Transparency Doesn't Mean Free Content June 18, 2009
Website Magazine was passing out free copies of their June issue at SES Toronto. I picked one up. It’s an interesting read, as most trade publications are, and it does give a good starting point for discovering new businesses and services in this industry.
One article caught my attention pretty quickly. The editorial from Mike Phillips (Senior Editor at Website Magazine), entitled “Transparency is So 2008“, suggests that the popularity of the “transparency” term/concept is nothing more than a passing fad:
It refers to the idea that we should be completely open about what we do. Our content should be syndicated freely throughout the Web and the inner workings of our businesses should be bare for all to see.
Phillips goes on to draw a correlation between the ideas of transparency and free content:
You might find yourself spending hours creating a stellar blog post. Then you submit your content to every bookmarking service and social site you can find. You might enjoy a spike in the day’s website traffic, and perhaps make a few bucks from the resulting clicks on your contextual or display ads. But too often uninspired professionals resort to adapting another’s content and calling it their own.
This is where I started to raise an eyebrow. I’ve never associated transparency with free content (or “linkbait”) – they’ve always appeared to be mutually exclusive subjects. Here’s how I define them:
Transparency refers to being open and forward about what you (or your business) are doing. When major changes are made to your service, for example, you let your customer/client/audience/users know what changes were made, why they were made, and how it will affect them.
Facebook faced a backlash from users (no pun intended) when it updated it’s Terms of Service without letting users know that the change was coming. As a result, Facebook now involves its userbase in the decision-making process. Users will know what’s coming in advance. They can provide feedback before the changes are implemented. That’s transparency.
Free content (linkbait) refers to unique and relevant content that is intended to draw traffic to a site. As Phillips states in his editorial, this sort of content can often be picked up/covered by other sites with larger audiences. If these other sites are less-than-honourable, the original source (you) may wind up being disregarded altogether. When/if this happens, the time (money) spent on creating that content becomes a waste.
Needless to say, these are two very different things. One focuses on relationships while the other focuses on using content as a way to generate revenue.
I have no qualms with the suggestions that Phillips puts forth in his editorial. Premium memberships and pay-to-access content are viable strategies. I just disagree with the suggestion that free content = transparency.
Agree? Disagree? Are my definitions totally off? Let me know. Kick me some feedback.
View Comments | Posted in Internet Marketing