AOL's New Strategy Is To Fill The Internet With Crap?

from the pollution-is-in-their-genes dept

Wed, Dec 2nd 2009 3:19pm — Mike Masnick

Remember how AOL first became "famous"? It cluttered the world (and our garbage dumps) with millions upon millions of CD-ROMs offering "try AOL for free!" It seems that pollution is in AOL's genes, and it just can't get away from it. How else to explain AOL's new plan to rebuild its brand: to flood the internet with poorly written, but quickly written, content based on whatever search terms are hot. Danny Sullivan points out the amusing fact that AOL is looking to leverage search engines for more traffic this way, at the very same time as others, such as Rupert Murdoch, are claiming that Google is "stealing" from him in sending traffic, and he's considering opting-out.

But, of course, that doesn't make AOL's strategy very well conceived either. Farhad Manjoo makes the case for why this is a dumb plan, and there's plenty to agree with:

The trouble with AOL's plan, then, isn't that it's based on data-mining. Instead, it's what the company will likely do with search data--publish quick, vapid posts that do little to advance any hot story and instead feed readers a collection of factoids gathered from other places. How do we know this will happen? Because AOL's model is strikingly similar to that of Demand Media and Associated Content, two start-ups that also use search data and user contributions to build Web content. Indeed, AOL's Armstrong--who was an advertising executive at Google until earlier this year--is reportedly an investor in Associated Content, whose CEO is also a former Googler.

Associated Content stands as a cautionary tale for anyone looking to do news by the numbers. It is a wasteland of bad writing, uninformed commentary, and the sort of comically dull recitation of the news you'd get from a second grader.

Effectively, it's a plan based on adding crap into the system to trick search engines. It's pollution and web spam as a business model. But as folks like Umair Haque are fond of pointing out, business models based on tricking people and not adding any real value aren't business models that will last. They're short-term scams. Manjoo, in his writeup, helps explain why:

Will this plan do wonders for AOL's bottom line? It very well might, at least in the short run. If AOL can replicate the success of Associated Content across its network of sites, it will surely see huge gains in traffic and renewed interest from advertisers. But this plan hinges on something that can't be guaranteed for long--a weakness in search engines. By any measure, stories like those found on AC don't deserve top billing in search results. If you search for "Tiger Woods mistress pictures," you should get pictures of Tiger Woods' alleged mistress, not a story that repeats that phrase a dozen times. Google and other search engines constantly battle search engine spam, and over time they're sure to steer people away from sites that rely on such trickery to get visitors. Then what? Associated Content gets 90 percent of its traffic from search engines. Once Google and co. wise up to AC's schemes, its business model is toast.

A short-term strategy based on polluting the internet with bad content may be a last-gasp effort to revive a dead brand, but it's difficult to see how that's any sort of long-term strategy to survive.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: business model, content
Companies: aol

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Will (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 2:43pm

dead?
I though AOL was dead by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:21pm

2nd link is the same as the 1st (the Guardian article).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:22pm

Re: dead?
More than dead--it's been undead for like a decade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:26pm

Re:
2nd link is the same as the 1st (the Guardian article).

Oops. Fixed the link. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:39pm

Will they then place all that content behind a paywall and complain about the search engines "stealing" said content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:55pm

I used to turn those unwanted and unloved AOL CDs into drink coasters by cementing a round piece of cork on the underside of the CD. The funniest thing was how people would steal them. After a party or when overnight guests left, they always swiped a few AOL coasters, and when I ran out I'd just make more, since there was absolutely no shortage of AOL CDs. I hope someone stole my idea and got rich marketing their own line of AOL coasters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:04pm

Re:
such an original idea! why, how could anyone EVER think of that before or after you.

/sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:04pm

The reality is that Google loves crap, and there is little that can be done "in the algorithm" to stop crap, especially well constructed and on point crap. The crap is still valid, and Google cannot eliminate crap content.

If they won't do anything about racist pictures of the first lady, do you think they will do anything about quality crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:09pm

1) The headline just made me burst out laughing.

2) 'The reality is that Google loves crap' & 'little that can be done"in the algorithm" to stop crap...'

What the hell does this have to do with the point of the article, make up your mind about your perception of Google's opinion on 'Crap', and you have no idea what you're talking about anyway, do you? You're sounding like those third world countries that blame Google because somebody halfway around the world published an unflattering web page about their dictator and is blaming Google for its existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:10pm

Best Headline You've Ever Had!
Sure, AOL's raison d'etre has been exactly that for a very long time. But you gave me a big laugh with that most excellent headline!!!

I will confess that way back in the dark ages, I was a member for awhile. And now everyone knows that I was a dork. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re:
Indeed. And to think some one would actually steal them? Please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rex, 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:27pm

Firefox's "customize google" plugin fixes this problem
... thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:42pm

Since when has AOL not been pure crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 4:45pm

so thats what happened to endgadget....

/snark
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 5:56pm

Re:
Did you read the story?

Once Google and co. wise up to AC's schemes, its business model is toast.

The reality is that Google can't separate out this crap from other valid crap, and thus crap will flourish, unless Google manually penalizes them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 7:00pm

So what you are saying is they stole techdirt's business model?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 7:09pm

Re:
That's impossible! I stole it first!

Ransom is my game.

Now, give me $10 or the business model walks the ramp!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 2 Dec 2009 @ 7:24pm

...!
A-O-Hell, America-Off-Line... Yeah, they reeeeeally suck.
Way back in the day, I remember having to manually clean customers' hard-drives to get rid of A.O.Hell's mountain of rubish piles.

