I wasn’t the best poet in the class. I did grab high marks for a poem that somehow merged a girl and a rusty Buick, but that was basically the high point of my poetic career. I remember the critique of that offering’s follow-up, which was probably more representative of my skills in verse at the time. It contained words like “sophomoric” and “obvious”. Usually, I’d take offense to something like that. In the case of my wannabe ode to whatever-it-was, I remember thinking only, “that’s true”. I could live with “sophomoric”. I was a sophomore, after all.

I did get something out of that one-night-a-week college class other than the merciful “A” grade. I learned a core editing principle. It’s a concept that I don’t always apply to my rambling informal blog posts, but it’s become part of my process as a copywriter.

My instructor, who was a damn good poet and actually knew more than a little bit about what he was teaching, emphasized cutting work down to its essence. He wanted us to clear out anything that was unnecessary. He showed me that a willingness to wield a sharpened Exacto knife and an ability to find the right word was the path to great poetry and, for that matter, to great writing.

Someone, maybe Faulkner or Twain, said that writers should be prepared to “kill their darlings”. The clever little trick that’s too cute needs to go, no matter how fond of it you may be. That rhetorical flourish in place of concise exposition? Shoot it dead.

It’s easy to impress ourselves with those little stunts, regardless of just how many “ughs” they produce from readers. The only remedy is a willingness to kill the textual darlings.

Yesterday, I was finishing some copy. It included an attempt to turn an old idiom on its head in a funny way. In my mind, the idea was gold. On paper (or in this case, on the monitor), it seemed forced. It looked like I was trying too hard. It was distracting. It had a gendered language problem, too, but that’s a whole different story.

Anyway, it was pretty obvious to me that it was time for me to pull out a gun.

I cheated. I left it in there. I sent a note to my partner on the project, mentioning its inclusion and the fact that I had some reservations about it.

The reply? “Yeah, that’s gotta go’.

Had I been working solo, I would’ve killed it myself. I’m a well-trained killing machine, after all. It was sort of nice to let someone else wash the blood from the hands on this one, though. Not only did it save me from another kill, it also reinforced that my instincts were right.

Another chorus of voices argues that Adwords is affiliate-friendly turf and that those who operate on a commission model have nothing to fear.  Some, like “The Secret of Magnetic Sponsoring” go so far as to paint Google as a benevolent best bud to the affiliate crowd, reminding us that G is happy to show them “exactly how to get the most out of using Adwords.”  There is no cause for alarm.

The truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere between the apcolyptic warnings of Chicken Little and the dopey optimism of Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.

Belcher maintains that Google has targeted the MLM industry for an Adwords whippin’.  Relying on an email from an amigo, Perry argues that multi-level marketers are on the receiving end of a Google slap as painful  as a Joe Frazier left hook.  According to PB, MLM is out of G’s PPC.  A network marketer can’t buy a click these days, and everyone better wake up before Google decides to arbitrarily crush other sectors.

Belcher’s worries about a crashing sky aren’t altogether misplaced.  In a follow-up audio, he correctly noted that Google has been more than happy to cut off other industries.  Belcher alluded to the temporarily-lucrative “water for gas” ebooks that lined affiliate pockets when gas prices were bobbing around the $5/gallon mark.  He didn’t mention the acai/colon cleanse/abs-like-a-washboard beatdowns allegedly  administered by Google, but those are other examples.  G has long banned “data entry affiliates”, too.

Google is not afraid to exercise a little discretion with respect to Adwords.  If you end up on the wrong side of their perspective on these products/sectors, you might find it damn near impossible to buy traffic.  Even if they don’t outright shut down the niche, they can whack quality scores down to “poor”, knowing that will make it very tough, if not impossible,  to create a winning campaign.  It’s not easy to experience a positive ROI when you’re wearing the Adwords dunce cap.

The “drop the landing page quality scores” trick seems to be what Google is doing with the MLM crowd.  I’m yet to see any persuasive evidence indicating that MLM is getting the “drive your Caddy on tap water” treatment, but there is reason to believe that marketers are finding once good quality scores transformed into failing grades.

In the aforementioned audio, Belcher advocates industry self-policing and a willingness for legitimate businesses to put up a well-mannered and well-reasoned fight.  That’s not bad advice if you’re involved in a business type that operates in potentially risky territory, I suppose.  Others who are upset by Google’s actions have once again called for the creation of some legitimate competitor to the Mountain View Monster.

