For years I have been arguing that curation is not a minor editorial activity, nor a way to save time and effort to create valuable content. In my very personal view it can be a way to build authority without having to be great writers, as it requires judgment and pattern recognition more than prose.
But I realize that, until now, much of my case has been built only from observation, personal experience, and intuition.
Now that I have at my disposal all these research tools that I could only have dreamed of in the past, I feel compelled to look at the big picture, go deep into research mode and see - beyond my beliefs and the trendy buzzwords of the time (judgment, taste, filtering) - what’s really out there.
In other words: “Is this curation thing really happening, or is it just my biased personal interpretation?”
So I went looking for the data.
What I found is not one single statistic that magically proves that curation is the magic word that answers all of today’s authority, credibility and trust-building needs for experts and independent journalists alike.
But what I found is even more interesting: five different signals, coming from different directions, that point toward the same conclusion.
Curation is becoming one of the most important strategic editorial directions for experts, consultants, advisors and journalists because the information environment has changed.
We now live in a world where content is exploding, trust is shrinking, search traffic is becoming less reliable, people are moving toward named and trusted individuals, and generative AI is making generic content cheaper and less distinctive.
In such an environment, the best strategy is not anymore one of publishing more. The value has now silently shifted to those who can act as reliable filters. To help their readers understand what deserves attention, what should be ignored, what is reliable, what is weak, what is connected to what, and what is what matters now.
That is the curation I am referring to. Not “sharing links.” Not “posting interesting resources.” Not curation as simply a new editorial format. But curation as a visible form of judgment (how you think, analyze, process, and choose, what is relevant and what is not).
To support this perspective, here are the five key signals that emerged from my research, all converging in one direction:
.
The content flood is no longer human-sized.
We are producing more content than any person can realistically read, compare, check or absorb..
Trust is moving away from institutions and toward familiar voices.
People are not simply looking for more information. They are looking for someone they can trust to interpret it..
People need orientation, not more information.
The problem is no longer access. The problem is making sense of abundance without drowning in it..
The old search-driven content model is breaking.
Generic explanatory content is becoming easier for machines to summarize, bypass or replace..
The market is moving toward named people with a clear point of view.
Readers increasingly follow and pay individual voices that help them understand a field, a problem or a moment..
Taken separately, each one of these signals is important. But when taken together, they make a strong case: curation is no longer just a nice editorial option. It is indeed becoming a trust-building strategy.
And for anyone who makes his living by sharing knowledge, this matters a lot.
Table of Contents
.
1) The Content Flood Is No Longer Human-Sized
The first signal is the most obvious one: we are producing more content than any human being can realistically read, compare, test or absorb.
Generative AI has accelerated this process dramatically. Content that once required time, research, revision and editorial care can now be produced at scale, in minutes, in a polished enough form to appear credible at first sight.
This does not mean that all AI-assisted content is bad. That would be too easy, and false. But it does mean that the external appearance of quality is becoming less reliable as a trust signal.
A clean article no longer proves that someone has done the work. A confident explanation no longer proves that the author understands the subject. A useful-looking summary no longer proves that the sources were checked.
This is a major change.
In the past, the effort required to produce a serious article created at least some distance between noise and real substance. Today that distance has nearly disappeared. The cost of producing acceptable-looking content has collapsed, and with it the old assumption that “well written” also means “well judged.”
This is why the real opportunity in my view is no longer simply to produce more. It is to show better judgment than the machine and better judgment than the crowd. It’s as simple as that. And it firmly connects to the last two articles I wrote:
2) Trust Is Moving Toward Familiar Voices
The second signal comes from trust research.
The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer (see References at the end) describes a society that is moving toward “insularity.” People are narrowing their circles of trust and becoming more hesitant to trust sources that feel distant, unfamiliar, or misaligned with their values and lived experience.
This changes the way authority is built. As a consequence, trust is not disappearing. It is relocating. It is moving away from large, abstract institutions and toward people, communities, employers, local relationships, familiar voices and trusted filters.
Edelman reports that “My Employer” is now the most trusted institution, with 78% trust among employees, ahead of business, government, media and NGOs.
For independent experts and advisors, this is highly relevant. It means that people do not simply want “information from a reliable institution.” They increasingly want guidance from someone they can recognize, evaluate over time, and feel some form of alignment with.
