Comments on: Like it or not, aggregation is part of the future of media

By: Tom George

Tom George — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 03:30:40 +0000

Hi Mathew,
Excellent material, and very well written. Thanks for the great read.

By: Andrew Davies

Andrew Davies — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:12:12 +0000

Good to see some discussion on this. I totally agree that “It seems as though when we like it we call it curation, and when we don’t like it we call it aggregation” – although I think its slowly being more accepted that curation means the addition of trust, context, or meaning.

I actually wrote about the HuffPo a while ago, in a post about the “blended content model” – see http://idioplatform.com/2011/02/the-content-pyramid-and-the-huffpo/

This approach goes beyond media companies, and is being adopted by consumer and b2b brands too, as it allows a company to attract and engage its audience, and broaden coverage whilst remaining cost effective.

By: Tom L.

Tom L. — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:32:55 +0000

Perhaps I’m a bit of a Luddite, or I just don’t follow the nomenclature, but how is “aggregation” different than “plagiarism?” It seems like the former is a nice euphemism that’s been created to cover for the latter. Can someone please elaborate? Thanks.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:27:45 +0000

I definitely think you are spot on. It is the easy way out and for major publishing sites like HuffPo that make their money on delivering media, they should do a little more research. But I stand by what I posted earlier in that people are coming to HuffPo not for the news but for the opinions around the news. The facts are just plain everywhere now but opinions are very specific to the media outlet. And when readers find a opinions they share, they tend to stay at that outlet.

By: Renee

Renee — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:19:37 +0000

Mathew, great post, it really got me thinking. I think aggregation is, in most instances, taking the easy way out instead of researching yourself. But no I don’t think it’s going away because most people are looking for quantity rather than quality. I’m not saying that that’s a bad thing, or a good thing in particular. People understandably want to read about many things that are going on, not just one. So naturally a website that provides shorter articles, essentially summaries, on many things is popular. And through analysis and research takes time, so I can see the draw of aggregation even simply through time issue.

By: Steven H.

Steven H. — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:43:50 +0000

So why can’t Ad Age do its own aggregation? Perhaps most people don’t want to read long articles on the internet. Why doesn’t Ad Age provide their own short version and link to the long version for readers who want more depth? There are at least two audiences here, why not serve both?

By: William Mougayar

William Mougayar — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:05:25 +0000

As an aggregation/curation/re-publishing platform, I definitely agree with your post. Aggregation+curation put together is a powerful thing. But there’s a difference between hand-made, light-weight curation/aggregation (where most of the tools are today), and enterprise-grade, scalabale, more robust tools like ones that Huffington Post employs or that we provide (Eqentia) to enterprises and publishers.

By: dan tynan

dan tynan — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:54:15 +0000

the appropriator moves onto the next paid writer and steals his or her stuff. when that writer gets fired the appropriator moves on to another one.

eventually, the appropriator is left with the only paid writers who will never lose their jobs — the ones working for corporate america. so it will appropriate press releases and other fake news. that is what is happening to media in this country, but for some reason the champions of ‘aggregation’ and ‘curation’ fail to see this.

see you in the unemployment line.

By: Dan Verhaeghe

Dan Verhaeghe — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:28:38 +0000

It is my thought that aggregators do and will have more pull than individual media outlets such as The Huffington Post or The New York Times.

It is no longer about the individual publication, it’s about how good your article is, how many times it is socially shared, how much earned media you get.

Besides, if you manage to get to the top of the echelon in earned media….aggregation takes its course, doesn’t it? Major news outlets, 24-48 hours behind break the story to the rest of the world.

By: Miss Appropriation

Miss Appropriation — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:18:57 +0000

Eventually, a snake eating it’s own tail will chomp off it’s head.

Or, follow the money…

Someone is a paid writer. Their work is appropriated (without consent or remuneration). The Appropriator (they aren’t worthy of any other title) derive eyeballs and revenue based on the work of the paid writer. They steal eyeballs and revenue away from the original source. They are clever. [Unless they are ethical and credit the Source in Para. 1]

The original source, the paid writer, loses his job because he lost those eyeballs.

What does the Appropriator do now?