"Not too long ago I was shown a tool at a marketing conference that automatically curated/syndicated content for businesses within their industry, allowing them to post (on their website) “valuable” pieces of information that that prospects and customers could learn from."
I totally agree with two of important points of this post:
- automated syndication does not add value
- value add is required (from an SEO, from an ethical and, very pragmatically, from a business perspective)
But the conclusion is erroneous: Indeed, Curation is not only about sharing someone’s else content; it's also about enriching it (organization, perspective, context…) (note: that's why we invite curators to add their insight in Scoop.it).
Your business audience actually cares about what you curate: while original creations is essential, it's wrong to believe that your business audience is exclusively interested by what you create: it's interested by whatever relates to their values and concerns; by whatever makes their life better! You do earn reputation by being a reference point for such content; as long, of course, as it also matches your values and relates to your space: curation is not mere random collection, but meaningfull organization, with an editorial line and an intent.
Thought leadership is not demonstrated only by what and how you write, but also by what you know and by how open minded you are about sharing it – especially if you add your value to it.
And Google likes it too, as long as it’s not replicated content, but enriched content, content organized in an original and coherent way (more than a third of our traffic comes from search).
Obviously, curation does not replace creation; obviously, automated curation is not a good strategy. But (and this is fact-based), business audience as well as SEO robots like it when you select, enrich, organize and share ideas that matters – even those written by someone else. It’s a valid, proven and pragmatic element to a content strategy.