Building a Valuable Content Site with Jeff Coyle and Chuck Mullins

In this video, we’re bringing two of the industry’s top content strategists together to discuss How to Build a Valuable, Traffic-Driving Content Site. What will you learn? Here’s a sneak peek:

• How to definitively tell the difference between bad content and productive content.
• How to create an engaging pillar page to keep customers on your site.
• How to position your content to successfully establish topical authority.
• How to create an effective content cluster strategy to increase site engagement.
• How to determine the appropriate data to prioritize for maximum ROI.
• How to know when to update versus maintain your content strategy.

TRANSCRIPT

Okay, welcome, everyone. As I said, if you tuned in right on time, you are joining Quiet Light’s AMA series. This is the month of November, and we are talking about how to build a valuable content site.

We’ve got two experts here to walk us through that: Jeff Coyle and Chuck Mullins.

By the end of this hour, you’re going to walk away, hopefully, with all of the tools that you need to build the most valuable content site possible. You’ll know what good content is, what bad content is, and understand the data you should be looking at and analyzing to get you there. And when you’re ready one day to sell, you’ll be good to go.

For those of you who are not super familiar with Quiet Light, I’ll give you a quick intro on who we are. We help entrepreneurs buy, build, and sell their businesses for six, seven, and eight figures.

My favorite part is that we’re entrepreneur-led, meaning all of our advisors have quite literally been in the shoes of someone who has built, bought, and/or sold a business. They are uniquely talented and equipped to handle all of your buying and selling goals.

We also do a lot of educational things, like webinars, podcasts, articles, and blogs. So if you’re thirsty for more content after this hour, you can go over to QuietLight.com and check out a ton of resources that we have for you.

Okay, let’s get to our special guests.

Jeff, I will start with you. Jeff Coyle has 21 years of experience in the search industry, which is a lot of years of experience. He is currently the co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer for MarketMuse, where he’s focused on helping content marketers, search engine marketers, agencies, and e-commerce managers build topical authority, improve content quality, and excel in all things search and content.

We’re very happy to have Jeff here. After this hour, keep an eye out for him in the wild because he’s often speaking at various content marketing conferences all over the place.

Jeff, have I missed anything? Anything else you’d like to share?

**Jeff:** No, that’s perfect. You got it. I love these, and I’m so looking forward to all the questions.

**Host:** Cool. Welcome, Jeff.

And then our very own Chuck Mullins. I don’t know what everyone else was doing when they were 18, but Chuck was just casually building his first profitable website, so he probably beats all of us in the productivity category at age 18.

In college, he studied computer software engineering, which gave him plenty of tools and skills to start analyzing search results and implementing business strategies.

We’re very happy to have Chuck here. Chuck, did I miss anything that you’d like to share about your background?

**Chuck:** Just to say that when I was 18, it was 1996, so I’ve got about 25 or 26 years of this going on.

**Host:** So between the two of you, we have 47 years of experience to work with. I think we’re in very capable hands today.

**Chuck:** I wasn’t going back to using that and my activities on Usenet, but no, it’s been a little bit longer than that. Since the first business I was part of, that’s about right. I’m looking forward to this discussion.

**Jeff:** Chuck definitely has the age on me, I think, by a year.

*[Laughter]*

**Host:** Well, before we get into a “who has more experience” competition, Jeff and Chuck, maybe both of you can take a second to tell us how you got started in the world of content strategy and how that’s become your everyday life now.

**Jeff:** The 90-second version is that I graduated from Georgia Tech in computer science. While I was still there, I was designing search engines, mostly internet technology search engines, so I was always interested in that.

I started working with a startup called KnowledgeStorm, where we were selling leads to software companies before content was really a thing. Basically, we were trying to convince companies like IBM and Dell to have content on their sites so that we could generate leads for them.

We were acquired in 2007. I was a lead product manager and also managed all of the traffic and lead generation for KnowledgeStorm. After the acquisition by a large publisher, I led their in-house team for almost eight years.

During that time, I got to work with amazing editorial folks and people who were true subject matter experts. What I realized was that a lot of the processes for creating content, updating content, and deciding what content to create were completely manual, subjective, and had no quantifiable metrics associated with them.

I was inspired to get into the game of trying to quantify content quality and build systems that could predict outcomes from content creation and update efforts. We’re putting money in, so we should be able to quantify the outcomes.

That’s what’s guided MarketMuse. We provide insights into what you should be creating, what you should be updating, and actionable details about what it means to be an expert on a concept.

I’ve been doing that for about seven years. We really hit the market in 2015, and we’re still going strong.

**Host:** Amazing. Chuck, maybe you can give us your content history as well.

**Chuck:** Sure. Mine’s not quite as polished as Jeff’s.

I went to the University of Florida and studied software engineering, but I’m a dropout. I didn’t quite make it through because I was a little too distracted running businesses.

I started my first business in 1996. I remember somebody offered me ten bucks for a link, and I thought, “Ten dollars? Awesome.” Then somebody offered a hundred. Then a thousand.

Before you know it, I’m making crazy money from content sites, and it just kept growing from there.

This was well before Google. Then Google came along, and we were trying to do whatever we could to get to the top of the search results. At one point, there wasn’t a search I could do where one of our pages wasn’t showing up.

Then we’d get slapped by Google and have to figure out what to do next. We’d fix it, get hit again, fix it again, and keep moving.

I think I was on the opposite side of Jeff. Jeff was trying to make sure everything was high quality, and I was trying to make sure we ranked.

We’re kind of the perfect pair for this discussion.

**Host:** I was just going to say—we have the perfect match here today.

**Host:** So, for those people who are maybe just starting out with content, where do people start when they approach a content strategy or begin developing a content site?

