- 27/04/2017How can marketers apply machine learning ?http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/26/how-can-marketers-apply-machine-learning-new-report-the-drum-explores-the-power-datat.co The Drum in partnership with intent marketing specialist, Iotec, has launched a report exploring the application of machine learning to solve commercial...
- 18/04/201740 Key Emerging Technologies Driviving The Futurehttps://twitter.com/CStoreNews_/status/824753431223091201/photo/1t.co
- 18/04/201720 Herramientas de Curación de contenidos imprescindibles20 Herramientas de Curación de contenidos imprescindiblesbuff.ly Las mejores y más útiles herramientas de Curacion de contenidos para tu día a día en Marketing Online. ¿Qués la curación de contenidos y el content...
- 22/03/2017This list of content curation tools has been put together to make it easier for you to organize and share educational resources in your daily life.Top Content Curation Tools for Educationelink.io elink.io: Turn web links into newsletters, web pages and website...
- 15/03/2017Content Curation: A Beginner's Guide to Digital #Content #Curation @AjyKrSharma #contentcuration #marketing #SEO #blog #bloggerContent Curation: A Beginner's Guide to Digital Content Curationblog.elink.io This guide helps you understand the importance of incorporating content curation into your marketing strategy and produce content on a consistent...
- Producer18/11/2016Content Curation: Innocent Sharing or Just Another Pile of Digital Marketing Bull Chips?This is the 22nd posting that Phil and I have done together, since we started almost a year ago now. We have tackled a number of topics that we share an interest in but not necessarily the same point of view on. One thing you should know is that...
Comments21/11/2016 #23 Alexa Steele#20 #22 Gentlemen, at this point I think we are largely arguing semantics. I think we can all agree that:
Gathering and sharing worthwhile content for the benefit of your audience = good.
Using other people's content with little to no editorial judgment solely to benefit yourself = bad.21/11/2016 #22 Phil Friedman#18 Alexa, thank you for sticking with the conversation. For the record, at the beginning of this piece by Jim and me, I quoted a definition of "content curation' (a phrase that has its own meaning independent of the respective meanings of each word component of the phrase) from EContent magazine. I know that you read that definition, although it does not appear that everyone did.
Here is a definition of "content curation" from Curata, a firm that offers such as a service to content marketers: "Content curation is when an individual (or team) finds, organizes, annotates, and shares relevant and high quality digital content ..." Curata also identifies what it calls "content farming" as "... the unethical pirating of third-party content and publishing of high-quantity, low-quality content."
My contention, if you will, is that the two activities described coalesce most of the time, in fact, when it comes to content marketing.
As to editors being curators, that is to twist the concept beyond recognition. In the art world, there are curators who gather photos of art works, add commentary, and publish the conglomeration as a "catalog". There are also editors of anthologies or co-authored works who might skirt the concept of curation, but can hardly be considered the defining paradigm. The Oxford English dictionary defines "editor" as: "A person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a newspaper, magazine, or multi-author book ... A person who commissions or prepares written or recorded material for publication or broadcast ..." None of which coincides with what "content curators" in fact, do. But if someone wants to arbitrarily define the term "curator" to fit their argument, they are entitled to do so. I just think it is silly..21/11/2016 #19 Phil Friedman#18 I agree, Alexa, but you might as well be talking to a rock, when you talk to someone who thinks newspaper syndication is content curation. Syndication involves multiple simultaneous sales of reprint rights to the syndicated material. It has nothing to do with curating.20/11/2016 #18 Alexa Steele#17 In my experience, the best content curators are those for whom curating content is their primary business model. The newspapers you mention are a good example. Pocket is one that fills my inbox with so much good content I never have time to read it all.
I think our friends @Jim Murray and @Phil Friedman (and they can correct me if I'm wrong) are taking exception with those for whom content curation is merely a marketing gimmick. People and companies who set up accounts on Facebook and beBee and LinkedIn then spray them full of links to other people's content, call it "content curation," and expect to get some kind of credit for it. There are entire websites (Scoop.it) designed around this very principle.20/11/2016 #16 Phil Friedman#15 Alexa, I understand and agree with what you're saying... at least in the main. I personally do not deny that content can be curated in the "right" way and be useful. But that takes almost as much work as writing original content, so virtually none of those who style themselves as "content curators" will curate in the "tight" way. My point is that when most people talk about "content", that is a red flag, indicating they consider "content" a generic, interchangeable commodity, that you can simply drop into websites and pages like bricks and blocks. Which you and I agree is wrong. But unfortunately, the attitude is so common that marketing clients and potential clients who don't know any better believe it. At least until they've spent their entire budget on nothing. Cheers!20/11/2016 #15 Alexa Steele#14 I think content marketing and content curation get such a bum rap because so many people do it so badly. For example, your assertion that "we like posting the work of other good writers" is the definition of content curation done RIGHT. You help your readers find interesting content while helping the authors reach a larger audience: win-win. Of course, this is an activity that can't easily be done at scale so most content curation ends up being - to put it delicately - bull chips.
