GITweekly

With our ever increasing appetite for information on the internet – where is this new content going to come from?

Traditional sources such as newspapers and magazines are struggling to find a foothold in “new media” and this has left the industry bleeding and divided. The Murdoch factions are looking to a paid subscription model – spearheaded by application based consumption on Apple’s iPad. Other groups are looking towards advertising to pay the salaries of their contributors. But there is an emerging force in content – the “Content Farmers”.

So here’s my declaration of interest. The taking of sides. I dislike the idea of content farming as it stands today (as I’ve exclaimed before). I barrack for the romance of the traditional sources. The fair days work for a fair days wage. The content farmers don’t see it this way and the newspapers can’t hope to compete in the long term without a change in the consumers mindset – free and cheap ain’t so good.

Companies like the newly aquired (by Yahoo!) Associated Content or Demand Media set their sights on filling niche topics (and mainstream news) with their content. This content is sold to other sites who gain eyeballs and advertising revenue from search engines while proclaiming to be definitive resources on that niche topic. The problem with this approach is that the quality of the work is often substandard.

This is all well and good but the ability of these large companies to “game” search engines and, through search engine optimisation, have their content appear on the front page of Bing and Google‘s search returns means this: the quality product created by knowledgable bloggers or trained writers and journalists ends up displaced from the front page and is only reached by diligent searchers. In a nutshell – Google ends up promoting poor content (this is a major challenge for Google – gauging good content from bad). So you, dear reader, don’t get to see the quality information that you’re seeking and the sites that employ writers and journalists at industry rates suffer.

Speaking of industry rates – a writer in Australia might expect to earn in the vicinity of $0.50 to $1.00 per word. This means that a quality article produced by a writer would cost the newspaper between $200 and $400 dollars. On the other hand the content farmers pit their flocks against one another. The flock essentially – due to sheer volumes of willing participants – gives their content away for nix. They may get a by-line and, according to Associated Content‘s earning money section, between $2 and $15 for their efforts. On top of this they can earn some article performance bonuses of  $1.50 for every 1000 clicks. Comparing the pair, the journalist may spend days researching and interviewing for their article. They then write it and submit their finished product to their editor. If the editor likes the effort it then can get some sub-editing before the final product is published. The content farmed article just can’t have that kind of “magnifying glass” attention. Attesting to my outrageous statement is the fact that, according to Associated Content’s own figures, they’ve accrued a library of over 2,000,000 articles over the last 5 years. This equates to 1095 articles checking into their library every day. They must have some amazing editorial power going on if they could maintain the standards set by traditional media.

So what can the newspapers and other traditional media outlets do?

Will they have to follow the model set by these content farmers?

If all of our content and news is created under the “$10 model” what happens when the cost of writing a particular article exceeds the paltry fee paid by the content company?

Would this lead to news not being reported?

The implications of this are truly unfathomable.

And lastly I’ll leave you with two thoughts:

What is the future of the allied industries? Universities and other training organisations whose job it is to create the skilled writers and journalists of tomorrow.

And what happens to the standards of news reporting and content creation. Will it be left in the hands of half-wits with too much time on their hands and a misguided belief that they are the next Shakespeare?

Take a peek at these links to learn more:

MEAA – Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (AUS).

Matt Cutts – Head of Google’s Webspam Team.

NWU -National Writers Union (US).

NUJ – National Union of Journalists (UK)

In the spirit of Shot of Jaq style editorial I’m posing this question as a discussion not a condemnation. Far from it in fact. Bukisa and other such content devices may be the saviour of the blog-world. Then again they could be stamped with the topical brush – Content Farm.

So a wee bit of background first – then off you all go to your corners to discuss.

Bukisa is apparently a place to share your knowledge. If your posted content (article, video, etc.) is good enough to garner some eyeballs you get paid. In the spirit of certain selling schemes, of which I will not deign to utter names, you invite your like minded friends and family to spruik their audio and visual wares on the site as well. If they get some clickage you get paid some coinage for their efforts and your persuasiveness.

Demand Media, on the other hand, gets folks to create and curate content (their words). I’m not about to say how much they’ll pay, although they themselves deem the cash to be “serious*”. That content is then used to power other sites – including YouTube. In a nutshell, Demand Media get bloggers to give them 400 words about nose hair and then on-sell that to nose-hair dot com. Create and sell using an army of eager beaver bloggers.

So the things y’all will have to have a chat about are:

• Are companies like Bukisa and Demand Media exploiting the average Joe Blogger out there – or are they providing a much needed service for bloggers without a voice?
• Are they paying the bloggers a fair wage for a fair days work?
• Are companies, like Demand Media, broadening the range of content available for all of us on the web (they appear to be able to find niche topics like no one else)?
• What damage (if any) are these types of companies causing ”Old” media?
• Does “Old” media need to be protected from the hordes of “new” media?
• Are they hurting niche bloggers?
• And are they hurting the career writers and journalists out there who actually earn their living from writing – like news journos and  feature writers (I think they are really struggling)?

Anyway, have a chat amongst yourselves.

Let us know what you think.

For my 2.5 cents.

You get what you pay for. If the content is good on the site – well and good. If it’s rubbish I don’t go back.

And for the bloggers thinking about selling their content for next to nix – is the time and effort spent at the keyboard worth the time you could be spending with you kids or exploring the world with loved ones?

Just think about it.

* Demand Media failed to say which context the word “serious” should be taken. So they could mean “lotsa” cash or they could mean the money they pay you does not have a clown printed on it.