- Apr 21, 2015
- 4,863
- 7,027
Found this on Reddit, and I pretty much always came to the same conclusion. What do you think?
Source:
"The current iteration of the SERP landscape rewards an ability to mass produce mass content, especially in infoniches. From siloing and keeping users on site to more natural link opportunities (numbers game). Generating thorough content or even hands on reviews are not rewareded in the same way from an ROI perspective (EDITED FOR EMPHASIS)
We actually tested this across two niches vsing another agency in a "friendly" battle. I was going to share this later this year in a more detailed post, but will give a glimpse now. It's 11 months in, but the results are already telling. We knew what the results would be going into this, but it was still interesting to see how little has changed in terms of content quality.
Essentially, the goal is to prove that for maximum roi, user engagement and retention, quality content doesn't matter - ESPECIALLY if relying on google.
Long story short two niches based around a particular product. They could be considered small niches in that around 500 pages max. would see the site reach it's limits in terms of content. These are relevent to this sub and would be your mix of info/affiliate content.
Each site had 60k invested. For one niche, we would create the "re-written content" focusing on quantity and attempting to fill out the niche (site A), and the other would do hands on research such as buying, testing and photographing content, conducting more thorough research etc a slow but steady approach (Site B). We then reversed our roles for a second niche. We followed a set of mutually agreed upon rules to keep variables down.
Site A
It's clear that producing content faster gives you a significant edge. Sure, the site that focused on quality produced a higher ROI per visitor. But it just couldn't produce content quick enough to keep up. On a big enough timeline, the site that can produce content faster will continue to get ahead. Site B also had to skip specific pages that wouldn't be worth testing for (think best X for Y) due to low search interest. Not an issue for a re-written site. That's the game at the moment, and it's very well known by larger media companies. Investing into mass content, assuming you have an above average understanding "SEO" is currently the right choice.
In both instances, we found the re-written content approach significantly easier to scale and set quality guidelines. There are some other interesting things I want to touch on too, since some of you will be curious.
EDIT: I think my point may have gotten lost, or I didn't make it clear. Probably the latter. My point wasn't that dotdash can't be beaten. On a page by page basis, it's the exact opposite. If you can't beat them over time, it points to weak content on your part. But more that a dotdash approach, mass producing content is the play if seeking to maximize ROI. The faster you can produce content, even sacrificing quality, the better. As long as your SEO skills are up to scratch.
Edit2: rewritten content in the case refers to content that is largely compiled from easily accessible sources. For instance, a google search on a topic."
Source:
"The current iteration of the SERP landscape rewards an ability to mass produce mass content, especially in infoniches. From siloing and keeping users on site to more natural link opportunities (numbers game). Generating thorough content or even hands on reviews are not rewareded in the same way from an ROI perspective (EDITED FOR EMPHASIS)
We actually tested this across two niches vsing another agency in a "friendly" battle. I was going to share this later this year in a more detailed post, but will give a glimpse now. It's 11 months in, but the results are already telling. We knew what the results would be going into this, but it was still interesting to see how little has changed in terms of content quality.
Essentially, the goal is to prove that for maximum roi, user engagement and retention, quality content doesn't matter - ESPECIALLY if relying on google.
Long story short two niches based around a particular product. They could be considered small niches in that around 500 pages max. would see the site reach it's limits in terms of content. These are relevent to this sub and would be your mix of info/affiliate content.
Each site had 60k invested. For one niche, we would create the "re-written content" focusing on quantity and attempting to fill out the niche (site A), and the other would do hands on research such as buying, testing and photographing content, conducting more thorough research etc a slow but steady approach (Site B). We then reversed our roles for a second niche. We followed a set of mutually agreed upon rules to keep variables down.
Site A
- ~400 pages
- ~6k daily visitors
- ~$14k (Last months earnings)
- ~14 Natural backlinks
- ~70 pages
- ~1k daily visitors
- ~$3.5k (Last months earnings)
- 0 Natural backlinks
It's clear that producing content faster gives you a significant edge. Sure, the site that focused on quality produced a higher ROI per visitor. But it just couldn't produce content quick enough to keep up. On a big enough timeline, the site that can produce content faster will continue to get ahead. Site B also had to skip specific pages that wouldn't be worth testing for (think best X for Y) due to low search interest. Not an issue for a re-written site. That's the game at the moment, and it's very well known by larger media companies. Investing into mass content, assuming you have an above average understanding "SEO" is currently the right choice.
In both instances, we found the re-written content approach significantly easier to scale and set quality guidelines. There are some other interesting things I want to touch on too, since some of you will be curious.
- The sites that focused on physically reviewing a product and attention to detail drew a more discerning crowed. These would often research elsewhere before buying. Site A had fewer comments and discussion regarding the quality of the "testing criteria" and similar. There was a significantly more comments questioning testing methadology, expertise and similar on Site B. These added busywork as they needed to be addressed. If you do more, people will expect more. When the content is essentially "free" this may not a good thing.
- By becoming a complete resource quicker, it's easier to build a community. More people on the site presented more opportunity for optins. In small niches where building a community is an arms race. Forums are a chicken and egg problem, and once people are paricipating in a like-minded community, they are less likely to go elsewhere.
- A larger spread of articles gave more opportunity for natural backlinks than a small spread. Obvious, but it was surprising just how different the backlinks were. It essentially came down to, if a page appeared 1st google for a given queary, it was likely to be the source linked to in other blogs doing research on a topic. This feeds these rapid content sites ability to grow.
- Producing a thorough, detailed review is both time consuming and expensive. If you are going down this route, and don't have a hefty budget, you are giving competitors the opportunity to fly past you.
EDIT: I think my point may have gotten lost, or I didn't make it clear. Probably the latter. My point wasn't that dotdash can't be beaten. On a page by page basis, it's the exact opposite. If you can't beat them over time, it points to weak content on your part. But more that a dotdash approach, mass producing content is the play if seeking to maximize ROI. The faster you can produce content, even sacrificing quality, the better. As long as your SEO skills are up to scratch.
Edit2: rewritten content in the case refers to content that is largely compiled from easily accessible sources. For instance, a google search on a topic."
