I can think of few sillier endeavors.

Money Talks

The ICSC thinks ad spends should go to the producers of rock-solid content.  That wouldn’t be a bad argument if they could convincingly demonstrate that an investment in top drawer material would yield a superior return on investment compared to buying space with the content mills.  If they could prove the link between “quality” content and higher profits, they wouldn’t even need to worry about the mills.  The market would dismiss them and they would wither away, as do all non-competitive business models.

Unfortunately, they don’t appear to be winning the argument.  As Mike Shields noted, the content mills are generating massive traffic numbers and they supply advertisers with highly-targeted eyeballs very efficiently.  Companies spend dough to make dough, not to support an organization’s interpretation of what constitutes proper writing.  When they see a positive ROI with the mills, they take their wallets to the mills.  It’s that simple.  Right now, they’re lining up at the mills.

Constantine von Hoffman noted that there are already sources of content that would undoubtedly meet any standards the Council might cook up.  We all know that The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. are there for us.  Their content tends to rank well, too.  Oh, and they get good traffic.  Yet the money isn’t flowing in their direction–at least not enough of it to keep the big boys plump and happy.  Why do these quality sources with trained professional editors and acclaimed writers struggle while an army of cut-rate freelancers and the mills who pay them thrive?

Welcome to today’s economic realities.  You might think they’re ugly.  You might not like them.  They are real.  The mills are delivering bang for advertising bucks.  As long as they continue doing so, all of the quality credentialing in the world won’t make a difference.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe the big ROI lies far, far away from the mills.  If all of those people are putting their cash in the wrong spots, all the Council needs to do is to present those facts.  If they could conclusively demonstrate that spending with sites that carry a higher grade of content would increase profitability over the alternative, the alternative would be gone.  Poof.  No need to credential a single word.

A Problem with Standards

The Council’s initial proposals with respect to content quality don’t really do anything to change the character of the allegedly rotten mill pieces.  They quickly recognized that the subjective nature of writing quality made it impossible to set standards.

Instead, Ellie Behling notes:

The point of the guidelines is not to evaluate content itself — which would be a subjective task — but to develop procedures companies can use in creating or publishing content, said Tim Duncan, executive director of the ICSC.

More specifically, the four principles push for proper fact-checking, clearly stated dates of publication, timely corrections and updates, and clearly displayed credentials of the information sources, according to a release from the council.

Wow.  That’s really going to keep the ‘Net free of shitty content.  Factual content?  Dates?  Corrections?  Credentials?  Give me a break.

When someone writes the 9,278th content mill article about removing stains from your carpet, she can probably manage to maintain factual accuracy.  The mill can slap a date on the page.  She can write up a paragraph discussing her unquestionable qualification to address a common consumer issue.  If someone points out a mistake, I suppose corrections could follow.  That still won’t address common mill-related gripes like

• Redundancy and lack of originality
• A lack of writing talent
• The fact that the article will play well with Google

The standards themselves are ridiculous because they fail to address the real problem ICSC members have with the mills–it’s stealing business, money and power from established industry veterans.  However, if they really went after mill content with the degree of transparency required to ‘fess up to that motivation, they’d be left with no alternative but to engage in obvious, untenable cries to credential or approve content on the basis of whether or not it’s something they like.

They may be trying to get to that point through the backdoor.  Matthew Ingram mentions that another proposed guideline is to ““ensure that all content submitted is vetted by established and qualified editorial reviewers.”  Whatever that means.  Established by whom?  When?  What qualifications?  Why?  What standards should these eminently qualified professionals use?  The questions are legion.

It Starts with a “G”

The Council is tilting at the wrong windmill in the first place.  The content mills exist and currently succeed because they understand something others don’t:  Search.  They know that money word starts with a “G”.

Google.

The mills kick ass on the search engines right now.  Thus, they get the eyeballs.  Thus, it makes sense to spend with them.  If people didn’t rely on search to find the kind of information supplied by mills and their writers, no one would want to partner with them.

