Write for Us: AI Marketing

Guest post guidelines

This is the part worth reading before you pitch. It is short, and following it is most of what separates an accepted pitch from an ignored one.

Write from experience, not from research

The test we apply is simple: could this have been written by someone who has never done the job? If yes, we will not publish it. A post about attribution written by someone who has argued with a finance director about attribution reads differently from one assembled out of other articles, and the difference is obvious within two paragraphs.

This matters more than it used to. Anyone can now generate a competent overview of any marketing subject in seconds. What cannot be generated is what happened when you tried it, what it cost, and what you would do differently. That is the only thing we are interested in publishing.

Bring a number, a mistake, or both

The contributions we accept almost always contain at least one of two things. A number that came from your own work, with enough context to judge it. Or a mistake that cost something, described honestly enough that a reader avoids it.

Posts that argue against the consensus, including against something we have published, are actively welcome. We publish a correction policy and use it. If you think something on this site is wrong and you can show why, that is a better pitch than most.

Source your claims

Every factual claim about pricing, limits, licensing or performance needs to trace back to something a reader can check. That is the standard every tool page here is held to, and it applies to contributions equally. Vendor case studies can be cited as vendor claims, clearly labelled as such, never restated as fact.

If your post reports results from your own work, say what the control was. A number with no baseline is not evidence, and our readers are the kind of people who notice.

What we will not publish

• Listicles assembled from other listicles, with no first-hand use of anything in them.
• General introductions to subjects already covered thoroughly elsewhere.
• Posts whose real purpose is a keyword-anchored body link to a client site.
• Vendor-supplied content presented as independent commentary.
• Drafts where nobody involved has used the tools being described.

Links, disclosure and editing

You get one contextual link in your author bio. Links within the body are permitted where they support a claim, and commercial links carry the appropriate attributes. If you have a commercial relationship with anything you mention, tell us in the pitch. Undisclosed relationships are the one thing that ends a contributor relationship permanently.

We edit for clarity and structure and will not change your argument without asking. If we disagree with a claim we will raise it rather than quietly remove it. You see the edited version before it publishes.

How to pitch so we say yes

Lead with the angle, not the topic. "Attribution" is a topic. "We ran a geo holdout that contradicted our attribution model for four months before we believed it" is an angle, and it takes one sentence to know whether we want it.

Say what the reader can do afterwards. The best contributions change what somebody does on Monday. If you cannot describe that change, the piece probably is not ready to pitch yet.

Include a link to something you have written. It does not need to be published on a big site. It needs to show you can hold an argument together for a thousand words.

Before you send it

Any pitch relevant to AI marketing is welcome, whichever search brought you here. We are one site rather than a network, we publish a small number of contributions, and every one is edited. If you are running a link campaign across many sites, this is not a good use of your time and we would rather say so plainly than waste yours.

If you would rather ask something before pitching, use the contact page. If you have a tool rather than an article, the tool submission page is the right route.