Content is King?

Jan 19, 2004 • 10:42 am | comments (2) by twitter | Filed Under Link Building Tips & SEO
 

In 1996, Bill Gates published an article entitled Content is King. His premise was that on the Internet, content sites - not ecommerce sites - would be generating the bulk of the income.

Although my response to Bill's assertion is laid out in an rant suitable titled Content isn't King, I'd like to make a few points here on SE Roundtable.

Bill's Theory Mr Gates states, "Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting".

TV and Radio broadcasting generates revenue because it's expensive to operate a TV or radio station. The shows aired on TV is uniquely expensive as well. They can charge a premium because of it. Publishing on the web, however, is free.

And when it's easy to do, everybody does it. This brings the price down. Supply and demand. Doctors only get paid what they do because there are fewer of them. If every other person had the skills to be a doctor, they'd be making minimum wage like content publishers.

Bill goes on, "within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won't be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You'll just click on what you want, knowing you'll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis."

Can you imagine? Paying for content?

Bill's last line gives him away -

"Those who succeed will propel the Internet forward as a marketplace of ideas, experiences, and products-a marketplace of content. "

"Ideas"? No. Ideas are still a dime a dozen. Ditto for experiences.

You can't charge for content. The consumer will go elsewhere. CPM for banner advertising is at an all time low. Most advertisers simply are not interested in banner ads. Advertisers want to pay for performance. And even pay per performance isn't paying much. Five cents per click through. Ten cents. Twenty five cents or even a dollar. It really doesn't matter because the consumers aren't clicking through.

Case in Point Suzuki-Bikes.com is a little content site. Some 4,460 pages currently in Google's index. The site averages 2,000+ uniques per day. The Adsense earnings of the site aren't enough to fund my daily Starbucks run. Sure, there have been offers from dealers to buy advertising on the site. At five cents per click, I didn't figure it was worth my time to respond.

An identical site belonging to a Kawasaki dealer generates less traffic. Less traffic, but over $2 million in sales per year.

Content is King? Naw.

Here's a link to the forum thread:Bill Was Wrong

Previous story: Using Google to Optimize for Inktomi
 

Comments:

David

05/27/2010 02:05 pm

I'm not sure that this is what Bill Gates meant... how do you come to the conclusion that banner ads must be the revenue stream for content? True, entertainment on the internet is NOT King at all. But information about how to do specific things, coaching etc. is a real industry. Also, iTunes is a content provider - with substantial revenue. It seems that content is more of an entrance door in many cases. For instance travel newsletters, forex newsletters etc. could all be considered content as long as they provide relevant and sometimes entertaining information. And at their backend there is a lot of ecommerce happening that otherwise might well have gone to a competitor. Looks like not all content is King but there are few Nobles that do not totally depend on traffic generated by content. Let's just call content King of attention, if you want.

web daddy

08/20/2011 08:23 am

lol its a proven fact that content helps web rankings and more visits which means more people seeing your product which means more sales....you sir are stupid

blog comments powered by Disqus