Comments on: Associated Content: Hey, We Were Here First!

By: NileGuide Buys Q&A Site Localyte to Scale Travel Content

NileGuide Buys Q&A Site Localyte to Scale Travel Content — Tue, 11 May 2010 13:01:39 +0000

[...] 0 Emerging large-scale digital content businesses from Demand Media, AOL’s Seed and Associated Content win a lot of attention in the media, in part because people who write for a living are scared of [...]

By: Citizen Journalism Startup Plans Global Expansion

Citizen Journalism Startup Plans Global Expansion — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:01:10 +0000

[...] rich writing for All Voices, however, even with page views like California Mike’s. Much like other user-generated content sites such as Demand Media, AOL’s Patch.com or Associated Content, the rate of pay at All Voices is [...]

By: Rainier Seidel

Rainier Seidel — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:49:03 +0000

The one thing Keane did after taking over AC was to move from Google Ads to display ads. Whilst this reduces dependence on Google, display is not sustainable in the long term. Advertisers are not idiots, and display assumes they are.

And as someone observed ahead of me, AssociatedContent is clueless about technology.

By: Come On Nick, You Can Do Better Than That

Come On Nick, You Can Do Better Than That — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:14:37 +0000

[...] a mug’s game, and one that Demand Media and Associated Content and similar content factories will win every time — and arguably many advertisers are already realizing this, which is why CPMs generally suck. [...]

By: What Does the Future Hold for Newspapers?

What Does the Future Hold for Newspapers? — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:02:28 +0000

[...] Associated Content: Hey, We Were Here First! [...]

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:26:53 +0000

I definitely agree that the media in general is "psychotically focused on trying to make display advertising work," and that is probably one of the biggest flaws with a content-generating model like Demand's or AC's -- in that it floods the market with generic content and thus drives down their own CPM rate (and everyone else's).

By: jckh

jckh — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 01:24:49 +0000

Associated Content failed to innovate on the technical end. Their leadership occasionally leaves shrill comments on blogs. He'll come by this one, perhaps.

Their compensation model also exploits writers (slightly) by outsourcing the risk of whether or not the piece will perform.

Demand also has some issues. When a company starts recruiting random people with newspaper advertising, you know something might be stinky in upper management.

As for Seed... let's put it this way. To get accepted for the program, all you need to do is register.

I suppose you can say that Seed is still in the speculative stages, but it strikes me that AOL lacks a coherent strategy for turning a profit off of this content.

Media in general is psychotically focused on trying to make display advertising work. Sorry, not with the consumer so squeezed.

They also have a record of paying writers late in their WebLogs network.

I've seen (and worked for) these sorts of startups that burn through cash during the beginning stages, suddenly realize that their strategy leads off a cliff, then attempts to impose quality control as profits taper off.

Frankly, as advertising technology advances, these companies are going to have a great deal of trouble retaining market share. And anyway, Google has the power to end them by flipping a switch. Hopefully, that will keep them honest.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:38:26 +0000

Thanks, Tom -- I see Keane hit many of the same highlights in his conversation with you. I still wonder how Tim Armstrong is going to resolve the conflict between his investment in Associated Content and the money he is plowing into Seed.

By: Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:39:03 +0000

Nice. I also spoke with Keane this week…
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/interview_with_2.php