Pages

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Does original content really attract more traffic than aggregated?

  If your a seasoned blogger or have taken any courses on blogging you've probably heard time and time again that you should write the highest original quality relevant content and optimize it for the search engines. This strategy does work but it also takes a lot of time. A blogger can build up a loyal following if their voice resonates with the readers.

   If you have multiple sites/blogs and want to scale it out as an actual business then this can get very expensive since you'll have to hire decent writers.

   On the other hand you could go in the footsteps of some of the most popular blogs and aggregate some, most or even all your content on the net like the Drudgereport.com or Huffingtonpost.com or the buzz.com. These blogs rank very high for some broad kws and some long tail ones or get a large part of their traffic from other sources than the big "G".

There was an excellent post i read the other day that i think clearly defines the difference in strategies between the two called "Publishing, aggregation and “The Innovator’s Dilemma” The biggest take away i got from this was
" News consumers are mainly interested in news coverage, not content. Coverage is a service that promises to keep its users "in the loop" about what is relevant to them and their peer groups. It is delivered by selecting content on readers' behalf – i.e. through aggregation and curation – and while it relies on content it is more than that. Because it is an ongoing, day-to-day service, coverage is all about loyalty: once consumers find a provider they like, they come back to it. And because of hyperlinks, in the web coverage providers need not be content providers (and vice-versa). This means that media brands' power – including their pricing power – will increasingly be a matter of how well they aggregate content – whatever its source – and not just how good their content is."

What do you think?

No comments:

Post a Comment