The Anal Retentive Blogger--Overworking Content Quality

Can syndication marketing professionals overdo it on the content quality issue? What is the right balance between stuff that's good, and stuff that's timely?


As you know, I've been working to bring podcasts to the RSS Pundit. I've conducted some great interviews, and have them ready to go. It's getting the pre- and post- stuff--the bumper music, the sponsors, and all that--the way I want it. I have a very clear image in my mind of what I want, and I'm struggling with getting there. Fortunately, the holidays will afford me the time to finish this stuff up and get on with delivering the content goods to you.

And while I am focusing on topical podcasts with more shelf-life than the typical 'podfare,' this delay of mine works against one of the key tenets of syndication: freshness.

So, I pose the question:

"How forgiving is the feedosphere of content that makes trade-offs between quality and timeliness?"

While I've spouted off about how syndication technology lets us enjoy having it all three ways (quality, timely, cheaply), poor quality seems to plague syndication marketing content. Even Geoffrey Moore's new blog has typos in it, and he's a New York Times-bestseller kind of guy.

As a producer of content, are you more 'anal' (and after reading the Wikipedia definition I doubt you'll use that term as loosely--no pun intended--as you have in the past) about style or substance?

As a consumer of content, what is your pain threshold here? Is part of the allure the less-homogenized nature of the material we deliver?

I’d like to understand your take on this. Why don't you lie down on that black leather couch of yours and "tell me about your mother?"