DISQUS

Sorry to get back to About.com but I've been wondering about its profitability lately.

Why it should be so easy for About.com to make a healthy profit on web content while the NYT struggles with dimes for dollars in the digital transition is unclear to me.

About.com's content is not consistently high-quality so what makes is the cash cow that earlier commenters have called it?

SEO? Doubtful since SEO really doesn't amount to much beyond repsecting a few basic rules.

Could it be that most of About.com's cash and profits don't actually come from its much-touted content sites with guides but rather from its pure ad pages?

I'd like to know how many of these so called MFA (made-for-adsense or pay-per-click) pages it actually has and how much of the cash they bring in, because if that's About.com's main source of profits then, just like the companies that operate parked domoains and the ones that do ad arbitrage, its cash flow could dry up overnight and the asset the Times paid more than $400 million for would be worth next to nothing.

Interesting indeed, but isn't it just an information cascade on the internet? We'll have to wait and see if the "verdict "on this particular video sticks, or what readjustments will take place now that both points of view are available for people to agree or disagree with.

I'm always glad to see money go to content creators who deserve it but I don't think you can say that Youtube video creators used to get nothing -- they did and still do get free distribution and that's worth something.

This is a long-tail speculation/profiteering business.

The enablers, advertisers, should stop it.

All the small businesses that buy legitimate ads are funding it.

People do get hurt by it.