**Jeff:** I’ll give you my take on it.

It depends on where you are starting.

If you have no site, the only place you can really look is inward for your objectives and outward for competitive analysis and competitive cohorts.

What do you want to accomplish? What unique expertise do you have, or does your team have, that you’re going to bring to the world? Do you understand your information journey or buyer journey? Do you understand who you’re trying to appeal to?

You’ve got to have all of that figured out first if you don’t already have a site.

Then you’ve got to understand what the market looks like. Who’s writing great content in this space? How much content are they creating? What’s their cadence for updating content?

You need to walk through their success. How have they generated traffic? Which channels are they successful on? Which channels are they not successful on? Do you understand why?

You’re building out those cohorts. Are you entering a space dominated by aggregators, publishers, or other people trying to monetize in the same way you are?

If you’re starting something new, you’ve got to understand both your internal objectives and the competitive landscape. That helps you set expectations so you can invest wisely in the content you’re going to create.

The other scenario is that you already have a site. In that case, you need to assess it and understand its value. You need to understand its history and identify your best opportunities for getting a return on investment from future content creation and updates.

So it depends on where you’re starting, but in both cases, your goal is the same: set the right expectations for the investments you’re making in both new content and content updates.

**Host:** That’s great. Chuck, anything you’d add?

**Chuck:** No, that’s great. Jeff can definitely speak to that better than I can. I think he pretty much covered it all.

**Host:** While I have everyone’s attention, if you have any questions, please feel free to drop them into the Q&A box at the bottom of your Zoom screen. I’ll be monitoring that throughout the next hour or so, and we’ll make sure to get to as many questions as we can.

This might be a controversial statement, but anyone can create content. Content is something anyone can make.

What makes content good or bad for someone who’s trying to build a valuable content site? How do they know whether they’re hitting the mark or completely missing it?

**Chuck:** I’d say that when you think about what makes someone an expert, an expert is simply someone who knows more than you do. They don’t have to know a lot more. They just have to know a little bit more and provide value.

Any time you’re able to provide value to somebody, you’re moving in the right direction.

That doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll achieve every goal you have, but if you’re creating valuable content and teaching people about something they’re interested in, you’re headed in the right direction.

No matter how niche your topic is, there are thousands and thousands of people looking for information about it.

**Jeff:** You nailed it.

It’s about expertise, and it’s also about something called *information gain*.

You want to put yourself in the shoes of the person consuming your content. They came looking for something. They had a specific intent. They found your content, read it, and walked away with something valuable they didn’t know before.

Ideally, they now have additional questions. They’ve progressed to the next stage of their learning journey or buying journey because of what they read.

That’s what you’re trying to provide.

Bad content is the opposite.

Bad content doesn’t demonstrate expertise. It doesn’t provide information gain. It doesn’t put your business’s best foot forward.

It’s the content that may generate traffic, but everyone inside your company cringes when they realize people are landing on that page.

You look at it and think, “I wish we could do something about that.”

Those are the warning signs.

Part of our mission at MarketMuse is that we want to set the standard for content quality. I always joke that my secret ambition is to rid the world of bad content.

Maybe heroes don’t wear capes. Maybe some of them just have content strategies.

**Chuck:** If you want to get tactical, some of the obvious signs of poor-quality content come down to readability and information quality.

If you’re outsourcing content production and paying somebody fifty cents for five hundred words, it’s probably not going to be great.

One of the most important things today is producing high-quality content that’s readable and authoritative.

If you’re putting out bad information, I think it’s only a matter of time before that catches up with you.

**Jeff:** It’s also about accessibility.

Is your content easy to consume? Is it updated?

One of the most common mistakes content site owners make is failing to update old content.

Maybe you’ve published a new article on a related topic. Naturally, you’ll link from the new article back to the old one.

But you should also go back to the old article and make sure it links forward to the new one.

It’s not a one-directional process.

If someone lands on an older piece of content, you want to showcase everything else you have to offer.

You’re not selling magazines anymore, where the newest issue references older issues but older issues never reference future ones.

We’re trying to create the best possible journey for readers.

We want them to feel like we understand them. We want them to feel like we’re genuinely trying to provide value.

They can probably find basic information elsewhere. The goal is to make them want to find it from you because you demonstrate more expertise than everyone else.

Another example of bad content is derivative content.

If you’re simply recreating what already exists without adding value, you’re building your site on the backs of others.

That might generate short-term success, but it’s difficult to sustain because you’re not providing any real information gain.

You’re serving vanilla when people are looking for something more interesting.

**Chuck:** Something else worth mentioning is that not all content is written content.

There’s video. There’s imagery.

Different people like consuming content in different ways.

You may have an article on a topic, but there are many ways to repurpose that content for people who don’t want to sit down and read for twenty or thirty minutes.

Some people want highlights. Some want a video. Some want something visual.

If you want to reach the broadest audience possible, you should be repurposing your content in multiple formats.

**Jeff:** Repurposing is one of the hardest skills to stay disciplined about because it’s boring.

You’ve already done the creative work once.

But you need to force yourself to establish a minimum repurposing standard.

Frankly, it’s naïve to believe you fully understand how your audience wants to consume content.

Different people learn differently.

Some are visual learners. Some prefer audio. Some prefer interactive formats.

Some engage through podcasts. Some watch videos. Some read transcripts.

Don’t put yourself in a box.

There are excellent examples of businesses that take one valuable asset and turn it into dozens or hundreds of pieces of content.

A webinar can become landing pages. A book can become hundreds of articles. An ebook can become an entire content ecosystem.

Don’t think of your source material as producing only one web page.

That’s one of the biggest mindset shifts content creators need to make.

