6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is There Any Value In Complete Niche Sites That Use Existing Content From EZA, Other Sites?

by Kunle Olomofe
5 replies
Hi Guys,

I'm packaging a niche site template service that will be using existing content from sites like EZA, ehow, expert village, youtube and so on.

Is there any value in sites like that or do people buying these niche sites prefer content written from scratch?

I ask because in my view there is no need to reharsh content that already exists in superior formats all for the sake of SEO battles. I'm just curious as we are far gone in the production stages and want to know what the majority feel about this.

If "original content" wins, we'll have to handle it. If "existing content" wins, we'll agree and have something really remarkable ready as a result.

In any case what's your opinion and/or preference?

Thanks guys!

Kunle
#complete #content #existing #eza #niche #sites
  • Profile picture of the author MarketerGuy
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[343156].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kunle Olomofe
      Originally Posted by MarketerGuy View Post


      Unique content sites fetch a higher premium price than rehashed ones. However, it tends to balance out because you can make a bunch of rehashed content sites quickly and sell them for less, or you can make a few unique Niche content websites and sell them for more.
      Thanks for your comments,

      First off, I feel I need to clear something up...what we're building is far from rehashed content sites. They are magazine type sites. What we do is we find a really good article, video or audio for the week and we post it up for our visitors. Trust me, thousands of people benefit just as much from "shared" expert content as perhaps they do from "originally" created content by non-expert niche marketers.

      IMers have this funny way of describing content sharing by calling it rehashed, rehashed would be us taking the content and trying to rewrite it to pass off as ours and often not doing a good job.

      Fact is, I don't like rehashed junk either, but professionally built magazine sites that share good free content that often can't easily be found by its audience, is far from a rehashed content site.

      That said, I fully appreciate your views.

      I guess though, I'm of the old school of thought, I feel good sharing good expert content than rewriting my own version which may not be as good but is "unique" to search engines... Personally I feel this is what IM has been watered down to... where all people want is adsense and affiliate cash and the best way to get it is to "rehash" or pay 5 bucks for often at best a mediocre article on a topic they or even their writers know little to nothing about. You may agree or disagree with that, but it's my unfettered view.

      I prefer to share expert content and give good solid info and get my traffic from various sources like referrals for example than jump into SEO battles while compromising my content. I know you can get great content written and share that as unique as well, still, why bother when there are ALREADY superb articles, videos, audios just waiting to be shared... I still remember that was the way we did things not that long ago... ah well.. times change.

      Thanks again for taking the time to add your 2 cents, I will take some of what you said on board, as you were definitely on point with that post.

      Cheers,

      Kunle
      Signature
      Celebrity Marketing Formula - How To Quickly Become A Celebrated Authority In ANY Industry/Niche... Coming Soon.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[343732].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimRobinson
      Originally Posted by MarketerGuy View Post

      I call it the "Ford vs Ferrari" marketing mentality:

      Ford produces millions of cars a year and sells them for $10,000-$50,000 each. Ferrari produces hundreds of cars a year and sells them for $300,000-$1,000,000+ each.

      Both companies are multi-national billion dollar automotive conglomerates...
      Never heard of that, nice analogy.
      Signature
      ** Free Visual Split Testing and Heatmapping software that will rapidly increase your copywriting results (and profits) by giving you access to successful and failed tests hundreds of others have run **
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[345807].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sam12six
    I think there is a flaw in your original premise: That either original content is superior or duplicate content has value.

    It's not one or the other.

    Duplicate content has value. It can presell offers or give your ad network keywords to know what ads to serve in addition to just offering your visitors something to view.

    On the other hand, original content has MORE value. It does the same things that the duplicate content does but allows you to more easily attract traffic from search engines.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[343792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kunle Olomofe
      Originally Posted by sam12six View Post

      I think there is a flaw in your original premise: That either original content is superior or duplicate content has value.

      It's not one or the other.

      Duplicate content has value. It can presell offers or give your ad network keywords to know what ads to serve in addition to just offering your visitors something to view.