Same goes for content marketing. Creating high-quality content to market your brand is hard. Growing an audience for that content is even harder. Converting your audience into paying customers...I hope you see where I'm going with this. That's why most people fall for a hot sales pitch that tells them "don't worry, we got this, you'll see the money rolling in in no time." And as someone commented on one of my LI posts "great work even suffers from the majority of poor work the industry puts out. This dynamic effects people even engaging in the great brand content."20/11/2016 #14 Jim MurrayThanks @Alexa Steele. The whole point here is to gradually get people to understand that the need professional help now, just as much as people day back in the analog days. The glut of posts that never get read is growing exponentially. LinkedIn Pulse readership is off by about 40%. The only explanation that makes sense is that people are tired of reading crap, and frustrated by how much of it there is. This is part of the reason we created the Beezers hive. We're all well read writers and we like posting the work of other good writers there. It's not gonna change the world, but it's a start. People really only start to figure this out after their bottom line has been affected. We're trying to get them there before that.19/11/2016 #11 Jim Murray#10 Thanks for the comment David. You are absolutely right of course. But I figure that if you promote the idea that quality content is king, as opposed to crap content, you will find people who get it. Probably a lot more who don't but that's what the 80/20 Differential is all about.18/11/2016 #10 David JonesA few years ago a Marketing Manager I worked with told me content curation was key to their creative strategy. My first thought (later confirmed) was that they didn't have an idea in their head. One of many paid to slap together “creative strategy” that makes a mockery of both words. Phil’s closing question - what would happen if content marketers aimed for worthwhile content – is one many of us ask. But once people start aspiring to something good it highlights the poverty of what they and others have churned out before, sets a standard they may fear falling short of in future and threatens to expose those who, once we strip away the jargon, can’t actually do anything. Turkeys voting for Christmas (or Thanksgiving). Anyway, thank you both for another excellent post.18/11/2016 #9 Praveen Raj GullepalliAnd if I had to coin a description to the kind of writing I have come to value and respect here on beBee, from the likes of you all that I happily follow, I would call it Experiential Writing. Stemming from rich experience or thoughtful imagination. Laced with wry humour, crackling wit, deep devotion, strong emotion, poetic passion, incisive sarcasm, stunning wordplay and much more!18/11/2016 #8 Praveen Raj GullepalliLOL. Phil I really was speaking from my experiences in the real world here on this side of the planet :) I never cease to be amazed at the burgeoning ranks of content writers(?) in the new web-gen cropping up, when it is such a huge challenge to find a good copy or content guy any given day. I have looked and have been disappointed many a time. Some of the finest hands are chock-a-block with work in agencies (yes they still exist and struggle to keep up thankfully) or stuck with RFP responses in corp comm deps at corporates or churning out inane int comms mailers by the hour. A lot of original content has probably vanished into oblivion or got Linked Out in the youknowhere land. Am too much of a greenhorn on beBee to grasp the big picture as yet but from what I have seen so far, there does seem to be a whole lot of good-natured, wholesome, organic honey here. Stemming from free flowing passion, expression (ranging from the hesitant to the bold and the assured), logic, reason, imagination and what have you! Exceptions and unabashed prospectors apart. We have a good thing going. Up to each one of us to keep the fires burning I believe. Thanks and Cheers!18/11/2016 #6 Phil Friedman#4 #5 Actually, Jim and David, my point is somewhat stronger than that. Simply including a credit to the creator of a work when you duplicate and use that work for your own purposes does not invalidate your legal responsibilities under U.S. and International copyright law. Unless the reproduction falls within the definition of "fair use", you have violated the creator's copyright, unless you've secured permission for the use or purchased the right to use the material.
