4 ms·

Why Content Sites Are Getting Ripped Off

23 points by dwynings 17y ago

palehose 17y ago
Whatever happened to conflict of interest objectivity? People are less likely to trust a review from someone who is making money off of saying how great a product is.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Quite true, but it's hard to do all the work required for objective reviewing with no revenue. To stick with the camera example in the original article, for any expensive purchase people will likely read reviews on a few specialized sites (eg dpreview.com) and on discussion forums where they can ask experts, other owners etc. But I'd wager there's a lot more ad revenue that goes to, say, cnet.com even though their reviews are superficial and crap. In the old days if you wanted to buy a decent camera you'd buy photography magazines and pore over the reviews, readers' letters etc. - and that's where the glossy full-color adverts from Canon, Nikon etc. would be (and still are, but the magazines have really shrunk). I don't think websites do nearly as well as the print magazines did even though they may be putting in just as much work and delivering just as much value to their readers.
ggchappell 17y ago
Not at all what I expected. I was imagining some new explanation for why people some people copy blog posts and present them as their own. That, in my mind, counts as "getting ripped off". But the fact that a writer is not able to generate high advertising revenues--how does that constitute ripping him off? In any case, I figure that, if intent harvesting is where the money is on the net, then those who want to make lots of money on the net ought to do intent harvesting, rather than complain about how whatever they are doing is not lucrative. Or am I missing something?
- lawrence 17y ago
  Agreed. Ripped off implies something unfair or sneaky. There's nothing to prevent content producers from moving down the sales funnel.
- ggchappell 17y ago
  An update, just in case anyone happens to look at this thread: After a bit of thought, I figure I'm not so much opposed to complaining: if you think something ought to be better-paying, well, then, you're entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, that is different from the idea that those who make little money are somehow being treated unethically (which is what "ripped off" would seem to imply).
raheemm 17y ago
Looking at my own purchasing behavior online - the strongest intent generator are product reviews - especially the ones I find on Amazon. I almost always read a review from amazon and then proceed to buy it from the cheapest online source.
jrockway 17y ago
Content sites should incentive their users to buy things in a traceable way. When I worked in affiliate marketing, there were publishers that gave purchasers a percentage of the commission. Sharing a bit of the advertising revenue encouraged the user to not forget to use the affiliate code or whatever.

23 points by dwynings 17y ago

Whatever happened to conflict of interest objectivity? People are less likely to trust a review from someone who is making money off of saying how great a product is.

anigbrowl 17y ago
Quite true, but it's hard to do all the work required for objective reviewing with no revenue. To stick with the camera example in the original article, for any expensive purchase people will likely read reviews on a few specialized sites (eg dpreview.com) and on discussion forums where they can ask experts, other owners etc. But I'd wager there's a lot more ad revenue that goes to, say, cnet.com even though their reviews are superficial and crap. In the old days if you wanted to buy a decent camera you'd buy photography magazines and pore over the reviews, readers' letters etc. - and that's where the glossy full-color adverts from Canon, Nikon etc. would be (and still are, but the magazines have really shrunk). I don't think websites do nearly as well as the print magazines did even though they may be putting in just as much work and delivering just as much value to their readers.

ggchappell 17y ago

Not at all what I expected. I was imagining some new explanation for why people some people copy blog posts and present them as their own. That, in my mind, counts as "getting ripped off". But the fact that a writer is not able to generate high advertising revenues--how does that constitute ripping him off? In any case, I figure that, if intent harvesting is where the money is on the net, then those who want to make lots of money on the net ought to do intent harvesting, rather than complain about how whatever they are doing is not lucrative. Or am I missing something?

lawrence 17y ago
Agreed. Ripped off implies something unfair or sneaky. There's nothing to prevent content producers from moving down the sales funnel.
ggchappell 17y ago
An update, just in case anyone happens to look at this thread: After a bit of thought, I figure I'm not so much opposed to complaining: if you think something ought to be better-paying, well, then, you're entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, that is different from the idea that those who make little money are somehow being treated unethically (which is what "ripped off" would seem to imply).

raheemm 17y ago

Looking at my own purchasing behavior online - the strongest intent generator are product reviews - especially the ones I find on Amazon. I almost always read a review from amazon and then proceed to buy it from the cheapest online source.

jrockway 17y ago

Content sites should incentive their users to buy things in a traceable way. When I worked in affiliate marketing, there were publishers that gave purchasers a percentage of the commission. Sharing a bit of the advertising revenue encouraged the user to not forget to use the affiliate code or whatever.