Blog
07.07
Content Farms: Is it 'Home on the Range' or just 'Where Corn Don't Grow'
(Come on. Travis Tritt. Anyone? Anywhoo...)
Recently, I came across a blog post that got me doing more thinking than yet another story about Lebron and BP put together.
The article from TheWrap.com was about Content Farms - those user-generated, pseudo media sites like AssociatedContent.com, Examiner.com, Demand Media and AOL's Seed. (And don't get me wrong. I'm not hating. I was an Examiner... and miss it.)
It seems there are a few journalists who are of the mind these 'farms' are reaping a harvest meant for the 'real media.' There's big money to be made in user-generated media. The issue is that the media isn't getting much of it:
In early June, AOL – which owns its own content factory in Seed -- announced a pronounced shift in strategy that will involve the hiring of “hundreds” of journalists over the next 12 months. (Seed is still germinating – with reports that its back-end won’t be finished until late 2010.) And Demand, a company that produces more than 4,000 video clips and articles a day based on algorithms, is planning an initial public offering valued at about $1.5 billion.
So why the saturation of user-content? Why is a well-written blog post about ancillary stuff getting as much attention as a Pulitzer-contending story about BP? Why do dolts like Perez Hilton get a blog and instantly get press credentials typically reserved for writers from the Old Grey Lady?
Jason Fry, author of 'Reinventing the Newsroom' (a fave of yours truly) believes he has an idea about Demand Media's success (and that of the other web plantations). He penned (and borrowing from Daniel Roth in Wired):
"To appreciate the impact Demand is poised to have on the Web, imagine a classroom where one kid raises his hand after every question and screams out the answer. He may not be smart or even right, but he makes it difficult to hear anybody else."
It's no secret most people who work - or live - online have a voracious appetite to absorb media, and often contribute to its oversaturation.
Meh?
On one hand, you have the rockstar who wants to be an athlete. People who either obsess over a particular subject, or spend a life discussing it, feel entitled to publicize that opinion to whosoever will. And they do, often at the detriment of a respected writer on that subject, but one that doesn't return calls or e-mails.
On the other hand, there's the "Keeping it Real" theory. Many people who troll the Web reading stories on their topic du jour enjoy the "Aw shucks" voice of the amateurs versus the "Did I mention I have been doing this for 35 years" yawp of the pros.
I've heard both. I've experienced both. And I can assure you, they both exist.
Content Farms aren't "killing journalism" as the aforementioned post exclaims; it's only providing another point to the same view.
For example: Lebron. Say his name and people groan. Regardless if it's the great Mitch Albom or my mother, the opinion will be the same - shut up already and pick your team. Same discussion, only one can say with a certain panache and the other... well, sounds like my mother.
The point is I think the media can work with user-generated content, if only they try.
Sure, many of the incredible actors in Hollywood are losing out to reality TV and 'Twilight', but let's be honest - who will be around in 10 years? Tom Hanks and Harrison Ford, or Chris Harrison of "Bachelor" fame and that opaque tool Robert Pattinson who can't act his way out of a McDonald's commercial?
Talent is supreme, but right now reality is king. All hail the king. Or at least, write about him in a flattering fashion. You may get more readers that way.
Post new comment