For simple topics, such as "How to clean a sparkplug," a quickie six-point eHow filler may be perfectly adequate.

For other topics, like "What to see in Paris" or "arthritis treatments," the Demand Media approach is likely to produce content that's worthless--or worse.

There will always be ad-driven content, & I hope there will always be editors fiercely protecting the divide between 'church and state'. As ever, the trick is to make the business profitable - always a balancing act. Fortunately, since no two people see the same internet, I believe there will always be enough people out there willing to pay, in one way or another, for real information, whether by subscription, pay per view or some other model.

Traditional media is doing this today and has through my life time and the ads are not even relevant content a lot of the time.

So its either relevant relevant ads that I may actually be interested in, ads with no relevancy, or paying for content with the ads removed. Id choice the Demand Media experience as a customer.

I think this is the future and present of online suer generated content.

Nowadays, things get a little funky when we're not up front about the nature of the relationship of advertising to content. And it really does matter to readers; knowing that they are tapping into a TRUSTWORTHY source is extraordinarily valuable to folks seeking out information or advice or guidance online. I think this might help explain the growth of Twitter, too -- people want to share with a tighter community (and be able to rely on that community for advice or guidance, instead of, say using Search).)

Anyway, this isn't a knock on the professionalism of the content being created by Demand Studio writers. Their stuff (much of it, anyway) is well written and useful. The fact, however, its content generated to fit a specific advertising need -- and it's not labeled as such -- undermines its credibility to the discerning reader.

The solution? Label it. Search segregates "sponsored" links. Why not do the same with this type content? People will appreciate honesty and perhaps trust the product more.

That's what most of the old school media does, doesn't it? Even over here in good old Europe where editors pretend to uphold high quality standards there is a huge bulk load of content only driven by advertising demand.

Many comments are so 'amateurish' (in a good way) because it shines through that those commenters love good content but the 'professional' truth is that good lengthy content is not ranking well as a business plan.

As always just my two cents...

PS: Even authors writing bulk loads of 'service journalism' style of articles must have some know-how about their subject; if not passion. It's not easy to fake five articles a day and have professional success!

I am so fed up with people denigrating, insulting and outright dismissing the writers at Demand Studios. I actually saw a blog post yesterday in which we were called "hacks." Our work is called "garbage," "filler," and "trash."

Ian, I guarantee you that what we write is not "filler garbage," and, should you be "seeking information on a given topic," say, how to graft an apple tree, and happen upon a Demand Studios-produced article, you will learn how to graft an apple tree. Should you want to learn how to obtain a copy of your birth certificate in Bell County, Texas you most certainly will learn how to do this. Demand Studios writers write to topics that actual, real-live folks are researching on the internet. Sure, some of them seem silly, but people want this information. Are you providing them with the information they seek? Someone has to. Enter, the Demand Studios writer.

Let me set all of you straight on the "hacks" that produce all this "filler garbage." You know, the stuff that you real journalists are so upset about.

When someone is searching for info on how to cut the baffles off of his Harley, I hope to hell he finds the Ehow article written by our certified Harley Davidson technician. That math question? The answer was written by a university-level mathematics professor.

Included in our ranks are many writers who have published works on such diverse topics as native plants and mathematic theories. We have a writer who has several works of fiction that you can find at any Barnes & Noble bookstore, and an Award-winning author of dog care books.

A great number of our writers hold advanced degrees in subjects such as linguistics, business and fine arts.

Our "hacks" also include numerous certified web developers, certified health-care practitioners, certified para-legals, former government analysts, licensed social workers, quite a number of licensed, certified teachers, many unemployed print journalists, former broadcast professionals, licensed insurance professionals, licensed building, painting and electrical contractors, experienced wedding and event planners, horticulturists, engineers, historians, technical writers, licensed real estate agents and developers.

