What Is Guest Blogging and Is It Still Worth Doing?
A practice that was ruined by being industrialised and still works when done for the original reason. The same words describe both, which is why the offers arriving in your inbox and a piece in a trade publication look like the same activity and are not.
It Depends Entirely On Why You Are Doing It
Writing for a publication whose readers you want to reach is legitimate. Producing posts in order to place links is something else. The words describe both, which is the whole problem.
Why the shared name matters. It hides the difference.
A business hearing that guest blogging works cannot tell which version is meant. The two look identical described from outside. Only the motive separates them.
What the first version is. Publishing.
You have something to say, a publication's readers would want it, so you write it for them. Anything else that follows is incidental to the reason it was written.
What the second version is. Placement.
A link is wanted, so a post is produced to carry it. The publication is chosen for whether it will accept the post rather than for who reads it.
Why this page draws the line rather than describing both. A reader has to choose.
Offers arrive by email constantly and most are the second version. Somebody who cannot tell them apart will accept one, which is why a neutral account of the practice would be the wrong page to publish.
What Went Wrong With It
The practice was industrialised into placement at volume. That is why unsolicited offers arrive constantly. It is also why the reputation the practice now carries is earned.
What it was originally. Writing for somebody else.
An ordinary editorial arrangement, older than search. Somebody with expertise writes for a publication whose readers want it, so both sides gain something.
How it became a technique. Somebody noticed the link.
The posts carried a link back to the author. Once that became the point rather than a by-product, the activity reorganised itself around producing as many as possible.
What volume did to it. The content stopped mattering.
Where the objective is placement, the quality of the post only has to clear whatever bar the receiving site sets. Sites willing to accept anything appeared to meet the demand.
Why you receive the offers. Both directions are industrialised.
Somebody offering to write for your site wants a link on it. Somebody offering to place your content has a network of sites that accept anything. Neither has read your business.
What follows for a reader. Default to suspicion.
An unsolicited approach about guest posting is overwhelmingly likely to be the industrialised version. That is a reasonable prior rather than cynicism.
Where It Still Works
Four kinds of publication where writing for somebody else remains straightforwardly worthwhile, plus one question that identifies the difference.
Trade publications. Your industry's own press.
Read by people in your field, including potential clients and referrers. A piece here reaches exactly the readers who would understand its value.
Professional bodies. Where standing matters.
Association publications and member communications. Appearing in these carries an implication of standing that a general site cannot supply.
Local press. For a local business.
Genuinely read by the people you serve. Frequently the only publication whose readership overlaps precisely with your market.
Outlets whose readers are your customers. The general case.
Anywhere the people reading are the people you want. That is the property that matters and the category is defined by it rather than by the type of publication.
The test that settles it. Without a link.
Would you want the post published if it carried no link at all. If yes, you are publishing. If the answer depends on the link, you are placing. The rest of this page then applies.
Why that test works. It asks about motive.
Every other test asks about appearance, which can be arranged. This one is difficult to answer falsely to yourself.
Finding Opportunities
Identifying publications whose readers matter is a judgement about your market rather than a search technique. It starts from who you want to reach rather than from who accepts submissions.
Where to start. What your customers read.
Ask a few of them. The publications, newsletters and associations your existing customers pay attention to are the ones worth writing for. Nobody else can tell you what those are.
The second source. Where your industry talks.
Trade press, professional associations and sector newsletters. These are visible from inside the industry and invisible from any list of sites accepting content.
What to look for in a publication. Evidence of readers.
Does anybody appear to read it. Comments, discussion, references elsewhere, a membership. A publication with no discernible audience is a place to put a link rather than a place to be read.
The clearest warning sign. Lists of sites accepting guest posts.
Any compiled list of places that accept submissions is describing the industrialised version. The existence of the list is the signal, since publications with readers do not need to advertise for content.
Why we do not supply a method. A method becomes volume.
A repeatable process for identifying targets is how this activity industrialised in the first place. The judgement is the useful part and it does not scale, which is the point.
Writing One That Gets Accepted
Editors want something their readers need that they do not already have, written to their register. Most rejected pitches are rejected because they are about the writer rather than the readers.
The commonest failure. A pitch about you.
An approach explaining who you are, what your business does and why you would like to contribute. None of that answers the editor's only question, which is what their readers get.
What replaces it. A subject and a reason.
What you would write about, why their readers specifically would want it, then what you can say that others cannot. Three sentences rather than a biography.
What they do not already have. The hard part.
Editors know their own subject and have covered the obvious. Offering something they have run three times is the second commonest rejection. Reading a few back issues prevents it.
Register. Match the publication.
Every outlet has a tone, a length and a level of assumed knowledge. A piece written to your own house style rather than theirs creates work for somebody, which is a reason to decline it.
What makes acceptance easy. Something only you have.
Your own figures, your own experience across many jobs, a position from actually doing the work. Editors accept those readily because nobody else can offer them.
Bylines
A byline is being named as the author of a piece. It matters more than the link and survives whatever happens to it.
