Why Content Sites Are Getting Ripped Off
cdixon.org
cdixon.org
In any case, I figure that, if intent harvesting is where the money is on the net, then those who want to make lots of money on the net ought to do intent harvesting, rather than complain about how whatever they are doing is not lucrative.
Or am I missing something?
After a bit of thought, I figure I'm not so much opposed to complaining: if you think something ought to be better-paying, well, then, you're entitled to your opinion.
On the other hand, that is different from the idea that those who make little money are somehow being treated unethically (which is what "ripped off" would seem to imply).
To stick with the camera example in the original article, for any expensive purchase people will likely read reviews on a few specialized sites (eg dpreview.com) and on discussion forums where they can ask experts, other owners etc. But I'd wager there's a lot more ad revenue that goes to, say, cnet.com even though their reviews are superficial and crap. In the old days if you wanted to buy a decent camera you'd buy photography magazines and pore over the reviews, readers' letters etc. - and that's where the glossy full-color adverts from Canon, Nikon etc. would be (and still are, but the magazines have really shrunk). I don't think websites do nearly as well as the print magazines did even though they may be putting in just as much work and delivering just as much value to their readers.