Oh, and let's not forget the research scientist with a number of patents, one of which is currently being utilized in a popular eye surgery technique. And, finally, one of our most prolific writers - a retired ship's captain who holds a masters degree in oceanographic engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So, while you little novice, blogger hacks fill up the internet with your blather, the real professionals are quietly cranking out a living, producing stuff people actually want to read. Now, tell me again, who are the hacks?

The focus has become framing a product by embedding it within content that is highly aligned and relevant to a target demographic.

This has also extended to film & primetime television comedy / dramas through (sometimes subtle, sometimes gratuitous product placement.

The disturbing aspect is the symbiotic relationship that develops between products, content providers and their mutual audience. Perhaps the best examples are the many Hollywood "News" programs. Flattering stories and obliging hosts cast a positive light on the celebrity subjects. As a result, there is improved access to the celebrities, which directly benefits the show and reduces promotion costs for the celeb (or studio / record label.)

Of course, there is some balance provided by critical and salacious stories about mega-stars, but those typically target individuals that lack a high degree of proactive media engagement.

So the equation winds up packaging the content, the distribution medium and the audience demographics very neatly. The real challenge will be when the personalization, engagement and immediacy of social media gets efficiently worked into the equation. Then the really scary, highly personalized manipulation will begin (if it hasn't already...)

As you noted, DM’s content is similar to how-to service journalism. But I think that first flourished in magazines in the 1920s-1950s. By the 1960s, Bill Ziff’s special-interest journalism (on boats, cars, electronics, weddings) and Conde Nast’s lifestyle journalism (fashion, travel, food) were pushing general-interest service-journalism aside. The magazine stories dedicated to how-to shrank and, as I understand it, the pages dedicated to evaluating high-end product choices soared. Indeed, the content often became so married to covering the same arcane product details mentioned in the ads that the casual reader (non-influencer) soon found the stories hard to follow.

The downside of special-interest journalism’s victories? The loss of regularly-updated how-to content, which Demand
Media is now, forty years later, helping to restore.

P.S. On the Web, even the traditional media companies are positioning ads adjacent to related content. DM is just going with the flow.

Communication is social — when I'm on the "demand" side, seeking information on a given topic, I'm not amused when I discover that I've wasted 30 seconds or so (the length of time it takes to discover that I'm looking at "filler" garbage), that there's no one on the other end who actually wants to provide me with the answer I'm looking for. This is a really unfortunate development, and I'm with hj, above: I really hope the search engines can figure out how to discern the real stuff from the ersatz.

We're not boring writers, most of us are good at what we do and know how to make a topic interesting. We're experienced writers and journalists. Yes, there's a lot of content published every day, but that doesn't mean the content is dull or wrong.

I understand the need for quality content on the web, if that's your concern you should go after sites like Associated Content who hire everyone who applies and approves every bit of content. Demand Studios takes steps to ensure each and every piece of approved writing is a good bit of writing and not content for content's sake.

"...their algorithm first examines what USERS are searching for -- so customer demand is the starting point for the decision to make a piece of content."

Another way of putting that, is that advertisers naturally want to put their ads against content that will have a decent audience.

As you say, this is common sense. I think I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that hundreds of thousands of new pieces of content a day are being created under this type of formula. Mainstream television and radio have both become boring, humdrum media due to this same thing - supposedly creating content that the audience wants. That's what led to reality tv and no music on MTV! So that's my big concern over this trend for content driven by an algorithm that decides 'what people want.'

Unfortunately that would require huge computational resources so I guess Demand Media still has few more years of success ahead before Google will finally be able to effectively protect content consumers as it is supposed to do.

Once it's determined that customers are interested, then it ensures that it can be supported financially.

This isn't revolutionary, it's common sense.

How is this is any different than doing market research before building a new product.

But, I do believe that this is a trend which, whether in the hands of Demand Media, or the cut-price versions which are bound to follow in their footsteps, will result in lower quality material for the sake of giving the advertisements the illusion of legitimacy.

It's like trying to distract a child with the lollypop whilst the doctor jabs a needle in his arm - it may work the first couple of times, but sooner or later, that kid is going to start fearing/distrusting lollypops.