August 7, 2009 by Robin Dickinson | 109 views | Comments (19)
The word CONTENT has become a catch-all for anything that is published on the web. However, spend just a few minutes online and you quickly see how it can be loosely grouped into two very different categories: CONTENT and CON-TENT. So what’s the difference?
1) CONTENT: information that does have your best interests at heart, and…
2) CON-TENT: information that doesn’t.
To con is to swindle or to trick a person by first winning their confidence, using lies, exaggeration or glib, self-serving talk.
So what are the differences between the two? Here are some thoughts to kick off the conversation:
CONTENT |
CON-TENT |
| Seeks to give value to people | Seeks to get volume of traffic |
| Is focused on the community | Is focused on the sale |
| Wants a conversation | Wants a conversion |
| Is driven by passion | Is driven by greed |
| Uses imagination to inspire feedback | Uses traps to catch clicks |
| Wants long-term relationships | Wants short-term dollars |
| Creates original thinking | Steals recycled thinking |
| Uses copy as a tool of delight | Uses copy as a weapon of deception |
| Aims to earn permission | Aims to push promotion |
| Seeks to motivate people | Seeks to automate process |
| Wants to contribute ideas | Wants you to contribute cash |
| Examines claims | Exaggerates claims |
| Gives credit | Takes credit card |
| Loves the sound of the debate | Loves the sound of the cash register |
| Strives to continually improve | Huh? Strives to what? |
What do you think?
In your opinion, how does CONTENT differ from CON-TENT?
Print version of this post: Con-tent v content: what’s the difference? (37)
19 Responses to this post
August 7, 2009 at 9:10 pm |
Great list, Con-tent is definitely focused on the short term and screams at you rather than converses with you. After all, who would go back to a site that did give back anything of value?
August 7, 2009 at 9:13 pm |
And don’t we hate to be screamed at! Thanks, for your input, Tyler. I hope we get to converse again soon.
Best, Robin
August 9, 2009 at 1:07 am |
This is a great list.
I must say, that with the volume of tweets you see in the average feed, standing out from the rest is getting harder, hence con-tent is going to be a bigger and bigger issue.
August 10, 2009 at 7:03 am |
Thanks, Kaizan.
You raise an important point – especially as CON-tent ‘providers’ become more savvy in their approach. We have the opportunity to increasingly sharpen our content skills.
Robin
August 9, 2009 at 2:26 am |
“Con-tent” providers definitely increase the “noise” for providers who are actually seeking to provide value. At the same time all providers are trying to obtain something even if it is just social capital.
But I definitely prefer to receive value for my time than something meaningless.
August 10, 2009 at 7:07 am |
Thanks, Bakari.
Yes, social communication – social networking begs a response of some kind. Communication is an exchange. Let’s just rise above the CON-tent to exchange that value you mention.
August 10, 2009 at 2:33 am |
This post was definitely CONTENT.
I think people generally can decipher between the two. You maybe able to reel someone in with CON-tent, but you don’t be able to keep them around without legitimate content. As a visitor to a blog, I reward the post/site with my subscription; that is my voting currency.
- Arif
PS
just an off-topic suggestion, if I may: perhaps you would consider converting your table from an image to a searchable table with text. I think it would be a bit more SEO friendly.
August 10, 2009 at 7:12 am |
Arif, I’m glad that people can generally tell the difference. It will be a sad day if we get to the point where the majority can’t.
Thanks for your comment and your off-topic suggestion. Much appreciated.
Robin
August 14, 2009 at 6:24 am |
Arif, thanks for you ‘SEO friendly’ tip. I have implemented your advice. Many thanks,
Robin
August 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
Robin, great to see that you update it with the table. You have some good information in there and it would be a shame for others not to be able to search for it.
-Arif
August 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
Robin, I agree with all the commentors that this is an excellent post and most certainly CONTENT!
With so much fake out there, this certainly provides a compass for us to ensure we are providing real content that helps people.
August 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm |
Thanks, Scott. Generous feedback indeed.
You certainly walk the talk with the fresh flow of original thoughts – content – that come from your blog.
Best, Robin
August 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Robin only you could compliment me on my blog when I’m commenting on yours!
I’ve loving the videos by the way. I’m rewatching them over and over – some very, very juicy thoughts in them.
August 11, 2009 at 8:28 pm |
Excellent. Thanks, Scott. We recorded another four discussions on commercial skills last weekend. It’s a real blast working with your brother.
Robin
PS: http://www.motionworks.com.au/category/bod/ for anyone interested.
August 11, 2009 at 8:41 pm |
Great to know there’s more videos on the way.
Anyone else reading would do well to check em out!
August 12, 2009 at 12:12 am |
Scott, I must compliment you and your designer for a great looking site! Really great stuff!
August 12, 2009 at 12:15 am |
Thanks but I can’t take the credit – I’ve only modified a theme produced by http://www.kriesi.at/
It does like really nice, doesn’t it! The agency website looks cool too.
August 19, 2009 at 1:32 am |
Yes it sure is a clean and well coded site, well done Scott.
I agree, there are a lot of people out there who couldn’t care about what they write.
There only driven by increasing traffic to there site.
But I’m sure Google will come up with some super algorithm to combat this, which in turn will render they attempts less effective.
Trackbacks