Pay $10 - $25 per blog post?! Wow! Put me down for 200 of those. I imagine they’ll be top shelf link bait! Just what I need for my SEO…

C’mon! I know blogging is hard work and takes a lot of time, but do you really think the answer is outsourcing to someone cheap? How good do you think the result will be?

Let’s think about the logic for a second: it takes YOU about half a day to write a quality post, right? And you’re the subject matter expert. How long’s it going to take a copywriter? They have to get their head around your offering, your customer, your target reader, the purpose of your blog, the purpose of the post and the fundamental message of the post. Then they have to research and understand the details, plan the post, write numerous headlines and choose the one that’s most engaging, then write the post and optimize it for search. All the while, ensuring their terminology is credible!

At least, that’s what they’ll have to do to write a quality post!

Now I can’t speak for everyone, but it takes me a good day or two to get through all of that. And I’m no slouch. I’ve been writing professionally for 15 years. I’ve run a business for six years. I have a Bachelor of Arts in English Lit and Linguistics. And I have a Master of Arts in International Communication. So I research effectively, I learn fast, I understand business and I write fast. This isn’t a sales pitch, it’s all fundamental to my argument.

So if it takes me a good day or two, let’s be generous and assume it’s going to take most SEO copywriters about the same. Let’s say 1.5 days per post. Now if you’re paying $10 - $25 per post, that equates to around $7 - $16 per day for the writer. That’s only $2,555 - $5,840 per year, assuming they work every day! There’s no way in the world that any decent SEO copywriter will work for that! (Well, there’s a miniscule chance you’ll find a great junior SEO copywriter who’s just starting out and desperately needs the money. But finding an SEO copywriter like that is like finding a needle in a haystack. And they won’t stick around for long. Trust me, I’ve been down that path.)

I know it’s tempting to say, “Send it to India,” but that’s not going to solve the problem, either. A cursory scan of Indian job search site Nakuri reveals that a half-way decent copywriter can earn around 4,00,000 to 8,00,000 Rupees per year. That’s around USD $9,390 to $18,780 per year + benefits. So why would they work for $5,840 (much less $2,555) per year?

No. What you’ll get is a blog post that was written in an hour (two, if you’re lucky). Poorly written, rehashed rubbish with no subject matter expertise, and certainly no relevant opinion or thought leadership.

Be honest. Would you subscribe to, return to, talk about or link to a blog like that? Of course not!

And after all, if you’re blogging for SEO, it’s all about subscriptions, return visitors, buzz and voluntary backlinks. Which means you have to repeatedly offer original, helpful thought provoking blog posts. Blog posts that people consider worth bookmarking and worth sharing with their own visitors and networks. What’s more, if you’re touting that sort of rubbish in places like Twitter and Plurk, you’ll quickly lose all credibility, and stand no chance of developing a following.

That’s why it amazes me when I hear so-called ‘social media experts’ suggesting this tactic. They should know better!

My contention is that if you’re serious about your blog (and not just blog-spamming – which is no better than article spamming), you have only four options:

1. Write your own blog posts;
2. Write your own blog posts and have a good SEO copywriter with social media knowledge edit & optimize them;
3. Have a good SEO copywriter with social media knowledge ghost-write your blog posts (which will cost a lot more than $10 - $25 per post); or
4. Try to attract some good guest-bloggers who’ll do it for free (and who aren’t competitors).

If you’re not up for any of those options, then you can forget about blogging. It’s not for you.

In blogging, there’s no quick and easy option. Just as there’s no quick, easy way to write your corporate web copy (Home, About Us, Products, Services, etc.). Would you settle for $10 Home page copy? If you’re serious about your blog, then you have to treat it with respect. You have to value it as highly as you value your other promotional material. It may not be selling your product or service, but it’s selling something, nonetheless. Something much more important, in the long run: your brand and your reputation. And if your purpose is SEO, it’s selling to a very jaded audience: social marketers.

Social media is the key to SEO these days. And it will remain the key for a few years to come. Certainly blogging is going to be massively important for years. WHAT we blog about may change, but the ACT of blogging will be critical for a long time. The key is expertise, usefulness, credibility, frequency and accessibility. And you’ll never get that paying $10 - $25 per post.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys! And that’s all I have to say on the matter

Happy blogging!

