Ad-Driven Content - Is it Crossing The Line?
Yesterday we wrote about how Demand Media produces 4,000 new pieces of content every day - and whether it can sustain quality at that scale. There was vigorous discussion about the quality issue in the comments, including from some of Demand Media's thousands of freelance writers.
In this follow-up post, we look at the type of content that Demand Media outputs. It turns out that much of it is driven by advertising demand. Again we feel compelled to ask: is this good or bad for the Web's future?
Demand Media is one of the largest producers of content on the Web today and is ranked among the top 15 Web properties in the United States. It's also syndicating content to large media sites like Yahoo. All of this means that the type of content Demand Media is producing will get more and more common on the Web.
Service Journalism
Demand Media claims that its content is not journalism. However, it does compare its model to service journalism (a.k.a. "news you can use"), a concept rooted in the 1960s and common in lifestyle magazines such as Good Housekeeping. This is content such as tips and feature articles about fashion, food and travel.
Demand Media told us that it aims for "useful, usable content." The content it produces has an "evergreen quality" to it, they say.
CEO Richard Rosenblatt told me at the Web 2.0 Summit last month that Demand Media will be syndicating content more to traditional media properties in 2010 and beyond. They see 'service journalism' content as being complementary to not only magazines, but large portal sites like Yahoo.
An interesting observation from Rosenblatt was that Demand Media content is "very similar to Associated Press content." In other words, it "helps fill the pages" for newspapers, magazines and other media properties.
Matching Content With Ads
What may be more controversial is that Demand Media makes no bones about their content being produced in order to put ads around it. OK, almost every online publisher has a similar objective: to make money with contextual ads. ReadWriteWeb makes most of its revenue from online advertising.
What's slightly different here is that Demand Media is custom producing content in categories where there is strong advertiser interest. A specific example of that is a YouTube ad program with Target that is currently running. In this channel based around holiday consumerism, content created by Demand Media is featured side-by-side with advertising. Below is a screenshot showing an eHow video entitled "How to Make Cornbread Stuffing," with a Target ad to the right.
Demand Media told us that advertisers are crying out for new content to advertise against. If a large media network like Yahoo is looking to "create content with ads," the next step for Demand Media is enabling their customers to "order content with ads." An example might be something like this: Demand Media produces a how-to article on playing tennis; then sells it to a Yahoo sports site accompanied by tennis equipment adverts placed around it.
Conclusion
Is what Demand Media is doing much different from mainstream media publications or blogs?
One difference is that ReadWriteWeb (along with many other online publications) is a journalism business, so we strive for editorial independence and there is a 'church and state' line with advertising. Demand Media isn't journalism in the traditional sense - that isn't the reason for its being and the company freely admits that. Demand Media produces content to make money, it's as simple as that really.
What do you think: is what Demand Media is doing just a natural extension of contextual advertising? Or is it crossing a line where content is too married to advertising?
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I can see how there might be demand for this - in that online advertising is like the billboards put on the sides of buildings, buses, etc. - there is so much demand for it now that they are basically wanting more buildings, buses, etc. to be put out there for their advertising to be put on.
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.
If this is "content" then I'll just watch infomercials on TV. At least they're not interrupted by ads.
You're missing an important subtlety. The Wired article points out that 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.
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.
I would say that creating content just in order to match with the ad is not the way thing should be thought.
The first worry should be the reader / user. It's like going on a market just in order to make money.
Lame...
I sure hope that some day Google will be able to incorporate some AI into their algorithm and reject the garbage Demand Media throws at content consumers.
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.
I think it's basically the age old case of the medium having and effect on the message. Just as the invention of the printing press changed what was written about (e.g., aside from more bibles, one of the first successes was a book about chess), the Internet is having its affect. You could probably easily make the case that in these cases there is a line that is crossed such as the case made often of Murdoch's empire, but the market is a powerful think and, it certainly is a smart business move on demand media's part that will probably continue to be successful regardless, unfortunately, of whether any lines have been crossed.
I believe journalists have an obligation to remain objective, but I also believe citizens have an obligation to critically evaluate their sources. If we believed every bit of information out there to be true and of importance, we would all be coated in Vaseline and waiting for our alien ancestors to return to planet earth.
Hope, you made a good point:
"...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.'
How have newspapers and magazines survived for so many years? Ads, naturally. Look at GQ or Cosmo. The first 50 pages -- pure ads. Apples and oranges!
Thousands of pieces of content are published each day, but it's by thousands of different writers. Indeed there are prolific writers but it's not like the same people are robotically churning out content. DS isn't a sweatshop. Demand employs enough quality control people that each bit of content is well-written and factually correct. The algorithm picks the titles but real people bring it to life. The algorithm isn't doing the writing.
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.
I'm more than just a little uncomfortable with it. When there's no personal, human motive behind the generation of media (aside from "filling the pages") it's worthless.
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.
Richard, I suspect the content of Demand Media (DM) is, on average, less married to advertising than a majority of the magazine content produced in the last 40 years. And that is bad news, not good news--for the reader who is trying to figure out what product to buy. For the reader in a buying mode, Web content needs to have enough detail and depth to prepare the reader to understand the subtle differences between the advertisers’ products. DM’s content is often prepared too fast to obtain that depth. DM delivers on the how-to-use, though, and gives enough how-to-buy for the reader to learn more elsewhere. This is of tremendous value to large majorities of likely readers.
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.
Richard, you make an excellent point regarding the commercial content monetization of reality TV & MTV.
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...)
I am a writer for Demand Media. I write for GardenGuides.com and I will occasionally work on an EHow title.
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?
> content "driven by advertising demand"
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!
This concept is good and sound, the issue comes when you try to call it or compare it to journalism, which it very clearly is not.
Why do you have a re-tweet button on some pages but not others?
Just met with Senior AOL staff and this is their strategy/plan as well. Efficiently and cost effectively producing content is serious business--and greatly needed in this digital age.
There are no new ideas. Legacy media calls matching a specific advertiser message with related (tho often generic) "service" content "custom publishing." The published product is labeled to reflect this "untraditional" marriage of content with advertising. And everyone comes away happy -- the advertiser has a vessel composed of benign content that doesn't conflict with or impeded a positive advertising message, the public gets a cohesive product with stories and advertising that addresses a specific need they might have, and traditionalists are happy because it's labeled as "not necessarily REAL journalism."
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.
As long as high quality content is produced, it wont matter.
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.
As an old-style print journo/editor, used to fiercely protecting my editorial integrity against 'advertorial' (ad driven content), I see nothing new in this. It's the same old story - only the platform is different.
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.