I first became aware of Demand Media by reading this feature by Daniel Roth in the November 2009 issue of Wired [ Ed: ReadWriteWeb wrote a feature about it in August ] . In fact, Roth alerted me by email that his piece was about to come online, because he thought I would find it interesting. He was dead on. I found it fascinating, and also scary. Since then the discussion of these "content farms" (what ReadWriteWeb editor Richard MacManus called them recently) has picked up a lot intensity online. For a good round-up, see Jason Fry's recent post The Furor Over Content Farms . In the following interview with Demand Media founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt, I explore this new online phenomenon. Sponsor Jay Rosen teaches journalism at NYU and blogs at PressThink , which won the Reporters Without Borders 2005 Freedom Blog award. He is also the director of NewAssignment.Net and blogs at the Huffington Post. I've been discussing Demand Media a bit on Twitter, always referring to it as... (the demonic) Demand Media. This got the attention of someone from the company because I heard from Richard Rosenblatt, the founder and CEO, who said that I didn't understand the firm's mission. I asked him if he would do an interview with me to clarify what that mission was. He graciously agreed. Today I caught up with him by IM and we had the following exchange. Rosen : In the November 2009 Wired article by Daniel Roth, this was the part I thought most important: "Most media companies are trying hard to... boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it -- perhaps an impossible proposition -- the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value." Now, when you wrote to me, you said I didn't get the mission of Demand Media. As I understand it, the mission is to make a ton of money on the Web by using data mining to understand demand and then cutting costs in this way Roth described. Do I have it wrong? Rosenblatt : It's not all about cost cutting but about building a sustainable media model that allows us to achieve our mission to build an engine for what the world wants to know and share. We do this by connecting consumers with content that meets their specific interests and [offers] connections to people that share their passion. To do this well, and at scale, has required significant innovation and investment. Rosen : Here's what I think Demand Media has right. It's important to know what people are interested in. It's good to have tools that tell us what they wish to know. Using that knowledge to guide production is innovation, too, which we need-- precisely because production is so easy and cheap and the tools are so good. But here's what I think bothers a lot of people, and leads to a description of your firm as a "content farm" or "factory." I read about the 11 people - and 15 different roles - involved in the production of articles and video in Demand Studios. I get your idea that "quality is based on relevance." But if you're trying to match costs to the available revenue for a given piece of content, what happens when editorial quality requires costs greater that what's available in search revenue? And who's watching out for that point? Rosenblatt : I like the way you describe and characterize our business; maybe we have a lot more in common that you think. We are building content that is evergreen and solving a different type of problem. We are focused on creating content that solves problems, answers questions, saves money, saves time, makes you laugh - content that improves people's lives in big and small ways. It's relevant and impactful to millions and millions of people every day. It must generally fit within the economic framework the Internet provides today. As those economics change so will we. Rosen : Okay I got that but I am not sure it answers this part of my question: ...if you're trying to match costs to the available revenue for a given piece of content, what happens when editorial quality requires costs greater that what's available in search revenue? And who's watching out for that point? Rosenblatt : We only make content that we think can be done responsibly and within our cost structure. Rosen : As you know, there's a conversation going on out there about Demand Media, and I want to show you a bit of it. The premise, as Jeff Jarvis puts it, is that companies like yours (and Associated Content, to name another) "produce crap that's just good enough to fool algorithms," especially Google's. This is said to be a problem for Google. So Jarvis writes, "I think we may see search fall as the sole or even key means of discovery and filtering of quality content. I see three rings of discovery today: search (Google); algorithms (see: Google News, Daylife); and humans (see: Twitter). Note again that Bit.ly alone causes as many clicks a month -- one billion -- as Google News. Human power rises again. That's what Fred Wilson says today when he argues that social beats search, because "it's a lot harder to spam yourself into a social graph." What do to you think of Wilson's idea, "social beats search" because it cannot be gamed as easily? If he's right, isn't that a threat to Demand Media's profits? Rosenblatt : First of all, we're not filling up search engines. We're creating content that