**Host:** Jeff, here’s a question for you. What would you say are the top three or four ways to repurpose content?

**Jeff:** One would be transcription and annotation, especially if the original content is rich media like audio, video, or a screencast.

Make sure you have a transcript, but don’t just dump a giant block of text below a video. Think about creating something beautiful and useful. Annotation can add context, highlight important moments, and even expand on ideas that weren’t fully explored in the original content.

If it’s a long-form written guide, think visually. Turn it into graphics. Create slide decks or visual carousels that can be shared on social media.

Another approach is having someone read the article or discuss it. Maybe the author has a conversation with someone else on the team about the topic. That creates an entirely different format from the same source material.

There are also tools now that can take an article and generate audio or audiovisual versions of it using artificial intelligence. That’s another way to make content accessible to people who prefer different formats.

If it’s a really long article, think about breaking it into pieces. Maybe you create separate versions for different audiences or different levels of expertise.

One example I like to use in B2B is this: maybe your primary guide is written for everyone, but the supporting pages are tailored to specific industries.

So it isn’t just about slicing content into smaller pieces. It’s about making those pieces unique and valuable in their own right.

Whenever someone asks me whether they should create one page or many pages, I usually say, “Both.”

You can create a comprehensive resource while also building supporting content that’s personalized, specialized, or presented in a different format.

If anyone is interested in this topic, look into educational learning models. There are some fascinating frameworks that explain how different people learn and consume information.

**Chuck:** One thing I’d add is that you should really think about your audience and how they prefer to consume content.

That doesn’t necessarily mean you need a TikTok strategy or an Instagram strategy. It just means understanding how your specific audience wants information delivered and then meeting them where they are.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

Think creatively.

I did a presentation at Content Marketing World on content upgrades, which is a very similar concept. You’re taking content and turning it into something more valuable.

For example, an FAQ could become a quiz.

An FAQ could become a cheat sheet.

It could become a one-page infographic.

Those are all ways of approaching different learning styles.

And from the perspective of someone evaluating a content site, a variety of content formats makes the site look more robust, more professional, and more thoughtfully developed.

It’s not just a collection of plain-text blog posts with stock photos.

These practices help with SEO, improve engagement, and increase the overall value of the business.

**Chuck:** I’ll tell you one thing I think is a huge missed opportunity.

I’ll read an article from a news organization, click on the accompanying video, and the video has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

I like consuming information through video. I’ve never understood why organizations with massive production capabilities don’t create video summaries of the articles people are actually reading.

If I’m interested in the article, why wouldn’t I also want a video version of it?

**Jeff:** Especially when there’s a recognizable personality attached to it.

It doesn’t even have to be the author. It could be someone associated with the company or brand.

Having somebody discuss the article creates a personal connection. It builds community and helps people remember you.

Think about it—do you remember who wrote the last article you read on BuzzFeed?

Probably not.

But if someone had walked you through it on video, you’d be much more likely to remember both the content and the person.

**Chuck:** Here’s what somebody needs to build.

Imagine a news service where I can choose the articles I want to consume, click “watch” on each one, and automatically create a personalized thirty-minute news broadcast.

The videos just play one after another.

I don’t know why nobody has built that.

**Host:** Chuck, after this webinar, you can go fix the news industry.

We actually have a couple of questions from the audience, and I’d love to throw those into the mix.

Our first question is:

**If you were looking to buy an existing content site, what are two or three critical elements you should be looking for?**

**Chuck:** For me, one of the biggest things is age.

Age by itself doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but I want to verify the history.

I’d probably spend time in the Wayback Machine making sure that a fifteen-year-old website has actually been the same website for fifteen years.

Personally, I like evergreen businesses. I’m not a big fan of chasing trends because trends come and go.

I want high-quality content that’s been around for a long time and has survived multiple algorithm updates.

That’s important because a lot of newer sites haven’t been tested yet.

Sometimes you’ll see a one-year-old content site that’s doing really well, and that’s great, but it hasn’t experienced the full range of algorithm changes.

Maybe it’s benefiting from a tactic that works today but won’t work tomorrow.

If that happens, the traffic can disappear overnight.

Another thing I look for is what I call a “diamond in the rough.”

I want to find a site where I immediately think, “Wait, this thing is making how much money?”

I love seeing obvious opportunities.

Maybe the content is good, but the monetization is weak.

Maybe they’re only running display ads and haven’t explored affiliate marketing.

Maybe they’re doing a lot of things right but leaving money on the table.

Those opportunities excite me.

**Jeff:** I look at it a little differently, although the ideas overlap.

It depends on the buyer.

If you’re looking for a turnkey asset that you can simply maintain and grow, then you’re looking for consistency.

I use a metric called content efficiency.

Basically, how often does a piece of content achieve the goal it was created for? Is it continuing to produce traffic? Is it continuing to create value?

The higher that rate, the better.

I also look at topic authority and competitive difficulty metrics.

But personally, I love distressed assets.

When I buy sites, I want ugly.

I want the site where all the wires behind the television are tangled together.

I want the site that went through three terrible migrations.

I want the site that deleted valuable content because somebody gave bad advice.

I want the site that has tremendous potential but has been poorly managed.

Those are often the biggest opportunities.

I don’t want distressed assets because somebody was doing shady things and got caught.

I want distressed assets because mistakes were made by people who simply didn’t know any better.

I want the passion project built by somebody who wasn’t a marketer.

Those situations can create tremendous upside.

Another thing I look for is access to expertise.

If a site’s value depends heavily on expert contributors, I want to know whether I can continue accessing that expertise after the acquisition.

You can’t just assume you’ll find someone who knows everything about every niche.

If the content depends on a specific expert, you need a plan for maintaining that expertise.

