Young Entrepreneur Blog

I read an article recently over at Net Frontier Marketing that got my juices flowing.

According to Google I am supposedly a buzz marketing guru so I thought I would throw my 2c into the fire.

Bear in mind I don’t normally respond to info that I feel is incorrect, I just move on and get on with making some more money, but I have a lot of respect for the author, so I am willing to make an exception this time.

The article is entitled “ridiculous linkbaiting myths“, the irony is that many of his myths are myths of myths… Tricky to explain, but some of them are perceived as myths, but are actually factual. Therefore it is the myths that are myths… arrgghhI have a headache now.

Ok, let’s get started:

Here is his first myth:

“1) Linkbaiting is a free marketing tactic:

He goes on to say:

If you base that on the fact you don’t need to buy any expensive software to pull it off, then you are correct.However, linkbait depends on creativity, writing skills, citation worthiness, knowledge of social networks and several other factors. Most of these are worth considerable amounts of money. It takes time to hone these skills and they are not the lot of the average cowboy.

Therefore, linkbaiting is everything but free, as illustrates high demand for Linkbaiting services which often charge in excess of five thousand dollars a go and offer no guarantees.”

Ok, that one was aimed at me. So I suppose I should have my say….

Linkbaiting is FREE in the sense that it doesn’t cost money. Simple! It has nothing to do with any software. Compare that to print ads, Google ads, Text link ads, paid reviews etc… they are all NOT free.

I see where he is coming from, and if you factor in TIME, then things can add up.

Here is my main point on this article and linkbaiting in general:

Linkbaiting = writing content with the aim of getting links.

Think about that for a moment.

You figured it out yet?

That’s correct, all content is designed with the aim of getting links.

The term linkbaiting is used by people who think it is the work of the devil, they rarely have any concept of what it actually is.

I will make it simple: Linkbaiting = creating content for links. The best content for links = Quality content.

So Linkbaiting = Creating quality content.

Hold on, isn’t that what every site on the net already does? YES!

I will confess that generally linkbaiting content has a unique edge to it. It is often controversial, edgy, strange, unique… but what is wrong with that? Didn’t Seth Godin say that every site should aim to be a purple cow?

Ironically the link baiting myths article is also technically linkbait, and it worked
There is a lot more to linkbait than getting on the Digg homepage. Linkbaiting is content designed to get links, no webmaster can claim they don’t write for links.

2) Anyone can do it:

• You need top tier writing skills, scripting skills for video or programming skill for applications and tools
• You need an attractive web presence
• You need specified knowledge, such as how and to which social network to submit and how to optimize the landing page
• You need X-factors like creativity and imagination
• You most likely need to do all this in English

I have to say that I agree with all of this. But again, let’s compare that to any blogger or any news/portal owner on the planet. Wouldn’t you say that the above skills are required to be successful?

The above are not just linkbaiting requirements, they are success requirements.

3) You are gaming something/someone:

Linkbait is nothing more than content that other website owners will want to reference because they see value worth passing on to their readership. The same is bound to happen on a peer to peer basis.

For those that whine about linkbait using sensationalistic headlines backed by poor content, they are completely missing the point. If the reader hits the back button in disgust, it would be adequately called “hit bait”. If it does not succeed in getting considerable linkage from “quality” sites, it is not linkbait.

If you use sneaky tactics like buying votes from social network users, you are not linkbaiting, you are attempting to cheat your way to the top. They are not the same animal and more often than not, you will get slapped back to your proper place.

He is 100% correct with this point! The best headline in the world will get you nowhere if you can’t back it up with quality content.

4) Successful linkbait creates $50K or other large amount of value:

Linkbait proponents are fond of this faulty reasoning. They add up the inflated values of high PR backlinks, multiply by X number of months and end up with a bloated figure that has little bearing on reality.

Linkbait alone has little value. It won’t make you a fortune overnight in the overwhelming majority of cases. It won’t directly bolster sales, nor will it get you long term increases in traffic or subscribers. Your job is only beginning.

Not only do you have to continue providing regular value but you need a way to benefit from your links and traffic in a quantifiable manner.

The value of the links is impressive. Rating that value is not as straightforward as some would like you to believe. You neither get to choose the anchor text nor the page the links point to. That makes a world of difference.

This is a huge mis-understanding of not only linkbaiting, but also how to run a successful business.

Listen, linkbaiting is like a platform/stage… if you are successful you will get put on the stage for 15 mins, but if you have nothing worth listening to then you will be booted off the stage and the audience will go and listen to someone else.

Linkbaiting is just one way of getting on the stage, another would be to pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into advertising, but you are faced with the same problem. I could do a $5 million TV ad at the SuperBowl to my blog, but if my site sucks, then I will make no money, get no extra subscribers etc… it is the same for EVERY other promotion, marketing and advertising method on the planet. You are simply getting on the stage, but you still have to perform to become famous.

According to the reasoning of the author, we should not bother buying links, paying for advertising, promoting out site EVER. As there is no technique in existence that will give you solid traffic and revenue for life. Why hold linkbaiting to higher standards than a Super Bowl ad? Makes no sense.

Let’s do a comparison between linkbaiting and a 20 second Super Bowl advert. Bear in mind that one is FREE, and the other costs millions of dollars:

“It won’t make you a fortune overnight in the overwhelming majority of cases” - True in both cases. Both methods are just a stage. If your product or content is awful, then it won’t work.

“It won’t directly bolster sales” - Superbowl has the edge here. It is more of an instant hit than linkbaiting, which is more like a good initial hit and then a long term drip.

“nor will it get you long term increases” - Linkbaiting has the edge here. Superbowl ads will give you a mega rush of instant traffic, it will be gone the next day. However, linkbaiting campaigns spread virally, I personally got 30,000 uniques last week from a campaign I finished 6 months ago.

“nor subscribers” - Linkbaiting has the edge here as well. Superbowl ads are likely to sell a product… with linkbaiting you are promoting information/content. The types of people who will subscribe to your feed are looking for content, not products.

“Not only do you have to continue providing regular value but you need a way to benefit from your links and traffic in a quantifiable manner.” - Name me one other method that DOESN’T also require this exact same criteria… I will eat my own shirt if you can name one. Again, you are judging linkbaiting by the very highest of standards. Why wouldn’t you want to provide regular value? Did you miss business lessons 101?

My final point is a little controversial, and as I previously mentioned, I have a lot of respect for the author. However, this is something I see time and time again.

* Most people who are against linkbaiting have had little to no GENUINE viral/buzz/linkbaiting success.

This explains why a lot of them claim certain theories which any successful linkbaiter would know to be wrong. In this instance the author claims that he tried numerous times to have success with linkbaiting, and he succeeded once: The sole success.

I genuinely don’t mean this to sound arrogant or offensive, but that barely constitutes true viral/link baiting success. Again, the author knows his stuff, and his success is better than most people’s, but let’s look at the Digg success. His number of Digg votes is 241. I can’t speak for everyone, but off the top of my head a few of my Digg successes have been in the thousands. In fact, only once did I get on the frontpage and NOT get more than 1000

So therefore he is going to get a tiny sample of the traffic, a tiny sample of the subscribers, infact, a tiny sample of everything. No wonder he feels let down by linkbaiting.

In summary, linkbaiting is a very misunderstood concept. I personally call it “buzz marketing” or “Creativity”, but I do agree with the author in one aspect… linkbaiting is over rated, but it is the people who are against it that over rate it. They judge it by criteria that you wouldn’t even apply to a $5 million dollar Super Bowl campaign.

No wonder they are against it!

Dean