lives on some of the most engaging websites in the world. These sites have really amazing tools that truly help people - whether it's managing your diabetes, motivating yourself to stop smoking, helping you drop your golf handicap, or determining what hike to take the kids on this weekend. And I wouldn't say we are even "search-led" any more. We are led by consumer demand. We are maniacally focused on giving users exactly what they want, where they want it. We have algorithms that tell us what search visitors want. And algorithms that tell us what YouTube visitors prefer. And we're working on new algorithms that tell us what social network users desire. And we're pretty sure the needs of mobile users will be different than all of the above - so we'll tune our approach for them too. Search is just where we started, because that's where most consumers started their information seeking experiences. But the world has changed a lot since we started Demand Media four years ago - and we're changing with it. Rosen : So you're getting social too and moving away from just search? Rosenblatt : Absolutely and have been planning this for years; we consider this a core part of our business and social has been at the center of our business since we started Rosen : Does the description of your company as a "content farm," content mill, factory (or even digital sweatshop) seem to you inaccurate or point missing in some way? I mean I know these are not nice terms or polite descriptions but are they wrong headed? Rosenblatt : Completely missing the point. We have significant editorial processes. Let me explain. How do we do this? We hire qualified professional writers, film-makers and copyeditors. Set clear editorial objectives and style guidelines for every piece. Require external sources with every submission. Copy edit what's been turned in. Fact-check it. Check it for plagiarism. Rate each piece so that writers get feedback. Provide education to improve the team members. Perform quality audits and take down content that doesn't meet current standards (thousands per month). Weed out content creators who aren't performing well or improving fast enough (we let go more than 100 creators per month). What's more like a sweatshop: someone's living room working their own hours or a typical newsroom? Rosen : When you're trying to build trust in an editorial brand, you pay those costs when they exceed available revenues, which I talked about. But it seems to me that Demand isn't trying to build trust in that way, it's trying to create content that meets demand, stays relevant and grabs the available search revenue. Why doesn't Demand Media create the bulk of its content under the Demand brand, like Reuters, say? Rosenblatt : We believe that the Internet continues to fragment and passionate audiences want their own community and brand. The brands we are focused on: our Web sites such as eHOW, Livestrong and our other properties. This is where we focus our branding energy. Rosen : As you know, journalism is in a good deal of peril today because of a collapsing economic model. I've read that Demand does not want to go anywhere near news, which is interesting, but do you feel you have discovered anything that would be useful to journalists as they try to survive Rosenblatt : We respect journalists very much. We think they need to use technology to help them figure out what audiences want and how to get value from their content more effectively. And there are big opportunities for them to increase quality by removing inefficiencies in the process of content creation. We would love to partner with as many publishers and media outlets as we can Rosen : You seem to know how to make money on the Web, why not get into news? Rosenblatt : Because we haven't figure out how to do it responsibly and profitably also, its completely saturated and highly competitive. Consumers already have more sources than they need. Rosen : Someone who follows my work and knew I was interviewing you told me to ask you this: Do you love the Web? The implied question there is: if you love the Web, then why are you doing this, running these content farms... ? Rosenblatt : OMG. My entire career and life has been about the Web. Trying to innovate and create value where open spaces exist. We do not have a content mill as we discussed but an efficient method to get people the information they need when they want it. That is improving the Internet and I am proud of it Rosen : Open spaces? What does that phrase mean? Rosenblatt : Where there is a lot of room for opportunity for not only our company but for other entrepreneurs. Rosen : I know you have a meeting to run to... thanks very much... anything you wish to add? Rosenblatt : I hope to see you in NY in the future to continue our dialogue. All my best and happy holidays. Check out ReadWriteWeb's entire coverage of Demand Media and content farms: Content Farms: Why Media, Blogs & Google Should Be Worried How Google Can Combat Content Farms Demand Media Is a Page View Generating Machine - And it's Working Answers.com: 31 Million Copied and Pasted Web Pages Can't Go Wrong The Age of Mega Content Sites - Answers.com and Demand Media How Demand Media Produces 4,000 Pieces of Content a Day Ad-Driven Content - Is it Crossing The Line? Discuss