Content mills succeed in search because (1)  they’ve figured out the long tail of search, (2) they’re creating content in response to expressed market desires (i.e. providing information for which people are already searching), (3) know how to build G-friendly sites, (4) capably exploit the limitations of Google’s search algorithm and (5) recognize that Google is interested in providing relevant search results, a goal that doesn’t necessarily line up with providing quality results.

Nonetheless, the Council is making content standards a priority instead of fighting Google.  When they do address the issue of search with respect to mills and the perceived deficiency in content quality, they do so very carefully.  Do you think they’re more comfortable griping about the mills than they are in actually confronting the core cause of mill popularity?

After all, as Frank Reed argues

In all honesty, unless the action comes from Google itself …there will be little that will be done. Consumers will have to ultimately judge what content they like or dislike and then advertisers can say whether or not they want to be linked to it.

And for that to happen, someone will need to show Google the err of its ways.  Here’s a hint:  The only persuasive arguments are the ones with dollar signs attached.

I’ve personally maintained that a change will, in time, come from Google.  That won’t happen because some insider Council dislikes crappy content, though.  It will come when actual users grow sick of search results that don’t measure up to their expectations and when Google starts losing numbers because of that dissatisfaction and/or the appearance of alternative means of information organization and acquisition.

Until then, all of the standards, credentials and concern about the allegedly lamentable state of Internet content won’t make much difference.

Note:  I’ve intentionally avoided discussing whether the Council’s initial assumption–that content mill articles carry the stench of inferiority–has any basis in reality.  That’s because (1) I’m not really interested in another discussion of quality, mills and the folks who write for them and (2)  it doesn’t really matter–even if the Council were right, their approach wouldn’t fix any problem. I’ve also intentionally avoided trying to portray the Council as a group of old-schoolers who just don’t “get it” or who are simply scurrying about, looking for a way to preserve their incomes.  While it would be convenient to run with that notion, I don’t think it’s quite fair.  Quite.

You may have heard that Editor & Publisher will cease publication at the end of the year, but you may have missed this great Q&A between Greg Marx of Columbus Journalism Review and Editor & Publisher’s editor-in-chief Greg Mitchell.

Like eating? Like blogging about eating? If you can articulate the difference between nutmeg and cinnamon you may be interested in learning: Spanfeller Preps Foodie Launch for Web from AdWeek.

What happens when a newspaper decides to wrap itself in advertising so you don’t see the, um, news? You have the USA Today founder going bananas over it:  Not on His Watch, USA Today Founder Says courtesy of The NYTimes.

Make your living hipping homeowners to the latest color palate and design details? Check your Rolodex folks – there’s been some shift at some “Home” magazines. Elle Decor and Architectural Digest do the magazine shuffle. Shifts at Top of Home Magazines from The NYTimes.

Is Digg losing its revelance? Traffic is on the decline – no news there, but the interesting news the site has been gamed by politicos seeking to bury left-leaning stories. Power of the people or political pansy? Mashable has the scoop Digg Gamed by Conservative Conspiracy; How Does Digg Bury It?

Those poor souls are wrong.

They are also likely the same people who wanted to hang on to their typewriter. Then their word processor, then their 486 IBM and finally that laptop that weighed 300 pounds. If being a great writer is about growth, why can’t technology be a part of that growth?

Social media enhances the article writing experience.

Where else can you hop on your little pedestal and say, “Have you ever tried [insert random product or therapy for depression]? How did it work for you? I’m writing an article on coping with depression,” and people instantly contact you with their stories and sources? Social media tools allow for writers to reach out to the lady in California, the guy in Idaho and the professor at Carnegie Melon without leaving their homes. Why is this important?

Access.

Access to real and diverse folks. Access to a homogeneous pool of sources – the choice is yours. Social media allows you to pull sources and resources from your audience making the articles you write more insightful, richer and more appealing.

