If we are to do this discussion (debate) once more, there should be some clarity to begin with.
First, "content is king" is an entirely vague and useless statement when it is not used with a qualifier.
There are a few qualifiers that people should be attaching to the statement when they say it, and depending on the qualifier the meaning changes dramatically.
1. Content is King for Search Engine Ranking
Commonly used in this way, these people believe that you get search engine rankings either by:
A. "Content SEO" - i.e., H1 tags, optimized body text, keyword density, etc.
Or
B. Generating a lot of pages of content which then draw in incidental traffic.
Addressed this here:
http://www.internet-marketing-resear...topic4208.html
&
http://www.internet-marketing-resear...utra45717.html
&
http://www.v7n.com/pagerank-wins.php
There other argument is...
2. Content is King For Sales
People say, if you want to sell stuff, you can't just put the product up and place a "Buy Now" button next to it.
I addressed that in an article a few months ago:
Quote:
One application of the concept that Content is King is used in marketing discussions. To quote:
On the Internet Content is king and it always will be.... The information on a website is its content, generally the more useful and interesting content a website has the more successful it will be, because more people will want to visit it again and again, this is especially true if a website is constantly adding more and more content on a regular basis, be it articles, tutorials, news and opinion or whatever.
...if you gear your site to simply sell your product and do nothing else, you won't be very successful.
- David Callan, AKA Marketing (Added emphasis is mine.)
So, in order to sell your product on the Internet, we need "articles, tutorials, news and opinion"?
|
http://www.v7n.com/marketing-content.php
These are two very different arguments, but either way, content is not king.