**Chuck:** One thing I’d caution people about is that distressed assets can be exciting, but they can also be dangerous.

If you don’t have the experience to identify and fix the problems, they may not be opportunities at all.

They might just be problems.

So you need to be honest about your skill set.

Are you looking for steady cash flow?

Are you looking for a turnaround project?

Are you looking for rapid growth?

The right acquisition depends on your goals and your abilities.

**Jeff:** I would add that neglected sites can become targets for competitors.

We sometimes call them “zombies.”

They’re still alive, but they’re vulnerable.

Also, it’s important to understand what evergreen actually means.

People often think evergreen content is just definitions or basic educational articles.

That’s not true.

Evergreen is an outcome.

It’s content that continues producing traffic and value over time.

That content can take many forms.

The key is understanding why it’s continuing to perform and how it fits into the broader content ecosystem.

**Host:** That’s actually a perfect lead-in to our next question.

When somebody is starting a content site, how important is it that they’re passionate about the niche they’re entering?

Should they choose something they love, or should they choose something based purely on opportunity?

**Chuck:** I think there are different paths to success.

My personal preference is that you have at least some interest in the niche.

You don’t have to be obsessed with it, but if you’re going to spend years creating content, learning about the space, and building relationships, it helps if you actually enjoy the topic.

I’ve seen people chase opportunities that looked amazing on paper, but they had no interest in the subject matter. Eventually, they burned out.

On the other hand, I’ve also seen people build businesses around hobbies they absolutely loved, but there just wasn’t enough demand.

So the sweet spot is usually somewhere in the middle.

You want a market with real opportunity, but you also want enough personal interest that you’ll stick with it through the difficult periods.

Because there will be difficult periods.

**Jeff:** I agree.

Passion is valuable, but expertise is even more valuable.

Sometimes passion leads to expertise, and sometimes expertise creates passion.

One thing I caution people about is assuming that passion alone is enough.

There are a lot of passionate people creating content.

The question is whether you’re solving meaningful problems and providing valuable information.

The best businesses usually sit at the intersection of expertise, audience demand, and sustainable opportunity.

If you have all three, you’re in a great position.

**Host:** That’s a really good framework.

Another audience question came in that I think is interesting.

A lot of people in this audience are probably familiar with buying and selling websites. What about acquiring sites through direct outreach?

Do either of you have experience with that?

**Chuck:** Absolutely.

Some of the best acquisitions I’ve ever made came through direct outreach.

The challenge is that it takes patience.

Most people send one email, don’t get a response, and give up.

The reality is that many site owners aren’t actively thinking about selling.

You may be reaching out six months, a year, or even two years before they’re ready.

That’s okay.

The goal isn’t necessarily to buy the site immediately. The goal is to start a relationship.

When the timing becomes right, you want to be the first person they think about.

A lot of successful acquisitions happen because somebody consistently stayed in touch and built trust over time.

**Jeff:** Relationships matter tremendously.

One thing I like about direct outreach is that you often learn things that would never appear in a listing.

You learn about the owner’s motivations.

You learn about their challenges.

You learn about opportunities they haven’t pursued.

Sometimes the most valuable information comes from conversations, not spreadsheets.

**Chuck:** Exactly.

And sometimes you discover that the business isn’t actually for sale—but the owner knows someone else’s business that is.

You’d be surprised how often opportunities come from those secondary connections.

**Host:** That makes a lot of sense.

Let’s switch gears a little bit.

We have several questions about artificial intelligence and AI-generated content.

I think we’d be doing the audience a disservice if we didn’t address it.

Jeff, what role do you see AI playing in content creation today?

**Jeff:** The first thing I’d say is that AI is a tool.

It’s not a strategy.

It’s not expertise.

It’s not a replacement for understanding your audience.

It’s a tool.

And like any tool, it can be used well or used poorly.

One of the mistakes people make is treating AI-generated content as finished content.

That’s usually not the right approach.

What AI can do exceptionally well is accelerate certain parts of the process.

It can help with ideation.

It can help organize information.

It can help identify gaps.

It can help summarize large amounts of material.

Those are all valuable use cases.

But if you’re creating content that’s intended to demonstrate expertise, you still need expertise.

You still need editorial judgment.

You still need someone asking, “Is this accurate? Is this useful? Is this differentiated?”

AI can assist that process, but it doesn’t eliminate it.

**Chuck:** I think that’s where some people get into trouble.

They think, “Great, now I can publish a thousand articles next month.”

Maybe you can.

But are those articles actually helping anybody?

That’s the question.

I’ve always believed that if you’re creating content solely because you think it will rank, you’re taking a risk.

If you’re creating content because it’s genuinely useful and AI happens to help you create it more efficiently, that’s a very different situation.

**Jeff:** One framework I use is this:

If AI helps you produce better content faster, that’s wonderful.

If AI helps you produce more bad content faster, that’s a problem.

The technology itself isn’t the issue.

The issue is whether you’re creating something that deserves to exist.

That’s a question people should be asking regardless of how the content was created.

**Host:** That’s probably one of the better summaries I’ve heard on the topic.

**Jeff:** Another thing worth mentioning is that many people think AI content and human content are two separate categories.

I don’t really see it that way.

Almost every content workflow today involves tools.

Grammar tools.

Research tools.

Optimization tools.

Analytics tools.

AI is becoming another tool in that ecosystem.

The question isn’t whether a human touched every word.

The question is whether the final result demonstrates expertise, authority, usefulness, and originality.

Those are the things that matter.

**Chuck:** I think that’s where a lot of site owners get confused.

They focus on the process instead of the outcome.

Users don’t care how the content was created.

They care whether it answers their question.