The expert who can become a trusted filter therefore gains an advantage, because he helps people reduce uncertainty. He can say: this is worth your time, this is exaggerated, this connects to that, this is useful but not quite complete, this trend is real but misunderstood, this is where I would start.
That is not content production in the normal sense. That is what I would call “trust work.” And curation is one of the most practical ways to make that work visible.
3) People Need Orientation, Not More Information
The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2026 reveals another important layer. Global trust in news has dropped to 37%, the lowest level since the institute started tracking it in 2015.
Trust in news consumed through social media is lower, around 22%. Trust in news accessed through AI chatbots even less: around 20%.
What is striking is that people continue to use these channels despite not fully trusting them.
This is a key contradiction we need to understand.
People often choose convenience even when they know reliability is weak. They use fast channels because they are tired, overloaded, busy or simply trying to keep up. This does not mean they are satisfied. It means they are coping with what is available.
Inside this gap, between convenience and trust, there is a real opportunity for the expert curator.
When people are overwhelmed, they do not need another archive. They need orientation. They need someone to help them see what matters, what has changed, what can be ignored, what is risky, what is new, and what is just a recycled idea hidden under new buzzwords.
This is why curation is not just a publishing format. It is a response to a set of unmet human needs: excessive cognitive load, too little time-attention available, unstructured abundance.
In fact, what the good curator does is not merely collect information. He helps the reader move through complexity without drowning in it.
4) The Old Content Model Is Breaking
The fourth signal is distribution. For many years, the standard digital content strategy was based on a relatively simple mechanism: publish useful content, rank on Google, attract traffic, convert part of that traffic into subscribers, customers or clients.
That model is now under heavy threat. The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Trends and Predictions report says that publishers expect search traffic to decline significantly over the next three years. It also reports sharp falls in referral traffic from platforms such as Facebook and X, while search itself is being reshaped by AI-generated answers.
This matters for independent publishers, but also for experts, journalists and consultants.
If search engines become answer engines, generic explanatory content loses part of its strategic value. The article that simply answers “what is X,” “how does Y work,” or “best tools for Z” can be easily summarized, absorbed or bypassed.
This does not mean that writing becomes useless. It means that undifferentiated writing becomes commoditized.
Thus the future advantage is in being the source that people recognize, remember, cite, follow, search by name and return to because they trust the way they think.
That is a very different editorial objective. It requires more than content volume. It requires a recognizable point of view, visible criteria, consistent judgment and a body of work that helps people understand a domain better over time.
Again, this is where curation fits naturally. Not as “posting links,” but as becoming a named, trustable source of orientation inside a field.
5) The Market Is Moving Toward Named People
The fifth signal is the growth of personality-led media.
The Reuters Institute’s 2026 Trends and Predictions report notes that publishers are increasingly trying to make their journalists behave more like creators and are also partnering with independent creators for distribution. This reflects a larger shift: people often want a human face, a clear voice and a recognizable point of view attached to the information they consume.
This is not only a matter of performance or personal branding. It is connected to trust. A known person can develop a relationship with readers over time. A publication can do this too, but many institutional brands now feel too distant, too generic, too interchangeable or too compromised in the eyes of their audience.
Substack is one of the clearest signals of this shift. According to Sacra, Substack reached about 5 million paid subscriptions by March 2025, generating roughly $450 million in gross writer revenue, while Substack’s own annualized revenue reached about $45 million in 2025.
This does not mean that every expert should start a newsletter and expect to build a business from it. That would be naïve. But it does show that people are willing to pay for trusted individual voices when those voices help them understand a field, follow a problem, interpret events or make better decisions.
This is a sign that editorial trust can now attach strongly to individuals.
And curation is one of the most credible ways for an individual expert to earn that trust, because it shows not only what they know, but how they think/choose.
6) The Opportunity
Here I need to be careful.
If I say that curation is the opportunity, many people will immediately think of lists, link collections, roundups of stuff worth reading, or bundles of resources or tools.
But that kind of curation can only act as packaging, a surface layer, and often the weakest one. In other words: Aggregating stuff is not enough.
Casey Newton of Platformer recently moved away from aggregation and predictable analysis, arguing that the value in tech journalism is moving toward original reporting and surprise. I think he is right, but I do not see this as a contradiction of the curation thesis. I see it as a useful clarification.
