Here’s What Happens When You Start With “Monetization”

How did “monetization” start driving the bus?

The original idea of internet content was a simple and straightforward carryover from print and TV conventions: Start by developing readable, watchable content. People will read it and watch it. Maybe some money will follow.

We started seeing people singing, doing magic tricks, acting funny. Even reporting of real news stories and legitimate commentary and opinion.

Then came the idea that companies would buy ads on sites with any kind of content, so long as people would pay attention to it.

Sure enough, people figured out how to game the system. Start with the end in mind — the “monetization” part — and use sophisticated metrics to see what kind of content made them click and watch.

The rest was a natural response: Cut right to the chase and develop content designed with the sole intention of getting people to click and watch for awhile. Don’t worry about point of view or message. Get the eyeballs.

A Different Kind Of Player Enters The Game

But there’s another gang in town. They’re big earners in Facebook ads: Kids in Macedonia who make up fake news stories, post them on sites with legitimate-sounding names (like WorldPoliticus.com, USConservativeToday.com and USADailyPolitics.com) and make money when people watch them. And you don’t have to go all the way to Macedonia to find someone doing it. There’s a guy in Phoenix who made up fake news stories during the election campaign and reaped lots of ad revenue getting people to watch.

There’s A Big “Monetization” Incentive In Subterfuge

We’re used to having the medium itself “announcing” its own level of credibility right up front. Readers know what to expect from major newspapers and tabloids, network and cable TV news, sit-coms, reality TV.  We don’t hold them all to the same standards.

But the internet hasn’t subdivided and presented itself that way yet. And people are feeling “had” by counterfeit content. They don’t see it coming, and they’re not even sure they’ve been conned till later, if at all.

And with the considerable money incentives to get viewers — by any means necessary — it’s going to take awhile before publishers and readers sort it out. Meanwhile, there’s bound to be some skepticism of a lot of what’s being published, including some high-quality material. That’s bad news for everybody who’s trying to put out a serious, responsible message.

The way forward is to start with a real purpose, a point of view and a real message. Let the clicks and the eyeballs — and the money — follow from there.