<i>“Our volume of traffic right now is possible only because Facebook has been very generous about linking to our content,” he said. “I’m aware that they might not be so generous forever.”</i><p>Next in line. Many folks have relied on FB traffic only to be crushed beneath the mighty hand of an algorithm change. We've seen it a million times with Google demolishing a site's traffic overnight with an algo update, and now we're seeing it with Facebook as well. None of these traffic sources like to be gamed and will eventually catch up and "fix" the problem.<p>I have no problem with someone getting paid by capitalizing on third party traffic sources (in this case social) but it's a fool's errand to assume this is going to be sustainable once the distributor decides they want a piece of the pie.
I'm not sure how people make it to the end of that article without being scared shitless about the future of newspapers.<p>Newspapers have an incredibly important social function as muckrackers, exposing corruption, explaining politics, and breaking news. Even the New York Times, which is as good of a newspaper as you'll find these days has 'native advertising' which is virtually indistinguishable from regular articles.
I talked with a Spartz Media representative at a job fair a couple years ago. I remember thinking that their business model was deplorable--essentially spamming the internet with low-value content--but assumed they would fail. I'm a little scared to learn I was wrong.
The title of this article is too ironic not to comment on.<p>I think it's interesting because a good title itself is intrinsically "clickbait" or begging you to stop and look for more. From the Paul Graham essay to the header on a high school science fair board, titles are design to get your attention. The problem lies now with content which content created with greater attention to the bait than to the actual body itself. A good designed title is just that, until it lures you into content which does not live up to its billing.<p>If we can't trust titles what now do we use to decide what content is worth our time?
So creating a BuzzFeed clone, a Grindr clone and a card game clone makes you a king?
The article fails to mention that Facebook is starting to crack down on organic clickbaity content, which is were all of the viral sites likely get 90% of their traffic.
What is the viability of leaching their business model? I mean taking photos and writing viral content with the intention they steal it and you can invoice them for $$$ and sue if they don't pay.<p>Viable?<p>Extra: you could get in touch with the original authors, take a 50/50 on any money you extract. One court case to set precedent and check viability of the business model and the checks write themselves.
Can't wait to see this a-hole hit with a 10 billion dollar copyright infringement suit. I am all for fair use, but what he is doing is not fair use, it seems like outright copying.<p>If you are going to make money from cheap exploitative lists, at least try to create your own.
Not going to upvote the media glorification of clickbait enterprises. They are a waste of people's time and energy. They exist only for their own selves.
<i>> When he was growing up, Spartz said, his parents made him read “four short biographies of successful people every single day. Imagine for a second what happens to your brain when you’re twelve and this is how you’re spending your time.”</i><p>I'd be interested in seeing his list of recommended books. (It's difficult to find good biographies that are also concise.)
Emerson Spartz - one of the internets largest distributors of gunk<p><a href="http://leunig.com.au/images/cartoons/gunk.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://leunig.com.au/images/cartoons/gunk.jpg</a>
Yeah the spammers call themselves geniuses and justify themselves as well. I for one, avoid ever clicking on those links that say something like "You won't believe what this guy's girlfriend did" or similar. Fool me once.. etc. Eventually people will catch on.
Man, I love the audacity of creating a content business that creates no content, just repackages other people's research and tacks a new headline on it.<p>I mean, don't get me wrong, it's hilariously criminal and emblematic of everything that's wrong with the internet's systematic dismantling of the ability of content producers' ability to earn a living by doing the tedious, expensive work of actually making <i>anything</i> more complicated that cat memes.<p>LOL Nu york timez! I sold millions of dollars worth of ads on your original reporting and, unsurprisingly, am earning a tidy profit because your copyright means nothing online!
This has really started bothering me lately. I'm actively blocking any site that promises I won't believe what happens next, or any similarly clickbaity headline. I've also unfollowed almost everything that isn't an actual human being that I know. I have to say my facebook experience has improved tremendously.
I did an interview with him on Mixergy about how he built his company.<p>Smart guy.<p><a href="http://mixergy.com/interviews/spartz-spartz-media-interview/" rel="nofollow">http://mixergy.com/interviews/spartz-spartz-media-interview/</a>