[Private Man]

Since I have one leg in the Manosphere and the other leg in the mainstream dating coach/adviser business, I get to see how web content companies work vis a vis producing content. It ain't pretty in my world.

YourTango.com (a female-centric website about attraction, dating, and relationships) approached me earlier this year with an invitation to be one of their dating "experts". I was flattered, albeit very briefly. It's a paid gig. I would pay them $48.95 a month and I could submit articles that would steer readers to my dating advice services.

Given the considerable traffic going to YourTango, I did consider actually paying them for a few months to see what would happen. But I did some research and asked a couple of dating coaches already on YourTango about the response to being a paid "expert". The answer was "meh". So, I gave it a pass.

But it's a interesting that written content is so cheap and such a commodity that authors have to pay to play. Back in the 90s and way before the Internet, I actually made a fair living as a freelance journalist, pounding out feature stories for regional magazines and the alternative weekly press. Hell, I even had regular op-ed column in the Sunday Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Yeah, I'm bragging, bite me.

Ah, but times they have changed for better and worse. Those big websites (think HuffPo) don't pay bloggers. Worse, bloggers pay them so that means the content is deeply suspect, especially in regards to attraction and dating. I'm sure that RVF members sensed this. The blue pill, feel good bullshit is so pervasive because content creators know this will get some righteous web traffic to generate ad revenue and click-through traffic.

But here's the dilemma for dating coaches and advisers looking to market themselves in this way. The blue pill crap gets the page views but it's ultimately bad for business because blue pill attraction and dating advice always fails.

[Hotwheels]

This is interesting as I'm going to be needing sources of traffic soon.

Can you talk a bit more about Huffpo and what costs and/or content guidleines might be where one can find more about this?

[kosko]

This is what I have suspected for a while now. The internet is "broken" and flooded with tons of shitty content. The fact it's just for-par slots being filled to funnel around traffic does not surprise me. What advantage is their to being a blogger/content provider in today's internet world? All the matters is views and it's continually just a nose dive as to whom can lure the most LCDs (lowest common denominators/proles/scabby lefties with bleeding noses) to their sites. You could see the tide turn when WSHH started to blow up a few years back as well as HuffPo continually shedding away it's news facade and openly parading as a tabloid.

[Flavius Aetius]

(12-29-2013 11:09 AM)Private Man Wrote:  

But it's a interesting that written content is so cheap and such a commodity that authors have to pay to play. Back in the 90s and way before the Internet, I actually made a fair living as a freelance journalist, pounding out feature stories for regional magazines and the alternative weekly press. Hell, I even had regular op-ed column in the Sunday Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Yeah, I'm bragging, bite me.

Pay to play only benefits YourTango.com and the sites taking your money. They promise increased traffic, fame, credibility etc. Problem is with the increasing use of ad-blocking software like Ad-Block Plus no one even sees the ads on your site. So the slight and often very temporary increase in traffic will not even benefit you financially (assuming you rely on a advertising model).

The only successful people I have seen who make money from blogging are the ones who offer niche/high value added content (on a continual basis) to a small group of people willing to pay for the content through a subscription model--no ads).

[DetlefMourning]

(12-29-2013 11:09 AM)Private Man Wrote:  

But here's the dilemma for dating coaches and advisers looking to market themselves in this way. The blue pill crap gets the page views but it's ultimately bad for business because blue pill attraction and dating advice always fails.

Is it really bad for business? I would think that people perpetually using online dating services and click-bait articles generating lots of page views would be good for business. It's not necessarily in eharmony or match's interest to lose you as a subscriber.

[Private Man]

(12-29-2013 04:50 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

This is interesting as I'm going to be needing sources of traffic soon.

Can you talk a bit more about Huffpo and what costs and/or content guidleines might be where one can find more about this?

I've not done any research on HuffPo regarding ads or being a contributor. However, I do know a couple of lady-bloggers there and they report a rather underwhelming response to their articles published directly on HuffPo, the Women section.

I suspect that HuffPo would soundly reject any Red Pill articles from a writer/blogger despite the massive traffic (and hate) that such articles would generate. For lulz, imagine if Matt Forney got an article published in HuffPo Women.