Onlinecollegezone.com

The past night discussion with my colleagues has aroused a keen interest in me to research further to invalidate their argument, not because I disagree with them but I have reasons to disagree. Yes, the outdated argument they have made that content is king. I don t think so! Please, take some time to read my observation to know the ground reality.

There is abuzz all around the corner of the world about the second-generation web, namely web 2.0. What is it? I m assumed to be an amateur to define web 2.0, for I m not tech savvy person to know all the tidbits. As a common person, I use the term in context of interactivity. To my understanding, web 2.0 is a democratic platform to provide equal opportunity for masses in general to voice their opinion . This poses a great threat to elite journalists who until yesterday were toying with words to superimpose their opinions for vested interests. Time is gone when people like dumb spectators used to believe in their mighty words. Now, people are educated and want to equally participate on the mainstream. Thanks to web 2.0, the much-needed platform has been given. Perhaps, we all know the most recent buzz about citizen journalism/public journalism.

As more people become public writers , there is a fear that journalism as a distinct profession is becoming harder and harder to sustain. The boundaries between professional and amateur performance are breaking down. Under these circumstances, interactivity, not the content, plays a significant role. I, however, don t deny the importance of content in print media so long as it serves the interest of nation. But the clich -content is king -is hard nut to crack, at least for me, and the person like me who deem Internet as a powerful medium for 1:1 interaction. If content is King, then why doesn t it figure in almost a nation s innovation? If content is supreme, why the national dailies like The Times of India and The Hindustan Time could no be able to preserve the contents? Why have they gone a step ahead for the commodification of their journalistic instinct? The one simple reason is money. Content doesn t fetch much money. We all know the revenue growth of these papers, which has surprisingly swung up incomparable with the paper like The Hindu. Do you think that ToI s growth is solely due to creative content? If so, why the very paper has gone ahead to spend money on its presentation, design (color photograph) and marketing?

Don t get me wrong, the content and information architecture components will always be important to web design. But the truly critical role in a Web 2.0 world will be that of interaction design and search engine marketing. Here, user generated content/user control content plays a significant role. And, the role of online editors/journalists here is to edit their language. Now, they are spectators. If they wish to voice their opinion, however, they have to join the band of public journalism.

It s not just contents but other factors -offline and online promotions, presentations, etc.-simultaneously work in tandem with each other to reach the audiences. In gist, the importance of content in web 2.0 holds only when it provides an interactive scope for users. Furthermore, the success of any site in the 2nd generation world depends on the following.

1. The interactive content on the site

2. How the site s design aids discoverability and findability of that content

3. The site s aesthetics, usability, look/feel etc.

Content is one of the important factors but others things can never be ignored. If a site lacks the above elements, it loses its sheen.

Munaz Anjum

Related post

If Content is King, then Surely Relevance is Queen!
...

King + Queen = Royal Success
...

Wow, that is a strong headline, but I really believe it. You see, I write articles nearly every day, and just about every week - why? - because I believe in them.

Why do I believe in articles?

Well, the first thing is that they have driven a ridiculous amount of traffic my way. The bulk of my subscriber list is built with article-derived subscribers. And the subscribers that come from articles spend more than just about any other subscriber.

I think that there are some very specific reasons why that is the case.

1) The article - generated subscriber has already bonded with your style. He has already read one or more of your articles, and already likes you, or he wouldn t have clicked through to your web site. The nice thing about this is that you don t have to wait a week for your subscriber to get to know you before he or she will buy from you. Many of my subscribers buy from me the very first day they are on my list!

2) The article subscriber has read an entire article on a topic about which they are interested - it is not like they saw a 3 line ad somewhere and clicked through because the headline was catchy, then subscribed out of curiosity. They subscribed because they really wanted more information! To me, that is huge.

3) I think that people who are reading articles online are much closer to making a buying decision than people who read PPC ads. I have seen some studies that indicate that a high percentage of PPC hits are from teenagers! But I doubt that the percentage of teenagers reading your articles is that high. That must mean that there are more real adult buyers reading your articles, right?

Do you want to learn more about how I do it? I have just completed my brand new guide to article marketing success, Your Article Writing and Promotion Guide

Sean Mize is a full time internet marketer who has written over 400 articles in print and 8 published ebooks.

Related post

Key Private Label Article Strategy
...

5 Tried And True Internet Marketing Strategies
...