Open Letter to Danny Sullivan Regarding Associated Content

Danny (and Kate Kaye),

I think your blog posts about Associated Content wanted to find some major issues because it was tempting, from a journalistic standpoint, to imply that a Google Exec. has something to do with the type of content you mentioned. As we all know now, that content you found did not come from Associated Content, and I’m not even sure how Mrs. Kaye made the mistake in the first place. Yes, they pay amateur ONLINE COPYWRITERS to write content that is both suitable for search engines and humans. Readers and webmasters are looking for content, and you’re crazy to think a smart business isn’t going to fill that need.

I have a lot of respect for you Danny. I’ve been to more than a few of your keynotes, and the last one I heard in Chicago where you talked about search marketing being the first real “reactive” advertising medium gave me goosebumps. I came straight home and wrote about it, although not as eloquently as you put it. I respect your opinion, but vehemently disagree with your original assessment of the quality of AC’s content and the legitimacy of their place in the search results.

You want a better internet? Associated Content is trying to give it to you. You want an independent media where the users generate meaningful content instead of talking about who they have a crush on (myspace) or talking about nothing but SEO (Digg Spam and Blogs)? What about politics, and local events? What about the band that played down the street last night, or the first-hand account of an Iraq war veteran? What about political commentary, or someone’s college paper on the environmental effects of pesticides? Are you telling me this isn’t good content? You think this “pollutes” the internet or that it is “Bottom Slurping for Google Juice”? You and I must be using different Internets.

How About These?
An AC article about a young girl with Presidential hopes

An article about how a kid overcame drug abuse

An Honest Review of French Restaurants in Greenwich, Connecticut

Sure, they may not win a Pulitzer, but I’d hardly say these pages are “polluting the internet”.

I randomly clicked on the content examples above. They weren’t searched out. These or the NORM, not the exception. Yes, some content is less than stellar. Some content has the keyword density turned up a few notches too high. But that is because they’re giving inexperienced, but hopeful college students and young writers the opportunity to hone their skills at online copywriting.

Sorry, SIR SULLIVAN, but not everyone has been around as long as you.

Both your blog post and the post your referenced are completely one-sided and biased. Want to talk about sensationalism in the media? Have a look at your headlines! “Might Pollute Google Results?” and “Bottom Slurping for Google Juice”?

If you see Associated Content articles in the Google Results, it is because the site and the content management system was designed with MY input and the hard work of some very talented developers at AC. Want to blame someone when you see Associated Content on a Google SERP? Blame me! Tim Armstrong had nothing to do with it, which is something I happen to be proud of.

And I’m also proud to have been involved in the project because I truly believe a “People’s Media” site is just what we need in order to accomplish what Blogging was “supposed” to accomplish in the first place. It takes some of the power back out of the hands of corporate media and jaded, lazy, journalists, and allows people like you, me, and the gal next door to write about what interests them without spending five years developing an audience on their own blog.

Sincerely,

Everett Sizemore

See you in San Jose Mr. Sullivan

PS: I understand your position on the nofollow tag, and will have to disagree on that as well. I think that labeling them as sponsored is enough. If Google can’t figure out that links inside a table element that says “SPONSORED LINKS” are - sponsored - that’s their own problem, guidelines or no guidelines. The interlinking between pages, I’ll give you. It is a bit over done. My advice is to link only the first two times the word appears, which will require some fancy programming. But AC has some top-notch developers (Respect Jason!) so I’m sure they can handle it.