Giving Away Content
I have been wrestling with an issue for some time now, and I am unsure of the best solution. Perhaps you fine folks can provide some insight.
About a year ago -- and, after considerable reluctance -- I allowed Seeking Alpha to reproduce my content on their site. In theory, it cost me nothing, and (in theory) would generate some traffic. Others apparently felt the same way, as SA went from aggregating a few blogs to dozens, if not 100s.
The only requirement I gave them was "no changing headlines, no deleting expletives, no pulling links, no editing at all;" It was all or nothing, fill or kill "
After that edict was violated for the 3rd time -- with an embarrassingly shitty headline of someone else's authorship -- I pulled my feed.
I am now trying to decide what to do with them going forward. Quite bluntly, I am unsure of the benefits derived. Perhaps some traffic, perhaps a link or two, but other than that . . .
The downside?
1. My friends in Marketing call the reposting a "Dilution of Brand."
2. Duplicative content weakens a site's GoogleScore (hence, there is a real cost to my magic GoogleRank when letting anyone else take content, authorized or not);
3. I do not have the time to patrol their comments for the usual trolls and asshats;
They have built up a nice business on the labor of other bloggers. According to 24/7 Wall Street, In February, Seeking Alpha had 797,000 unique visitors, and about three million total pages viewed (about double our stats).
I have a few options: I can kill the feed entirely, shift it to the Fusion IQ Blog, limit it to one post/day or X/week, or come up with some other arrangement.
But I am not sure what the ideal situation is.
~~~
What say ye?
>
UPDATE April 8, 2008 5:24 am
Wow, 120 responses, and nary a positive one in the lot. Pretty astonishing. Andy emails me that last month, Bill Rempel came to very similar conclusions . . .
For the sake of looking at both sides, can anyone suggest a reason(s) for staying with SA?
Monday, April 07, 2008 | 07:00 PM | Permalink
| Comments (160)
| TrackBack (2)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e55196dfed8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Giving Away Content:
» Giving Away Content, part II from The Big Picture
On Monday evening, I asked readers about the concept of Giving Away Content. The response to the post was overwhelming. Over 150 comments, plus another 50 private emails from other bloggers. Several other sites picked up the discussion. The Deal picked... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 10, 2008 9:10:17 PM
» Seeking Alpha Crosses the Line from The Big Picture
Earlier this year, I looked at the issue of giving away content for free to sites such as Seeking Alpha. (Giving Away Content, Part I and Part II). The feedback from readers was invaluable. You made your ideas clear to me, and it helped me clarify my p... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 8, 2008 7:30:51 PM
Comments
You've got the first investing/finance blog I go to and refresh regularly. Why bother? Keep your stuff here.
Posted by: Stav | Apr 7, 2008 7:08:48 PM
Kill it and make them come to you
Posted by: Michael Donnelly | Apr 7, 2008 7:09:52 PM
Barry,
All information wants to be free.
The internet greatly facilitates this law of nature/physics.
Lean into it or someone else will.
You run my favorite blog,
Carl
Posted by: Carl | Apr 7, 2008 7:10:23 PM
It is a dilution of brand; you already are highly rated on Google. You need them like you need a parasite.
They have abused your terms of use. They do not respect what makes your voice unique, which is exactly what makes you highly rated on Google. Why allow them to add value to their site with your good name and then tarnish said value?
Posted by: SeamusAndrewMurphy | Apr 7, 2008 7:14:13 PM
Very hard to see the upside in staying with Seeking Alpha - you have more to lose than gain. Consider:
1.) Brand dilution
2.) Lack of upside - it's hard to imagine that there are that many people left who read investment blogs that haven't already heard of you (if this were 2004, it would be different, but that was then and this is now)
3.) Dilution of your time to correct things they specifically promised not to do.
You have businesses to build. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: ajw | Apr 7, 2008 7:19:07 PM
SeekingAlpha is wholly and utterly useless. If they stopped paying their ISP, we'd all be smarter.
Barry, you will do more than fine by simply posting on this site alone.
Your musical taste is impeccable, by the way!
Posted by: Unsympathetic | Apr 7, 2008 7:25:30 PM
You have a great product. No reason to syndicate through anyone unless you get part or all of the traffic.
You content will continue to bring in new readera and RSS subscribers
Posted by: douglas mcintyre | Apr 7, 2008 7:27:18 PM
Barry - it may be a tad early in the cycle of Internet development for this to be widely agreeable, but it's still true... content is king.
What sets your site apart is the commentary combined with the culling screen you provide by using your experience and world view as a filter.
