Best Content Distribution Software
Evaluation Criteria for Best Content Distribution Software
  • UPWARD TREND
  • DOWNWARD TREND
  • NO
    CHANGE

Best Content Distribution Tools - April 2014

RANK COMPANY NAME YEAR FOUNDED REVENUE FULL TIME EMPLOYEES ACTIVE CLIENTS CLIENT RETENTION RATE PRICING CLIENTS Overall Score Composite score based on criterias and quality of work observed.
0100
GVGE
Feature OfferingFirm's array of feature offeringContent SyndicationFirm's ability to syndicate content to a variety of channelsAutomationFirm's ability to provide automation in channels and content updatesQuality ControlFirm's ability to control quality being distributed through channelsDiversityFirm's overall variety of channels for syndication Change in Rank Indicates shift in rank from previous month's rank.
1st Award
Salganik Solutions, Inc.

Dallas, Texas Josh Salganik 214-814-5001_ Visit Salganik Solutions, Inc. File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2009 $250,000 - $999,000 1 - 10 5 99% H Proterra Advertising, Oberheiden Law Group PLLC, Digital Discovery, Criminal Defense Group, HealthNet
100%
100 100 100 100 100 NC More Info
2nd Award
OnlyWire

Chicago, Illinois Ryan Rouland 877-486-0356_ Visit OnlyWire File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2005 $1 million - $2,999,999 11 - 25 210,456 90% M TimeWarner, Google, Cisco, GE, Eaton
99.4%
98 100 100 99 100 +2 More Info
3rd Award
Bookmarking Flicks

Haryana, India Sahil Mehta +91-9911009911_ Visit Bookmarking Flicks File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2008 $3 million - $4,999,999 26 - 50 46 93% M delicious, reddit, Digg, Propeller
99.8%
100 100 100 100 99 -1 More Info
4
WL Marketing

Seattle, Washington Warren Wong 832-209-8671_ Visit WL Marketing File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2007 $3 million - $4,999,999 Above 100 10000+ 90% M Confidential
99%
98 99 100 98 100 -1 More Info
5
SocialAdr

Las Vegas, Nevada Robert Hess 619-796-6237_ Visit SocialAdr File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2009 $1 million - $2,999,999 11 - 25 32 86% L Confidential
98.6%
99 97 99 98 100 NC More Info
6
BookmarkingDemon

Westchester, California Edwin Brian Confidential_ Visit BookmarkingDemon File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2006 $5 million - $9,999,999 51 - 100 65 90% M spacebankers.com, pro2sell.com, trafficdominati on.com, RonaldDavies.com
98.4%
97 99 98 100 98 NC More Info
7
SEnuke XCr

Tobique, Canada Joe Russell 1-5062733983_ Visit SEnuke XCr File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2005 $5 million - $9,999,999 51 - 100 54 88% L USFreeads, tumblr, HubPages, propeller, wikispaces
98%
100 97 100 96 97 NC More Info
8
EdgeCast Networks

Santa Monica, California Alex Kazerani 310-396-7400_ Visit EdgeCast Networks File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2006 Over $10 million Above 100 1000+ 95% H Parallels, jetBlue, cooking.com, examiner.com, rdlasso
97.6%
96 98 96 98 100 NC More Info
9
Pure Content

Norwich, United Kingdom David Hobart 44-1603665630_ Visit Pure Content File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2008 $250,000 - $999,000 1 - 10 25+ 90% M Ideas By Net Limited, Mezi Media Inc, Valueclick Inc, Asap Ventures Limited, Crystal Umbrella Limited
97.2%
96 98 96 100 96 NC More Info
10
Social Media Science

Wichita, Kansas Dan Gronsbell 866-655-5240_ Visit Social Media Science File A Complaint
Commend This Vendor
2009 $5 million - $9,999,999 26 - 50 50,000+ 90% M SEMA, Webroot, Top Bloggers & Internet Marketers, Many Agencies
97%
96 98 97 98 96 NC More Info

Evaluation Criteria - How We Identify The Best Content Distribution Software in US

The independent authority on search vendors, topseos.com, evaluates and ranks the best in the internet marketing industry. Through in-depth vendor analysis, review of work completed, and client evaluation, we put together a list of the top content distribution companies in the industry. Our in-depth analysis delves into a vendor’s business practices and compares them against industry standards to ensure that the work is quality. Often times we connected directly to the clients of a vendor and ask about their overall experience as well as details about the processes, reporting, and success of the campaign.

There are five key areas identified by topseos as significant for a successful social buzz campaign:

The overall feature offering by the vendor evaluates the features that are offered in each package and the value of each package compared between the competitors. We look for a strong offering of necessary features that greatly assist in the generation of social buzz.

Content syndication is also evaluated by investigating distribution channels the vendor uses to distribute content for syndication. Quality of distribution channels along with the overall visibility is measured to ensure usefulness to customers.

The ability to automate submission and content distribution is also evaluated to ensure that clients are able to submit their content, have content verified, and submitted to multiple channels quickly and efficiently in a timely manner without drowning distribution channels with the content.

Quality control refers to the processes set in place to ensure that the content being distributed to channels meets a required level of quality to protect others having content distributed from the negative aspects of unwanted spam content from being distributed to the same channels.

Diversity refers to a strong variation of channels with a wide range of interests for content to be distributed on. Does each vendor have a variety of channels for different types of content to be distributed on with a focus on different types of industries? How varied are their distribution channels.

General Queries

  • What type of needs analysis was conducted before work initiated?
  • What type of ROI were you anticipating, what was achieved and in what time frame?
  • What would be three things you would change about your experience?
  • What was your total investment?
  • Rate you overall experience (1-10; 10 being the highest).

 

Project Specific Queries :

  • How quick were you able to find your own content on distribution channels?
  • How much reporting was done to provide a status of the content being distributed?
  • Were you satisfied with how content was being portrayed through different channels?
  • What is your overall perception of content being distributed through the same channels?
  • Did any problems arise from the content being distributed incorrectly?