They care whether it’s accurate.

They care whether it’s helpful.

If you can consistently do that, you’re probably headed in the right direction.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

And one of the biggest opportunities with AI isn’t necessarily creating new content.

It’s improving existing content.

Most websites have content inventories filled with underperforming pages.

AI can help identify weaknesses, uncover missing topics, suggest improvements, and make those pages more useful.

In many cases, improving what’s already there creates a better return than publishing hundreds of new articles.

**Host:** That’s a great point because people often assume growth only comes from publishing more.

Sometimes growth comes from making existing assets better.

**Jeff:** Absolutely.

Most content sites have far more opportunities sitting inside their existing content than they realize.

The challenge is identifying those opportunities and prioritizing them correctly.

That’s where data becomes incredibly important.

You don’t want to guess.

You want to understand what’s working, what’s not working, and where your effort will produce the highest return.

**Host:** That actually leads perfectly into another audience question.

When you’re evaluating the health of a content site, what data should owners be paying attention to? What metrics really matter?

**Jeff:** The answer depends on the business model, but there are some common themes.

One mistake people make is focusing on vanity metrics.

Traffic is important. Rankings are important. But those metrics only matter if they’re connected to business outcomes.

You need to understand what success actually looks like for your business.

Is it revenue?

Is it lead generation?

Is it affiliate conversions?

Is it email subscribers?

Start with the outcome you’re trying to create and then work backward.

The best operators connect content performance directly to business performance.

**Chuck:** I agree completely.

Traffic by itself doesn’t pay the bills.

I’ve seen sites getting hundreds of thousands of visitors that weren’t making much money.

I’ve also seen sites with significantly less traffic generating substantial revenue because they had better monetization and a more valuable audience.

If you gave me the choice between traffic and earnings, I’m taking earnings every day.

**Jeff:** One thing I encourage people to do is think beyond page-level metrics.

Look at topic-level performance.

Look at content clusters.

Look at how different pieces of content support one another.

Sometimes an article doesn’t generate huge traffic numbers by itself, but it contributes significantly to conversions elsewhere on the site.

If you’re only evaluating pages individually, you may miss those relationships.

**Host:** So it sounds like context matters as much as the numbers themselves.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

Data without context can be dangerous.

People often look at a declining page and immediately decide it needs to be rewritten.

Maybe it does.

Or maybe search demand changed.

Maybe the intent shifted.

Maybe competitors entered the space.

Maybe the page is actually performing exactly as expected.

You need context before taking action.

**Chuck:** That’s especially true when people panic over traffic fluctuations.

I’ve been doing this long enough to know that traffic moves around.

Sometimes Google changes things.

Sometimes seasonality changes things.

Sometimes user behavior changes.

The worst thing you can do is react emotionally to every movement in your analytics.

You need enough data to understand whether you’re looking at a trend or just noise.

**Host:** That’s a lesson that probably applies to a lot of business decisions.

Let’s talk about content businesses specifically from a buyer’s perspective.

When someone is evaluating a content site acquisition, what are they paying attention to beyond revenue?

**Chuck:** Stability.

One of the biggest things buyers want is predictability.

They want confidence that the business will continue performing after the acquisition.

That means they’re looking at traffic sources.

They’re looking at monetization sources.

They’re looking at operational complexity.

They’re asking questions like:

What happens if one affiliate program disappears?

What happens if ad rates decline?

What happens if Google changes something?

The more diversified and stable the business is, the more attractive it tends to be.

**Jeff:** I’d add that buyers increasingly look at content quality and content systems.

Ten years ago, a buyer might have focused heavily on rankings and revenue.

Today, sophisticated buyers want to understand how the content operation works.

How is content created?

How is it updated?

Who contributes to it?

What processes exist?

Is there a repeatable system?

Those things reduce risk.

The more transferable the operation is, the easier it is for a buyer to envision owning it.

**Chuck:** That’s a huge point.

If all of the knowledge lives in one person’s head, that’s a problem.

The business becomes dependent on that individual.

Buyers generally prefer businesses that can operate without the founder being involved in every decision.

**Host:** We talk about that a lot at Quiet Light.

The less dependent a business is on the owner, the easier it tends to be to transfer.

**Chuck:** Exactly.

Imagine two businesses with identical revenue.

One business has documented processes, contractors, systems, and reporting.

The other depends entirely on the founder doing everything personally.

Those aren’t really the same business, even if the financials look identical.

**Jeff:** And from a content perspective, documentation is often overlooked.

Document your editorial standards.

Document your publishing process.

Document how content gets updated.

Document your research process.

The more clarity you can provide, the easier it becomes for someone else to continue operating successfully.

**Host:** What are some of the biggest mistakes content-site owners make before selling?

**Chuck:** Waiting too long to prepare.

That’s probably the most common one.

People decide they want to sell and then immediately start the process.

Ideally, you should be preparing months—or even years—in advance.

The businesses that sell most smoothly are usually the ones where the owner has already cleaned things up before going to market.

**Jeff:** I see a similar issue with content.

Owners often stop investing in the site because they’re planning to sell.

That’s understandable, but it can create problems.

Buyers want to see momentum.

They want to see a healthy business.

If content hasn’t been updated for a year and traffic is drifting downward, that creates questions.

You don’t necessarily need aggressive growth right before a sale, but you want to demonstrate that the business remains healthy and cared for.

**Chuck:** Another mistake is failing to organize information.

The owner knows everything.

The buyer knows nothing.

You have to bridge that gap.

The easier you make it for someone to understand the business, the easier the transaction becomes.

**Jeff:** That’s true for analytics as well.

Know your numbers.

Understand your trends.

Understand your traffic sources.

