

Why content sites are getting ripped off - akshat
http://cdixon.org/2009/09/29/why-content-sites-are-getting-ripped-off/

======
smokinn
Here's a question that no one has asked yet:

Why should content sites be compensated at all?

When I first read this topic, I thought it was content sites as in nytimes
going into Iraq and reporting on the war or netflix/ireel streaming hollywood
movies or other such original content.

But really, what we're talking about here, is review sites. Personally, I
could start a review site on stuff I liked for almost 0$. I could host it on a
server I already co-locate and my peers would trust me simply because they
have no reason not to. As soon as you start adding financial incentives, ads
at all, you lose a bit of credibility.

You do gain that credibility back though by point out exactly what conditions
you got the product under (free review product, paid out of your pocket, paid-
for review, etc).

I don't disregard paid-for positive reviews. I just do more research on them.
I'm sure that the future for content sites is to have a few sales people on
staff to goad companies into buying paid-for posts which are clearly
demarcated as such.

I don't care if a post is paid-for as long as the post itself checks out. If I
see a post on gizmodo or a more obscure blog such as high-scalability mark
itself as paid for I won't say oh that's wrong, I'll say oh that's
interesting, better check it out. I'll google it and find many other source
and if it seems worth my time try it out myself.

Personally, I think it's another avenue for sales, it's just one of the huge
number of avenues for the next generation of marketing that is become
increasing disconnected from the traditional avenues that have been well
studied in the past.

------
swombat
Very good point, but I'm not sure there is a valid solution for this, in part
because intent generating sites are often only good at generating intent if
they're seen as being impartial. If the blog post you're reading exposes that
they'll make a profit if you buy the widget they're talking about, you're much
less likely to trust that blog post.

So the intent generation and intent harvesting may need to remain separate.
This does raise the question - how can intent generation be rewarded? Well,
there are several answers to that. Intent generation is a side-effect of being
someone whose opinion is paid attention to (whether for the span of a single
blog post, or as a regular source of information and insight). There are many
ways to derive profit from being someone people pay attention to regularly,
other than direct affiliate marketing of the products you're talking about, so
I'm not sure the problem is as critical as this blog post is making it out.

Certainly, as things are, only prolific, popular bloggers can make a living
from blogging - but is it really reasonable to expect occasional or
occasionally good bloggers to make a living from it? I'm not so sure.

In short, I'm not so sure that this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

For ways to make money from your blog, I'd recommend Steve Pavlina's excellent
post on the topic:

[http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/how-to-make-
money-f...](http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/how-to-make-money-from-
your-blog/)

------
richardburton
This is a tough one to call. If intent generators like Gizmodo were offered
better affiliate-based deals then their impartiality would be compromised
which would damage the integrity of the business itself.

------
albertsun
The problem might just be that the market isn't properly pricing intent
generation right now, and because of that companies can exploit that price gap
and purchase a lot of intent generation advertising relatively cheaply.

Apple is a good example of this. They seem to spend a lot on intent generation
advertising: TV ads, major branding campaigns on nytimes.com, prominent
billboards, etc. All this works to make people want to buy Apple products.

However, this can only work for products where the advertiser monopolizes a
product that is differentiated enough. For example, no company has an
incentive to pay for intent generation for travel to Hawaii, because no
company can capture all the profits from more people going to Hawaii. Someone
after getting the idea to go to Hawaii will be just as likely to purchase from
a competitor.

I think over time, as we get better at measuring the impact of intent
generation, we will see more and more spend on that kind of advertising and
rates will rise as companies that decide to spend on intent generating
advertising do better.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Then competitors, and complementary businesses, should stop fighting and come
together, market together and increase both their chances at making more
money.

Example: Hawaiian rental car companies, hotels and airlines serving the region
should have a % of their marketing budget pulled together to promote going to
Hawaii.

~~~
bensummers
I believe these things are called Tourist Boards, but are paid for by taxes.
For example, <http://www.enjoyengland.com/>

------
amohr
I think the way this usually works out is that content sites, to remain
impartial, serve intent generation ads for products other than those for which
they are serving content.

For example, the Gizmodo front page right now has content about Droid, Apple,
some headphones and an article about netbooks leaked from CES. While people
are there reading these articles, they are exposed to ads for Geek Squad,
Sony, or GameStop.

The intent generation ads are kept separate from the content, but appeal to a
similar audience. Tada. This is not far from tv ads attempting to target
particular demographics - it's clear that late night comedy isn't endorsing
Girls Gone Wild, but they can exist in mostly the same space.

------
dotcoma
if content sites were generating real intent - and gizmodo, engadget and a few
others certainly are - they could add direct affiliate links to those selling
the products, and would make a lot of money in affiliate fees. Or just sell
high CPM ads, like they do now, because advertisers understand these sites do
generate real intent. However, most "content" sites generate little intent and
all they have to offer advertisers are banner ads that don't work much, and
don't get paid for much. How weird.

