Pluck on Demand: An Interesting Opportunity

By Jonathan Bailey • Nov 7th, 2008 • Category: Articles, Products

Yesterday, Pluck announced their latest service, Pluck on Demand. Though Pluck specializes in social media and in content distribution, their new service is somewhat different from their previous offerings, such as BlogBurst.

Because, even though there is a lot of similarity between the services, Pluck on Demand is the first Pluck service to provide content, as well as a profit opportunity, to bloggers and end users, rather than large media companies. Where BlogBurst takes content submitted by bloggers and pushes it to mainstream media sites, Pluck on Demand takes content from all over the Web, including both mainstream media and BlogBurst, and pushes it toward individual sites.

This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been some concern expressed over Pluck on Demand, but overall, the service appears to be an interesting, if somewhat limited, opportunity for both publishers and creators.

How it Works

The idea behind Pluck on Demand is surprisingly simple. When readers get done with an article on your site, they likely want to read more on the topic. However, if you don’t have any thing further to say, the person may leave your site, never to return.

Pluck on Demand attempts to resolve this by tapping the vast amount of content they have the rights to display but they do it in a somewhat different way. Rather than having Webmasters sort through the library of articles and hand-select appropriate content, as publishers do with BlogBurst, Pluck on Demand provides a series of widgets that, much like contextual ads, scans the content of the page and selects relevant articles.

Links to those articles are then displayed next to the article, wherever the Webmaster put them, and users can then click on them to gain access to content that Pluck’s algorithm feels is related.

But what makes Pluck on Demand different is that the links do not go directly to the author’s Web site, but rather, to new pages on the blog or site that the visitor is still on. In short, the visitor never leaves the site to read the full article, meaning that the Webmaster that used the widgets gets to keep the pageviews for themselves.

The link back to the original author is instead provided at the footer of the full article, serving as something of a byline.

What is perhaps most interesting of all is the advertising arrangement of the service. Since all of the widgets display ads next to the full articles, Pluck divides up the revenue stream giving 50% of the money to the publisher, 30% to the author of the content and 20% to Pluck itself. (Note: This has only been stated for BlogBurst members and may or may not apply to publishers with other contracts)

But while BlogBurst members do have the chance to profit from this use of their content, they need to log into their accounts and enable “extended syndication opportunities” for their content to be considered for use in Pluck on Demand.

All in all, the system itself is fairly straightforward, especially for anyone that already uses Adsense or some other contextual advertising program, but it does raise some difficult questions.

JavaScript, Spam and Duplicate Content

The obvious, and intended, outcome of this service is that entries and articles written by BlogBurst members and other content partners will now appear, automatically, on sites all across the Web in full text format. Almost immediately, questions were asked about the implications of this.

  • Could spammers use this to create junk sites automatically?
  • Will duplicate content be an issue?
  • What, if any, effect will this have on the SEO of both the creator and the publisher?

The answer turned out to be buried with the FAQs about Pluck on Demand. It turns out that Pluck on Demand displays all of its content within JavaScript, meaning that search engines can not index it. In short, pages that display the full articles will, to Google, appear to be almost completely blank.

This means that, while spammers could theoretically build sites around Pluck on Demand, possibly for advertising purposes, they would not do well with the search engines unless they still had large amounts of content from other sources. Also, it is unlikely that articles being picked up via Pluck on Demand would create duplicate content issues or hurt the SEO of the persons writing the article.

While this is good news, it also means that the link back to the original article will not be visible to the search engines and that the author will not get any “link love” for their efforts either. This makes so that the Pluck on Demand article does not exist from Google’s perspective.

The end result is that the main benefit for the publisher is additional pageviews, advertising and added content to their site for human visitors and, for the creators, the chance to get a few clicks on the byline link and 30% of the revenue share. Whether this sounds like a good deal will be a judgment call for each blogger to decide.

Conclusions

Right now, there seems to be a slew of new “content-based” services that are remixing and republishing the works of bloggers with little or no thought given to the people who toil for hours to create the works they use. Pluck on Demand is clearly not one of those services.

Between the extreme opt-in requirements (You must first sign up and be accepted for BlogBurst and then specifically request to be included), the use of JavaScript to avoid SEO penalties and the proper attribution of the articles, Pluck on Demand seems to do a good job thinking about all parties involved.

However, this doesn’t automatically make it a good deal for bloggers. Thirty percent of the revenue share and a non-SEO-friendly link back might not be enough to motivate some to share their content through it. That will be a personal choice.