Understand your strengths and weaknesses.

Buyers are going to ask those questions.

The more prepared you are to answer them, the more confidence you’ll inspire.

**Host:** Confidence seems to be a recurring theme.

**Chuck:** It really is.

A lot of the value in a transaction comes down to reducing uncertainty.

Anything you can do to reduce uncertainty generally helps.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

The strongest businesses aren’t necessarily perfect.

They’re understandable.

When a buyer can clearly understand how the business works, why it’s successful, and what opportunities exist, they’re much more comfortable moving forward.

That’s true whether we’re talking about content businesses, SaaS companies, e-commerce businesses, or almost anything else.

The easier it is to understand, the easier it is to value.

**Host:** That’s a great transition because we have several questions coming in about growth opportunities and what buyers want to see after acquisition.

Let’s dig into that next.

**Host:** Let’s talk about growth opportunities.

When buyers evaluate a content site, how important is it that there are obvious opportunities for growth after the acquisition?

**Chuck:** It’s very important.

Most buyers don’t want to purchase a business and leave it exactly as it is. They want to see opportunities to improve it.

That doesn’t mean the current owner should intentionally leave things broken. It just means buyers like seeing realistic avenues for future growth.

Maybe there are additional monetization opportunities.

Maybe there are content opportunities.

Maybe there are partnerships that haven’t been explored.

Maybe there are products or services that could be added later.

The key is that the opportunities need to be believable.

Every seller says there are opportunities. Buyers want to see evidence.

**Jeff:** That’s exactly right.

One thing I often look for is unrealized topical authority.

In other words, has the site truly covered the subject matter as thoroughly as it could?

Many sites have done a good job, but they haven’t fully developed their expertise footprint.

They’ve written about some topics but ignored adjacent topics.

They’ve answered some questions but not all of them.

They’ve built authority in one area but haven’t expanded into related areas where they could naturally compete.

Those are often very attractive opportunities because they align with what the site is already good at.

**Host:** That brings up another question we received.

How often should content be updated?

**Jeff:** The answer is almost always, “It depends.”

Not all content ages at the same rate.

Some content becomes outdated very quickly.

Some content remains accurate for years.

The first thing I look at is whether the topic itself changes frequently.

If you’re covering software, search engines, regulations, or rapidly changing industries, you’ll probably need to update content more often.

If you’re covering timeless concepts, the update cycle may be much longer.

The mistake people make is applying the same update schedule to everything.

Not every page deserves the same level of attention.

**Chuck:** That’s a great point.

I think a lot of people hear that content needs to be updated and assume they should touch every article every six months.

That’s usually not the best use of time.

Some pages are already performing well.

Some pages aren’t strategically important.

You have to prioritize.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

One framework I like is to divide content into categories.

First, identify content that’s already performing well and generating value.

Protect it.

Monitor it.

Improve it when appropriate.

Second, identify content that’s underperforming but has clear potential.

Those pages often provide the highest return on effort.

Third, identify content that probably shouldn’t exist anymore.

Not every page deserves to be maintained forever.

Sometimes consolidation makes more sense.

Sometimes content should be redirected.

Sometimes content should be removed entirely.

The important thing is making intentional decisions.

**Host:** I think that’s reassuring for people because maintaining hundreds or thousands of pages can feel overwhelming.

**Jeff:** Absolutely.

One of the biggest mistakes content teams make is treating every page as equally important.

They’re not.

Some pages drive a disproportionate amount of traffic.

Some pages drive a disproportionate amount of revenue.

Some pages support your authority in critical areas.

Those pages deserve more attention.

The goal isn’t to do everything.

The goal is to focus on the activities that create the greatest impact.

**Chuck:** This is one of the reasons buyers like mature content sites.

A mature site often has enough data to tell you where the opportunities are.

You can see which pages matter.

You can see what’s working.

You can see where improvements are likely to produce results.

That’s much harder to do with a brand-new site.

**Host:** Speaking of authority, that’s a term that gets used a lot in content marketing and SEO.

What does topical authority actually mean?

**Jeff:** Topical authority is one of those concepts that sounds complicated, but it’s actually pretty intuitive.

Imagine you’re looking for information on a subject.

Would you rather learn from someone who has written one article on the topic or someone who has spent years publishing thoughtful content covering every aspect of it?

Most people would choose the second source.

That’s essentially topical authority.

It’s demonstrating comprehensive expertise across a subject area.

It’s showing that you understand the topic, the related topics, the questions people ask, and the context surrounding those questions.

Authority isn’t just about volume.

It’s about depth, breadth, and usefulness.

**Chuck:** That’s one thing I think has changed significantly over the years.

There was a time when you could rank a page without having deep authority in a topic.

Today, it’s much harder.

The sites that tend to perform best are often the ones that genuinely know what they’re talking about.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

And authority compounds.

The more quality content you create within a subject area, the easier it becomes to create additional quality content in that area.

You learn more.

You build stronger relationships.

You understand your audience better.

Everything starts working together.

That’s why many successful content businesses become dominant in specific niches.

They develop expertise that becomes increasingly difficult for competitors to replicate.

**Host:** Is there a practical way for site owners to identify gaps in their authority?

**Jeff:** Absolutely.

Start by looking at the questions your audience is asking.

Look at the topics competitors cover that you don’t.

Look at the conversations happening in communities, forums, social media groups, and industry events.

Very often, the opportunities are hiding in plain sight.

The challenge isn’t finding ideas.

The challenge is deciding which ideas deserve attention.

**Chuck:** I’d also recommend looking at your own audience.

People tell you what they want all the time.

They ask questions.

They send emails.

They leave comments.

Sometimes the best content opportunities come directly from the people already consuming your content.

