Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just curious, it would be a good information to compare how much marketing is valuable.
By relevant content I mean some content that is reasonable to assume that a reasonable number of people would be interested. To be clear: say you make a site about AdSense and drop it on the web, making sure that Google finds it and do nothing more. Is it worth it?
I've never done any site promotion to speak of, but over time I've picked up a substantial number of inbound links from the media, universities, libraries, businesses, and mom-and-pop Web sites. That may not be the quickest or most efficient path to success, but it can work if you've got patience and persistence. (By "patience and persistence," I mean a willingness to plod away for several years while you build content, attract links, and figure out what sources of revenue work or don't work on your ssite.)
I have two info sites myself. On one, I am focusing for the entire next 12 months on just writing and adding content. Plenty of books, plenty of research. No promotion and that's how I prefer it. I'd like it to acquire links naturally on it's own.
However...I probably only have the psychological luxury of taking this approach because my other site is at the top of it's niche. And that took a lot of promotion. Not link buying or directory submission, but constant emailing for links. Not autogenerated solicits but tailored letters to relevant sites (which I found fairly productive).
Truth is, the site would have inevitably gotten to its current position, but without actively seeking links to provide the jet fuel needed to push its pages higher in the serps (which, in turn, created more visibility and brought yet more links)....it would have taken years longer to achieve the same result.
It's a disappointing reality that quality sites will not necessarily surface on their own, based on the merit of their content. But that's a reality seen elsewhere all the time. Betamax was superior to VHS, but sony got out-marketed and VHS won.