So, is the sky falling?

Not quite.  If you’re an affiliate marketer (and especially if you function primarily in niches that are far removed from the ‘net’s snake oil peddlers), Google doesn’t seem hellbent on crushing you.  They still want your ad money.  They just want you to behave yourself well enough that you don’t scare away the search engine users in the process of conducting your business.

Google has to perform that Adwords balancing act.  If they let Adwords spots become low-rent crap, it annoys users.  Google likes having users.  If they get too hardcore about what will and will not pass muster, however, they drive ad money away.  Google likes ad money.  They’re always going to be looking for the perfect tweak to make users happy while scoring as many advertisers as possible.  In some cases, they’re going to decide that the best way to do that is via direct intervention in terms of allowable topics and quality scores.

If you play by the rules, though, you can keep on doing the affiliate thing via Adwords.  And, luckily, the rules are pretty simple.  Don’t just redirect visitors.  Don’t just frame the product owner’s sales page or squeeze page and call it a day.  Avoid creating paper-thin bridge pages that don’t add any real value to the visitors’ “user experience”.

Google has been kind enough to combine that little list of “don’ts” with a good explanation of “do’s”.  Create your own landing page.  Provide a quality user experience in terms of structure and navigation.  Make sure the content is relevant to the keywords and the ad.  Provide those nifty little extras like “about” pages, terms of service and privacy statements.  Most importantly, make it worthwhile for someone to take a trip over to your site.

And how do you do that?  The easiest and most effective way is to provide good content.  That’s right, give the people something they can use.  Give them some real information, some genuine insight, some smart guidance, some resources…  Don’t stink.

Yes, it will require more effort to do things the right way than it would to redirect a $.99 GoDaddy .info domain to your affiliate link.  Sure, you’ll have to do more than to frame the parent product’s squeeze page.  You’ll even need to do more than tossing up one of the articles you found on the parent product’s affiliate resource site.

You’re going to have to work.  Understanding the ins and outs of effective pay per click marketing is a necessary step in the moneymaking process.  Necessary, but not sufficient.  It needs to be combined with an understanding (and, just as importantly, really) a willingness to put something together that adds quality and meaning to the Internet.

If you’re walking around whistling “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”, you can expect someone to give you a solid gut punch.  That someone might just be Google.  You don’t want Google to punch you.  Pay attention to what’s happening and act accordingly to stay in G’s good graces if you want to keep using Adwords as a traffic source.

If you’re afraid that Google is suddenly going to pull the rug out from under every affiliate marketer, you’re wasting time and energy.  Google wants your money.  It just doesn’t want you to be an ass. It makes sense ot be a little more nervous if you’re in a questionable niche, but that shouldn’t come as a surprise.  When you hang out in bad neighborhoods, bad things are likely to happen, right?

The whole of the sky is unlikely to fall any time soon.  If a few ceiling tiles come loose, it’ll be because they’re situated over the places where snake oil peddlers like to congregate.   That does not, however, give anyone cause to walk around whistling a happy tune without a care in the world.  There will continue to be a place in the Adwords world for affiliates, but only those who do it “the right” way are going to cash the big checks.

You can stop reading now if you don’t want the sales pitch.

I believe that quality written material is a great way to achieve the best possible landing page quality scores.  If you want to get the most out of your Adwords-based affiliate efforts, get in touch.  We can come up with the right plan–and the right copy–to get the job done.

I contributed a guest post at Learn Small Business.

“Call in the Hired Cavalry” discusses the way all of us can become more productive by outsourcing those tasks we find mundane or for which our skill sets aren’t a good match.

Thanks go out to DeAnn Troupe of DeAnn Troupe’s Virtual Assistance Service for giving the space.

DeAnn’s motto, “Let me do the mundane tasks so you can focus on the profitable ones”, is a perfect credo for a VA–and a reminder to all of us to spend our time where it makes the most sense and money.

You can read “Collegiality vs. Competition:  Why I Prefer Alliances to Hoses” at the Divine Write blog.

Thanks go out to Glenn Murray, Director and Senior Copywriter at Divine Write for sharing a piece of his virtual turf with me.  

The post discusses my preference for alliance-building with other copywriters as opposed to mean-spirited competition.  Proving my point, the process of contributing the DW led to some great interaction with Glenn.

Well over a year ago, I read Andrew Odlysko’s “Content is Not King,” which argues that connectivity and point-to-point communication is far more important in terms of the net’s growth and value than is traditional content.