Visit link:
Jay Rosen Interviews Demand Media: Are Content Farms "Demonic"?

Dell is increasing its crowdsourcing efforts on IdeaStorm , by giving hardware manufacturers more feedback on products and services. "Storm Sessions" are designed to attract a larger business community to the IdeaStorm site, by providing a more focused, structured approach. Storm Sessions provide a way for Dell to listen to its community, but we are a bit skeptical that the effort will receive significant interest from the business community. Sponsor This may be in part due to the transparency of the process. Will business people feel comfortable giving their feedback in such a public way? Dell launched Ideastorm two and a half years ago, with the intention of giving customers the opportunity to post their own ideas about Dell's products and services. Ideastorm now has 60,000 registered users. The community posts about 300 ideas per month. The free form aspects of the crowdsourcing effort attracts a consumer crowd. Product groups at Dell find Ideastorm useful. The Linux community is especially vocal on IdeaStorm and Dell now offers Ubuntu on Dell machines based on feedback from the Linux community. Storm Sessions seek to better match business users with the community aspects of the IdeaStorm site, through a more structured process. Storm Sessions will live on the Dell site for two to four weeks. Dell is starting with two topics, covering mobile technology and the redesign of the Dell support site. Sessions are presented with a statement, providing context about the issue Dell is exploring. Each session includes a count down. Ideas are submitted through a UI that looks much like a blogging platform. The ideas then get loaded to the IdeaStorm site. Dell product groups receive the information collected from the sessions. It is analyzed and integrated into the product development process. IdeaStorm is impressive, especially considering that just two-people manage it. The amount of feedback Dell receives in return is significant, which shows the power that crowdsourcing can bring to an organization. Storm Sessions will initially focus on the education market, where Dell shows a strong presence. This could serve as the major draw for Storm Sessions. We look forward to watching the progress of Storm Sessions and how other companies bring crowdsourcing into the enterprise. Discuss

Read more here:
Dell Increases its Crowdsourcing Efforts - Will it Work?

Research from Harvard Medical School has resulted in a pretty sharp SaaS learning system. SpacedEd , as it is called, uses a simple question and answer format that adapts to the person's level of knowledge. Today the adaptive technology is taking a leap into the business world with SpacedEd Enterprise , a service designed for corporations and for-profit educational groups. Sponsor SpacedEd is based upon the spacing effect, which states that people learn more effectively when presented information that is repeated over spaced intervals. Spaced Education is the company managing the technology. It conducted studies that show some pretty compelling results from training they did with doctors. For example, the SpacedEd training helped decrease cancer screenings by 26% in random clinical trials of 95 Virginia primary care providers, representing a potential cost savings of $650,000 per year in test costs alone. Here's how the service works: The learner receives course materials that are delivered electronically in a question format. People may receive questions by email, through an RSS feed or through a web site. Answers may be posted using any connected device, reflecting the nature in which people are conducting their lives. People receive two questions per day. If the person gets one of the questions wrong then it is posed again one week later. If answered correctly, the question is repeated three weeks later. If the person get it right a second time then the question is dropped from the course material. Course material is delivered to the recipient based on their knowledge level. SpacedEd Enterprise is designed for corporate clients and for-profit learning organizations. Administrators may control the access that users have to the courses. The service includes the capability to answer questions in a blog format so they may elaborate and create their own questions. SpacedEd offers a 30-day trial. Customers may use the technology on a pay-per-use basis. Discuss

More:
Harvard Medical School's Learning Technology Must Be Smart...Right?

