Comments on: USA Today Embraces Commodity Content with Demand Media

By: woaini521

woaini521 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:19:28 +0000

http://www.blurty.com/users/ds...
http://www.blurty.com/users/ge...

By: woaini521

woaini521 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:16:55 +0000

I like your blog, it reminds me of my childhood some fun
http://www.blurty.com/users/sg...

By: Trade4Target

Trade4Target — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:01:43 +0000

I really appreciate your post and you explain each and every point very well.Thanks for sharing this information.And I’ll love to read your next post too.
Trade4Target

By: Ben Elowitz

Ben Elowitz — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:29:23 +0000

AdAge recently posted on a similar theme: "More major media companies are looking for ways to find cheap content. Thomson Reuters, Cox Newspapers and Hachette Filipacchi have run articles supplied by Associated Content, one of several companies, such as Demand Media and AOL's SEED, that mines reporting from masses of freelancers for as little as $5 a story."

By: Ben Elowitz

Ben Elowitz — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:39:58 +0000

One of the biggest challenges for Demand Media is that, by focusing on commodity content and search engine traffic, once they press the 'publish' button they have to sit around and wait for traffic to arrive. When the algorithm is right, the pennies roll in predictably. When wrong, the content just sits there. But in that model, who is in control of Demand's traffic? Google, not Demand.

By syndicating to USA Today, they get a destination with a steady supply of traffic; plus the chance to get more premium monetization if USA Today can sell the inventory at higher rates by branding it, which is likely higher than Demand would otherwise be able to get.

Without a destination site, the content is just a thin layer spread under the rest of the internet. With a destination, they are starting to look like a media property.

By: joe heitzeberg

joe heitzeberg — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 05:26:14 +0000

Great post, Ben. Question though, where do you get your notion that Demand has too much content with nowhere to put it? I thought their model was to compute their aim, and fill accordingly, and assumed therefore that their deal with USA Today is just a reflection that their model is working and they want to expand their reach.

By: elowitz

elowitz — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:50:09 +0000

Fan content has its place, just as commodity content does. Neither one of them has much of a place on the front page of a newspaper. But they both have their places to round out the content experience in the collection.

By: JustLooking

JustLooking — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:39:27 +0000

Lame.

Whether authored by professional journalists or not, the reader is looking for AUTHENTIC articles. This is especially true for reviews (food, travel, shopping).

"OMG OMG, the kiddy pool at the Grand Wailea rocks!" is OK coming from a true blue fan. Coming from a paid author (journalist or not), this comes off as a cheap shill/adwords bait/SEO ripoff.

USAToday made a mistake. Staying true to core competencies means continuing to produce premium content. Expanding means getting a social fan base to add to that content. Not outsourcing it to a commodity producer.