Diversify Your Social Media

I know, I should slow down. I just got you interested in how it can actually help you in your work and now I want to get all crazy with it. Yeah well..So anyway, diversifying! Even if you aren’t a social media maven, you know about Twitter and Facebook, the two biggies. They are great, fabulous and…crowded. Don’t abandon them, they are still the hotspot for the social media community, but also look at other tools in the social media belt.

Like LinkedIn. Mainly a hang out for business types, meaning you’ll find less pictures of someone’s cats, LinkedIn still provides a wealth of information and connections to sources. Join groups that not only interest you but impact your particular niche. If you don’t have a niche, it’s still important to keep your ear to the ground with what’s going on in that world. Like in social media groups.

YouTube is not the wasteland of old Michael Jackson videos and dramatic squirrels most people think it is. In fact, it can be a wealth of knowledge for a writer. Video blogs and tutorials are rich sources of information and contacting those who produced them is a great way to get off the beaten path for sources.

It’s easy to become overwhelmed in this Tweeting, linking, YouTubing, Facebooking time, but it’s better to embrace it than being the last known user of dial-up. Take a look around, focus on your niche and see what connections you can make. It’s a big social media world out there, but the key is to scoot into an area that feels like home for you!

The Columbia Journalism Review had a rather interesting blog post commenting on ZDNet’s post about printing and things that are making offset printing obsolete. Lauren Kirchner’s “Don’t Get Your Printing Advice from a Printer Manufacturer” is great, if not for the great analytical content, then simply for this: “So essentially, I realized, I was reading and analyzing a blogpost written by someone like Microsoft’s Clippy.“ Hilarious.

Al Qaidia entered the magazine business this month with the Inspire web mag. Designed to appeal to young jihadists, the magazine had article titles like “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” and what to pack for a jihad. According to NPR, the glossy magazine had lots of Western media attention but isn’t really getting the attention of their target audience. Goes to show, the magazine biz isn’t easy for anyone, even those who seemingly have a captive audience… “Al-Qaidia Magazine Draws Attention, But Few Fans.”

Huffington Post had a great post on our Internet Interrupted Brains. Turns out, we have poor attention spans. Who knew?!

Wait, just got a ping… Okay, I’m back, what I miss? Oooh something shiny! What were we talking about?

Have an awesome August!

Edmund Lee from AdAge has a great post about papers/publishers using “content mills” to supplement their news and opinion articles. Demand Studios and Associated Content are mentioned: More Publishers Trying Outsourced Journalism

Thomas K. Zellers talks about: Paper or Pixels? NewsCorp is taking steps to be carbon neutral by the end of the year.

Folio.com reports: “Women’s Publishers See Positive Signs Over First Three Months of 2010”

Editor and Publisher: “Press Freedom Marching Backward Around the Globe, Freedom House Survey Says”

The New York Times: “Stefano Tonchi to edit W Magazine” and “Patrick McCarthy to Leave Conde’ Nast“

Where are the Women? – Alicia Shepard asks an all important question about NPR & it’s diversity or lack of in some areas.

A dangerous assignment gone really, really bad -”Paul Raffaele, a top flight freelancer for Smithsonian magazine, was badly injured in a suicide bombing while on assignment in Afghanistan in 2008. Raffaele says the magazine agreed to insure him but he has nothing in writing. The two are now at an impasse. Writer Katie Rolnick tells the story.” Even if you’re not a freelance war journalist, this affects all of us. How many of us have implied agreements with our editors?

Report: Media M&A Continues to Recover; JEGI says Q1 activity up 70+ percent; value more than quadrupled. Freelance magazine writers everywhere just smiled slightly

John Cook Leaving Gawker for Yahoo News –

Student editors: ‘We stand by our decision to publish controversial opinions’ – “The editorial board at American University’s Eagle — under fire for a column about date rape — says it realizes it has to “take more responsibility for what we publish” and that “until we have a specific policy to do this, The Eagle will be temporarily suspending the publication of all opinion columns.” College papers push boundaries, ask questions, you may not agree with the columnist but it is encouraging to see students taking up the debate and learning the complex world of free press.