Last week, I read a post at “What Will You See Next,” which makes a similar argument. Hayden Shaughnessy, using “Mobile Web 2.0″ by Joakar and Fish as a jumping-off point, maintains that content is being subsumed by connectivity in terms of overall importance.

Shaughnessy titled the post, “Content is King-Make that Queen, Jack. Content is Unimportant.”

I don’t think content is king. I don’t think content is a queen, a jack or even the seven of spades. In my estimation, content isn’t a playing card at all. It’s the reason we gather around the table and play the game in the first place.

Those who are arguing that the value of content is in decline often point to the experience of wireless providers and various elements of the growing “Web 2.0″ movement as proof that content is a relatively small cog in the overall internet machine.

Shaughnessy, for instance, asks the very insightful question,

“What is MySpace other than content as the wrapper to facilitate connections?”

Odlysko states,

“The Internet has done quite well without content, and can continue to flourish without it. Content will have a place on the Internet, possibly a substantial place. However, its place will likely be subordinate to that of business and personal communication.”

I’m a content producer. I have a vested interest in people believing in content’s importance. Oldysko astutely warns those interested in the content vs. connectivity argument to beware of people like me because we have every reason to defend content’s role as part of a healthy and growing web due to our own financial and personal interests.

My background is in communication and communications studies. I’m not just a content peddler and I am keenly interested in the communicative potential of new technologies.

Meanwhile, Oldysko is Head of the Mathematics and Cryptography Research Departments at AT&T Labs, so we should probably keep the potential biases and attitudinal tendencies associated with that line of work in mind, too, right?

In any case, don’t judge the argument by the messenger on this one. Consider why one shouldn’t reach any hasty conclusions with respect to how most of us interact with the web and/or run online businesses.

Let’s start by conceding about 90% of the argument folks like Shaughnessy and Oldysko are making. Connectivity is at the heart of the online experience. The ability to connect with one another and to communicate is wildly important and is a driving force behind a great deal of usage. It’s a big part of why people “go online” and as the email experience and all of its point-to-point successors demonstrate, it’s a bigger piece of the online pie than information retrieval or knowledge-gathering.

That’s right, I’m starting my defense of content’s value by conceding a significant portion of the “content is unimporant” argument. I’m not going to make unsubstantiated claims that the net is all about content. That isn’t the case now and never really has been. The content detractors are correct in their thinking on that level.

The problem with the “content is unimportant” perspective isn’t in the base evidence. The problem is interpretive. You can’t reasonably jump from “communication is the biggie” to “content isn’t that important.”

That’s because there is an underlying meta-question that has “content” as its answer. That question is “Why do people want to connect in the first place?”

I don’t want to email you because I have some vague need for a pen pal in order to satisfy my human desire for communication. I don’t want to contribute to a forum, IM you, blog about content, or make a call via Skype out of a desire to connect for the sake of connection.

I want to connect with you so we can have a meaningful exchange of some kind. More often than not, that meaningful exchange involves information or perspective. I email you for your opinion on Widgetry. I want to know what you think and why. You reply with an answer based on your understanding of Widgetry and the information you have. We dialog about Widgetry.

In the view of some, this is proof that content is of secondary value. See how connectivity is king and content is the four of diamonds? We want to connect, not to read or to experience a broadcast!

That’s flawed thinking though. You see, my motivation to ask you about Widgetry was spurred by something I read about the subject. Your answer was informed by your research on the subject. I might have been curious about your reaction to editorial content about the future decline of widget use. Your response may have been based on a short film about widget history you watched just the other day.

Our connectivity orbits the sun of content.

Now, an IM exchange that involves little more than “Wazzup?” “Nuthin’” “Cool.” may not have that kind of foundation in content, but once we work our way past the longstanding tradition of adolescents yammering back and forth to one another just for the sake of doing something, we find ourselves relying upon content to give our connectivity meaning.

Look at Digg.com, for instance. It’s a social tool, a means of sharing and connecting. What are Diggers using? What are the connecting over? Content. Right there at the heart of every Digg entry is content. Web 2.0 might be changing the way we connect with one another, but it isn’t changing why we are making the connection. Information, opinion, insight, data… It’s always about content.

You want to make a communicative connection with people. Part of that is probably an innate human need. However, you don’t run around trying to befriend every person you see just because you feel a burning need to talk. You tend to be choosier. You find people with similar interests or who have interesting opinions. That way, your communications have a depth of meaning and offer a fulfilling experience.

