page 1 of 1
George Sylvie
Apr 9, 2008 3:43 PM GMT
It's not a question of search OR content. It's a question of value, and when content becomes of value, then search follows. Traditional media, especially newspapers, need to learn to develop their search capacities and not be slave to Google & others. It's called R&D. There's an untapped, non-local audience out there that's just waiting to be included in the market, but newspapers are blinded by old ways of thinking. For more, go to http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/papers.php?year=2008 and download my paper.
Link to this comment
nmw
Apr 9, 2008 9:21 AM GMT
It's important to note that there are different KINDS of content. The title field of an HTML document is one well-known and often-cited example.However, there is a far more SIGNIFICANT piece of content: The domain name. It is not at all surprising that "high-traffic" generic domain names are very valuable, because these are at the CRUX of navigating the internet. Also, the domain name is the only type of content that is "registered" -- in other words: there is someone vouching for the validity of the information within the scope of the domain.In sum, the domain name is the most reliable content there is on the internet.I can be contacted at http://online-marketing-internet-advertising.com
Link to this comment
John Harre
Apr 9, 2008 1:11 AM GMT
Keyword-dense, unique content is the currency of the internet.
Link to this comment
Caliban Darklock
Apr 8, 2008 10:37 PM GMT
I'd say that this is like asking which is more important in music: tuning or timing. You need both. Without search, the content is just a big slushpile and nobody has the time to slog through it. Without content, your search returns only a few results and none of them are what you want. The real question is what the right balance of resources should be - how much time and effort to generate content, and how much time and effort to assist search. Neither of those numbers should be zero.
Link to this comment
Peter Monk
Apr 8, 2008 9:43 PM GMT
This is sort of a strange comparison - content and search. It is like asking which is king - the yellow pages or cable television. Search helps people find content, while content informs, entertains and enlightens (well, in a perfect world I suppose.) At any rate, my hunch is that we are seeing the beginning of an era where internet users will begin to question exactly who is producing content and will place a premium on valid and reliable content. Not that user generated content and search won't have a place, but the "old guard" media's value will begin to rise as the consumer tires of suspect content.What does this mean for search? It will always be an integral part of the internet experience, but I doubt people will look to tech companies like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft for reliable, informative and entertaining content. At the end of the day, these outfits are comprised of coders and techies, not creative types who produce quality content.Of course, I also said that Amazon would never make it¦
Link to this comment
MR
Apr 8, 2008 8:57 PM GMT
In the end of the day it is a symbiosis of both. Afterall, without good search engines one cannot find good content. If both know how to play the cards both can have targeted ads.Just my 2c.
Link to this comment
MM
Apr 8, 2008 3:54 PM GMT
I agree with random's comment. There's nothing to search for without content. I think many of the large media company's should have done what Viacom did.
Link to this comment
random
Apr 8, 2008 12:27 PM GMT
Without content, why even go to a website? I don't know of anyone who would love to parse through text links and search for things just to see ads all day. If you have no content, you don't even have the chance to create targeted ads. At the end of the day, the content is what draws in the clicks, drives the advertising and provides the users' overall experience. I've worked with several web companies who forgot that and wondered why very few people were interested in their websites.
Link to this comment