Today’s ‘Marketing Pilgrim’ announced:

Facebook Note Removes British Juror from Trial

WHO removed her?! Unless Facebook has really extended its reach recently, I’m pretty sure IT didn’t remove the juror. I think it’s far more likely a judge did that!

The problem with this headline is that it’s written in the active voice but has no ‘Actor’. The Actor is the person or thing that actually does something. Clearly that’s the judge, here, not the Facebook note.

So how does a copywriter make such a fundamental error? Probably because of a conflict between a grammar rule and a usability rule. The rules?

1. Grammar rule: Headlines should be active
2. Usability rule: Make the first two words count

So why the conflict?

Let me explain. The conventional grammarian wisdom says that headlines should be in the form:

Actor does X to Object

Now in the Facebook story, the Actor is clearly the judge and the Object is clearly the juror. Facebook didn’t DO nothin’! (Kinda ironic, huh?)

But if we followed this rule, we’d end up with:

“Judge Removes British Juror from Trial for Posting Facebook Note”
or
“Judge Removes Juror from Trial Because of Facebook Note.”

Too long, right?

What’s more, what would online visitors see if they were just scanning with the typical F-pattern? Probably just:

“Judge Removes”
or
“Judge Removes British”
or
“Judge Removes Juror”

In a legal publication that’d be fine, but in ‘Marketing Pilgrim’, the key subject is Facebook. And in the Active voice construction above, Facebook is shunted right to the end.

As you can see, the copywriter (or copy-editor) is in a bit of a bind.

Their solution? Simply bung Facebook in at the start of the sentence, in place of the Actor, and hope everyone understands what you mean! In order to avoid breaking a usability rule, they’ve broken a grammar rule, making their headline a muddy mess.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that grammar’s more important than usability. To the contrary. I believe the only solution WAS to break a grammar rule. Just not the one they broke.

I think the headline should have read something like this.

“Facebook Juror Removed from Trial”

Yes, I know it’s passive (Object has X done to it), and worse yet, there’s no Actor, but at least it gets the eye-candy up front, and it’s direct and easy to understand.

The reality is that sometimes, passive headlines just work better. Especially online. If you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe leading web usability specialist, Jakob Nielsen:

“Selecting the first 2 words for your page titles is probably the highest-impact ROI-boosting design decision you make in a Web project. Front-loading important keywords trumps most other design considerations.” (Passive Voice Is Redeemed For Web Headings)

Wrap up

The truth is, most readers probably COULD understand the Facebook headline in its current form… if they tried hard enough. But headlines are like ads; if they make the audience work, they usually fail.

The moral to this story? If you’re going to break a rule, break the right one. The one that’ll simply offend a few prescriptive grammarians, not the one that’ll stop readers from clicking through.

Happy copywriting!

PS. What do you think the headline SHOULD have been? Please comment your suggestions.

In today’s blog post at Search Engine Journal, Ann Smarty reveals results indicating that Google penalizes sites with over-optimized internal links.

Specifically, she examined the effect of linking to the Home page using keyword rich anchor text. These results are very instructive (thanks Ann!), and they make a lot of sense. Google is right to penalize sites with over-optimized internal links. Here’s why…

When a visitor first arrives at your site, one of the first things they’re gonna try and do is find the Home page. (Jakob Nielsen: Top Ten Guidelines for Homepage Usability) And when they do, they’ll look for a link, menu or button that says “Home” (or they look for a logo at the top left of the page). They won’t look for a link that says, “Computer Spare Parts Home” or “SEO Copywriter Home” or “Red Tennis Shoes Home.”

So by optimizing links to your Home page, you’re certainly not improving usability. Your optimization is purely an SEO tactic with no visitor benefit. (Indeed, if you replace all straight “Home” links with optimized links, you’d be actively undermining usability.)

Why should this affect your ranking? Simple. Google wants quality, helpful sites in its SERPs. If you make your site less usable, that’s not gonna reflect well on Google, so it makes perfect sense that your ranking will drop as a result.

I hate to say it (well… err… no, actually, I don’t ;-)), but Ann’s results reinforce what good SEO copywriters have been saying for years: “never sacrifice readability for searchability.” It’s also what Google’s been saying all along.