If you continue to produce great content, and always work to make it even better, the audience will come to you. It always does.
Information is a commodity. Content is King.
If SA is not delivering copious amounts of useful traffic, then lose 'em. Don't even think twice about it.
Posted by: Entrepreneur | Apr 7, 2008 7:31:10 PM
Barry,
Tell SA to take a hike. You don't need them. Your blog is great. Let the world come to you and get "The Big Picture".
Posted by: bwana | Apr 7, 2008 7:34:45 PM
Nuke them.
They are asshats.
You have a strong brand. NO need for them.
Posted by: gRIFFITH | Apr 7, 2008 7:37:33 PM
Seeking-what?
Forget 'em. As others have said, you need them like a hole in the head.
Posted by: ReductiMat | Apr 7, 2008 7:39:10 PM
I check both Seeking Alpha and The Big Picture multiple times per day. Here, I read everything, but on SA, I only read the articles that I find interest in from the headline. If they are creating poor headlines, few people would read the article unless they recognize your name. I am guessing that if they recognize your name, they read this blog already so you are facing dilution.
Also, I have seen from the comments section on SA, bloggers get attacked for most of their views, whether they are bullish or bearish. There is a great example of this bashing on Crossing Wall Street on April 2nd about an article on the gold bubble. The inability to patrol comments on SA is a big problem. Its only a matter of time until it turns into a message board on Yahoo Finance.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 7, 2008 7:39:54 PM
they don't give much too you and seem to take some from you.
f*** them
Posted by: DIS | Apr 7, 2008 7:40:29 PM
I vote to pull the feed, and just concentrate on your own site. They need you more than you need them.
Posted by: Miguel Borges | Apr 7, 2008 7:40:54 PM
Pull it. What will their numbers be if your blog is backed out? Not in a vindictive way. But this asset that you bring to the table deserves better. Principle, and recognition that your blog without question stands on its own. If they haven't got it right with the simple terms you set, what other headaches will you have going forward? Many Seeking Alpha blogs (to me) are cheesy. Grouped with those mediocre blogs it may hurt rather than help longer term.
Posted by: rightline | Apr 7, 2008 7:45:31 PM
Seeking alpha is 5% quality and the rest is truly garbage. You have to really sift through the stuff they print to find anything worthwhile.
Posting there makes you seem like a real 3rd tier blogger. It's for wannabes and spam artists. Don't even think twice. Not surprised they would 'edit' your stuff -- like they know the difference between a quality post and half the drivel they allow on there.
Posted by: a5 | Apr 7, 2008 7:45:49 PM
Screw Seeking Alpha and screw Google...they are both parasites who make money off other peoples content.
Posted by: TinkaBootItEh? | Apr 7, 2008 7:45:53 PM
Speaking personally, I would annex the Sudetenland.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | Apr 7, 2008 7:46:25 PM
Two words: Laser Cats.
Posted by: muckdog | Apr 7, 2008 7:49:27 PM
Barry
SA ain't what is used to be and their quality recently has been greatly diluted-not a big loss
Posted by: upsidetrader | Apr 7, 2008 7:49:39 PM
2. Duplicative content weakens a site's GoogleScore (hence, there is a real cost to my magic GoogleRank
Mr. R., the G-company would gladly double your g-rankings if you were only a g-member and also if you gave them a huge portion of your past, present and future revenues. The G-guys are all about making money not delivering what they imply as to search or access. Don't get me wrong, more power to them. Especially since they have successfully convinced people that they are in some way altruistic. Buyer Beware.
Don't believe me. Just look at their appeal policies vis a vis disputes as to net revenue.
Posted by: Rob Dawg | Apr 7, 2008 7:50:16 PM
agree witha5 and TinkaBootItEh?
SA is a mess, I only go when a writer that I like refers there, I will no go there unless someone wades through the morass for me :-)
Posted by: Steve | Apr 7, 2008 7:50:31 PM
Barry
SA ain't what is used to be and their quality recently has been greatly diluted-not a big loss
Posted by: upsidetrader | Apr 7, 2008 7:51:45 PM
Keep the feed, but require them to put your R.E.M. piece from Friday as the top link every day. And some pix of Miles making a really mean face.
But most importantly, they must include a permanent link to Paid in Full by Eric B. and Rakim.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | Apr 7, 2008 7:52:41 PM
As a matter of principle, if they violate their agreement with you repeatedly, say good luck and goodbye.
Posted by: pmorrisonfl | Apr 7, 2008 7:53:10 PM