Plagiarism is an ethical issue and is avoided by including proper and prominent attribution. But avoiding plagiarism does not ipso facto avoid violation of copyright. If you use, without permission, work created by someone else in the course of marketing or advertising or for any other commercial purpose, from which you gain benefit, monetary or otherwise, you are stealing (at least some of) the inherent value of that work. That is is widely accepted in the world of digital media, indeed often lauded, does not change that fact, David. Cheers! ( https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/writer-s-concise-guide-to-copyright-trademark-patent-plagiarism-i )18/11/2016 #4 David B. GrinbergJim, it appears to me that content curation and content marketing have both become part-and-parcel of the overall social media experience. Thus, I'll repeat the question posed to your partner in crime, @Phil Friedman View moreJim, it appears to me that content curation and content marketing have both become part-and-parcel of the overall social media experience. Thus, I'll repeat the question posed to your partner in crime, @Phil Friedman, what wrong with either approach as long as the content cited is credited to the original source (author, outlet)? Thanks for more good buzz. I also hope you're settling in well with your recent move. Close18/11/2016 #2 Praveen Raj GullepalliPhil/Jim, you have both touched upon very a large and growing pile of b-chips weighing large sections of the web down, amigos. Something just not right in both the curation and the marketing of content at all. If it ain't copy-paste it is rewrite or disguise. Old wine in new bottles. (Insult to the Old Wine there I agree). I have engaged a few Digital and Social marketing folks in recent times and the quality of content was the real differentiation. In these instances, the lack of it! ;) It is not all frequency, quality is the key. Considering how hard it is to find an SME who also writes engagingly, also leaves us with the bigger challenge of finding a team of SME+Cool CopyWriter! No end to the looting of the gullible in sight, by the so-called Social Media Marketing experts burgeoning like poisonous mushrooms overnight! (This, limited to the Content-is-King side of the equation. Am not even touching upon the visual and video application side of it). It is time for the world to wake up and realise that the quality of content is key, that digital marketing needs qualified writers and teams of writers (Creators) and not just curators /collators/compilers/rewriters/clever editors passing off for qualified content developers online. We do need a tsunami of Credible Original Content to restore the balance before all faith is lost in text-based web content.
- Producer17/11/2016Content Curation: Innocent Sharing or Just Another Pile of Digital Marketing Bull Chips?GRUMPY AND GROUCHY RETURN TO THEIR CURMUDGEONLY WAYS IN THIS DISCUSSION OF CONTENT MARKETING...Preface: This is the 22nd installment of He Said He Said, produced after a brief hiatus during which we received a large number of requests to return to...
Comments19/11/2016 #32 David B. Grinberg#31 Thanks for adding even more clarity to this discussion, Phil. This is helpful for the rest of us, who are neophytes on the topic. I admire your passion and being outspoken on this issue. You certainly set a fine example for the rest of us. Also, I'll remember the "idiot defense" just in case -- as I'm often called an idiot anyway (lol). Lastly, I'm certainly insistent that you're never inconsistent. Yet another admirable trait, Phil. Keep buzzing, my friend.19/11/2016 #31 Phil Friedman#27 David, for what it's worth, I place a copyright notice on all my work. Because the courts general recognize the "idiot defense" for the "first" violation (Gee, your honor, I didn't know it was covered by copyright.) But for the work I post on social media, I include under author's notes a license to share and repost as follows: "Feel free to "like" and "share" this post and my other LinkedIn articles — whether on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or Google+, provided only that you credit me properly as the author, and include a live link to the original post."19/11/2016 #29 Phil Friedman#27 David, it is easy, as is demonstrated in this comment thread, to confuse the issues --- particularly by arbitrarily adopting a definition of "content curating" that is insistent with the reality of what is commonly referred to by its practitioners as curating content.
When someone copies entire texts and supplies them for use by a client on the client's website as part of a content marketing program... And collects a fee for doing so, that IS a commercial theft of intellectual property, performed for the profit of the "content curator" at the expense of the creator, who could sell right to that original content.
The creator may not care, or may feel it not worth pursuing. But that does not change the facts of the violation of copyright.
