In my mind, part of the definition of a content farm is that there are people "planting seeds". In other words, content farms have a tier of people (or a process) to orchestrate which content is created in order to generate revenue.
Without this tier, there is too much confusion between the definition of a platform and a content farm.
"What is the easiest way to get a web app up and running that would generate $10 a day?"
Solve a problem.
Take a close look at stable, non-tech industries to figure out a common problem that a number of businesses inside of them share. Ensure that your solution will save / earn the company more than $10 a day.
This is the biggest issue with App Stores, Marketplaces, etc.
This practice is extremely short sighted of Apple, Google and RIM.
This type of thing will only push more developers out of the boxes they are placed in so that they can have full control over the hardware consumers use.
It's funny how we fight this fight over-and-over again even when companies like Google have an air of openness.
This practice is extremely short sighted of Apple, Google and RIM.
What practice? Responding to a properly filed DMCA complaint by taking down the content?
You do realize that doing anything other than what they've done would be against the law, right? The law might suck, but it's not up to Google to decide not to abide by it just because they don't like it, they've got far too much on the line to mess around like that...
"The practice" I'm referring to could have stated with a bit more clarity. Thanks for pointing this out.
I'm talking about the practice of creating a centralized app store.
Providing developers with a way to monetize and market their apps is important. However, creating an environment where one company has complete control over the hardware, operating system and development ecosystem results in issues like these.
The developer in the OP hasn't done anything other than pay homage to the style of Star Trek. However, when issued a DMCA takedown request, the app is blindly removed from circulation with no notice, no appeal process and no options. It's easier for one company with complete control to enforce arbitrary standards that result in the least amount of friction for them.
I think the point is he wants there to be lots of viable unofficial channels of distribution so that there is no central market to send a DMCA to in the first place.
How much effort is coverage in a major tech blog worth?
Thinking about Moore's Chasam, doesn't coverage in a major tech blog encourage more early adopters that will consume the few startup resources you have before they move on to the next startup covered?
Or...
Is coverage worth it? Do a shockingly strong percentage of early adopters reliably become paying customers or engaged users?
I know the answer to this will be subjective, but in my mind, this is why I've never pushed for coverage in major tech blogs. If they pick something up on their own, that's fine... but I've never been sure if the effort is worth the cost and reward.
I would personally rather have my product or service good enough that customers will market it for me.
To me, being featured in a publication like TechCrunch would only be exciting because of the traffic. Too many people see it as validation for their product/service when it's anything but.
I think--potentially--it matters a lot more if you're not funded and/or if it helps you to get "discovered" by both users and folks who might fund you. We got covered in Mashable very early in our product evolution. It helped us a ton. We're a small startup in Memphis, TN and the coverage gave us some much-needed exposure and, at least partly, an air of legitimacy with VCs. Post-funding there are many more mechanisms for getting the word out about how awesome you are, but before that event happens there's nothing better than a little free advertising from a major tech blog.
And in the end the coverage has helped us become a better company. We have many many more users now than we did before the feature, and the exposure helped us gain quite a few "champion" users whose feedback has been invaluable to us as our product evolves.
Key thing for us was to make sure it was stated explicitly that we were pretty brand new. Huge props to Jolie O'Dell for working with us on that. We got a lot of new users from the article and for the most part they've been patient with us as we improve. And best of all we've started relationships with tech press that will hopefully help us out when we release super awesome feature x, y, and z.
I think that that's absolutely a good question to ask yourself. And the answer is that it depends. For WhereMyFriends.Be getting covered on Mashable was absolutely worth it. We've had over 40,000 signups largely from that article. For DomainPolish, my most recent project, it was awesome to get the coverage but it hasn't been a huge driver of sales yet. So I think the jury is still out. It could lead to a connection to a really awesome VC or startup guy that could give me advice to take it to the next level etc.
The answer that I've always wanted to hear Rob give would come from these questions:
What are the underlying linchpins of the SlashDot community? How would you rebuild it? What steps would you take, what processes would you put in place, what technology would you use?
I would never want to create a SlashDot clone, nor would I expect anyone could clone SlashDot. However, there are very important lessons in community building, management and infrastructure planning that Rob is an expert at.
One of the things that Groupon has taught me is that there are certain businesses and products that work well with certain types of offers.
I'm hesitant to call this a "reverse auction" because it's more like a discount fueled by sharing.
I think that this type of discount process would work well for those who make more by selling more, even if the price is reduced. Products and services with a "long tail" would benefit particularly well from this system.
As an example, this system would benefit a movie studio. A movie studio could offer discounts on tickets to see a movie, limited release extra content, etc. The biggest advantage of one movie studio over another is the ability for them to push their product as far and as hard as they can. The profit a film sees is a direct result of the number of people who see a movie, not necessarily how many people use a coupon or discount to see that movie.
In contrast to the Groupon model, this type of deal would work best for products that don't have a tangible limit on their production.
Also, it would be important to weigh the quality "sharing". A system like Klout, while certainly not perfect, is an example of an existing product that could use this type of deal to measure and weigh the influence of those who have shared.
Overall, a nice idea. I'd have a very close look at what successful wine sites have done in this space. Allow the best of what they've done to influence your initial product.
Specifically:
1.
Hire a designer. Based on your design, you're a programmer. You're likely a very good one. Stick to that, there's more money in it :) The words you've used and the general block layout you've created are well done, but you need to have the site styled up. Whiskey is sold based on style and your site will live or die in it.
2.
This is a user generated content site but you're not promoting the ugen aspect of it. For example, check out this listing page: http://www.whiskeynotes.com/releases/Jameson-18-Year-Irish-W... Without registering, it should be blatantly obvious (and attractive) for the user to contribute photos, video, reviews and ratings. It should also be easy for users to provide feedback on other user reviews.
3.
How can I see the highest rated whiskey's?
4.
Is there a way for users to buy the whiskey directly from your website?
5.
Have you called the sales reps at the whiskey companies that are highly rated? You should talk to them about how you can integrate your site in to their marketing. This extends beyond simple advertising. They will likely be happy to provide you with custom, unique photographs, direct people to add honest reviews, etc.
6.
You should sell an regularly delivered document to whiskey industry folks. They'd be interested in a summary of reviews, ratings and trends. I'd do this from the start and charge a healthy monthly fee for it.
1. Good point. I will start lookign for one.
2. The generated content is really just whiskies and tastings. I don't really want people to contribute videos since I think that'll just add a lot of social-network style cruft.
3. The browse button automatically sorts by rating. I have toyed with the idea of adding a 'leaderboard', but never got around to it since the browse button is the same thing. Perhaps once there are more tasting it'll be more useful.
5. Don't I have to get more tastings first?
6. Yes. This is a great idea that I've seen other sites in the genre do.
Here's what I took away from PG's "life improvement triangle":
It's very difficult to change the processes people learn. If someone has been throwing a ball a certain way for their entire life, it's an uphill battle getting them to change. Similarly, if someone has been filling out a paper TPS report in the same way for the past 10 years, it's tough to get them to fill out that report online.
It's not impossible to change behavior, but it's an uphill battle.
The best businesses (ie: those with the highest value) supplement and improve the lives of people rather then changing their behavior.
In the Bloomberg video, the interviewer asks PG about his opinion about Groupon. The smarter question would have been "did Groupon improve the lives of people?" The answer is yes. They took something people were doing and made it better.
The best businesses don't often reinvent the wheel, they make the wheel 150% better.
Without this tier, there is too much confusion between the definition of a platform and a content farm.