Is it ok for Google's VPs to create low quality content and buy links to spam Google?
The "content producers" are taught to write keyword-heavy content, and they're paid according to the amount of traffic their creations will drive. Surprise, surprise -- Associated employs an algorithm that estimates the number of unique visitors that will be driven to that content in coming months, and pays writers upfront accordingly.
I spoke with Associated's Andrew Boer, who told me the firm's content producers are pumping out 2,000 "articles" each day, and there are around 200,000 in the site's library. "Partners," or companies/sites that pay for the rights-managed content, can buy pre-existing stuff or commission new works (the Medicis of affiliate marketing?).
The Associated Content model consists of:
- Few employees and limited editorial enforcement.
- AdSense top and to the left.
- Noise everywhere. (Try to find the content on an article.)
- Automated internal navigation.
- Content recycling and syndication.
Until recently they were also buying a lot of text link ads, too.
This is how Google's ad executives are moonlighting? In a market that corrupt (where Googlers own many brands, pay third world rates, and do not follow their own advice), what chance is left for the average webmaster or freelance copywriter, especially if they mistakenly trust Googlers?