**Jeff:** That’s one of the most underutilized sources of information.

Many organizations spend enormous amounts of time searching for ideas while ignoring the feedback already sitting in front of them.

Your audience is often giving you a roadmap.

You just have to pay attention.

**Host:** That’s probably a good reminder for everyone watching.

Sometimes the answers are already there.

You just need to listen.

Let’s move into a few audience questions about content teams, outsourcing, and scaling production.

**Host:** Let’s talk about content teams.

At some point, many site owners realize they can’t write everything themselves. How should people think about hiring writers and scaling content production?

**Chuck:** The first thing I’d say is that most people hire too quickly and document too slowly.

Before you hire anyone, you should have a process.

It doesn’t need to be complicated, but you need to know what good content looks like for your business.

What are your standards?

What does success look like?

What does your workflow look like?

The more clearly you can answer those questions, the easier it becomes to bring other people into the operation.

**Jeff:** That’s a fantastic point.

People often think scaling is about hiring writers. In reality, scaling is about creating systems.

If you don’t have systems, adding more people often creates more problems.

You get inconsistent quality.

You get inconsistent messaging.

You get confusion about expectations.

The strongest content organizations tend to have clear editorial standards and repeatable workflows.

That doesn’t mean they’re rigid. It just means everyone understands what good looks like.

**Host:** So before hiring, define quality.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

One thing I encourage people to do is document examples.

Show writers examples of content you love.

Show them examples of content that performed well.

Show them examples of content that missed the mark.

The more concrete you can be, the easier it becomes to align expectations.

**Chuck:** And don’t assume someone understands your audience just because they’re a good writer.

Writing ability and audience understanding are different skills.

A talented writer still needs context.

They need to understand who they’re writing for, what problems they’re solving, and why the content exists.

**Host:** What about subject matter expertise?

How important is it that writers are experts in the topics they’re covering?

**Jeff:** It depends on the topic, but expertise matters more than ever.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every writer needs twenty years of experience in the field.

It does mean the content process needs access to expertise.

Sometimes that’s the writer.

Sometimes it’s an editor.

Sometimes it’s a reviewer.

Sometimes it’s an internal expert who contributes insights.

The key is ensuring that expertise influences the final product.

**Chuck:** I’ve seen a lot of businesses succeed with a combination approach.

You have professional writers who are excellent communicators, and then you have experts who help validate and improve the content.

That can work extremely well.

Not every expert is a great writer, and not every great writer is an expert.

Combining those strengths can produce excellent results.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

One of the mistakes people make is treating expertise as optional.

If your goal is to build long-term authority, expertise isn’t optional.

It’s foundational.

**Host:** We’ve also received several questions about outsourcing.

Is outsourcing content a good idea?

**Chuck:** It can be.

A lot of successful businesses outsource some or all of their content production.

The key is managing quality.

Outsourcing doesn’t eliminate responsibility.

You still own the outcome.

You still need standards.

You still need review processes.

You still need accountability.

**Jeff:** I completely agree.

People sometimes talk about outsourcing as if it’s a strategy.

It’s not.

It’s a staffing decision.

The strategy still belongs to you.

The editorial standards still belong to you.

The responsibility for quality still belongs to you.

Whether content is produced internally or externally is often less important than whether the process is effective.

**Chuck:** One thing I’d recommend is starting small.

Don’t hire ten writers at once.

Find one.

See how the relationship works.

Refine your process.

Then scale.

It’s much easier to improve gradually than to clean up a giant mess later.

**Host:** That seems like good advice in general.

Start small and learn.

**Chuck:** Exactly.

I’ve made plenty of mistakes by trying to scale too quickly.

Most entrepreneurs have.

The goal isn’t to avoid mistakes entirely. The goal is to make manageable mistakes that teach you something.

**Jeff:** That’s especially true with content because quality compounds just like authority compounds.

A small number of excellent articles often outperform a large number of mediocre ones.

People frequently underestimate how much value can be created by simply producing consistently high-quality work.

**Host:** How do you maintain quality as a content operation grows?

**Jeff:** Editorial processes.

Review processes.

Documentation.

Training.

Feedback loops.

The larger the operation becomes, the more important those things are.

Without them, quality tends to drift.

Every organization develops its own version of quality control, but the common thread is consistency.

You need a mechanism that ensures your standards are maintained over time.

**Chuck:** This is one of the reasons systems become so important if you ever plan to sell the business.

Buyers don’t just evaluate the content.

They evaluate how the content gets produced.

If your answer to every operational question is, “I handle that personally,” you’ve created a bottleneck.

The more the business depends on you, the more difficult it becomes to transfer.

**Host:** That’s a point we emphasize constantly.

Buyers want businesses, not jobs.

**Chuck:** Exactly.

And that’s not because buyers are lazy.

It’s because they’re trying to understand risk.

If the business only works because one person is making hundreds of decisions every week, that creates uncertainty.

The more you can move knowledge from your head into systems and processes, the stronger the business becomes.

**Jeff:** And those systems don’t have to be complicated.

People hear the word “process” and imagine massive binders full of documentation.

Sometimes it’s just a checklist.

Sometimes it’s a simple workflow.

Sometimes it’s a short training document.

The goal isn’t bureaucracy.

The goal is repeatability.

**Host:** Repeatability seems to be a recurring theme throughout this conversation.

**Jeff:** It really is.

Whether we’re talking about content creation, content updates, analytics, monetization, or growth, repeatable systems tend to outperform heroic efforts.

Businesses become more valuable when success is predictable.

**Chuck:** That’s true whether you’re building for yourself or building for a future buyer.

The fundamentals are largely the same.

You want quality.

You want consistency.

You want repeatability.