We reported yesterday that Facebook is aiming to get people to be more public on the site and that anyone who hasn't changed their privacy settings will now see it "recommended" that their status updates, photos etc. be exposed to the whole web. I had a unique opportunity to speak to Barry Schnitt, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Policy at Facebook and quite a frank guy, at length this afternoon about Facebook's privacy policy changes. Schnitt said "your understanding is basically correct," but disagreed with the negative light I saw the change in. Becoming less private and more public is "a change just like it was a change in 2006 when Facebook became more than just people from colleges," Schnitt told us. "Facebook is changing," he said, "and so is the world changing and we are going to innovate to meet user requests." Do you buy that? Sponsor The State of the Transition 22 million randomly chosen users have been prompted to re-evaluate their privacy settings so far, Schnitt said, out of 350 million users on the site. Those who have edited any privacy settings before will see those old settings selected as the new default, unless they were more public with their phone number and birthday than Facebook recommends. Facebook doesn't recommend that you expose your phone number and birthday to everyone, just your friends of friends at most. Facebook does recommend that you share the content you post to the site, including status messages and photos, with everyone across the whole web. That's new. If you've never edited your privacy settings before, Facebook will set the new default on the "transition" page to share all your posted content with everyone. You are free, of course, to change that setting. Schnitt told me that so far, more than 50% of users who have gone through the transition screen have in fact changed their "posts I create" setting. Schnitt did not know, however, what percentage of those people were changing it for the first time and away from "everyone" vs the percentage of people who were taking the opportunity to change a restrictive setting to a newly more public one. I'd guess most of those 50% of changers were first time privacy appliers, because privacy was presumed before. Schnitt says that only 15 to 20% of Facebook users have ever changed their privacy settings before, so 80 to 85% of people will now be switched by "recommendation" to share their content with the whole web. Schnitt doesn't like the word "default," he says, because this is such an easy option to change. He says that means that privacy groups are wrong when they say Facebook is tricking or confusing people - that this change has in fact meant a jump from %15 to 50%+ of users making a decision about their privacy settings. That's good! Why The Change? Schnitt said that the company experimented with calls for users to re-evaluate the confusing privacy settings without any default option ("recommendation") preselected. "People didn't interact with it and they asked for a recommendation," he told us. "85% of people agreed with our recommendations before." By that he means that the 85% of people who never changed their privacy settings agreed with Facebook's recommendations before and would likely do so again now. I asked whether most people signed up for Facebook because it was private between friends and family and Schnitt argued that was just one way to interpret it. "In 2007, when on Facebook you did not have any options but to share just with friends, we added more options as the world has changed," he said. "I don't think there were people then asking for public sharing, but people asked us to share more broadly." (I asked if those people were marketers and Schnitt said he didn't know what they do for a living.) Now in 2010, it's time to share even more broadly - if you so choose. Why are things changing at Facebook? "Because the site is changing," Schnitt said, "our userbase is changing and the world changing." How is the userbase changing? "It's growing in size and people are sharing more information with more people," he told me. Hasn't the premise always been that Facebook prioritizes limited exposure of shared content in order for people to feel more comfortable sharing and thus share more? Schnitt said the world was changing and that so long as they feel in control of who sees what, everyone seeing things they post will likely be good for most people. And then came the big answers to the big questions. How is the world changing? Isn't Facebook, having grown from 140 million users 12 months ago to being the 3rd largest nation on earth at 350 million users today, in fact a leading agent changing the world? Isn't this change proscribing cultural change, instead of just reflecting it? "Tens of millions of people have joined Twitter," Schnitt said. "That's wide open. So is MySpace." I asked for more examples of the world changing in that way. Reality TV? "Frankly, yes," he said,"public blogs instead of private diaries, far more people commenting on newspaper websites than ever wrote letters to the editor." I told Schnitt I didn't buy much of that beyond maybe Twitter (maybe you do, readers) but that I wanted to discuss what Facebook's interests were in moving its hundreds of millions of users towards more public sharing. Facebook's Public Sharing Agenda Schnitt's first explanation of Facebook's interest in increased openness was what I expected him to say. It's the same thing founder Mark Zuckerberg says and it is no doubt an important part of the story. "By making the world more open and connected, we're expanding understanding between people and making the world a more emphathetic place," Schnitt said. "And we know that when users find their friends, are found by their friends and learn more about the world around them - they find more value on the site. From a business perspective, if users are finding more value from the site they will come back more and engage in more activity. And you can imagine the business consequences of that." That means ads. Traffic and ads. And empathy and world peace. That's the new Facebook! Recommending you share your content with the whole web at large because users requested it, because it believes the world is changing that way so you'll feel comfortable with it, because it believes openness increases human connection and because it's going to increase traffic and advertising revenues. (See Chris Saad for a good argument that there's nothing wrong with this .) Do you agree with Barry Schnitt of Facebook? I suspect that most people on Facebook will not. Millions of people hated the Facebook Newsfeed when it was introduced, though (they said it was a privacy violation) and now it's changed the world and is widely beloved. Facebook may just be doing us all a service, but it sure would be nice if they'd be more honest about what they are doing. This was a refreshingly frank interview, but most of Facebook's communication has felt like obfuscation. In the end, I suspect this will not be a terrible thing. People will not be completely unsophisticated in their engagement with these new settings, and some people will end up tiring of Facebook's pushes towards public settings and leave for other emergent networks. And the world will become more public. In the mean time, I think many users are going to be unhappy about it. Discuss

