4 ms·

This. Medium and most other sites-in-search-of-a-business-model (including the Register) think that content is king, and that by producing 'better' content will

This. Medium and most other sites-in-search-of-a-business-model (including the Register) think that content is king, and that by producing 'better' content will create more revenue. In fact, distribution is king, and getting more distribution -- independent of the content -- is the key to success. Consider a site with high distribution and crap content: It's already making money and can always improve the content. A site with no distribution can't make money even if it improves its content.

throwanem 10y ago
I'd hesitate to include the Register among "sites in search of a business model", when they've been doing business without interruption since before the first Silicon Valley bubble.
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  Yes, I should have said that even sites like The Register, that have good content and established distribution, can fail if they think that high-quality or unique content is the only reason they have survived.
kogepathic 10y ago
> Consider a site with high distribution and crap content So, BuzzFeed?
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  Buzzfeed is a good example. It figured out that the way to distribute content on the web was to use social media to deliver clickbait headlines, listicles etc. Once it had created a distribution network based on that, and gained an audience, it could then create more 'high-quality' content, such as Buzzfeed Politics. Taken to an extreme it seems likely that large content distribution companies, most notably Facebook, will buy failing traditional content producers. I will add that much of the "fake news" controversy is driven by old, high-quality media losing its audience/distribution to new, low-quality media. It's a futile attack though, because high-quality creators cannot grow their audience as fast as new media can make better quality content.
user5994461 10y ago
>>> A site with no distribution can't make money even if it improves its content. Inaccurate. Good content can and will self distribute. You're on the internet, your content is instantly automatically available to 1 billion people. Search engine are incredibly good at discovering niche/targeted content, a good article will be top page in a few weeks even if you have zero reader (well, until then). And good articles can and will be tweeted, HN, reddited to many thousands of people. Maybe I should write a medium blog post about that :D
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  How can you say > Inaccurate. Good content can and will self distribute. And follow it up with > You're on the internet My experience on the internet is much different than yours.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Good content self distribute but not enough to make money on it or turn it into a business model and that's ok. Thats why you feed is filled with clickbait titles and "10 things to X" or fake news for that matter (the real fake news not the overhyped use of it today) They actually are made to make money they are just not good content. I have been involved in two actual paper newspapers who both failed in the zeros. I have seen an uncountable number of attempts to make money by providing quality journalism. The reality is that most people don't care about "quality" journalism. It its' not valuable enough to establish an industry.
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  > You're on the internet, your content is instantly automatically available to 1 billion people. I'm surprised anyone would say this, given the realities of the media landscape. It's very, very, rare for 'good' content to get automatic distribution. Some viral content does get high exposure, but most content, especially barely-insightful commentary that is produced on Medium has very little mass appeal. When you consider that the average RPM (revenue per thousand page views) is around $1.50 or less then even an article with ten thousand views can only make $15, which is barely worth writing it. It's also extremely difficult to rank content using search engines, as anyone who knows about SEO will testify. The market is very crowded and big content brands dominate the top positions. In short, content on the web is a commodity. However, it's important to note that search engines are not the only form of distribution. There are many opportunities to grow an audience in new media that is coming up. For example a new provider of VR content can grow quickly, even if their content is crappy, because the distribution channel (VR hardware) is growing.
solatic 10y ago
> In fact, distribution is king That's like saying that sales volume is king. If you're pushing a huge amount of product relative to competitors, you're probably doing fairly well for yourself. It's a tautological assertion. Content is king. What you subjectively deride as "crap content", and is more commonly known as "clickbait", is actually fairly high quality content, when quality means "engineered for the maximum marketability towards the largest possible audience" rather than intellectual or insightful or inherently evident of intense, original journalistic effort. Remember that taste is highly subjective and it's quite possible for there to be a very large market with tastes you disagree with. The New York Times is successful because it employs some of the best editors in the business and unifies their curation behind the NYT brand. There is quite a large market that's willing to pay top dollar for the tastes of the NYT editors/curators. If anything, the NYT's continued success is proof that there is still a market for that kind of content. What Medium is really trying to do is to scale the NYT. Which is either a farce on its face, or going to be utterly fascinating.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  No its not like saying that. Distribution is access to volume, that distribution does not have to be have made on great content that can be made on so many other things like network, monopoly, wealth, political influence etc.

