Share this post:
Let’s talk about commodity content vs non-commodity content! Most content teams publish more than ever and see less return for it. The calendar stays full, keyword targets get hit, and rankings stagnate regardless. Google has spent several years building systems to identify and deprioritise content that could have been written by any team about any topic for no particular reader, and those systems are working. The industry calls this commodity content, and the uncomfortable reality is that most programmes are producing it without realising the brief is the source of the problem, not the writing.
Understanding what commodity content is at a structural level, how it differs from content that builds genuine authority, and what process changes shift a programme from interchangeable to irreplaceable is now a strategic necessity rather than an editorial preference.
What Is Commodity Content?
Commodity content is not the same as bad content. A piece can be well-researched, properly formatted, and factually sound while still being entirely substitutable. The defining issue is replicability: if a competitor could publish something functionally identical by following the same brief, the piece is interchangeable by definition. The insight comes from aggregated sources, the structure mirrors dozens of competing pages, and the author’s perspective is invisible throughout.
Google’s E-E-A-T framework which is important for on-page SEO makes this failure concrete. Commodity content may demonstrate surface-level expertise and cite credible sources, but it consistently fails on the Experience dimension. Experience, as Google defines it, means the author was genuinely present: they ran the campaign, tested the product, or dealt with the consequence. Content assembled from other articles describes situations from a distance rather than from direct involvement, and that gap is what the algorithm is built to detect.
Examples of Commodity Content
“7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers” appears across every property site, mortgage broker blog, and financial publisher because the information is identical regardless of who wrote it. A well-prompted AI could produce the whole piece in under a minute, which is why AI-generated content with no unique input has become the defining example of the problem: these tools are trained on existing web content and produce average output by design.
“Top 10 Things to Consider When Buying Running Shoes” and “What is Content Marketing? A Beginner’s Guide” follow the same logic. Definitional content has a legitimate place in a content ecosystem, but pieces like these cannot differentiate a brand because they carry nothing that could only have come from the organisation that published them.
What Is Non-Commodity (High-Value) Content?
Non-commodity content cannot be replicated because it is built on something no other source has access to: a lived experience, an original dataset, or specialist insight earned through direct involvement with the subject. Length is not the variable that matters. A 400-word post written by someone who experienced what they describe can outrank a 3,000-word guide assembled from secondary sources, because what Google’s Helpful Content guidance rewards is not volume or keyword density but the quality of being genuinely present.
The author tested the product until it broke, ran the experiment and reported what happened, or holds a professional view shaped by years of direct exposure to the problem. Lived experience is one of the hardest qualities to generate synthetically at scale, which is exactly why content built on it is both harder to replicate and more durable in search.
Examples of Non-Commodity Content
“Why We Waived the Inspection and How We Found a $15k Sewer Problem Anyway” could not have been produced from a content brief. “We Analysed 400 Miles of Wear Patterns on Running Shoes: Here’s What Failed First” carries original data no other source generated, making it irreplaceable regardless of how many competitors cover the same topic. “Why I Refuse to Install Marble in Kitchens With Young Children” is a professional position earned through repeated client work, not a synthesis of what contractors generally advise.
What connects these titles is specificity, stake, and source. The material underpinning each one had to be gathered or lived before it could be written, which is what makes it non-commodity.
Commodity Content vs Non-Commodity Content: Key Differences
The core distinction is source of insight. Commodity content draws from aggregated sources: other articles, general consensus, conventional wisdom available to any writer with a brief and internet access. Non-commodity content draws from direct experience, original research, or specialist knowledge that was not assembled from someone else’s work.
Replicability follows directly from source. A competitor can publish a functionally identical version of commodity content within a week. They cannot replicate a case study built on proprietary client data, a technical guide written by a specialist with 15 years of direct practice, or an opinion piece grounded in a position the brand has earned the credibility to hold.
Format patterns reflect this divide. Commodity content clusters around listicles, how-tos, and beginner’s guides because those formats scale efficiently. Non-commodity work shows up as original research, practitioner interviews where the subject says something they have not said elsewhere, and opinion pieces where the author’s stake in the position is evident throughout.
Algorithmically, Google’s AI Overviews now handle commodity queries directly in the SERP, removing the click incentive for pages that restate known information. Content built on original data or firsthand experience is harder to subsume into an AI-generated summary because it does not exist elsewhere in the same form. Some definitional content still serves a navigational purpose; building an entire strategy on it, without differentiated assets, leaves a programme with no basis for real authority and no protection against the next rollout.
Why Is Google Deprioritising Commodity Content?
The Helpful Content System rewards content made for people rather than search engines, and the signals it uses to distinguish between the two map closely onto the difference between commodity and non-commodity work. Content structured around keyword volume rather than user depth, written to rank rather than to help: these are the patterns the system surfaces and deprioritises. Commodity content fails these tests by construction.
AI Overviews compound the problem by answering commodity queries in the SERP itself, stripping click-through rate from pages that previously ranked for terms like “what is content marketing” or “best practices for email subject lines” regardless of their position. Surviving this shift requires content that goes deeper than a summary can, containing something an AI cannot synthesise from what already exists.
Supply-side pressure runs alongside both. AI writing tools have made it fast and cheap to produce competent content at scale, flooding the web with articles similar in structure, substance, and conclusion. As original, experience-grounded content becomes rarer, it becomes proportionally more valuable. Teams building genuine expertise into their editorial process now are accumulating assets that compound; the window to do so before competitors close the gap is narrowing.