Still, I am very happy and excited to see companies coming up with business models that remix and reuse content from high-quality sources without violating copyright law or otherwise harming content creators. It is an attempt at a symbiotic relationship between publisher, creator and middle man. It is an imperfect one to be certain, but a solid attempt.

It is especially refreshing to see how far BlogBurst and Pluck have come after their previous licensing issues.

Personally, I am going to be re-submitting Plagiarism Today for inclusion in both BlogBurst and Pluck on Demand, if nothing else than as an experiment. It seems that the service does not do any real harm and I don’t see any reason to not give it a try, especially with content I already make available so publicly.

Others, however, I am sure will disagree.

Video


Add content and social media to any website — powered by Pluck On Demand
Short URL to this Post: http://copybyte.com/z/fm

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

  • On one hand, I understand what you are saying. It is indeed a case of "old media" trying to make do in the digital world. Though Pluck is a Web 2.0 company, it does work primarily with old media companies. I have little doubt that this was part of that effort. That being said, no one can reasonably expect old media to get everything right on the first try, there is going to be missteps and heartburn and this is definitely more in the right direction than anything they've done before. It at least shows a willingness to explore.

    There is also a risk with having automatically selected content running for you on your site. That is one of the reasons I don't use it here. I think the risk is low with this service due to their tight controls on who they let into the service, but there is always a gamble there, that's the nature of the beast.

    I think that a lot of the Web right now, both old and new media, is experimentation. Some ideas are going to do well, including some that appear to stink from the outset, and others will fail, including those that appear to walk on water.

    I see Pluck on Demand as an interesting experiment and I don't see any harm in allowing my content to be used in it. So far I haven't seen much exposure or much of anything but I'll keep monitoring it. Right now I just don't have any content.

    I'd welcome any thoughts from those that have had more luck.

    I know it doesn't really answer your objections as I think they have validity, but it is still worth noting that we're all figuring this Internet thing out...
  • I find this to be yet another fairly transparent effort of marketing folks to hack it in a digital world. That's a very general statement, but more specifically, people who view websites habitually and seek out new content tend to be pretty savvy. I've seen similar types of embedded content and ad content that just doesn't make sense. It would work better if content were pre-screened, but that would defeat the purpose of an automated service like pluck on demand.

    I also find this type of thing to be kind of creepy and disingenuous. It reeks of a "be lazy and get rich quick" scheme than anything else. Likewise, the narrator's voice is remarkably creepy (intro vid). As a web content writer, I won't lie - I have an investment in something like this failing. That being said, as an avid web surfer, I have yet to see one of these things effectively take off. What a keyword aggregator thinks is relevant is often not what a human being thinks is relevant. Likewise, corporate sites beware - if you aren't screening content carefully, you can have a lot of explaining to do to your consumers through a comedy of errors. Think if you're a pet product review website or you sell pet products, like cat houses or something, and the key word aggregator mistakes "kitty cat bungalow" for the more seedy type of "cat house." You have content dealing with something TOTALLY unrelated to your content - maybe an editorial about a man's misadventures in trying to date prostitutes without having sex with them.

    I'm not saying it won't or can't work in certain areas or that it's a bad idea across the board. That's never true - something will always work well for someone. But as a general rule, I would be very hesitant to add something like this to one of my sites.
  • Is Demand Media's Pluck platform a plagiarism system? http://bit.ly/bsDU
  • Sun
    The smart ones just are able to take the javascript content, run it through a processor and make it HTML. Then that content will be duplicate content. I don't know how the spammers do it, but I've seen it with AdSense and other syndicated content.
  • One *could* do it that way, but that would require more CPU power, time and energy than just scraping the RSS feed as most spammers do. I don't think many will go through that kind of trouble when there is tons of content in RSS feeds already in text format. Seems a bit roundabout to me....

    Still, a good thought and something I had not considered.
  • Sue
    I've been in the closed beta of this since they started it in August. I haven't seen any downside to it, although it wasn't a public beta.

    But reading on their parent company site, they've partnered with Kontera (among others) and I'm wondering if this may be a way (for Kontera and website owners) to avoid Google's penalties for text linked ads. An interesting way to go about it, if it is.

    Those are just thoughts that popped in my head on reading the news on Demand Media. I for one, have no objection to their plan the way they've set it up. And maybe I can earn a few cents now and then. :)
  • Thanks for your thoughts! I'm glad you like them and especially thanks on the insight from the closed beta.

    The partnership with Kontera is interesting. Like you, I'm now wondering why they chose to do that and what the implications are. It could easily lead to a situation where a site has Adsense, joins POD and then, after Adsense wises up, gets some kind of penalty or worse.

    An interesting potential hazard to the service... Thank you for the heads up.
blog comments powered by Disqus