When it comes to Article Marketing, I'd hazard a guess that over 90% of all authors, are driven by one, ultimate goal. Quite simply, the authors, the fundamental components of the Internet, wish their articles to be seen by as many people as possible, and that, as a result of this popularity, their own websites receive a substantial influx in visits, potentially leading to new business opportunities being discovered.
Do me a favour...
I'd suggest that it would be extremely rare to find an author who simply writes for the sake of writing, or quite possibly, for consciously wanting to inject fresh content into the web for the good of the Internet. If you think that you are such a person, I'd suggest that you reflect, and uncover what you really wish to achieve through your writing. In my opinion, we've all got another agenda. So many of the interesting commentaries which appear on this, as well as many other article resources, are written by people in the business of Internet Marketing, in some form or another. SEOs, Article Marketers and those operating in other business sectors with an online presence, are all looking for an angle; a means of introducing more visitors to their sites, exposing and driving an alternate channel. Article Marketing is a renowned and quite often, successful method within the SEO environment, which is why you'll find so many of those within this sector, submitting articles to repositories such as ‘A List Apart’ and ‘Ezine Articles’. They provide an easy way to create a sudden influx of visitors, providing the articles are both interesting and unique. This is perhaps where the problem first surfaces. Generally, in order to create such an article, you 'should' be spending a reasonable amount of time conducting research into your subject matter, generating references and finding the right words for your article.
The mere nature of this process however, opens your article up to being affected by articles, which are already online. You will undoubtedly end up referencing the same points, and perhaps even adopt a similar writing style, - but is this really what the web needs? Are you now, not one of the many wannabe-publishers clogging the system and devaluing the Internet through repetition and writing-for-writings-sake? Depending on which way you look at it, with a bit of luck, your article will be rejected for a lack of unique content. It's not your fault, - in my opinion, there's simply not enough to write about. It's a well-known fact that articles submitted to Digg, which relate to anything slightly SEO-related, will quite quickly, be buried under a mass of other articles, well out of the way. Quite frankly, I don't blame the Digg community - too many people regurgitate the basic principles of SEO, which have been written about millions of times across the Internet. There's no point, and indeed, no value to any articles published which discuss the same things over and over.
Is this unique enough?
In my opinion, it has become increasingly difficult to see how the web can expand, whilst also becoming a resource, which solely comprises unique, helpful, and 'non-spammy' content. We all talk of such a concept, but is this really achievable? The web, as a resource, is perhaps the first place one would choose to turn in order to uncover the information about a specific item. I've no doubt that its use far exceeds the use of the more traditional encyclopaedia, or any other book for that matter. In spite of this, I also feel that unless the concept of the web develops and moves with the times - times which have only come as a result of it's own success, - it may be left behind. Nobody wants to find endless jargon discussing the same point over and over, as they browse through the SERPs looking for a fresh angle. Search Engines, and even more importantly, people, want and need new ideas and fresh content. I make no qualms about the reason for publishing this article. I join the estimated 90% or so referenced earlier in the article, trying to generate a bit of curiosity around my business interests – which, in this case, happen to be the Internet Marketing services offered by Zulu. There are also significant SEO benefits, which come as a result of writing articles – with any luck, this article will generate quality inbound links, which will boost the ranking of this site and increase the number of unique visitors. So what makes me immune to my own criticism? What does this article do to avoid being cast aside as another wasteful string of text which no-one really has any interest in?
...It's just my opinion
My honesty toward the reasons for writing and publishing this article may raise a few eyebrows, but I do feel that in doing so, I'm creating a stimulating read for those who happen to come across it. I do expect the SEO benefits discussed, the increased number of visits to the sites and potentially a sustained interest in future articles, which I publish. But moreover, I am confident and believe that I am actively contributing toward the Internet. I feel I avoid the regurgitation of stuff I may have read elsewhere, and I do this by simply casting my opinion out into the web, - and that's something which I will continue to do and actually feel is essential for the future of the Internet. With so many Web 2.0 applications and a greater emphasis on society than ever before, the Internet has seen a substantial transformation from a simple resource of fact and information, to an ever-expanding resource of opinion - something which everyone is entitled to, and so, should be given chance to express. As it becomes more and more difficult to write about stuff which hasn't already been said, I feel that it is essential to revert to your opinion about something, rather than running the very probable risk of devaluing the Internet by repeating content. Not only will it increase the potential for you to create something unique, it will also create something far more interesting, more likely to create debate and discussion, and ultimately, as a result, something which is far more suitable for the modern-day Internet.