Blog Post

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

Arianna Huffington by World Economic Forum
Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington

There’s been a lot of commentary flying around about a recent incident in which The Huffington Post (s aol) “over-aggregated” a piece from Advertising Age, including a complaint from the original writer, an apology from one of the Huffington Post’s new senior editors, and the suspension of the HuffPo writer responsible for the post. This incident has proven to be another handy stick for traditional media outlets to beat The Huffington Post with, since it has become the poster child for the negative aspects of aggregation. But it doesn’t change the fact that aggregation, broadly speaking, is a crucial — and fundamentally valuable — part of the future of media.

This particular case got its start when Simon Dumenco, who writes a media column for Advertising Age, complained about a Huffington Post piece that seemed to pull most of the facts from his original article and reproduce them verbatim, without giving much credit to the magazine or adding anything of value to the original. Dumenco’s column, entitled “What It’s Like to Get Used and Abused by the Huffington Post,” described how he had put together a piece in June — using stats from Trendrr to talk about trending topics — and then not long afterward, The Huffington Post published a piece summarizing the article.

Disingenuous links and cherrypicked content

Although the HuffPo mentioned Advertising Age specifically in its post, and included a link to Dumenco’s original article at the bottom, the Ad Age writer was still incensed. The link at the bottom of the HuffPo piece, he wrote, was “disingenuous… because Huffpo had already cherrypicked all the essential content” from his article. Dumenco also noted that while some aggregators like The Huffington Post defend what they do based on the traffic they send by linking, the rewritten Ad Age piece only sent a measly 57 pageviews to the original source of the article. He wrote:

[G]eez, this is grade-school-level pathetic! This is akin to those lazy-ass and/or dumb kids in the fifth grade who would ask if they could copy off my homework or would “write” term papers by rephrasing the Encyclopaedia Britannica (pre-Wikipedia).

In a follow-up, the Ad Age columnist criticized The Huffington Post for suspending the writer of the article that cribbed from his piece. He suggested that this was hypocritical, given the fact that this kind of aggregation” was a routine part of the HuffPo’s approach — as confirmed by several other examples Dumenco mentioned, as well as comments from unidentified Huffington Post staffers to Gawker and other websites. Dumenco thanked Peter Goodman, the executive editor of Huffington Post (and former editor at the Washington Post) who apologized, but said that “unethical aggregation is essentially embedded in the very DNA of The Huffington Post.”

Arianna, the queen of aggregation

Needless to say, this isn’t the first time The Huffington Post has been accused of “over-aggregation” (whatever that is). New York Times executive editor Bill Keller wrote a passionate rant about the online media outlet and its practices, in which he called founder Arianna Huffington “the queen of aggregation.” But as I pointed out in a post at the time, Keller’s invective cleverly ignored the fact that most journalistic publications like the New York Times engage in aggregation all the time — but they call it “journalism.” Do they routinely rewrite other people’s material? The NYT may not, but lots of papers do, particularly in Britain, as one Forbes columnist has noted:

[F]rom the English point of view of this, there’s no opprobrium attached to it. This is simply how the business works, your story, your scoop, lasts only until it hits the streets, when someone will pick it up, rewrite it and publish it.

Is that kind of thing defensible? Perhaps not. But my point is that it happens even in traditional media — and the justification for smart aggregation of all kinds in digital media is even stronger. There are so many sources of content available, from blogs to traditional sources to Twitter and everything in between, that aggregation is almost a necessity. Anyone who thinks that they can retain anything like a “scoop” for more than a matter of minutes in this environment is deluding themselves.

In a sense, Dumenco is right when he says that aggregation is embedded in the DNA of The Huffington Post — because it is. Is some of that aggregation “unethical?” Undoubtedly. The Ad Age writer uses the example of a HuffPo piece based on a Playboy article that essentially reproduces the entire article in rewritten form, which doesn’t seem kosher at all. But I would argue that Dumenco’s own example isn’t as clear cut: the Huffington Post summarized the piece, yes, and included many of the facts from it — but the Ad Age piece was much longer, had a chart and many more details. And the Huffington Post did mention the magazine and link to it.

That particular Huffington Post piece may not be a great example, but much of what we call aggregation is extremely useful, such as the aggregation (broadly speaking) that Andy Carvin of NPR does of tweets from the Middle East — or the Storify modules that writers have created about a variety of incidents, in which they pull together quotes and pictures and videos about a news event. That’s clearly aggregation, but not the kind Dumenco and The Huffington Post’s critics are talking about.

When is it aggregation and when is it curation?

It seems as though when we like it we call it “curation,” and when we don’t like it we call it “aggregation.” Either way, it’s become a crucial part of the online media ecosystem, whether it’s a headline aggregator like Techmeme, or a broader aggregator like Google News, (s goog) or sites that pull together the major news stories of the week and try to make sense of them. All of those things have value — but how much value? And does the value that is produced accrue to the reader, or to the original publisher? In ideal cases it would be both, but unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

At the bottom of much of the criticism about The Huffington Post and other aggregators is the business model that most online publishing is based on, which consists of collecting as many pageviews and unique visitors as possible. Its critics complain that this is what drives the HuffPo to do such clumsy aggregation — but it’s the same yardstick they use when they complain about how little traffic the aggregated piece sends them.

In the end, the online media business is about attention: how to get it, how to keep it, and how to maintain it over time — and it isn’t a sprint, but a marathon. Worrying about every place that posts a summary of your content without permission is a mug’s game. If a poorly aggregated, hastily rewritten version of your content can compete with what you do, and offer more (or even as much) value to the reader over the long term, then you have a lot bigger problems than just The Huffington Post.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users World Economic Forum and jphilipg

16 Responses to “Like it or not, aggregation is part of the future of media”

  1. 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

    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.

  2. Tom L.

    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.

  3. 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.

    • 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.

  4. Steven H.

    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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Miss Appropriation

    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?

    • 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.

  8. Well said Matthew – it is a mugs game (albeit an understandable one) to obsess about aggregators ‘stealing’ your content. In one form or another that’s a major stream of the link economy. As journalists we need to make hard decisions about what value we add to information and where is it added: is it speed (the scoop)? Original thinking and research? Deep contextualization? Powerful writing? Choose your spot on the value chain and dig in – for the long haul. If you truly add value there, it will be recognized.

  9. I would tend to agree with this but that aggregation really only makes sense under two conditions. First is that you already have a bunch of loyal readers. With aggregation, you are offering them more value and creating a stickier experience (they don’t go to the AdAge piece to get the content, they stay with you). Second is that you are providing some critical opinions around that. I have to admit, that’s what I do on my blog ( The articles that I read on various sites provide the fodder for me comment/discuss. I don’t necessarily crib information directly without attribution (back in the day we used to call that “research”) as my value is not in re-presenting the original information (always linked) but in writing commentary on it. I wrote a post about this very topic indicating that what people really want to pay for now is the opinions. HuffPo has a loyal readership of users who like the opinions of the staff/writers who run it. I would conjecture that the news itself, even if that includes some attributed text from other publications, is not as important.

  10. Marcus Hurst

    Great Post. It’s a necessary analysis to this issue. Although there are somethings to be said about Huffington Post actions, I get the feeling the reaction is overblown. Yes you only got 57 referrals but the post didn’t do well in Huffington Post either judgingby the small number of comments. They could have been more transparent but it was hardly plagiarism…relax people