And, although Ann’s results relate to Home page links only, the usability message (and maybe even the penalty) applies to all links. Don’t over-optimize them. Here’s just a few reasons why:

1. 79% of users scan; only 16% read word-by-word. (Nielsen: How Users Read on the Web)
2. People look for links when scanning a page. (Nielsen: How Users Read on the Web)
3. Concise copy is 58% more usable, and scannable copy is 47% more usable. (Nielsen: Concise, SCANNABLE, and Objective: How to Write for the Web). Over-optimizing links makes them both less concise and less scannable.
4. Low-literacy visitors don’t scan effectively. They tend to read word-for-word. And if the text gets to dense, they look for the next link, often skipping important info in the process. If that link is also dense, they’re more likely to skip it too, resulting in more info skipped. (Nielsen: Lower-Literacy Users)
5. The first two words of scannable items, like links, are vital, because they’re often all the visitor sees. They should be words that carry the most information. (Nielson: Passive Voice Is Redeemed For Web Headings, Writing Style for Print vs. Web and Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005) And that generally won’t be your keywords. In most cases, the visitor is already on a page related to your keywords. Starting a link with those same keywords really only tells visitors that the destination page is related to the current page. It doesn’t tell them anything notable about the destination page, so they can decide whether they want to read it. Knowing that it’s related to the current page isn’t enough.
6. People love clicking on links; it’s the Internet’s most used feature. (Harald Weinreich, Hartmut Obendorf, Eelco Herder, and Matthias Mayer: Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Use) So you want to make it easy for them to do what they like, and to find what they’re looking for when they do it.

Maybe Google is already taking all of these usability issues into account, maybe it’s not. One thing’s certain though: your visitors sure are!

In his acclaimed book, The Adweek Copywriting Handbook, copywriting big-gun Joseph Sugarman likens sales copy to a slippery slide. He says the sole purpose of the headline is to get the reader to read the first line of copy, the sole purpose of the first line of copy is to get the reader to read the second, and so on, until you’ve got the reader nodding and saying “yes”. Then you introduce the call to action. The idea is that you’re not luring them into the call to action, or pushing them, you’re letting them jump in of their own accord.

Now, one of the copywriting tactics that Sugarman discusses for ‘greasing’ the slippery slide, is what he calls ‘seeds of curiosity’. He often ends his paragraphs with things like, “But there’s more” or “So read on” or “Let me explain.” These are explicit meaning-based cues that encourage the reader down the slide. But they’re not the only way to create momentum.

In fact, when you’re dealing with sophisticated audiences, explicit cues aren’t always the best approach. Sophisticated audiences can be quite sensitive to explicit greasing techniques. And they don’t always like being greased; it can make them feel like someone’s trying to sell them steak knives!

So sometimes style-based cues – not meaning-based cues – are what’s required. What do I mean by style-based cues? Well, I’ve used three of them already, in just four paragraphs. “Now” links para two back to para one, “In fact” links para three back to para two, and “So” links para four back to para three.

I could TRY to explain why these two elements work, or how they work, but I’d probably fail. I’m a copywriter, not a grammarian! An easier – and much more effective – way is for you to read the first four paragraphs WITHOUT “Now”, “In fact” and “So”. Read them out aloud. I guarantee you’ll find it a bumpier ride.

Of course, there are plenty more where they came from. Try a few of these on for size:

• “What’s more”
• “Nevertheless”
• “Of course”
• “Needless to say”
• “And”
• “But”
• “Still”
• “Importantly”
• “Just as importantly”
• “Additionally”
• “Furthermore”
• “No matter which”

These are all tactics that successful copywriters use daily. And they’re just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Should be enough to see you through all but the longest pieces of copy!

In coming posts, I’ll be discussing additional ways to keep readers on your copywriting slippery slide. So stay tuned. In fact, why not subscribe?!

Please comment.

Happy copywriting!

PS. All of this applies to blog copywriting too!

I read an interesting blog post today: Low value content is destroying your website.

The guts of the post: most pages of most websites are low value. People hardly ever visit them, and if they do stumble upon them, they tend not to return. Only a handful of pages are visited often. Furthermore, “… what I find… is that the search results are full of links to the press archive and other old, out-of date content. Some of the content is misleading and wrong, talking about, for example, a feature for a product that has long since been replaced.”

This post got me thinking (again!) about the implications of ‘low value content’ for search engine optimization (SEO). (No particularly new thoughts; perhaps I just needed to vent!)

