Well AI certainly didn't make it better in this case.
The fact that it is profitable to make this generic sports-lingo-laced content is, on its own, pretty depressing.
The fact that it is profitable to make this generic sports-lingo-laced content is, on its own, pretty depressing.
You're missing the whole middle part about users and revenue. SEO alone does not a Wall Street valuation make.
Maybe the indictment here should instead be about discovery and how we share ideas and utility with one another.
Are they? Or are you over-estimating that part?
Do you have an example of a company whose valuation is driven principally by eyeballs? Not metrics tied to eyeballs, e.g. ad revenue. Just eyeballs.
Do you have an example where the metric is eyeballs?
This was a thing once! But to my knowledge, it isn't the sole basis of any company's valuation today.
So people will see content ESPN is actually paying meaningful amounts of money to create ie videos.
If you are faster and have the best SEO at that point in time then that means everyone trying to read about Lebron James retiring is going to search it in Google and is going to read your article first, and you're getting the ad revenue. It's a 90/10 situation. The "top" website in the rankings is going to get 90% of the clicks.
You can only be the "top" if your SEO to that point is also the "best". And to have that you need to have all this generated content.
Unless anything extraordinary happens, every post game interview features the same questions with the same answers and every article about the game looks the same with only the names of the participating players and their stats changing.