love when you talk like that. :)
ReplyDeleteBut while you're being you speaking in your voice to your audience make sure you use over 1850 words.
Gina Fiedel oh goodness, like what?
ReplyDeleteDavid Kutcher you really didn't know?
ReplyDeleteI need to say something for my audience, in my voice, that creates value for them and value for me.
The rest of the internet is inconsequential; what matters is your relationship with your audience. If you start there you can't go wrong.
Gina Fiedel people ask me how I do keyword research, for my company or my clients.
ReplyDeleteWe don't.
Honestly.
And that might make us dumb at our job, but I think it makes the content more authentic, as we're speaking to the audience in their words, as we say them, and as they would query them.
The rest is Monday morning quarterbacking.
David Kutcher, I honestly think you are the first (smart) person I have ever heard say you don't do keyword research. And now you're making me love what you have to say even more. Cuz guess what? Neither do I. (do keyword research) For the same reason.
ReplyDeleteDavid Kutcher So glad to see you talk about your audience first and not keyword research. I am such a believer in the words the audience wants to hear as we say them in their words.
ReplyDeleteAs a writer I want to know everything about not just the business but the customers/clients.
In a current project we've also taken the concept of every page a landing page and write to segmented audience on the page. A visitor doesn't need to read everything. We guide the gently toward the page that addresses that segmented audience' specific questions and concerns.
Great comments David Kutcher.
ReplyDeleteWow - thanks for sharing, Zara Altair - and noteworthy comments from David Kutcher and Gina Fiedel, to which I have a few counters.
ReplyDeleteOn a tight deadline for this afternoon, but will definitely come back and poke the bear this evening.
Bear in mind that this article is on SEMrush, it's written for their audience (SEOs) and gives advice for ranking on the web, not writing for a captive audience, per se. They're two completely different ways of writing.
Topicality and Context are the two platters I'll be bringing to the table ce soir. 'Til then, au revoir - and thanks again, Zara - another great condversation.
Jason Darrell while the post is published on SEMrush, I think it's fair to say that the majority of professional SEOs wouldn't really care about the article, nor find much value in its assertions. There is nothing in it that is new to a professional SEO, nor does it give them any technical awareness or case studies to prove its point.
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe this article was chum content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumming), the purpose of which is to get spread by fans of SEMrush to make it alluring to non-SEOs, people who might know what the acronym is but have zero technical knowledge of SEO. It's meant to give those novices a modicum of strategic advice, with a secondary benefit of selling the products and services of SEMrush.
And no, this isn't a bad thing, but I think the context and target audience are important considerations, here and with all other content. It's not meant for us professionals beyond having us argue about its contents (thereby giving the content more Authority), and really meant for our Audiences who might see us arguing about its merits.
"gives advice for ranking on the web, not writing for a captive audience, per se. They're two completely different ways of writing."
And I see that as a fundamental disagreement in the current and future of "SEO", one that I discuss ad nauseum (example): plus.google.com - "The reality is that the same one-two punch has underpinned much of SEO since…
great content
ReplyDeleteTaking your comments on board, David Kutcher, but I can't see how someone who says,
ReplyDelete"…people ask me how I do keyword research, for my company or my clients.
"We don't.
"Honestly."
…can use that particular article on Builtvisible to back up any further argument they put forward; from that article,
"Use Google Search Console’s ‘Search Analytics’ feature to find out which queries are leading users to your content. To find the keywords with the most potential, you’ll need to filter out any branded terms."
It just underlines my point. You have to delve deep into *sitewide* topicality to satisfy both search engines and your human audience.
You can't take SEO at a single page level any longer.
Sure, write one page just for your audience. But it has to have sitewide context, add value (to your customer and domain, as I said in my lead-in intro) and remain topical.
If what you want to say is so far off piste from the rest of your content, you're better off offering it up as a guest post on a site #KnownFor that topic (without linking back to your site) or posting it on one of your suitable Social properties.
The one-two punch you should be looking for is:
1. - does my content add depth and breadth to my domain, thus adding value to my tuned-in audience by default?;
2. - can search engines corroborate the facts in the content with enough confidence to rank it with purpose?
If the answer to either is no, then you have the option of rewriting the content to serve [the other] purpose.
Or you can use the Semantic X-Ray to kill two birds with one stone, but you gotta have a bit of talent to pull that off. Not hat I'm saying you haven't, of course. Just that it's a bit more involved.
Still working on my deadline, but there's (much) more here that needs more than a skim read. C U Later xxx
To be going on with: http://www.writingforseo.org/semantic-search/
ReplyDelete"Not giving key phrases a role in #writing for #semantic search is like not understanding the #importance of the baby when throwing her out with the bath water."
writingforseo.org - Writing For SEO