As an SEO copywriter, I’m regularly asked to quote on high-volume SEO copy and SEO articles (for article PR / article marketing). By definition, there’s nothing wrong with these requests. High volume SEO copy and SEO articles can be of a very high quality. And they can be very helpful for SEO.

Unfortunately, however, the prospect’s budget usually indicates that the important part of their request is the ‘high-volume’ bit. They don’t really care how good the copy is, so long as it’s keyword rich, and there’s lots of it. They want it purely to boost their rankings.

I know this is slightly different from the low value content discussed in original post, but the end result is the same: it appears in the search results, and it’s read by prospective customers who immediately identify it as crap and infer a great deal about the company that published it.

This is particularly true of long-tail searches, because high volume, low level content tends to be optimized for quite specific keyword phrases. So when someone searches for something really specific, they’re likely to end up at a low level page. And what sort of customers Google very specific keyword phrases? Those who are ready to buy! Now, although there’s never a good time for a reader to think you’re a crap company, I couldn’t think of a worse time than when they’re ready to buy.

The moral to the story: don’t write crap! SEO copy isn’t some invisible force. It’s content that’s frequently read by prospective customers, often when they’re ready to buy. So crap content may – MAY – help your search ranking, but it’s only ever going to harm your conversion rate.

And the sub-moral (here comes the vent…): If you’re intent on having crap written, don’t ask me to quote on it. I never write this sort of stuff. When I write SEO copy and SEO articles – even high volume – I simply can’t write crap. It goes against the grain. I have to write meaningful, helpful copy, and this takes time. (Which means my prices are usually too high for clients who want volume only, anyway.)

End vent.

Happy writing!

I’m ashamed to say it, but many SEOs are just plain dishonest. They know that Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is an utter mystery to most of their customers, and that nobody outside of Google really, truly knows Google’s ranking rules. So they lie. And they get away with it.

This article lifts the lid on a few of those lies. Hopefully it’ll help you avoid those unscrupulous SEOs and find an SEO company that can really help you. (Rest assured, there are plenty of those about, too.)

Lie 1 – “We have a deal with Google”. Untrue. No SEO provider is in bed with Google. That would totally undermine the relevance of Google’s results. The truth is, we’re all on the outside, looking in. Doing our best to unravel the complex mathematical mystery that is Google’s ranking algorithm. Every SEO provider claims to have an excellent understanding of the algo. But you should always just let their results do the talking.

Lie 2 – Timeframe guarantees. Google’s rankings are automatically determined using incredibly complex mathematical algorithms. They’re Google’s single most valuable asset, and they’re devised by the world’s biggest math brains, who are paid squillions by Google. SEO providers that offer timeframe guarantees are suggesting that they’re: a) privy to Google’s most valuable business secret; and/or b) smarter than all of the world’s biggest math brains combined. The truth is that although good SEO providers have a very good understanding of what tactics result in a high ranking, they derive this understanding through trial-and-error only, and they don’t know 100% how long things will take.

Lie 3 – Unlimited keywords. This one defies logic. To optimize your site for a keyword or keyword phrase, you just use it more often than any other word or phrase. But because your site has only a finite number of words, there’s a limit to the number of keywords you can target. For simplicity’s sake, let’s consider a single page of 100 words. If I optimize that page for “SEO copywriter Australia”, that means I have to include the phrase “SEO copywriter Australia” around three times in the copy (for a ‘keyword density’ of 3% - which is a reasonable target). That’s a total of nine words out of my 100. Not too hard to do. In fact, I could also optimize for “case studies” and “sales letters”, without too much trouble. (I’d then be using 21 out of my 100 words – not easy, but do-able.) If I try really, really hard, I might be able to optimize for “annual reports” and “speeches and scripts”, as well, but that’s about the upper limit, because then I’d be using a total of 33 words out of my 100, just for keywords. Doesn’t leave much for meaningful content. Realistically, the upper limit for optimization is about four to five unique keyword phrases per page. (If you don’t believe me, give it a go. See how meaningful your content ends up if you try to optimize for more than four or five keyword phrases.) Now your SEO provider might argue that they’re going to target a different five keyword phrases on each page, but that’s not such a good idea, either. Then you’d only have one page on each ‘subject’ – not really enough to prove to Google that you’re an authority on any of ‘em!