Although there was a time when their free, stylishly-labeled CDs made great coasters for my coffee mug. And after that, the CDs made great test subjects for my new CD cross-shredder!
" };> "

;) .. I reeeeeally hate AOL. Always have, always will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 2 Dec 2009 @ 9:37pm

ok ...
its like this, I've been in SEO for a long time.. This is a totally failed strategy.. two things pop out, one.. the idea that it will work even for a little while.. no.. it wont.
two.. if you think that pumping "tiger woods mistress" into the content of your page will get you traffic on that term .. your delusional.

you have to SPAM the text link .. across their "network of sites" this will only work for a time, eventually GBot catches on (within two days) then its over as far as using those same TLDs to garner position. The thing is.. you can't use the same domains to command ranking over and over (I wanna use the ol -- PR, but I know it's not exactly right). At any rate they should hire a 9th grader to tell them how this actually works as they clearly have no Idea! Google has a about nine sources that are root servers for news, everything else is expendable. SOOOOOO AOL is going hyper nova in it's final bid for viability? How appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2009 @ 10:11pm

Re: Re:
If by "reality" you mean "I said so!" then sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clyde Smith, 3 Dec 2009 @ 12:16am

Business Models Based on Trickery
"But as folks like Umair Haque are fond of pointing out, business models based on tricking people and not adding any real value aren't business models that will last."

It works for governments and other criminal enterprises all over the world. Umair Haque lives in a bubble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vishal, 3 Dec 2009 @ 2:29am

Similar to Demand Media
Wired did a great article on Demand Media, a company based on this exact concept (and doing very well):

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 3 Dec 2009 @ 6:28am

Why change now?
After all, it's not like AOL is alone in the "filling the Internet with crap" department. Make it attractive enough (I mean, you can't actually smell it), and they may do quite well. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimmy Daniels, 3 Dec 2009 @ 7:09am

RE: ok...
Richard, of course it will work, it's working for mahalo why the heck wouldn't it work for a site that has loads more links pointing to it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 3 Dec 2009 @ 7:54am

Exclude from search results?
What would be useful is if Google would allow you to blacklist sites from search results for every search. (I think you can do that if you add "-site:domain.com" to your search, but only on a case-by-case basis.)

Or is that feature already there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Curt Craighead, 3 Dec 2009 @ 3:12pm

AOL can't stop sucking
AOL is the Montgomery Ward of it's generation, and we know how that turned out. With a marketing department populated from the School of Numbskulls, where the shotgun approach is the only approach. Boorish rubes, all.

Will they get more traffic at first? Yes, but shame on anyone buying advertising too, because any customer "duped" into viewing your message will not only abandon, but abandon with a bad feeling about your collusion with a company as subversive as AOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isaac M. Wright, 3 Dec 2009 @ 3:22pm

AOL
Curt Craighead is right. Any outfit looking to shore up short-term dollars (or traffic) but sacrifices brand deserves all the jokes made about them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2009 @ 4:46pm

Re: Exclude from search results?
What would be useful is if Google would allow you to blacklist sites from search results for every search. (I think you can do that if you add "-site:domain.com" to your search, but only on a case-by-case basis.)

Or is that feature already there?

No, Google won't allow you to do that. You might filter out some sites of their advertising customers and they wouldn't like that.

However, if you're using Firefox as your browser, you can install the CustomizeGoogle extension and it has a filter function that will let you do that. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can tell me better than I can tell you, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:57pm

Re: Crap On The Net
Crap here, crap there, crap is everywhere. You need not worry. As the old saying goes "nothing lasts forever". What is happening is definitely going to cease one day and it is evident when all the nonesense that's going on with the internet regardless of the company get's out-of-hand. Actually, who are we dealing with here when we click on anything for any reason - it's the employees of these large entities who hide behind their employer's name in order to vent their frustations. And, these frustrations are not new. A racist will vent by coloring icons Black, or some strange shade as well as publishing unattractive pictures. If they are potential anger management patients it will come out in revealing the fact that have access to your hard drive or by forwarding insulting pictures. Lawsuits are popping up everday by those who angry and have decided that they are not going to take it anymore. Until regulations are put in place, crap is what we all are going to experience. I await the replies that ask what has this to do with "the price of eggs," but that's to be expected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Nagle, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:09pm

They're going to have to write very fast.
They're going to have to write very fast.

For a while, I was tracking Google's top searches. The time something stays in the top 10 is measured in hours.

There's a little-known feedback effect with Google search. Google Suggest (the command completion in Google's search box) is driven from Google Trends. So once a phrase gets some popularity, it shows up as an option in Google search boxes. That phrase then tends to get picked by later users looking for something roughly similar to a top search. Suddenly, an obscure phrase gets to the top of Google Trends.

This system is spammable. Right now, the top entry in Google Trends is "discount medspa". That didn't happen because millions of people suddenly developed an interest in that topic.

Google doesn't try very hard to stop web spam. They can't. It's essential to their business model. If search takes you where you want to go on the first try, Google doesn't make any money. It's those Adwords-heavy pages that bring in the revenue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul McKeon, 8 Dec 2009 @ 4:50am

AOL Forgets: Readers are Human
If the high rankings of search engines counting keywords turned directly into dollars, AOL might have a great idea here, but they don't. Between the keywords and the ads, human beings read copy and make decisions.

Searchers will be able to tell the difference between good content and bad. This strategy is all about reducing the costs of content production, without recognizing that only quality content--that is, the words people read--can be monetized in the long run.

Thanks for your article, I blogged on it here: http://bit.ly/6pox3T
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guy Distatte, 1 Jan 2017 @ 7:48pm

dum stupid aol
AOL just a piece of stupid DEMOCRAT crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]