Google does not commit textual copyright violation because it does not reprint articles, it provides a link and a path to reaching the original. And Google does not charge, so is functioning as a library educationally. The siuruation re photos is more complicated, but I think nobody with half a brain wants to stop Google from displaying the works of photographers, least of all the photographers themselves. But again that does not in itself change the algal facts, whatever those may be.19/11/2016 #27 David B. Grinberg#26 Thanks for chiming in with excellent advice and observations @Robert Bacal. I like @Phil Friedman's analogy about folks driving over the speed limit but rarely being stopped. It would be interesting to see one of the copyright infringement cases per social media content curation be decided by a court. I know there have been cases regarding intellectual property and copyright infringements with online photos/images.19/11/2016 #24 Phil Friedman#22 PS David, common disregard flor copyright law does not legalize the stealing of material for profit.Every driver I know, including the thousands I drive alongside every day, routinely exceeds the road speed limits by 10 mph or more. That doesn't make it legal or protect them from a fine, should a policeman decide to cite them for the legal violation.19/11/2016 #23 Phil Friedman#22 David, the last time I looked, you couldn't "tweet" a 2,000 word article. Copying and sharing a phrase (or two) with a link appended is not the same as curating an article by copying and pasting the entire text or a very substantial portion of it into a new article. No, it is not legalese. Especially, if you use the purloined text or photos in a commercial, revenue generating context. And no, sharing an article on beBee is not the same as again you are not copying and pasting the article into a new post, but simply passing along to your connections what has been "sent" to you. Cheers!18/11/2016 #22 David B. Grinberg#16 Phil or @Jim Murray: Are you saying it's problematic for content curation on social media via blog posts and other digital content -- even citing the author and/or source? If yes, then wouldn't this logic "securing permission" likewise apply to Twitter retweets and/or shares on beBee, Facebook, LI, etc.? Am I missing some technical nuances here because I know most social media users don't get permission to share other's content, they just do it with citation as a courtesy, for which the author is usually thankful. I hope we aren't getting caught up in "legalese" here, are we? What's the technical distinction to draw the line? And, if permission is required, why doesn't anyone seek it out first?18/11/2016 #20 Jerry FletcherHuzzahs from the Brand Poobah!
Both of you are correct. Original content is critical to real Brand development. It is glossed over too often. Where the content is revealed is another matter which has received less attention than needed. In simple terms, My own research with clients over the lat 25 years plus that done by colleagues in the last 10 years all say the same thing: Original content delivered with personality in web sites, blogs (and variants) only work if they build trust. And since Brand is the outcome of Trust, sloppy copy and curated crap turns clients or customers away. Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the matter.18/11/2016 #19 Phil Friedman#17 Wayne, I agree that there is some grey area in regard of "sharing" content, when such sharing does not generate revenue for the sharer. Of course, the copyright law would likely allow sharing a few lines verbatim from an article, with a link to the original, without permission --- under the concept of "fair use". However, my understanding of fair use is that it does not cover commercial uses, say, in advertising and marketing. Cheers!17/11/2016 #14 Phil Friedman#13 Good points, Wayne. Although we all need to keep in mind that even consumer product reviews have not escaped the polluting hand of digital dishonesty. There are firms who, for pay, will post a variety of shill positive reviews for a product. Is that any worse than a heavy advertiser in Car & Driver receiving some very positive reviews in print for new product? Probably not. But it still sucks... bigtime. Cheers!17/11/2016 #13 Wayne YoshidaGlad to see the He Said/He Said series back. One problem with "curators" is the mindless boinking of a "share" button. Far too many people think this is a good thing, a way to get noticed without actually doing anything. roponents of the boink feature say this is a simple and easy (key words there) way to say "thank you" for the post. Maybe there needs to be a "Thank You" button. As in, "I am too lazy to read the entire thing, but it looks like it could be good. Thank you for the nice post." Even easier than replying with the comment "Great post." [Wasn't this covered before?]
I never liked this boink function, it mostly floods our incoming feeds with useless junk: Anything from a photo with no caption (OK, I see the image of a person and some doo-dad their company makes - is there some message I am supposed to understand? Do you think I am going to buy that item? What makes you think I am looking to buy your stuff?) to one of those work at home opportunities and genius tests. Time to stop the boinkng. . .
But if someone takes the time to point out what / why this item is so important we should drop everything and read - it becomes slightly different. It (usually/sometimes) tells me there is some thinking behind the boinking.
On Phil's power tools example -- a constant barrage of messages to buy this item does not work for me. I rely on product reviews and friends with similar tastes and requirements. And no, famous spokespeople don't work for me, either. I really don't care if Rory McIlroy uses this special golf club - especially since I know that putter is not going to improve my short game.
Here's one thing that did influence me on a recent purchase: Product reviews for LCD flat screen TVs. I looked at the product reviews and there is an interesting pattern of difference between purchasers of the various brands. Since I had several hundred bucks in rebate checks to spend, price was not a factor. I chose a new Sony.17/11/2016 #12 Phil Friedman#9 Personally, Don, I always found "The Sorrows of Young Werther" somewhat on the effete side of things. But I am but a simple street urchin from Chicago, who has had the good fortune to rise, however fleetingly, above my station as part of the greater Karmic plan.
Seriously, Paul Frank Gilbert's piece is well worth a read, and I join you in recommending it. ( https://www.bebee.com/producer/@paul-frank-gilbert/reading-thinking-changing ) Cheers!
