Printable View
It's often said that content, content and more content is vital to driving traffic to and monetizing an affiliate website. But when it comes to the iGaming industry, engagement — not content — is the real king.
Attachment 6175
Read this article in the February 2017 issue of the GPWA Times Magazine.
I disagree with a lot of what has been said, I think good content has every place in building a big brand which in turn powers up your overall site, sure if you target first time players or bonus hunters then join the millions but experienced players have so little resources available.
Does everyone still get this ok? I've not had a copy for a while now and when I do it seems to be a batch of the last 4 or 5 that I've missed.
I received two about three months ago - dated October 2016 and February 2017.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doolally
I've just found them sitting unopened in my filing.
I'm going to read them this afternoon.
8-)
Yep, I also disagree with much of this article. Not to mention the ranking factors are wrong. They are:Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderpunter
1 and 2: Links and Content
3. Rank Brain.
http://searchengineland.com/now-know...factors-245882
There are multiple strategies when it comes to content marketing. In online gambling, you have to think a little different and figure out a good strategy. You can create a great, resourceful article that is attractive to a broader niche and piggy-back on the links and authority of that page.
In sports betting, no one is going to link to a sportsbook review or a game preview. I recently published extremely thorough bitcoin 101 article for a client and got links from authority sites in the news, cryptocurrency and finance niche. This page is now helping boosting up the bitcoin sportsbook page.
When it comes to engagement, an email list isn't going to directly get you conversions. No one joins a list so their inbox is filled with promos and bonus offers. An email campaign is a tool to get people to come back to the site. Having good CTAs on a site is paramount for conversion optimization. Another client I have in the sports gambling niche is killing it after I redesigned the site and added multiple CTA's. In fact, I don't have a single banner on the site. These CTA's are different varieties, but they are strategic and placed after reviewing how visitors are interacting with the pages. Their daily newsletter is the 2nd top traffic source behind organic and that traffic is converting because of the CTA's on the site.
So, no, content marketing isn't a myth in the online betting niche. It is just the online gambling niche is much different than most mainstream industries where people link to each other because it is good information. Most in the online gambling haven't figured a novel way to adapt content marketing to the niche.
It's really basic inbound marketing....just need to adapt it to the industry.
Hi there, I thought I'd defend myself since I wrote the article...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Benjamin
Firstly my closing comment on the article was:
"I think content marketing is generally the wrong framework for iGaming affiliates. But the foundation of content marketing i.e. "I need information to help me" is unbelievably relevant to doing well with SEO and conversions. "
My thesis is that if you spend money on content which doesn't help you convert, it's wasted money.
Most affiliates do not have 'brand' in the traditional sense.In these sites a user will click through and probably never come back. And if they do, they have brand equity in an online context, i.e. they rank and their convenient.
People get mixed up with brand in the traditional sense i.e. the kind of brand awareness PaddyPower would have. In this kind of brand, it's about multiple touch points and positive experiences with them.
If you're a regular affiliate you don't have that luxury. That's why I'm saying on the whole content marketing does not make sense for affiliates.
Also on this point about search engine land and the main ranking factors, the previous poster didn't add in this part of the sentence:
He wouldn’t say which was more important, so the top three list now looks like this:
1 & 2: Links & Content
3: RankBrain
Context: searchengineland.com/now-know-googles-top-three-search-ranking-factors-245882
So to argue that links are more important based on this is erroneous, since Google aren't telling us. By my experience, I've seen far too many websites rank extremely well on very few links.
What I see with links is:
1. You get PageRank from qualifying links i.e. ones that haven't been smashed by Penguin
2. The content gets auditioned on the search results
3. If the content gets the expected engagement for the ranking, it either rises or stays where it is
4. More page rank from qualifying links equals another shift up in rankings
5. If engagement metrics are expected, the page will rise or stay where it is
--
On my point about engagement, if you read the Searchmetrics ranking factors report the 2016
report
searchmetrics.com/knowledge-base/ranking-factors/
infographic
seo-quito.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/searchmetrics-factores-ranking-2016.jpg
They say
"Our historical database spans nine years and contains over 250 billion pieces of information, such as keyword rankings, search terms,
social links and backlinks."
"As in previous years, the general ranking factors and rank correlations are based on a set of 10,000 relevant keywords. For some factors, a more in-depth analysis required the definition of specially-defined keyword sets."
"E. Backlinks are now just one of many contributing factors Search engine rankings are no longer determined primarily by backlinks. Depending on the topic, it is now sometimes possible for a website to achieve a high Google ranking without a large amount
of high-quality backlinks. "
"As mentioned earlier, together with the quality of content, the user signals generated by interactions – like Click-Through Rate (how frequently search results are clicked on, also CTR), the Time on Site (how long a user spends on a page) and the Bounce Rate (percentage of single-page sessions) – can now be considered amongst the most important ranking factors.
CTR rates are the highest correlating factors they have found. And CTR is principally driven by whether content is engaging.
CTR has a 46% correlation with ranking
Time on site has an 11% correlation with rankings
--
If the page is not engaging, the page rank ceases to work... And result you can put as much page ranking as you like, it isn't going to help rankings.
Links help, but these days you can't rank on links alone, engagement has to be there otherwise you're wasting your time and money.
And in the context of affiliates, 'engaging' is what helps users.
What users want is good bonuses and operators who do their job properly.
My final point; it makes sense for Google to rely more on engagement metrics i.e. clickthrough rate/idle time on site because the content people click on the most and engage with the most, should rank highest.
Links are too easily gamed and that's why Google launched Penguin and why engagement makes most sense if you're Google.