Link:
Why Facebook Changed Its Privacy Strategy

Look at how smart phones are reaching into the enterprise and it's clear a cultural shift is taking place that is transforming the relationship between IT and business users. Smart phones in the enterprise are a user-driven phenomena. People buy smart phones to do work, but also for personal use. IDC is estimating that by 2013, a billion mobile devices will access the Internet. In light of this onslaught, how do IT managers keep things in check? MobileIron believes the trick is in treating smart phones as computers. By employing a data-centric model, IT can manage and control how smart phones are used, while at the same time creating a cooperative environment with users. Sponsor MobileIron uses the data from smart phones to help IT administrators create social graphs for users that gives insights into the business. Call histories and SMS messages are no longer locked in the phone. Instead, the information can be aggregated and analyzed. IT is slowly learning that the days of using command and control tactics are ending. As smart phones become ubiquitous, IT is struggling to keep up with security and the costs of managing how employees access information and applications. Serving as a police agency is ineffective. The real answer is to develop a cooperative culture. For example, MobileIron provides the capabilities for an enterprise to establish its own "app stores." IT can manage what applications may be accessed by users. The MobileIron methods allow for all sorts of opportunities. Costly roaming charges can be monitored as can service quality. MobileIron demonstrates how smart phones are becoming an icon for cultural change in the enterprise. In many ways, the social Web is changing how we view the way we work. The advent of smart phones accelerates that shift and will force the enterprise to alter the way IT has historically worked with business users. Discuss

Read the original here:
Smart Phones Show How the Times are a Changing

Jack Herrick knows a bit about Demand Media , one of the top 20 web properties in the U.S. and the subject of several ReadWriteWeb articles about sites that are pumping thousands of pieces of content into the Web every day. Herrick sold the business he founded, eHow , to Demand Media in 2006. eHow is one of Demand Media's flagship properties, but Herrick became frustrated with the focus on quantity over quality. So he created another business, wikiHow , which he claims produces higher quality articles. wikiHow has today unveiled a redesign (screenshot below). However we were more interested in the content quality question, so we asked founder Jack Herrick what makes him think wikiHow is any better than Demand Media's content farms? Sponsor The newly re-designed wikiHow How Jack Herrick Went From eHow to wikiHow "When I ran eHow," Herrick told us via email, "we produced content in a manner somewhat similar to the way Demand Studios does today (although at a much, much smaller scale.)" However Herrick ultimately became frustrated with that model when he realized that "it would fill the web with a bunch of mediocre content." "It's like eating a McDonald's burger vs. a wonderful, home cooked meal." At the time Herrick thought that the mediocre content production would hurt eHow's long term brand. Although he now concedes he may've been mistaken on that point, given Demand Media's success over the past couple of years. When Herrick sold eHow in 2006, he began to work on wikiHow - a wiki how-to manual which now competes with eHow. wikiHow currently generates 19 million unique visitors per month, according to the company (it's about to hit 20 million monthly uniques). Demand Media's eHow is still the market leader in how-to content, however wikiHow is a small unfunded company with only 7 employees. Herrick is convinced that the wiki model for producing content attracts "passionate volunteers." He thinks that the wiki way will "ultimately result in a higher quality product," compared to eHow. The other prong of Herrick's argument is that eHow gets what it pays for in terms of content quality. "When you pay $15 for an article, you get a $15 product...and nothing more," he noted archly. Wikis Aren't Perfect Either Jack Herrick admits that "wiki content typically starts out as low quality," but claims that "once it matures and receives enough edits it can be amazing." And that is really the crux of this argument. A quality wiki article, whether it's found on Wikipedia or wikiHow, will generally be one that has received a number of edits from people who know the topic well. wikiHow itself has done research which shows this. Herrick told us that in previous research, wikiHow found that "the more people who edit an article, the more readers it attracted and the higher quality the article became." The problem is, there's no guarantee any given article will attract passionate volunteers to edit it. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization and so it's more likely to be attractive to volunteers - they're contributing to the world's knowledge base and no corporation is profiting from that. wikiHow, on the other hand, is a commercial enterprise. It calls itself a "hybrid organization," meaning a "for-profit company focused on creating a global public good." But it's a company nonetheless. While the content of wikiHow has a Creative Commons license , the company profits directly by it. The company vs. non-profit issue may not be a big influence on many of wikiHow's current volunteers, but it may prevent wikiHow from scaling to Wikipedia's size. Next page: We compare wikiHow to eHow and ask which is better... Comparing wikiHow to eHow Although by no means a perfect approach, I decided to choose a random topic and compare wikiHow and eHow. The topic I chose was: decorating a room using Feng Shui. The wikiHow article had been contributed to by 8 authors and it was a comprehensive, helpful article - complete with diagram and video. A comparable eHow article was helpful too, although much less comprehensive and with no accompanying media. The verdict? In this case the wikiHow article was better. But your mileage may vary per topic and article. Which Approach is Better, Wiki or Paid Content? When done on a large scale, is paid-for content (such as Demand Media's eHow) better than volunteer wiki content? Herrick makes a good case, but in reality it isn't black and white. The most famous example of a wiki, Wikipedia, generally produces quality content - although there have always been instances of contentious content on the site. wikiHow founder Jack Herrick: eHow content "lacks soul." Herrick contends that wiki content is inherently better because "volunteer writers are passionate about their topics and we allow anyone to continuously edit articles." In comparison, he claims that sites like eHow produce "static, low quality" content that "lacks soul." Herrick even used the ol' McDonalds analogy: "it's like eating a McDonald's burger vs. having your friend who happens to be a great chef cooking you a wonderful, home cooked meal." Ultimately I don't completely buy Jack Herrick's argument that wiki-produced content is necessarily better than paid-for content from "content farms." Both types of content could be either good or poor quality, depending on the quality of the people who write and edit it. How-to content needs to be precise and well-researched, which requires time. The best wiki how-to content is likely to be articles which have been edited by multiple people. But equally, well-informed writers can easily produce quality how-to articles in one go. However, the feng shui examples above showed that (in this case) multiple wiki authors produced better results than a single paid contributer. Let us know your thoughts about which is better: wikiHow or eHow? Or neither? Discuss