throwanem 10y ago

I'd hesitate to include the Register among "sites in search of a business model", when they've been doing business without interruption since before the first Silicon Valley bubble.

sparkzilla 10y ago
Yes, I should have said that even sites like The Register, that have good content and established distribution, can fail if they think that high-quality or unique content is the only reason they have survived.

kogepathic 10y ago

> Consider a site with high distribution and crap content So, BuzzFeed?

sparkzilla 10y ago
Buzzfeed is a good example. It figured out that the way to distribute content on the web was to use social media to deliver clickbait headlines, listicles etc. Once it had created a distribution network based on that, and gained an audience, it could then create more 'high-quality' content, such as Buzzfeed Politics. Taken to an extreme it seems likely that large content distribution companies, most notably Facebook, will buy failing traditional content producers. I will add that much of the "fake news" controversy is driven by old, high-quality media losing its audience/distribution to new, low-quality media. It's a futile attack though, because high-quality creators cannot grow their audience as fast as new media can make better quality content.

user5994461 10y ago

>>> A site with no distribution can't make money even if it improves its content. Inaccurate. Good content can and will self distribute. You're on the internet, your content is instantly automatically available to 1 billion people. Search engine are incredibly good at discovering niche/targeted content, a good article will be top page in a few weeks even if you have zero reader (well, until then). And good articles can and will be tweeted, HN, reddited to many thousands of people. Maybe I should write a medium blog post about that :D

darpa_escapee 10y ago
How can you say > Inaccurate. Good content can and will self distribute. And follow it up with > You're on the internet My experience on the internet is much different than yours.
ThomPete 10y ago
Good content self distribute but not enough to make money on it or turn it into a business model and that's ok. Thats why you feed is filled with clickbait titles and "10 things to X" or fake news for that matter (the real fake news not the overhyped use of it today) They actually are made to make money they are just not good content. I have been involved in two actual paper newspapers who both failed in the zeros. I have seen an uncountable number of attempts to make money by providing quality journalism. The reality is that most people don't care about "quality" journalism. It its' not valuable enough to establish an industry.
sparkzilla 10y ago
> You're on the internet, your content is instantly automatically available to 1 billion people. I'm surprised anyone would say this, given the realities of the media landscape. It's very, very, rare for 'good' content to get automatic distribution. Some viral content does get high exposure, but most content, especially barely-insightful commentary that is produced on Medium has very little mass appeal. When you consider that the average RPM (revenue per thousand page views) is around $1.50 or less then even an article with ten thousand views can only make $15, which is barely worth writing it. It's also extremely difficult to rank content using search engines, as anyone who knows about SEO will testify. The market is very crowded and big content brands dominate the top positions. In short, content on the web is a commodity. However, it's important to note that search engines are not the only form of distribution. There are many opportunities to grow an audience in new media that is coming up. For example a new provider of VR content can grow quickly, even if their content is crappy, because the distribution channel (VR hardware) is growing.

solatic 10y ago

> In fact, distribution is king That's like saying that sales volume is king. If you're pushing a huge amount of product relative to competitors, you're probably doing fairly well for yourself. It's a tautological assertion. Content is king. What you subjectively deride as "crap content", and is more commonly known as "clickbait", is actually fairly high quality content, when quality means "engineered for the maximum marketability towards the largest possible audience" rather than intellectual or insightful or inherently evident of intense, original journalistic effort. Remember that taste is highly subjective and it's quite possible for there to be a very large market with tastes you disagree with. The New York Times is successful because it employs some of the best editors in the business and unifies their curation behind the NYT brand. There is quite a large market that's willing to pay top dollar for the tastes of the NYT editors/curators. If anything, the NYT's continued success is proof that there is still a market for that kind of content. What Medium is really trying to do is to scale the NYT. Which is either a farce on its face, or going to be utterly fascinating.

ThomPete 10y ago
No its not like saying that. Distribution is access to volume, that distribution does not have to be have made on great content that can be made on so many other things like network, monopoly, wealth, political influence etc.