With that in mind, i hope you enjoy the article :-)
I totally agree with this opinion. The best converting sites don't need any banners but cleverly placed CTAs instead.Quote:
I redesigned the site and added multiple CTA's. In fact, I don't have a single banner on the site.
It took me a few years to prove to the client that banners don't get clicked.Quote:
Originally Posted by bonusapostasonline
Clever is the a good word for it. While I have Claim Your Bonus CTAs, and they do get clicked, I believe the CTA that we now have with the match-up details get the most clicks.
Also, I do a comprehensive review with this client every quarter. I monitor how users engage with the website. Part of it is also that the website always evolves. This previous website design will be the last redesign as long as he is a client because the site will evolve according to his users. It's not about guessing, it's about using data to test changes.
Another thing.....engagement is the really the end-game of any websites, right? I mean, unless it you are simply being paid CPM for ad views.
Whether it is lead generation, sales or affiliate clicks, any business is needs users to engage with their website. But how do you do that - with Content! So, content is still king and CRO is what you do to ensure the traffic is converting.
The more I read this post, the more I disagree with the premise of it. Comparing content and engagement is like apples and oranges.
I like the article. It's telling me: 'keep working on your new project as this is the right way to do'. Soon I will launch a new website, a unique one, hope you'll like it.
PageRank!
I wholeheartedly agree with the article and with the message Nick tried to get across, except for the bit where PageRank is mentioned.
Article author here again :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Benjamin
ill do my best to keep this reply short...
I think content and engagement have different characteristics depending on context. If its a taboola ad/clickthrough, then its about enough engagement to keep you clicking on to the next page (getting more ad revenue in the process)
If were talking Google SERPS, then engaging content can take many forms, from this page tycho.usno.navy.mil/what.html which is a few lines and some numbers on a page that looks like 1997 - yet it ranks for 'atomic clock' because its content is satisfying / engaging to a user.
my thesis: right content (whatever it is) to match user intent. If you use irrelevant 'content marketing' content that might rank, but doesn't bring conversions, then is there a point?
Finally Google talk about 'satisfying content'. satisfaction is close to 'engagement' but not quite the same. ie you can have satisfying content which is only momentarily engaging ie the atomic clock i referred to. To me engagement is how much something holds your attention.
If i were to rewrite the article, I would have made the delineation between satisfying and engaging content clearer.... :-(
Got it just one time in the last 2 years. Last time was 1 year ago when I was interviewed by gpwa, and asked the person I was talking to for a copy. I got a big batch with 5-6 magazines dating back to 2014 I think, some of which I already had. Nothing since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doolally
I always considered "Content is king" to be BS (unfortunately), and it`s even more valid in the Igaming affiliate business. I have read the article twice and I have to say I agree with that it says, although I think it could have been better structured. Definitely a good read.
What I don`t like is that SEO-wise it`s based on the presumption that google does what it says it does, which is debatable to say the least.
Nick Garner/the writer of the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostick
Having been around the SEO game for many years and if any organisation was brilliant at plausible deniability, misdirection and misinformation, it would be Google. Matt Cutts was expert this.
I agree about a gap between what Google says and does when it comes to SEO i.e. we only get partial truth and from that naive 'White hat SEO types' steer into Google's hands, without questioning anything.
Obviously blackhat still works to some degree, but I would argue that it's more with low competition, longtail phrases.
For example if you do a search for '[name of book] PDF' you end up on a Google Docs page with a link to another site. Obviously, by doing this SEOers are jumping on the back of the trust and authority of another website and Google can't discriminate between 'valid content' and 'spam content'
Nevertheless, people want PDF downloads of books and therefore it gets the clicks and I would argue in its own special way is engaging/satisfying.
On another note, I really appreciate you guys interrogating it and giving me feedback.
Main lessons learned so far:
- more work on structure
- tighter definitions i.e. 'engaging content/satisfying content'
- be slightly less assuming i.e. be clearer on 'why' and have more citations to external references
Just got the current issue yesterday, thought it would only be fair to post an updateQuote:
Originally Posted by Rostick
Yep there has definitely always been that gap between the myths Google puts out and what is the actual reality of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickg
I think Google has always tried to pretend that it's search engine is MUCH more complex than it really is and that they have some kind of super science going on in the background.
In reality it's a computer program that is fairly basic, that has been updated a lot recently to muddy the waters, but that is essentially still just a ranking algorithm that can be played with and manipulated. They've definitely improved over the years, but it's still not rocket science.
Nick, so what you're basically saying is that writing informative content for the sake of "content is king" is an obsolete concept, and that it's even more obsolete in the competitive world of online gambling, correct?
I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Most of us have experience with well-written informative content that's best you can find on the web and that's worthless because it just doesn't convert. Traffic is vanity, conversions are sanity. An article with 10 targeted visitors is worth more than an "informative" piece with 1000s of visitors. Though there are ways to make use of the latter.
Yes, or in other words satisfying content is king.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHorvat
And content has to be satisfying for the writer and for the user.
For example in content marketing, content is often satisfying for the user but does not convert and so isn't satisfying for the writer...
I.e.
win - customer satisfaction: interesting content, not necessarily relevant to the brand
win - company writing the content marketing material
apparent-win: loads of traffic and brand awareness
actual-loose - brand who gets a lot of drive through traffic and no sales + large overhead costs.
Reiterating, my core thesis is:
- content must be satisfying for everyone (brand+ user)
- to be truly satisfying (engaging) content is the 'right'answer to a specific question: a search query.
Of course, because I posted this, I received the latest copy in the post without any problems!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doolally