Visit link:
wikiHow vs. eHow: Is The Wiki Way Better Than Content Farms?

At LeWeb today, Ryan Sarver, Twitter's Director of Platform, took the state during the morning session. He stressed that Twitter needs the developer ecosystem if it wants to continue to grow. Sarver also announced that Twitter will give all developers access to the full firehose feed in early 2010. In addition, Twitter will also soon launch a new developer site, increase the rate limit for services that use OAuth and launch a new API for browser-less apps. Sponsor Walking through the history of Twitter, Sarver noted that the core value of Twitter is openness. The first Twitter application was written in January 2007. There are now over 50,000 application in Twitter's ecosystem. This, Sarver notes, shows how developers can use simple APIs to create rich experiences. Sarver also noted that 50% of the company's traffic now happens on partner sites and through applications. For Twitter, according to Sarver, it's all about growing the market and building out the ecosystem. Throughout the keynote, Sarver stressed that Twitter can only be as successful as long as its developers are successful. Sarver pointed out 3 companies that have manged to monetize Twitter: CoTweet , OneRiot and TweetMeme. Coming Up: More Transparency, Improved Communication and a Business Model Going forward, Twitter wants to offer even better tools for third-party developers in its ecosystem. Twitter wants to be more transparent with its developers and improve its communication. In addition, the company wants to improve the utility of its API. Twitter also plans to announce a business model that allows it to share in the success of its partners. Everybody Gets Access to the Firehose Most importantly, Twitter is opening up the firehose of tweets to all developers. Sarver didn't announce any details, but this is obviously a very important move as it will give more developers the ability to build applications that need real-time access to every tweet without having to get Twitter's permission. Soon, developers who use OAuth will be able to ping Twitter more often than services that still use Twitter's old authentication mechanism. Twitter will soon deprecate its old non-OAuth authentication mechanisms. In addition, Twitter will launch an API for browser-less apps. Twitter also plans to launch a new developers site to educate its developers and will soon host its first developers conference. Image credit: @scobleizer . Discuss

Read the original:
Twitter: All Developers Will Get Access to the Firehose in Early 2010