Google
 

Self-Syndication (was RE: Salon.com and taller ads)

From: Brandi Jasmine <brandi_at_brandijasmine.com>
Date: Fri 04 May 2001 12:31:47 -0500

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> WROTE:

>Curiously, I turn down advertising offers every
>week. Why? Because I've gotten burned. No one has
>offered me enough money to risk getting burned again.

Refer them to me. I have yet to have a serious offer
and I have 150,000 page-views a month! Can you specify
what you mean by "getting burned"? You mean they did
not pay you?

>I do, actually, "syndicate" myself to a certain extent.
>I make some money at it, but I'm not trying to make a
>living off it.

It's only one revenue source for me. But then I have
eminently "syndicatable" content. Horoscopes are an
awesome traffic driver. My content actually boosts
traffic at the sites using it, because it's something
people want to read every day. One of my clients is a
major portal - and we're their third-most popular
section right after the index and search page. It's
also applicable to a wide range of portal, ISP, and
publication sites. Granted - not everyone can write
horoscopes. Even those who can may not want to - it's
a lot of work to do it every day. That's what makes
this work in a syndication model.

Your "Mary Kay" point may be well taken - I'm not
saying everyone can do this. I am saying it can be
done. You have to find content that:

1) Changes daily - and that people will return to read
every day (weekly can work, but the corresponding pay
is lower)
2) Is hard to replicate "in-house" - it's either highly
technical or takes time to produce
3) Is either highly targeted so you can charge more,
or very broad so you have reach
4) Is of consistently high quality
5) Is in high demand
6) Is delivered reliably, on time, every time

... if you can do this, you have a decent shot at
self-syndication.

>The Themestream failure had nothing to do with its changes
>in policy for the contributors. Rather, the changes in
>policy were the writing on the wall.

I think it can be argued either way. This was the straw
that broke the camel's back at the very least.

>But charging for content probably would not have worked
>for Themestream. I've read many an article at Themestream
>and most are, in my opinion, sub-professional quality.

If they'd done some screening, and offered the content
as streams to other sites ala iSyndicate, it might
have worked.

>Show me that people are willing to
>pay for Web content across the board. I'll start
>charging for access to my site tomorrow.

They aren't and they won't - there we agree.

Kind regards,

Brandi Jasmine
Writer, Digital Photographer, Illustrator
        www.brandijasmine.com
www.astrology.ca - www.twostar.com
      brandi_at_brandijasmine.com




Received on Fri May 04 2001 - 12:31:47 CDT


HOW TO JOIN THE ONLINE ADVERTISING DISCUSSION LIST

With an archive of more than 14,000 postings, since 1996 the Online Advertising Discussion List has been the Internet's leading forum focused on professional discussion of online advertising and online media buying and selling strategies, results, studies, tools, and media coverage. If you wish to join the discussion list, please use this link to sign up on the home page of the Online Advertising Discussion List.

 


Online Advertising Industry Leaders:

Local SEO with Video
Houston SEO
Houston Web Design

Add your company...

Local SEO with Video
 



 


 
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 2003 - Present
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 2001 - 2002
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 1999 - 2000
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 1996 - 1998

Online Advertising Home | Guidelines | Conferences | Testimonials | Contact Us | Sponsorship | Resources
Site Access and Use Policy | Privacy Policy

 
2323 Clear Lake City Blvd., Suite 180-139, Houston, TX 77062-8120
Phone: 281-480-6300
 
Copyright 1996-2007 The Online Advertising Discussion List, a division of ADASTRO Incorporated.
All Rights Reserved.