What do you talk about with those people? What is the subject of your connectedness?

Something tells me that your answer probably has an underpinning in content.

Admittedly, online content is divorceable from the net. If the internet existed merely as a point-to-point communication tool with no additional content present, it would still have a slew of emailing, IM’ing and otherwise connecting adherents. Their discussions and connections would revolve around their personal experiences and interactions with content found in other sources.

However, the web is the perfect launching pad for content. “Publication” is efficient and easy. The net has given voices to many whose opinions would otherwise go unheard while the big boys are also getting their messages out. Content may not be a prerequisite for the net’s success, but it certainly fits within the technological framework quite nicely.

It’s also become quite clear that the internet is being used more and more as an information source. Just ask your local newspaper editor. Now, the information gathering patterns may be somewhat non-traditional, as the folksonomic underpinnings of Web 2.0 show, but content has found a home on the web and there’s no compelling reason to think it will be changing its address any time soon.

Could the net flourish without content? To some extent, yes. It could be the 21st century telephone, a connectivity/communication tool with popularity and utility completely divorced from any particular message.

Does that make content unimportant? Not at all. It may not be a necessary element of the web’s existence, but it has certainly become an essential and expected characteristic of the online experience. Using the web as a means of distributing content makes sense on a variety of levels.

What is Shaughnessy’s insightful blog post if not content? What is Odlysko’s paper?

They are both messages. Part of a communicative process, but simultaneously content that spurs additional communication and content (i.e. this post).

Trying to argue that content has minimal value while writing an archive-ready piece online about the topic isn’t just a cute irony. It’s proof that content does matter–even in a world where point-to-point communication tools are the killer apps.

All of those blog posts, reports, papers, rants and essays are “wrappers” for connectivity. Unlike bubble gum, however, you’ll find it difficult to enjoy the morsel on the inside without the wrapper. The wrapper influences, directs, creates, inspires and provides meaning for the connectivity.

I can’t go a week without seeing someone bring up the old “links vs. content” debate.

The other day, I saw someone questioning the value of good copywriting relative to other considerations.

I generally make that scrunched up, annoyed and somewhat disappointed face when I read those discussions, but I rarely comment on them.

That’s because I think comparing different methodologies in that way makes zero real sense.  It’s an apples and oranges affair.  Goals are often different and various approaches to IM are designed to produce different results.  Sure, they all point to the same bottom line, but that doesn’t make them directly comparable.

Here are a few reasons why I feel that way…

There’s no mutual exclusivity. You can always use PPC and article marketing.  No one will ever stop you from working on traffic building and having a well-written landing page.  You can make a massive effort at link accumulation while still having good content.  These debates too often start with unnecessary bifurcation, arguing that you must do A or B when you can actually do A and B.

Good written material aids other strategies. It’s easier to secure organic one-way inbound links when people have a reason to link to you.  Wanna go viral?  You need to have something interesting to say.  Your PPC campaign is going to be more popular when your landing page kicks rump with a size-14 pair of steel-toed boots.

There are over 7,000 Google-recognized instances of that line’s use (in quotes, by the way) on the web.

Over 7,000 sites are reminding visitors that digital products are available 24/7.

Fine. That’s a valid reminder, especially in niches that might not be mega tech-savvy.

I’m sure “it doesn’t matter if it’s 2:00 a.m. in the morning” started with some great giveaway from a beloved IM guru and somehow entrenched itself in the Internet marketing collective subconscious or as automated output from a sales letter creation program, but I don’t understand how it’s managed to survive in its current, annoyingly redundant form.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s 2:00 a.m. in the morning”.

When is 2:00 a.m. NOT in the morning? Doesn’t mentioning the “a.m.” make it pretty clear that we’re not talking about the afternoon?

Why have 7,000+ people failed to remove either the “a.m.” or the “in the morning”?

It’s the most redundant redundancy in Internet marketing.

Maybe someone did split-testing and discovered that it was somehow more effective to play the broken record than to do it the right way. I doubt it, though. Even the most dedicated testers are unlikely to compare and contrast the inclusion of “”It doesn’t matter if it’s 2:00 a.m. in the morning”.

7,000+ pages reciting the exact same, horribly constructed sentence.

That ugly mistake is used in efforts to sell everything from dog food diets to several different “how to write well” packages (irony alert). I’m not a badge-toting grammar cop, but it annoys me every time I see it. Even at 2:00 a.m.