Content Your Readers Have Not Seen Yet Is New To Them

Are you aware of the phenomena in business where management decides that getting new customer is more important than retaining existing ones…even in the face of how absurd that is considering it costs significantly less to acquire future repeat sales from existing clients vs. acquiring new clients!?!

Think about your current article writing & marketing strategies and ask yourself:

“Have I fallen in the trap of producing new content (most time-expensive type of content to produce) when in fact I have dozens, hundreds or even thousands of articles already not being used from prior years email newsletters, archives, old ebooks, or any content that could be easily re-purposed?”

Article Submission To Do List:

  1. Spend the next 10 days reviewing your existing content since the day you started writing articles of any kind.
  2. Categorize them into “can re-use” vs. “continue to ignore for now.”
  3. Setup a plan to either edit them yourself or have an editor on your team prep the content into 400-1000 word chunks.
  4. Submit by the tens of articles… creating time-leverage and greater impact without producing new content.

Content that you already own that is not leveraged is like leaving traffic on the table that should be surfing your website for many years to come…



You hit the nail on the head Christopher! The time it takes to write new articles and content for a site sometimes stretches to days. This means not much new content unless you buy it.

By going back to the well and looking for info that is buried is a great idea! Not only will it allow you to produce more articles/content in the same amount of time, it will give your readers a better comfort level that they can rely on you for constant news and updates, as that’s one of the things I like.

Ok, now to go learn how to post on the blog I just started on my site! Keep up the great and stimulating ideas…

Comment provided August 23, 2007 at 8:31 PM


Diane Dutton writes:

This is great advice. When I first discovered the vehicle to submit articles, I went back the articles I had written for certain trade magazines and industry specializations and submitted them. I found that I had material which no one had seen before which was relevant to my subjects of today. You can never tell what will be important to others until you share your thoughts. Excellent advice Chris, as always. Diane

Comment provided August 23, 2007 at 9:33 PM



You always amaze me with your great ideas! Thank you so much for *nudging* us to look at what we’ve already written. I answer hundreds of e-mails every week and until you brought this topic to light, it never dawned on me to create articles from all this valuable information I’ve shared with my clients and subscribers. Again, major thanks! Candace

Comment provided August 23, 2007 at 10:58 PM



When is irresponsible what is the use of sending more articles. I have several ready but have avoided to send them and am looking for another more responsible source to publish them. On May 27, I sent two articles, on June 1, I received an e-mail that the articles were received and will be reviewed within a week. It has been neatrly three months, despite my repeated inquiry I have received no response. It would have required a simple response “we are sorry, your articles are not suited for publication.” It is an insult for a published scholar to be treated and humiliated like this.

Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 1:20 AM


Lance Winslow writes:

You know I had something like 2500 pages of old stuff, I thought was junk, ended up making it all into about 700 articles, yep it took about 10-days to go thru, to decide what to keep and discard. Good advice here.

Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 1:33 AM


Alan Hocking writes:

Excellent advice as always.

My problem is I’m only 6 months into article writing so not a lot of old stuff to draw off. What you have prompted me to do is go back through all the old sales training manuals I’ve written and pull some material from there.


Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 3:10 AM


Diane Dutton writes:

How many times have you starting writing a book? You have prompted me to go back through the materials that didn’t make it into my book “A Woman’s Ladder To Success” because it was managment material, too dry for the book but in small bites some very ‘lessons learned in corporate America” type stuff. Any great pieces of wisdom will make good articles.

Diane Dutton

Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 7:27 AM



Good advice for me, but great advice for me to pass along to my clients. When I tell them to write as a way to promote their business they almost universally get glossy-eyed at the idea. This will make it a bit more palatable.

Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 9:38 AM



Hi Chris!

It’s a very good idea to use old material in new articles.
Old texts are very well known, so we can easily develop their content.

Sometimes it’s boring for us to rewrite something we know very well and about which we already wrote too much, but what matters is that for the readers this content is new.
Even when we repeat the same things, we can explain them much better, focusing in different angles.
For the readers that ignore everything, this information is precious.

Comment provided August 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM


Kammie writes:

Chris…great advice as always!!

You’ve got me itching to dig into my blog archives and re-purpose my past “how to” posts as articles…just a little nip and tuck and I’ve got new content…just like that!

Thanks again,
Kammie K.

Comment provided August 25, 2007 at 4:22 PM



Dr. Rezazadeh,

I’ve responded to you privately and hopefully resolved the issue to your satisfaction.

Comment provided August 28, 2007 at 1:42 AM


Marte Cliff writes:

So Christopher,
How do you think an article should be before it’s time to revamp the same idea and send it out again? I think it’s a great idea but don’t want to be redundant.

Do viewers go back and look at articles that are a couple of years old, or do most just read the newer things?

I found the comments from the “published scholar” interesting. Never having had an article rejected, I don’t know what would cause you to reject one, but I wonder if he doesn’t need to write in a less “scholarly” fashion in order to appeal to the general reading public.

Comment provided August 28, 2007 at 6:44 PM




I wasn’t really thinking about regurgitating old content, but rather repurposing old content not syndicated before… or content sent to an email newsletter audience that has yet to be published on the web.

Viewers surge to new articles but continue to flow to old articles. Your traffic snowball over the years will thank your OLD articles for keeping the ball rolling while your new articles give the traffic snowball a push with each one added to the size of your snowball. The more you build up your article inventory, the larger your traffic snowball.

As for the published scholar… two of our editors messed up and it’s been corrected.

Comment provided August 29, 2007 at 8:54 AM


Kelly Piet writes:

@Marte (above)

I had my first article here rejected.

The reason?

I never wrote one before (well, not an online article for any submission).

I accidentally put my keyphrase in the entire article WAY too much. nicely rejected it WITH correction…they pointed out what was wrong.

I fixed what they asked.


I thought that was so gracious of them (they even offered, “hey, any questions? ask us for help, no problem” type of thingie).

Terrific company here.

So, if on some off-chance you ever did get rejected here, it’s so well-done…it’s like a sweet teacher calling you over and saying, “Now, Marte, this is really too much…why don’t you try this?”



Comment provided August 31, 2007 at 10:40 PM



I am pleased that as a result of my comlaint a search was made and found out that I had two accounts and the articles sent by me in one of the accounts were not read. Now everything was taken care of (quite rapidlt) and they are published. I think I owe an appology to the company and appreciate its prompt action to remedy the situation.

Comment provided September 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM


kelly writes:

I am so happy to hear that Dr. Reza! :)

Comment provided September 1, 2007 at 10:18 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.