      On the other hand, original content has MORE value. It does the same things that the duplicate content does but allows you to more easily attract traffic from search engines.
      Hi sam,

      I think you may have misunderstood my actual premise.

      First off, the way you see duplicate content as presell material is probably because you're focusing on a specific kind of traffic generation method which is mainly search engine marketing. I don't focus only on SE marketing so I'm not bound by the same rules or thinking.

      Truth is, there are probably millions of web surfers who find sites without ever using search engines, they simply get passed links or find links on other sites they're browsing or in printed material and then go directly to those sites.

      I personally know lots of people who browse the web but don't know the first thing about using search engines.

      Now if you were to focus on marketing DIRECTLY to them as opposed to waiting to be indexed by SEs and then be found by SE using surfers, it would not matter whether your content was originally created for your site or was a reprint (duplicate content) from another site (as an endorsement by you).

      It's like saying you should never be an affiliate and promote affiliate products because its duplicate content you're offering so only ever sell your own original content. Instead like you say both are valuable.

      But for original content to be MORE valuable than duplicate content it HAS TO meet at least 3 main criteria...

      1. It MUST be equally well or better written
      2. It MUST share the same or better value information
      3. It MUST truly help the reader

      The truth is, and lets be honest, a good (probably HIGH) percentage of "originally" created content does not meet those 3 criteria all of the time, instead they are more focused on being unique to the search engines or even primarily to their audience without caring if the content is top notch or not.

      And frankly that's just not good enough. Search engines are machines that can't tell quality content from crap content. But as long as it is unique they are happy to showcase it.

      Meanwhile, I as a human editor can find good/great reprintable content and share that directly with an audience that appreciates/loves/thrives from the information... who's content is then MORE valuable and useful?

      Mine (the duplicate superb content) or the SEs (the original crap or mediocre content)?

      The point is I don't see sites that don't have "freshly" written content as less valuable than sites that do because as long as it is the QUALITY that is being shared (especially that I can't easily find on my own), then that's all that matters and not solely what SEs will make of the site.

      SE marketing and adsense profits have clearly made it impossible to easily locate great content these days, and that's just a fact, so many people tot around crap or inadequate content (as long as it's "original") all in the name of SE wars and adsense clicks.

      Many still offer quality no doubt about that, but as far as I can tell they are in the minority, and more now than ever before.

      I'm simply advocating that you can own a great web site that does nothing more than offer duplicate content and as long as you are not in SE wars you can do perfectly great with those sites and in the same breath be offering up more superb value than many "competing" "original" content sites.

      It's just my opinion, so you don't have to agree with it, but if you think carefully about it, the truth is that focusing on SE traffic generation is often a waste of time when in fact the traffic you're trying to attract with SEs can just as easily if not more so be attracted in other ways giving you the freedom to share any kind of content that is indeed valuable.

      Reprinting articles back in the 90's was a superior service to your visitors and subscribers, these days people make it seem like you're simply short cutting and not offering true value until you create something new/original.

      My view is if the originals are of great quality, why re-invent the wheel, especially if you have ZERO or little expertise in that niche in the first place?

      Just consider the 2 scenarios below...

      1. You're a medical doctor and you don't have the time or the funds to have original content written, but you can find great medical advice on and offline to share with your ezine and blog readers etc, what's wrong with that?

      2. You're a medical doctor and you don't have the time or the funds to have original content written, but you can find great snowboarding advice on and offline to share with your ezine and blog readers what's wrong with that?

      My point is, you don't HAVE to get original material written just to prove a point or just so the SEs love your site. You are of course free to do so, but my view is that it should by no means negate duplicate sharing as LESSER value content. I just don't agree with that.

      All the best,

      Kunle

      PS: My poll should have read...

      Which do you prefer?

      1. Original crappy content?

      or

      2. Existing (duplicate) superb content?

      The answer to that I'm sure would have been more to the side of duplicate content... the current poll I agree is a tad flawed but I hope my point is clearer now. Again, all the best
      Signature
      Celebrity Marketing Formula - How To Quickly Become A Celebrated Authority In ANY Industry/Niche... Coming Soon.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[345683].message }}

Trending Topics