Eric Wittlake uses a provocative title to list four reasons why content curation is not a silver bullet in b2b content marketing. While I agree with him there are no silver bullets in marketing, he makes some points which I disagree with.

First, he interestingly makes a distinction between curation and creation which seems flawed to me by stating that content curation's value is in the "selection of the content, not in the additional perspective you add" and that content creation "may build on content from others". I would object to that by saying good content curation actually adds to the content from others. On Scoop.it we created the insight feature especially for that. This topic and this particular post are just two of the many examples. 

Second, if the fact we have hundreds of sources available today was an argument against becoming one (his point #1), then you should simply stop both creating and curating content as writing a blog for instance is yet being another source. 

Third, he says that authority purely comes from creating great content - not by recognizing great content. While there's no denying that awesome content creators will always be recognized, even geniuses have always built on the work of others. How about teachers then? Do they have no authority because they teach the work of others? Wouldn't you trust the man who was the publisher of both Hemingway, Wolfe and Fitzgerald as someone who's an authority about litterature? Has Marc Andreesen lost his authority on the tech scene because he's not an entrepreneur anymore but a VC (ie a curator of startups)? 

Fourth, he says your perspective gets lost. But as mentioned above, good content curators always find ways to add their voices to the content they curate. By adding their perspective to the content or merely by editing a title or remixing the orignal content with other pieces, by connecting the dots. DJ's and Musuem curators are a great example of how you can add perspective in a very subtle way. Online and back to b2b content marketing, you can easily add your own insight to the content you curate when you deal with a topic you have expertise on. Commenting on other blogs might get your voice lost but when you do on your own platform, your own content hub, you perspective gets heard.

Again, I don't think any content curation advocate believes it is the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything... But if you're engaged in a content marketing strategy, you will find that creating only valuable content is extremely hard and that you can effectively complement your content creation with curated content to build trust, authority and an engaged audience. A lot of you on Scoop.it are evidence of that.

If you've ruled out newsletters as part of your content strategy in favor of social media or SEO, think again: as this informative post details, there are several ways to make them work in the age of Web 2.0 without overinvesting on the channel (and yes, Scoop.it is one of them). Keyword to make that work? Curation.

Medium's traction is another great example of the rise of the Smart Web.

Through a very elegant minimalist interface, Medium makes it definitely compelling to write. And while the algorithm-based discovery mechanism doesn't take interests into consideration, it is also creating a great experience for readers.

Techcrunch's Gregory Ferenstien believes this is a bet on whether people will read long form content (something quite challenging according to some studies) but I feel Marco Amrent's argument against Medium is the most important: after angry bloggers felt used by the Huffington Post, how will Medium be different? Bundling quality content together is not new. Even aggregating quality content from various great contributors accross the Web isn't either.

Is Medium becoming an innovative media or will it be part of the available solutions to empower any of us to become media?