- 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...
Comments18/11/2016 #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...
Comments18/11/2016 #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-changing17/11/2016 #8 Don KerrWelcome back boys @Jim Murray, @Phil Friedman. Pleased to see that your hiatus did nothing whatsoever to improve your moods. While content curation and content marketing may offer a dubious return to all, I find some of the curated sites useful if for no other reason than efficiency. If one finds a site that offers content that is relevant to one's interests it can be useful in expanding one's reading universe and enabling quick scanning to determine if further time is warranted. I do concur that much of content marketing is beyond useless and would challenge any creator or sponsor to show a quantitative return on investment. That is very little different from the days of traditional advertising when much of what we were presented was blown by in mere milliseconds. The old maxim of, "I know I am wasting 50% of my ad budget, I just don't know which 50%" could well be revised to "I think I am wasting 90% of my content marketing budget, but I can't be sure." A return to the olde days is not the solution. Learning measurement methodologies that offer quantitative and qualitative understanding may offer some hope. In the face though of rampant snake-oil salespeople in the 'new' media arena, however, I hold out little hope. Look forward to the commentary thread on this post (and hope that commentary will be relevant to the topic and reveal that people have actually read the post).17/11/2016 #7 Kevin PashukYou don't mind if I post this on my paper.li page do you?
I'm seeing two separate issues here.
I'll start with Jim's - content marketing. Isn't this just an extension of the day when newsletters were the thing to do? Do everyone did a newsletter. Then having a web page was the way to go, so everyone got a webpage. Quality didn't matter as much as the ability to say you had one.
Somehow marketers think that I have time to read dozens of 'whitepapers' and 'case studies' and reams of drivel and flood my inbox on a daily basis.
Is there a "THIS DOESN"T WORK!!" button I could push to let them know that they are wasting their time?
Now for Phil's - Content Curation. I've had several of my posts 'curated' (mostly through the hashtags I've put in the Twitter notice) and I can say that spitting into the wind produces more tangible results than anything I've ever seen from having my posts shared in this manner. At least they attribute the article back to me.
I would agree with Phil that content curation, from having a Paper.Li journal, to re-posting a link on beBee, LI, or FB, without any accompanying editorial /opinion clogs the channel.
Perhaps we need a Michelin Star system for online content? But then, who would determine quality? I suppose if Michelin found a way to do it for food, that some smart brain could find a way to identify the good stuff.
My $0.02 (Canadian)
- 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...