7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Thoughts on Content Syndication

by byalik
6 replies
I've always been curious as to something so maybe someone here has some ideas:

It's about content syndication. I understand the benefits of having your own unique content syndicated on other larger sites, like explained here:

Unleashing the Power of Syndicated Content | SEJ

My questions are for the opposite side, for the websites syndicated content:
What value are they providing. All of their content is just syndicated (copied/pasted) from other sources. Yet they still manage to get huge amounts of traffic, revenue, etc..

For example themindunleashed (dot) org is one example of that but I see it all the time. Business2Community.com is another
#content #syndication #thoughts
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by byalik View Post

    What value are they providing.
    All the webmasters who syndicate my content do so simply because they want to provide well-written content which their readers/visitors/subscribers haven't read before. It fills some of their continual need for "content" - that's all (the underlying basis of article marketing, in other words).

    Originally Posted by byalik View Post

    All of their content is just syndicated (copied/pasted) from other sources.
    I don't think (m)any of the ones who syndicate my content contain only syndicated content. That's ok for the world's leading news and sports websites, perhaps, but not typically for the places that generally publish my articles. But why is that relevant/important, anyway?

    Originally Posted by byalik View Post

    Yet they still manage to get huge amounts of traffic, revenue, etc..
    Sure. Why shouldn't they?

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9400026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JensSteyaert
    Most news sites syndicate content for instance.

    It's just a matter fo adding your own opinion about the syndicated content, not just copy and pasting other people's work. If you add your own opinion you can add your own personal touch, which is importnat if you want to create a follwing..
    Signature

    Join ADZbuzz Here:

    ADZbuzz Social Network And Content Discovery Platform

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9400039].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author byalik
    I was just curious what value users saw in going to a a site where all they see is syndicated content when they could just find that content from the original source. Almost just seems like an aggregator.
    Signature
    Start/Buy an online business
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9400078].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JensSteyaert
      Originally Posted by byalik View Post

      I was just curious what value users saw in going to a a site where all they see is syndicated content when they could just find that content from the original source. Almost just seems like an aggregator.
      Well that's the thing you shouldn't just copy the content. If you add your personal thoughts on top of the article and your conclusion at the bottom then that's enough.

      This will get your audience engaged because you have a voice and opinion.
      Signature

      Join ADZbuzz Here:

      ADZbuzz Social Network And Content Discovery Platform

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9400103].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by byalik View Post

      I was just curious what value users saw in going to a a site where all they see is syndicated content
      They typically neither know nor care that it's syndicated: it's unique to them, at the time they read it. And that's what matters.

      I don't need to buy the New York Review of Books to read articles by <whomever>. I can read them a week or so later in the London Review of Books (to which I subscribe) when they're syndicated there. (Sometimes a week or so earlier, even - who knows? Who cares?). They're not worth any less to me because they were originally published somewhere else. I haven't yet read them, so as far as I'm concerned, they're "unique content". It's only because I do content syndication for a living, myself, that I even notice these things: most readers don't, and don't care anyway. It's the same online.

      Originally Posted by byalik View Post

      when they could just find that content from the original source.
      In theory, with enough knowledge and effort, perhaps. But why would that be any better/easier/more interesting for them?

      It's perhaps a little like asking why people would ever buy an ebook telling them only information that was available free of charge online, if they knew where to look for it and had enough time. Aggregation can be a valuable, respected and trusted service, in itself, for many.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9400107].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Daygin
      Originally Posted by byalik View Post

      I was just curious what value users saw in going to a a site where all they see is syndicated content when they could just find that content from the original source. Almost just seems like an aggregator.
      Do you know where the original source is? The local newspaper has a significant percentage of syndicated content, such as from the NY Times. The Drudge Report is only links to original sources. Yes, locals don't skip the local paper for the Times and Drudge does quite well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9401284].message }}

Trending Topics