The Content Commodity Trap: Why Most Content Teams Are Stuck in It
The commodity content problem is a structural failure in how programmes are commissioned and briefed, not a failure of individual writers. Asking writers to produce better work without changing the brief produces better-written commodity content.
Production-first workflows are the root cause. When a programme is built around keyword volume targets, the brief specifies what to rank for rather than what unique angle, source of insight, or expertise the piece will draw from. The keyword comes first, the writer fills around it, and the result mirrors every other piece targeting the same term. The question of what this piece says that another writer with the same sources could not say is never asked at the brief stage, so it is never answered in the article.
Template dependency locks in the problem. Standard frameworks, introduction, definition, list, call to action, produce identical structure regardless of topic. An article on invoice automation can end up shaped identically to one on project planning methodology, which is another way of saying both are commodity content regardless of the words filling the template.
Most AI use makes this worse rather than better. Generating a draft from a keyword and a topic description produces the structural average of what already exists on that subject. The experiential input that would make the piece non-commodity was never gathered and never given to the model.
How to Identify Commodity Content in Your Existing Library
Auditing an existing library requires honest answers to a short set of diagnostic questions. Could an AI summarise this article in one paragraph without losing meaningful information? If yes, the piece contains nothing that required direct experience or original insight to produce. Could a competitor publish an essentially identical version from the same brief? If the only difference between your version and theirs is brand voice rather than actual knowledge, it is commodity. Does the piece cite other articles rather than first-hand data or original research? A piece assembled from aggregated sources adds compression but no new information to the web.
Does it answer a query Google now handles through an AI Overview? Those pages face a worsening position regardless of current rankings. And is the unique perspective of your authors visible anywhere in the piece, not in the logo or the CTA, but in specific knowledge that someone without their direct experience would not hold?
Once identified, the framework is: improve, consolidate, or cut. Pieces with topical relevance can be elevated by adding a practitioner interview, a proprietary data point, or a clear editorial position. Clusters of similar articles often perform better consolidated into one authoritative piece. Low-value definitional pages are usually better deprioritised in internal linking than deleted. The aim is a library where a meaningful share of content contains something that could only have come from that organisation.
How to Move from Commodity to Non-Commodity Content
The shift requires process changes at the brief and commissioning stage, not at the writing stage.
Interview subject matter experts before the writer starts, not after. Most teams treat expert input as optional decoration, asking writers to include quotes if needed. That sequence produces content where expertise validates a structure already built from aggregated sources. Starting from the interview changes what the brief contains: the angle, the stance, and the specific insight that makes the piece worth reading come from someone with direct involvement, and the writer’s job is to communicate that with precision.
Briefs need to carry a source of insight alongside the keyword. A brief specifying “target keyword: content marketing strategy, 1,500 words” will produce commodity content because it gives no direction beyond topic. A brief specifying the same keyword with a concrete angle drawn from an internal interview and unpublished data gives the writer material no competitor’s brief contains. The keyword sets the target; the source of insight determines whether the piece lands as something worth reading.
Commission from practitioners where the subject demands it. A generalist following a thorough brief produces competent commodity content. A practitioner writing from direct experience produces something a generalist cannot, because the material is only accessible through having done the work. For experience-dependent subjects, that difference in output is substantial.
AI belongs at the end of this process, not the beginning. Used after the experiential input is gathered and specified, it accelerates drafting and improves structure. Introduced before that input exists, it generates the average of what already exists on the subject. The sequence determines whether the finished piece is differentiated or indistinguishable from the rest of the web.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is all AI-generated content commodity content?
Not categorically. AI output seeded with original research, a practitioner interview, proprietary data, and a defined editorial angle can produce non-commodity work. The problem arises when AI generates content from a keyword and topic description alone, producing the structural average of what already exists on the subject. Whether AI produces commodity or non-commodity output depends almost entirely on the quality and specificity of the input it receives.
Can short-form content be non-commodity?
Length is not the determining factor. A 300-word piece built on a specific, irreplicable experience or a confident professional position grounded in years of direct work can carry more authority than a 2,500-word guide assembled from aggregated sources. The relevant question is where the insight came from, and whether another source could produce the same content without access to the same experience or data.
Does commodity content hurt SEO rankings?
Not through a direct penalty in most cases. Commodity content fails to earn the signals that build long-term authority: inbound links from sites that found something worth referencing, branded searches from readers who returned, engagement from users who found something that solved a real problem. A library built on commodity content accumulates weak authority signals over time, limiting what the programme can achieve and making compounding returns difficult to produce.
Is commodity content ever worth publishing?
Definitional content and foundational explainers serve a legitimate navigational purpose, particularly for users early in their research. The problem is treating them as the strategic core rather than supporting scaffolding. A programme built only on “What is X?” and “Top 10 Tips for Y” builds no differentiated assets and gives no external site a specific reason to link to it over a competitor with similar coverage. Commodity content belongs in a programme as scaffolding, not as the load-bearing structure.
What’s the fastest way to make an existing piece non-commodity?
Get an internal expert to spend 30 minutes with the piece and answer three questions: what would they add that is not there, what does it oversimplify, and what would they tell a client who came to them after reading it. Those answers, worked back into the original, are typically the fastest route from generic to genuinely useful. A specific client outcome, a proprietary data point, or a clear professional position grounded in direct experience achieves the same effect when subject matter access is not immediately available.
If you want assistance with GEO and SEO for LLMs, we are here for you! You can read more about our GEO services here, or contact us directly to learn how we can best support you in reaching your business goals.