Lie 4 – Package deals, like ‘Economy’ or ‘Professional’. Huh?! You either rank well or you don’t! Does an ‘Economy’ package get you to page 5, whereas a ‘Professional’ package gets you to page 1? What’s the difference? Or do they mean they’ll only target one keyword phrase for ‘Economy’ customers? That’s not much use to anyone! Or, in fact, do they mean they’ll target an unlimited number of keywords for ‘Professional’ customers? If so, I’d refer you to Lie 3 above…

Lie 5 – Displaying logos for big-name clients. Some SEO companies falsely claim – or imply – they’ve done SEO work for big-name clients. Sometimes they’ve done some other sort of work for that client (who knows… maybe data entry, maybe gardening!), and sometimes they’ve never done any work for that client, at all. For example, I heard of an SEO company that claimed a MAJOR bank as a client, when all they had ever done for that bank was SEM – not SEO – for a single keyword, once, long ago. So always be sure to ask exactly what your SEO provider has done for each client it claims. And if you’re still in doubt, ask for references.

Lie 6 – Submitting your site to thousands of search engines, over and over, will get you a high ranking. It doesn’t. In fact, I’m amazed this one’s still going around. The truth is, you usually don’t have to submit your site at all. Search engines are, after all, created to FIND and INDEX websites. So theoretically, they should be able to find and index yours without any help from you! Of course, it never hurts to be on the safe side. So if you want some peace of mind, you can certainly submit your site to Google. But you can forget the others. And you should never pay someone else to submit your site to Google. It’s easy and free. Just go to http://www.google.com.au/addurl and type in your URL. That’s all there is to it. (Note that if take up one of those offers to submit your site to thousands of search engines, all you’ll do is increase the amount of email spam you get!)

Lie 7 – Spend a lot on Google AdWords, and you’ll automatically get a high ranking. Absolute rubbish! Although Google (and most of the other search engines) offer PPC ads, those ads are absolutely independent of your site’s natural ranking. Google’s success relies on its ability to deliver relevant results. The moment it took money in return for natural search ranking, its reputation for relevance would be justifiably ruined. It’ll never happen.

So there you have it. All things considered, it’s hardly surprising that many business owners and marketing managers are a little daunted by the prospect of SEO. But it’s not all doom and gloom. The trick is to know a little about SEO BEFORE you engage an SEO provider. That way, you won’t just have to take their word for everything!

I’ll be releasing V2.0 of my SEO ebook soon. SUBSTANTIALLY updated. If you want to be notified when it’s released, please email me at glenn@divinewrite.com or bookmark the ebook sales page.

Happy SEO-ing!

Article marketing, article PR, article submission, article distribution… Whatever you want to call it, it’s a great way to generate backlinks. But are those backlinks really of any use? I decided to find out.

For quite a few years now, I’ve been using article PR as a link building method. For an SEO copywriter, it was an obvious choice. (Why didn’t I get more heavily into blogging? That’s a post for another day.) And for me, it really paid off. I wrote a host of good quality articles about SEO copywriting and general copywriting, and posted them to virtually every article directory I could find. It took ages, but I got a lot of links out of it and, subsequently, a very high ranking.

So backlinks in syndicated articles definitely USED to be counted. (Assuming you wrote really good quality articles, that is.)

Over the last year or two, though, a lot of people have been saying that Google now discounts backlinks in syndicated articles because of the duplicate content filter (e.g. see point 5 in this CopyBlogger post - 5 Link Building Strategies That Work). For the most part, I’ve discounted this criticism. Partly because articles have worked so well for me. And partly because much of the criticism targets those who engage in article spam. I’ve never done that, and I agree that article spam is a waste of everyone’s time.

However, I’m now doing a major overhaul of my seo ebook, and I’m up to the chapter on article marketing. So I decided to really look into the matter. I did a lot of research online and had some interesting discussions with two SEOs I really look up to, Rob Adelman from Top Rankings (Twitter @toprankings) and Mark Vozzo - ex-Fairfax search guru, now consulting to Microsoft (Twitter @markvozzo).

And the short answer is Yes! Backlinks in syndicated articles ARE still counted.

The long answer? The duplicate content filter affects merely what is shown in the SERPs. Say Google sees two versions of your article. It doesn’t want to list both in the SERPs, ‘cos it’s really after variety for searchers. So it decides which is the original, and lists that one in the SERPs. The other one misses out. But that doesn’t mean the other one is ignored. If it contains links to your site (i.e. in the byline), Google still follows those links and they still contribute to your ranking.

