6 ms·
The market for content has shifted. At one point it was just about writing content for Google because Google doesn't know quality content from bad. This lasted
by AJ007 11y ago
The market for content has shifted. At one point it was just about writing content for Google because Google doesn't know quality content from bad. This lasted for a really long time, beginning with Adsense about 2003 (because targeted content could bring in CPMs up to $1000) until eHow and the content farms finally began to get beat up in the rankings.
Then, about the same time that started to fade Facebook unleashed a traffic boom from the news feed. Newspapers, blogs, and content sites have benefited immensely from this. In this case it is not so much "clickbait junk" be re-written articles stolen from someone else. Take a look at a news site like the DailyMail, that is what is going on more or less. DailyMail is an interesting example because the content is produced so quickly that it is common for basic mistakes like the people in the photos being mislabeled or a male being referred to as a female and so on. Imagine how accurate the alleged facts are in that type of content!
I suspect the era emerging now is going to become a lot more difficult for both writers and content publishers. Not just because of the eventuality of internet ad revenue growing with the rate of inflation but also the big platforms (Facebook, Google) continuing to plug their leaky boats (which leaked for a very good reason.)
- sandworm101 11y agoMaybe then I'm just not seeing the fluff because I don't read those types of sources. I wouldn;t touch anything on facebook. The few blogs I keep track of are thinks like TorrentFreak, Krebs or TechDirt. For world news every morning I read the BBC. I don't see much fluff. Or maybe I'm just blind to it. Most of the articles I've been paid decent money to produce are now locked behind paywalls, which I ironically cannot afford. Hopefully that means they aren't fluff.