What a byline actually does. Attaches you to the subject.
Somebody reading a useful piece with your name on it now associates you with that subject. That association persists in their memory rather than in any measurable place.
Why it outlasts the link. Links are fragile.
A link can be removed, the page can be taken down, the publication can close. None of that reverses the fact that the right readers saw your name attached to something worth reading.
Who it reaches. The readers rather than a search engine.
A byline in front of your industry or your local market is read by people who might hire you or refer you. That is the benefit. It is unavailable from any placement on a site nobody reads.
What this reframes. The whole activity.
Once the byline is the objective, the publication has to have readers, which rules out every site on a list of places accepting content. The correct incentive follows automatically.
The practical implication. Insist on it.
Any arrangement where your name does not appear is placement rather than publishing, whatever it is called.
Journalist Request Services
Services exist that connect journalists looking for expertise with people who have it. Responding to a genuine request is a legitimate and effective route. The individual services change frequently.
How the category works. Requests, then responses.
A journalist writing a piece needs a comment from somebody who does the work. The service circulates that request and people with relevant expertise respond.
Why it is legitimate. They asked.
Nothing about this resembles placement. Somebody has a genuine need for expertise and you have it, so the resulting mention exists because a journalist chose to use what you said.
What makes a response useful. Specific and quick.
Journalists work to deadlines and receive many replies. A short, specific answer to exactly what was asked, sent promptly, beats a longer piece about your business.
Why no service is named here. They change.
The best known service in this category has been renamed and then discontinued. Naming any product would date this page, which is precisely the defect that made the previous version of it unusable.
How to find what currently exists. Ask somebody in your sector.
Trade associations and industry contacts will know what people currently use. That is more reliable than any list, because the landscape moves.
Content Outreach
The term covers telling people that something you have published exists. Telling somebody about something genuinely useful is reasonable. Automated volume outreach is not. The same test applies.
What the reasonable version is. One person, one reason.
You have written something a specific person would find useful, so you tell them. The judgement about whether it helps them was made before sending anything.
What the other version is. A list.
The same message sent to many people, none of whom was individually considered. Whether it helps any of them was never assessed, because assessing it would prevent the volume.
Where the line sits. Whether anybody thought about the recipient.
That is the whole distinction. A message that could have been sent to anybody was not written for the person receiving it. They can tell.
Why volume fails anyway. Recipients recognise it.
People who receive these constantly identify them immediately. The approach damages your standing with exactly the people you were trying to reach, so it fails on its own terms.
What earns the reference. The content, still.
Outreach only makes somebody aware. How to build backlinks to blog content covers what actually makes a post worth referencing.
Where This Becomes A Link Scheme
Four things turn writing for a publication into something else. Each is named here and none is described in any detail, because the detail is not what a reader needs.
Payment. In either direction.
Money paid to have a post published, else money received for publishing one. Once payment is involved, the post appeared because it was bought rather than because anybody wanted it.
Exchange. Agreements to reference each other.
No money moves and the arrangement is the same. The reference exists because of the agreement rather than because of the content.
Volume. Placement at scale.
Producing posts in quantity to appear across many sites. At that point nobody is writing for readers, because there are not enough readers across those sites to justify the effort.
Posts written only to carry a link. The core of it.
Where the post exists because a link was wanted, everything else is arrangement around that fact. This is what the without-a-link test identifies.
Why we name rather than describe. Detail would be instructions.
Our risky practices material covers what these arrangements are and what happens to sites that use them. Naming the categories is what a business needs in order to recognise an offer.
Is It Worth It For A Small Business
For most local businesses this is a poor use of limited time. One genuinely relevant piece beats twenty placements. A business that does none of this is not missing anything.
Why the time rarely pays. The cost is real.
Identifying the right publication, understanding its register, pitching and then writing to somebody else's requirements takes considerably longer than answering a customer question on your own site.
What the same effort buys elsewhere. A post you own.
The hours spent on one guest piece would produce an answer on your own site, which you control, can update and can send to customers. That comparison favours your own site heavily.
When it is worth doing. A specific opportunity.
A publication your customers genuinely read has asked, else you have something they clearly need. That is worth taking. Pursuing it speculatively is not.
Why the industry oversells it. It sounds impressive.
Appearing in a publication is more satisfying to report than improving an existing page. That preference has produced a great deal of advice recommending it to businesses it does not suit.
What to do instead. The unglamorous things.
Answer more customer questions properly and improve what you have. The promotion page reaches the same conclusion about outreach generally. The full series is on the content and blogging guide.
Would you want it
published without
a link?
That one question separates writing for readers from placing links. It is also difficult to answer falsely to yourself. For most local businesses the answer means doing none of this and answering more customer questions on your own site instead.
How we approach content:
We do not buy placements or arrange exchanges. One relevant piece beats twenty.
Every guide.
One practice.
What a blog is for, how to choose subjects worth writing about, how to structure a post, how to promote it, how to measure it and how to keep it current.