How do I know? Matt Cutts said so:

“if you do syndicate content, make sure that you include a link to the original content. That will help ensure that the original content has more PageRank”

So, in fact, the duplicate content filter doesn’t have any impact on the value of backlinks from syndicated articles. It simply determines which version of the article appears in the SERPs. I’ve never cared much whether my articles appeared in the SERPs ‘cos I’ve written them primarily for the links, not the direct traffic. (That’s not to say I don’t care about the traffic. And in fact, new articles always bring me a lot of traffic. It’s just not always target market traffic.)

No, the real key to the value of backlinks in syndicated articles is still the site they appear on. If it’s a crap site, the links will be worth squat. If it’s a good site, they’ll be worth heaps. Sure, your articles will always appear on crap sites; you’re giving them away, after all! But who cares? Those links may not help much, but they certainly don’t hurt. More importantly, if you write great articles, they’ll appear on great sites, and that’s when you get some truly valuable backlinks.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that article pr is the best/only way to generate links. Far from it. For me, it’s been great, but I have to say, I don’t do it much these days. Distribution takes too long. Also, I don’t like having all of my eggs in one basket. These days, I’m focussing more on the combination of link baiting and social media (i.e. having great content on my site, and making sure the right people know about it).

Have a great day!

Which do you use? US or British (Australian) English in your web copy?

Your website is globally accessible, so your readers could come from anywhere. It may seem a trivial consideration, but many readers really care. British readers, for instance, tend to have a strong preference for British English. US readers tend to prefer US English. (Australian readers prefer British English, but will usually tolerate both.)

What’s more, it’s not just a question of pleasing readers when they’re actually reading your copy. You may also have to consider the search engines. e.g. What do you do if half your target audience Googles “search engine optimisation” (with an “s) to find you, and the other half Googles “search engine optimization” (with a “z”)? Although Google is smart enough to know that “search engine optimization” is the same as “search engine optimisation”, if someone searches for “search engine optimization” (with a “z”), most of the results will be about “search engine optimization” with a “z”. And the opposite applies when someone searches for “search engine optimisation” (with an “s”).

So in reality, your primary concern should be the search engines. Whatever choice you make could significantly impact the traffic you actually attract, not just how that traffic reacts to your copy.

Fortunately, for most businesses, it’s not the quandry it might first appear to be. To answer the question, just think about your target audience. Unless your business is truly global, you’ll probably be most interested in customers from a particular country. That being the case, just use whatever version of English they use. If your target audience is American, use US English. If Australian or British, use British English.

It only becomes tricky if you’re juggling audiences. If you’re a multinational, there’s a very simple answer: create localised versions of your site (one for US, one for Australia, one for Britain, etc.). You’ll probably have non-language reasons for doing this anyway; things like currency, legal and product versions.

However, if you’re a small business, you have to make compromises. You can either figure out which of your audiences delivers the best revenue and write for them, or you can try to write for both audiences (i.e. sometimes use US English, and sometimes use British English). The problem with the latter approach is that many readers will notice the inconsistency, and thus pay more attention to your choice of language. The other problem is that you’ll be diluting your keyword density for both the US version of your keyword and the British version, so you may, in fact, harm your search engine ranking for both audiences. (But that’s a discussion for another day…)

If there’s one piece of advice I’d offer to copywriters (other than embrace SEO), it’d be, “Use more contractions!”

I’ve lost count of the number of freelancers who’ve sent me samples chock-full of things like “we will” and “you are” and “we are”. Even fairly conservative audiences like to read the way they speak (within limits). There’s nothing wrong with a bit of “we’ll” or “you’re” or “we’re”.

In fact, when editing freelancer work, I’ve found that introducing more contractions is all that’s required to transform something jerky-sounding into something smooth and easy-to-read.

I’ve just upgraded FreeCopywriting.com. Here’s how it works:

1. You write some copy and submit it to FreeCopywriting.com
2. Google automatically displays ads whenever someone views that copy
3. Google pays a commission whenever someone clicks on one those ads
4. Half the time, that commission goes to me. The other half of the time, it goes to you (assuming you’ve told us your Google AdSense ID)

It’s the ultimate annuity income. You write and post your copy once, and you earn income from it indefinitely! It’s like selling the same piece of copy again and again.

Find out more…