meaning make a simple digg and hope it takes off: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Kid_Makes_Over_1_000_Selling_Links
I also like to only spend $80 on my press releases through PRWeb. I think that after that point you don't get as much "bang for your buck" unless you have something so important to announce that you really want to be one of the top stories on the site. Also, good work on the site! Over 5k already. When I looked the other night it was around 3k. I bet Shoemoneys post brought in a lot of traffic.
whys that? is that digg post from the website owner trying to get people to visit his own site? i don't understand.
Also take a look at http://www.webpronews.com/ebusiness/seo/wpn-4-20041122PressReleasesNewSEOBackDoortoTopRankings.html i will be doing press release soon, and was looking at the article earlier, thought you may like it for in the future =)
That article is the kind of crap that is going to eventually render distribution sites like PRweb useless for "real" press releases and not a bunch of SEO'd hype. The more garbage that people post just for SEO purposes, the less legitimate media outlets bother using these kinds of sites as resources to pull newsworthy content from - and serious media coverage can bring enormously more in the sense of benefits than any number of linkbacks on these sites can. As they become overly exploited by webmasters and are eventually no longer quality tools for legitimate news, the backlinks will lose their value anyway. People need to know what they heck they're using rather than trying to manipulate effective tools by turning them into a "back door" to search engines or anything else. Personally, it disgusts me. I know that's because I'm a PR professional. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I seriously wish people in general would think about the damage they'll end up doing in the long term, rather than finding new ways to essentially spam - whether it be to people's inboxes or the search engines - with more and more crap constantly.
Im sorry but your so annoying with your holy then thou press release remarks. Are you that new to the industry that you really dont get how it works?
Sorry to hear you feel that way - I thought it was up to the readers (editors, writers - whoever is using the services on the other side) to decide what is crap and what is not.
And you're perfectly free to disagree with me. I wouldn't expect an internet marketer / webmaster to feel differently. In your case however, I did at least previously have enough respect for you to think you were above throwing around personal insults. Maybe that respect was misplaced. You're a successful internet marketer. I'm not questioning that. But a PR professional, you're not. You're looking at the tool from one perspective and I'm looking at it from another; from the perspective of how they're intended to be used, and the media effectiveness issue in the long run. You don't have to like me or what I say Shoemoney. I couldn't care less. I'm sorry you find it annoying. But if it bothers you enough, don't read my posts. Phynder - on some level it is. But the point is that the garbage releases and "non-news" get past a good number of the editors at sites like these, b/c if they denied them all, they'd make a heck of a lot less money from those people paying for upgrades. It's also why it's way too easy to get a 4 rating there - you're then magically "eligible" for more upgrade features, where they send their nice little email trying to get you to pay for bigger upgrades to take advantage of them. The problem is that the majority of things on PRweb aren't all that significant news-wise. Major media care less and less about these kinds of sites (other than the real newswires) over time because of that fact. And the more people are encouraged to just use it for SEO purposes, the worse that situation gets. And since it affects my specialty, yes, it's a bit of a pet peeve. And since media reach is a part of what you pay for in those upgrades, you should really care too.
I assumed he meant because of posting the link to solicit diggs. I could be wrong though. I've heard that's ok and that it's not. I'm not a big Digg user though. So I'm not sure. I'd love it too if you could explain that Phynder. I know several of my writers use Digg, and I certainly don't want them to risk getting banned. So if you can clarify a little bit as to what the problem would be, that would be wonderful. Thanks!
I usually do about $80 (mostly because I am impatient and want the next day distribution option) Generally get about 60,000 reads..... I really like PR WEB.....
I think you bring up some good points. Why would a new editor shift through 100 "fake" press releases to get that one good one? Good point.
You summarized it beautifully. Thank you. I know I get short on the subject, and I'm sorry if my views offended anyone. But I'm strong on my position for good reason. If anyone sees their industry being corrupted in even a small way, it's offensive to them as a professional. And I'm one to speak my mind, that's all. But it's also for the webmasters' benefit to understand the potential problems down the road from this line of thinking. The fact is that PRweb is not very likely going to start lowering their rates, and even if they did, it's still basically a bidding war to some degree for the top spots. But if the media relations value decreases (meaning as fewer journalists go to PRweb, and the sources they distribute through, as reputable sources for news stories), but you're still paying the same fees for distribution on those services to reach the same outlets, then it's the customer who's essentially getting screwed over in the end; not just the PR community. I'm not saying PRweb is a terrible resource and not to use it. It's effective when used right. I have clients who have gotten great coverage using them for truly newsworthy content, and I've had people come to me after I gave them distribution advice telling me about how they had a successful campaign with them. It can work. But my point is that you need to be cautious and understand the implications of trying to manipulate a media relations tool into just an SEO tool. They're complementary specialized forms of marketing; they're not the same thing. There are serious potential problems that articles like these conveniently overlook. Just be careful not to forget how they're meant to be used; and if you use them correctly and only send them when you have something newsworthy to say, it helps your reputation in the long run with the media, and can lead to coverage far more valuable than backlinks. Don't overlook that.
I think your problem here, and the reason for the 'upset' sounding replies, is that you sound like you really think it is "your industry." Fortunately, it's not, and it is open to whoever wants to use it. I think that if your concerns were valid and a true threat, PRWeb (or whoever) would take the necessary steps to protect their business--I don't think it's your job to do so. Just my opinion.
The bottom line is a PRWeb press release can be both SEO friendly AND very newsworthy. You seem to think that you can't have it both ways, and that's why you are seeing some backlash in this thread. My advice to anyone paying more than $200: don't got crazy with the anchor text links -- go for 3-5 tops. Any more than that and your release may be marked as spam by Big G (I had a conversation with a PRWeb editor about this when my last release went live.) A well-written, newsworthy release is still a good release even if it has a few links in it. Linking is an inherent characteristic the of Internet, no doubt. As always, IMO.
I have no problem whatsoever with something being "both SEO friendly and very newsworthy". I didn't say you can't have it both ways. I've only been talking about the garbage releases out there - the ones with no news value, only written for the sake of getting backlinks. If it's newsworthy, of course there's nothing wrong with it on a distribution site, as long as it's not so littered with keywords that it's unreadable to journalists. And kkibak - PRweb doesn't have a huge reason to care about the PR industry. They'll do whatever makes them money. If people want to pay $200+ for something with little to no news value, they rarely say no.
I use $201, but not for traffic. $200 virtually guarantees top placement on one word search terms (as long as they do not compete with current events) on Google and Yahoo news. Those top results pay longer term benefits as far as links from RSS aggregators on niche blogs, forums etc. I use $201 because $200 s the breakpoint for their service so I want to get in front of those people. I would not pay anything unless I was looking for branding. I would experiment with PR "spam", meaning submit it to free PR services (including PR Web), rewriting it uniquely for each one. Link to list of free PR services - http://www.stuntdubl.com/2005/07/11/pr-tools/