The Problem with Online Authority
Why I’m done writing for the cannabis industry.
Many years ago, well, let’s be honest, a decade ago, I started writing for a website in the cannabis industry. They created expert content to educate potential customers on how to use their products. These articles reached over a million people, converting many curious internet browsers into long-time customers.
Although I wrote under a pseudonym, I approached my role as a journalist, carefully researching every topic, consulting actual experts, and meeting with people who might read the content I was writing.
The content performed well. The internet deemed it useful. It had higher engagement than top marijuana sites — even the one that went public. The problem was, there wasn’t enough traffic. People were reading, but we were getting beaten out on Google by lower-quality content.
Their solution? Bring in actual experts — people with offline credibility and existing followings. Put their name on the content and edit for consistency. Expert knowledge edited into expert content.
What’s the problem? Being an expert doesn’t mean you can teach, whether in a class or on a blog. However, high-ranking online content is often instructional, making experts also teachers.
The website argued that for their customers, the information mattered, but the value was in who was saying it, not what was being said. They felt that credibility, served through their content, would drive more traffic to their store — effectively devaluing the skill of instructional writing behind the authority of established voices.
Although this is my experience, I am writing this to bring out a larger issue with online content and its authenticity. I am using the cannabis industry as my example. Let’s break down what happened.
What is Online Authority in Content
According to this Entrepreneur article, being an online authority is all about being a good teacher.
However, in the cannabis industry, online authority is nuanced. The marijuana industry has used pseudonyms since it began, and in many cases, it still does. Even today, the black market interconnects with the green market, creating this weird grey area of whether it is safe to use your actual name. That’s why it makes sense to see the best online marijuana content associated with pseudonyms. However, street cred is essential in the black market, so a pseudonym alone is not enough. There must also be a convincing backstory that elicits trust and authority.
However, Google doesn’t feel the same. It defines online credibility based on information provided online. It cannot verify an author’s qualification offline. It instead considers ‘author authority’.
That means anyone who creates well-written, useful content that many people interact with online should have high author authority. But in the grey cannabis industry, without street cred, you’re not getting read.
Why Online Authority Limits Good Information
While I appreciate Google’s ability to filter out information based on how well everyone else likes it, I am wary of how well it is deciphering the best information.
The best way to illustrate my concern is with Meta’s model of information delivery (based on how I interpret it). When you see a post on your Facebook feed, it is recommended to you based on your inputted interests and behaviors. How Meta gathers that information is a whole other topic.
Maybe you like cats. The robots search all cat information, rank the most popular, and then cross-search that against the information that your friends have also looked at. It then shows it to you and, based on your response, shows you more cat information until it learns what you like.
The problem is that you start to develop an echo chamber. You know that place where everything you see online is just a copy of the things you and your friends were thinking? It’s because it is.
The Meta model is a great way to deep dive into a particular subject. However, when you are searching for information, it’s not the best way to approach your research.
In terms of Google and online authority — when most people only see information associated with larger bodies of work, we create an echo chamber of information; organizations repeat the same information because they own multiple high-ranking sites. And since the largest bodies of work carry the most weight, and writers may write for multiple sites run by a single organization, a lot of the same stuff gets said. Whether or not that author shares good information is irrelevant; it’s what the majority of people like.
How the Cannabis Industry Address Authority
As we all know, the cannabis industry has its roots in the black market. Even in fully legal markets, much of the expertise relies on individuals who were involved during its black market days. This is also true online. Cannabis has been online since the 1990s. The early e-commerce Internet relied on content from websites willing to operate during black market days.
Many of the earliest popular cannabis sites’ content were copies of a few late 1990s blog sites. They had no expertise or authority — they simply repackaged information that was already online. Many would create pseudonyms of their own and outsource low-quality writers to write literally whatever. It was enough.
Now that legalization is widespread, traffic has increased, making content more valuable to readers. For profitable websites, it meant they could rehire their staff with contemporary cannabis professionals and not have to worry about any legal fallout. Some did more research. Others looked to retired and GenX cannabis professionals to author their content. Others turned to different types of content, like video.
The shift in content on cannabis websites over the last decade was an effort to prove credibility to share information. That begs the question: how do you define credibility in cannabis? Who is qualified to speak?
Is it someone who gathers all possible knowledge and shares insight in a meaningful way, or is it someone who is passionate, financially invested, and opinionated?
The cannabis industry leans toward the latter, which is why I am no longer contributing my expertise to their content. I am selling the website highandsuccessful.com to anyone passionate, opinionated, and financially invested in counteracting the negative stereotypes around cannabis consumption. Send me an email if you are interested in taking it over.