Hearst’s RealBeauty.com on Course to Reach One Million Unique Visitors

*Sources for today’s info:

Poynter.org

EditorandPublisher.com

Foliomag.com

This past week The Plain Dealer, a newspaper in Cleveland Ohio, investigated, uncovered and revealed the name of an anonymous poster from their web site. This poster,”lawmiss,” had commented many times, but one comment, aimed at a Dealer reporter’s family member raised eyebrows and led to the investigation. It turns out the username’s, registered email address beloned to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold. It was also revealed that someone using “lawmiss” had posted comments on several articles covering Judge Strickland Saffold’s cases including capital murder cases.

The paper’s decision to reveal the name of an anonymous poster has raised an interesting ethics question: Where does personal privacy end and the public’s “right to know” begin? Even the paper’s editor, Susan Goldberg, struggled with whether the paper should have investigated to uncover the name of the poster, however, she argues once the email was discovered, the public’s right to know outweighed any privacy concerns.

It bears to note Judge Strickland Saffold has denied posting certain comments and her 23 year-old daughter has revealed she posted “quite a few, more than five” of the comments to the Plain Dealer’s web site under the name registered to her mother’s email address.

This has weight with the FWJ community not just as a point of an interesting journalism ethics discussion, but here at FWJ we’re a community where people can post anonymously. Each web forum has it’s own comment policy and Freelance Writing Jobs is no different. In light of the Plain Dealer’s foray into these uncharted waters, will you change your comment habits? Do you agree with the Dealer’s or any web site’s right to disclosure? What standards should be in place? Discuss!

Here is More Reading on the Topic:

The Plain Dealer and the ethics of disclosure - Washington Times

Anonymous online comments are linked to the personal e-mail account of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold – Cleveland.com

New York Times Staffers Furious Over The Huge Raise Executives Gave Themselves – Gillian Reagan reports for Business Insider the $12 million in executive bonuses the paper paid out is not going over so well with the staff at NYT. Perhaps cutting staff by 100 and giving yourself a raise isn’t the best way to get on their good side…

Magazines Use the iPad as Their New Barker – Magazines including Conde Naste are looking to the iPad to help ad revenue. Print ad revenue is still pretty fickle so subscription downloads with fancy video and interactive features look to be a possible solution to many publishers’ cash crunch. It’s a bit too early to tell how this will all work out, but given Apple’s ability to market products as indispensible, hooking a ride on iPad’s coat tails may not be too bad of an idea.

‘Plain Dealer’ in Ethics Breach Over Identifying Anonymous Poster? Shawn Moynihan Editor and Publisher’s managing editor/online editor commentates on Cleveland’s The Plain Dealer’s decision to investigate and publish the name of an anonymous comment poster on their web site.  Turns out the anon poster email is registered to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold and her daughter has since admitted to using the email to post comments. It’s an interesting look into journalism ethics, I’d love to hear thoughts on this one!

Christine Russell over at Columbia Journalism Review has a great article on new media and investigative journalism “From Gumshoe to Google Wave.”

Michel Martin at NPR asks “Where Will We Be Without Professional Journalists?”

Media Week has it’s “Magazine Hot List for 2010: Web Site of the Year” and “Magazine Hot List 2010: Top 10” with some interesting titles, beyond People Magazine and Sports Illustrated.

Memo Pad reports: In order to save Men’s Vogue after shrinking the pub dates to twice a year, Conde’ Nast is going to put the Spring issue of Men’s Vogue on the back of the April issue of women’s Vogue.

Media Week reports: Country home is folding with the March issue and the Boston Globe is joining the NYTimes in offering front page ads.