Davis Shaver

While no official description exists yet, a content farm is the term given to a website or media organization that

• seeks to maximize content production output
• while minimizing production costs
• to acquire as much organic search traffic as possible
• with the main intent of converting that traffic into revenue, generally from advertising.

Over the past few years, anticipation

of

of “content farm” poster boy Demand Media’s IPO has fueled both a lot of media cynicism and investor curiosity. No doubt, the fact that most of the content farms are seeking to disrupt traditional media organizations, in general, and journalists, in particular, explains some of the cynicism, but it does little to ask the question of whether the strategy itself is wise.

Even traditional media publishers sometimes exhibit those qualities. What a straw man.

File this under the “GM problem:” journalists might understand that big, monopolistic news organizations didn’t always produce the best journalism, but they provided the best jobs. Like General Motors, a big company is really good at employing lots of people with solid benefits, enabling families to pay for mortgages and new cars. But a big company can be downright dreadful at innovation, evolution, hustle and experimentation.

And these are the qualities that win the day, especially in times of serious disruption.

Great article-- though the technology does make it easier for people to do some pretty outrageous things.

With numbers like these, it astounds me that print papers aren't devoting every possible resource to understanding how they can shift to a Web-first mentality.

There could, someday, be a business in local blogs, but Tim is nuts to suggest Patch will be a "major" part of AOL's turnaround (as he recently suggested on CNBC.)

Patch revenues are tiny and so is its traffic. As a network, it has hundreds of thousands of uniques.

Carlson is underestimating the market. By having a consolidated brand identity in so many local markets, Patch will be in a good position to capitalize on its networked nature for monetization efforts and editorial campaigns.

I've heard that they are actually clove cigarettes.

"The technology works for us," AOL's Eun says. "We don't work for the technology."

He's referencing content farms, but another insight the quote provides is that these next generation content companies are developing their platforms as quickly as any other tech start-up.

Start with several cups full of daily newspaper and broadcast types. Take a teaspoon of the Christian Science Monitor. Add in a dash of HuffPo spice. Ladle a tablespoon of Demand Media into the mix. Borrow ingredients from two Washington D.C. news companies, the 143-year-old Washington Post and the one-month-old TBD.com. Now, into the hyperchange of late 2010, let it shred, dice, slice, puree, whir and, finally, blend.

Best practices at work with the Deseret News-- though I would substitue value-driven for just having a distinct voice.

KABUL—Safi Airways, a start-up Afghan airline, ventures where few air carriers dare to go: Its in-flight magazine tells the ugly truth about the place where you're about to land.

As Jan Chipchase noted:

In a world where you decide what media to consumer where, the only stopping this scenario becoming a reality is you.

How does the world change when your offline and online identities cease to be different?