You want systems that make the business stronger over time.

**Host:** That’s a perfect transition because we’ve got several questions about monetization, diversification, and reducing risk.

Let’s tackle those next.

**Host:** Let’s talk about monetization.

A lot of content-site owners start with one revenue source, but buyers often talk about diversification. How should people think about monetization as they grow?

**Chuck:** Diversification is generally a good thing, but only if it makes sense.

I see people sometimes trying to add every possible monetization method because they think buyers will like it.

That’s not necessarily true.

The first priority should be maximizing the opportunities that naturally fit your audience.

If your audience responds well to affiliate offers, that’s great.

If display advertising works well, that’s great.

If products, memberships, courses, or lead generation make sense, that’s great too.

The key is alignment.

You don’t want to force monetization strategies that don’t fit the audience.

**Jeff:** Exactly.

The audience comes first.

Monetization should feel like a natural extension of the value you’re already providing.

When monetization becomes disconnected from audience needs, performance usually suffers.

One thing I look at is whether revenue sources reinforce the content strategy.

The strongest businesses often have a natural relationship between content and monetization.

The content helps users solve problems, and the monetization helps users take the next step.

**Host:** We received a question specifically about display ads versus affiliate revenue.

Do buyers tend to prefer one over the other?

**Chuck:** Not necessarily.

Both can be great business models.

What buyers care about is stability, growth potential, and risk.

Display advertising tends to be relatively passive, which many buyers like.

Affiliate marketing can be extremely profitable, which buyers also like.

The question is how dependent the business is on any single source.

If 95% of your revenue comes from one affiliate program, that’s a risk.

If 95% of your revenue comes from one advertiser, that’s also a risk.

Concentration is what people pay attention to.

**Jeff:** I think that’s exactly the right way to think about it.

Revenue diversification isn’t about checking boxes.

It’s about reducing vulnerability.

What happens if one revenue source changes?

What happens if one partner changes policies?

What happens if market conditions shift?

The more resilient the business is, the easier it becomes to operate and value.

**Host:** So diversification is really a risk-management conversation.

**Chuck:** Most of the time, yes.

Buyers are constantly evaluating risk.

The more concentrated a business is, the more questions they’re likely to ask.

That doesn’t mean concentrated businesses are bad.

It just means buyers need to understand the exposure.

**Jeff:** And concentration exists in many forms.

Revenue concentration.

Traffic concentration.

Content concentration.

Team concentration.

Supplier concentration.

When evaluating a business, you’re always looking for areas where a single point of failure exists.

The fewer single points of failure, the stronger the business tends to be.

**Host:** That’s a really useful framework.

Speaking of traffic concentration, should content-site owners be worried about relying too heavily on Google?

**Chuck:** It’s something they should understand.

For many content businesses, Google is an incredibly important source of traffic.

That’s not automatically a problem.

The issue is whether the business has thought about other ways to build audience relationships.

Email is a great example.

Direct traffic is a great example.

Community-building is a great example.

The more direct relationships you have with your audience, the more resilient your business becomes.

**Jeff:** I completely agree.

One of the reasons email continues to be valuable is that it’s a direct connection.

Algorithms change.

Platforms change.

Policies change.

Direct audience relationships tend to be more durable.

That doesn’t mean you ignore search.

Search is still tremendously important.

It just means you’re building multiple paths to the audience whenever possible.

**Host:** We have a question from the audience that I think is interesting.

If someone is just starting today, would you still build a content site?

**Chuck:** Absolutely.

Without hesitation.

The tools are different.

The environment is different.

The competition is different.

But people still need information.

People still ask questions.

People still look for expertise.

Those things aren’t going away.

The tactics evolve, but the fundamentals remain surprisingly consistent.

**Jeff:** I would absolutely do it as well.

In fact, I think there are tremendous opportunities.

The challenge isn’t that opportunities no longer exist.

The challenge is that expectations need to evolve.

The days of publishing thin content and hoping for easy results are largely behind us.

Today’s opportunities often come from creating genuinely useful, differentiated experiences.

That’s harder, but it’s also more defensible.

**Chuck:** That’s one thing people sometimes miss.

Harder isn’t always worse.

When barriers to entry increase, strong operators often benefit.

If quality matters more, expertise matters more.

If expertise matters more, businesses that genuinely help people tend to stand out.

**Host:** That’s a great perspective.

Before we wrap up, I’d love to ask each of you for one final piece of advice for content-site owners.

If someone watching today remembers only one thing from this conversation, what should it be?

**Jeff:** I’ll give two quick thoughts.

First, focus relentlessly on your audience.

Understand what they’re trying to accomplish.

Understand their questions.

Understand their challenges.

Everything becomes easier when you genuinely understand the people you’re trying to help.

Second, think long-term.

Many of the best content businesses were built through years of consistent effort.

They weren’t built through shortcuts.

They were built through expertise, discipline, and a commitment to providing value.

**Chuck:** Mine would be very similar.

Create value first.

If you consistently create value, a lot of other things become easier.

The second thing I’d say is to build systems.

Whether your goal is growth, freedom, or eventually selling the business, systems matter.

The more you can move knowledge out of your head and into repeatable processes, the more valuable the business becomes.

**Host:** That’s fantastic advice.

Thank you both for joining us today.

This has been an incredibly valuable discussion.

For everyone watching, thank you for spending time with us. If you’d like to learn more about buying, building, or selling online businesses, head over to Quiet Light and check out the resources available there.

Jeff, Chuck, thank you again for being here.

**Jeff:** Thanks for having me.

**Chuck:** Thanks, everyone. I enjoyed it.

**Host:** And with that, we’ll wrap up today’s AMA. Have a great day, everyone.