+217/11/2016 #11 Phil Friedman#7 Kevin, although the term "curate" appears to derive from art cataloguing or compiling lists of music, the digital content version seems almost always to lack the original contribution of brief review by an editor or art critic. Which may explain why almost always the block-copy-and-past "curating" ends up so much of the time in placing the curated piece in an irrelevant venue, thereby assuring it will receive zero notice. I concluded early on in my LinkedIn days that most people "curated" content because it made them look like they were doing something and put their face and name out there in front of readers, without their having to do a lick of significant work. Thank you for reading and commenting.17/11/2016 #10 Paul Frank Gilbert#9 First off ... I much enjoyed this piece ... my first in this series ... I clearly need to go back and read the others! When an author writes in a manner that shows the reader that they are aware of their own strengths and weaknesses ... content becomes more than just words, more than just data ... it becomes a story ... and a story engages us sometimes to action, sometimes to drink ... (maybe both!!) but a story always causes us to think, to ponder ... to question.
Great job gentlemen!17/11/2016 #9 Don 🐝 Kerr"The decline of literature indicates the decline of a nation." Goethe
Not much to say here. Some of us have become a nation of lazy headline readers. Searching only for the content that supports our beliefs. Knowing this our “media”, who has all too often shown themselves to be only bloggers looking to earn a paycheck by clicks, has given up journalism to take advantage of our laziness. Fight back. Take responsibility for your mind and your thoughts.
I just lifted this from @Paul Frank Gilbert's post which you can find here https://www.bebee.com/producer/@paul-frank-gilbert/reading-thinking-changing
- Producer06/10/2016The Content ParadoxRecently Steve Rayson published a blog post that posited two positions, and sided with the one that many content creators instinctively think of as just plain wrong:“Content is about quality, not quantity. We should be producing high value,...
Comments06/10/2016 #7 Randy KehoThe more things change, the more they stay the same. We used to talk about this sort of thing in regard to content in the print media.
USA Today capitalized on the front-page brief, directing readers to the longer version inside.
Yahoo is doing it now. it drives me crazy. You have to click twice to read an entire article.
How and where the content is presented can make all the difference today.
Canidce Galek created an uproar on LinkeIn when she began to post photos of women in bikinis to sell her line of bikinis. Many considered it "out of place." Well, it went viral and she's laughing all the way to the bank.
She'll now go down in history as one of the best examples of marketing in the history of marketing.
For me, the quality vs.quantity debate, though interesting, doesn't hold a candle to the impact factor.06/10/2016 #5 Don 🐝 Kerr"No one on the internet ever said “I want less content!” What they say is “I want less crap, not all this clickbait stuff I don’t care about!” Clickbait now meaning “content I don’t like,” rather than a specific, well-delineated type of content." Bingo. This is reminiscent of arguments we had many, many years ago about the merits of long-copy vs. short-copy print ads. While the medium may have morphed the outcome is not different - people will read long-copy IF the content is relevant, simple (not dumb), clear, and has an element of wit (not necessarily humour but engaging elements). Enjoyed your thoughts JK Spaeth. Sharing to The Beezers.
- 15/08/2016Cutting Through the Noise of Social Media: A Guide to Smart Content Curation Toolswww.business2community.com Being a digital marketing professional, I know how hard it is to find the best content on social media when there is so much noise. A question I am frequently asked is: what content curation tools...
Comments15/08/2016 #3 AnonymousbeBee top management should prepare a highly professional text (article) about specifics of corporate policies, approach to influencer marketing (concept) and about significant improvements in the creation, promotion and spreading of content on beBee without an aggressive application of algorithms in order to point out differences and comparative advantages of this social network. Something like a manifesto cc. @Javier 🐝 beBee, @Matt 🐝 Sweetwood, @Juan Imaz and @John White, MBA
- 24/05/2016A new post I curated about beBee on Internet Billboards! You guys are crushing it.beBee Buzzes into Social Networking: Does LinkedIn Have a New Competitor?www.internetbillboards.net Madrid-based beBee has attracted more than 10 million users in its first year and has more than doubled its user base in the past six months. With 4.5 million users in Spain (compared to...
- 17/05/2016Hi my name is Tom George and I am the founder and CEO of Internet Billboards. We are "The Web Curated" As one of the fastest growing sites around curation, I invite you to join the Hive and make some suggestions about great content. We will use these suggestions to post selected content on internetbillboards.net
- Producer13/04/2016New Publishing tool on Beebee looks amazing So I am actually writing this on my iPhone. This is an intuitive mobile publishing tool.it was created by beebee, so had to try it out. So far so...