Generic content became actively expensive

Audiences now recognise machine-written filler instantly, and platforms reward the engagement that filler does not earn. Producing more of it is not neutral. It costs you.

The volume trap

The logic that drove content marketing for a decade was straightforward: more pages, more keywords, more traffic. When production was expensive, that logic imposed its own quality floor. Now that production is nearly free, the floor is gone and everyone can publish infinitely.

Which means volume stopped being a differentiator at exactly the moment it became easy.

What it costs

Three real costs, none of them obvious on a content calendar:

• Reader trust. One obviously generic article makes a reader discount everything else on the site, including the good work.
• Crawl and index budget. Thin pages compete with your own strong pages and dilute what your site appears to be about.
• Your own attention. Time spent producing filler is time not spent on the piece that would actually have been read.

What works now

Real expertise, named voices, and evidence of delivery. Specifically:

• Things only you could write, because you were there
• Positions someone could disagree with
• Numbers you can stand behind, or an honest statement that you cannot

Publishing less and meaning it is now the cheaper strategy, which is a pleasant reversal after ten years of the opposite advice.

The test

Before publishing, ask whether an assistant could have produced this from the title alone. If it could, the piece is not worth your name on it.