The opportunity is not aggregation as a content type. The opportunity is curation as a method of showing one’s own judgment ability. Aggregation says: here are ten links. Curation says: I have studied the field, compared the signals, removed the weak stuff, selected what matters, explained why it is relevant, and shown you how to use it.
Aggregation creates a pile. Curation creates a path.
Aggregation saves items. Curation saves time (to the reader).
This distinction is essential. Without it, the word curation becomes too soft, too fashionable, and too easy to dismiss.
7) Curation Works Only When…
There is in fact a much stronger point that I should make to clarify what kind of curation I am referring to.
Curated content without a visible point of view does not build much authority. If I simply repost an article and say “interesting read,” I have shown almost nothing. I have not shown my standards, my reasoning, my doubts, my criteria or my experience.
Good curation must make the selection process visible.
Why this source and not another? Why is this relevant for you reading? What does it teach you that is not immediately evident? What it misses? Where is it weak? What would I do with this information? What would I not do?
This is where authority starts to appear.
Not in the links you share, but through your personal perspective interpreting them.
This is why curation can be especially powerful for experts, consultants and journalists. Their real value is not that they can produce more content. Their value is that they can see what others miss, connect dots, detect weak signals, challenge fashionable nonsense, compare sources and explain what matters in a way that others can easily understand and put to good use.
When this process becomes visible, trust has something concrete to attach to.
8) Why This Matters For Experts And Consultants
For experts, especially when they are new to the online world, the central problem is often that their real expertise is invisible until someone works with them.
The articles they write can show their ideas, viewpoints and opinions about their subject matter. Their bio can say what they have done. Testimonials can say why others appreciated them. Formal credentials can show “academic” authority. But none of these things fully reveal how those experts think.
They do not show how they evaluate a situation, how they compare options, how they separate strong evidence from weak evidence, how they decide what matters, how they notice what others overlook.
Curation, instead, specifically addresses these issues.
A curated map of a field shows what the expert considers important. A reading path shows how he would guide a beginner. A comparison table reveals his standards. A list of “what I would ignore” shows his courage and discipline. A trend brief shows his ability to detect meaningful signals. A source library shows his intellectual lineage. A decision guide shows how he helps people choose. His paradata at the end of an article show his intent, choices, process and more.
These are not just content formats. They are trust assets. They allow a reader or potential client to see the expert’s judgment before hiring him or buying one of his products / services.
9) Why This Matters For Journalists
For journalists, the same opportunity exists, but with a different emphasis.
AI can summarize public information. Platforms can distribute news bites and shorts faster than any newsroom. Creators can comment quickly and informally. But serious journalism still has something that machines and random commentators cannot easily replace: verification, field knowledge, editorial responsibility, credit attribution, context and human accountability.
The Reuters Institute 2026 report says many publishers are moving toward distinctiveness: more analysis and framing, more human stories, more fact-checking and verification, more opinion and commentary, more community-building.
And this is curation language, even when the word curation is not always used. It says: do not compete with machines on volume. Compete on meaning.
Do not produce more generic content. Build a clearer editorial role. Do not flood people with more notifications. Become a trusted place people return to.
For independent journalists, this is an important direction.
Curation does not replace reporting, but it can strengthen it by giving readers the context they need to understand why a story matters, where it fits, what evidence supports it, which voices are useful, and what remains to be clarified.
A journalist who reports without framing risks becoming one more voice among millions. A journalist who reports and curates helps readers build understanding over time.
10) The Real Strategic Direction
So, is curation now a provable opportunity?
I think yes, but the honest case is not based on one new revealing statistic. It is based on the convergence of several trends that all point in the same direction.
Content abundance is exploding. Trust in institutions and platforms is weak. Search and social traffic are less reliable than before. People are moving toward named voices and trusted individuals. Generative AI is making generic content cheaper and less distinctive.
At the same time, verification, framing, judgment and human point of view are all becoming scarce and therefore more valuable.
Taken separately, each of these trends is important. Taken together, they create a strong case.
This is why I now see curation not as a minor publishing activity, but as one of the most important strategic editorial directions for anyone who informs, teaches, guides or sells knowledge.
The expert of the future is not only someone who knows. He is someone who helps others know what to trust, someone who makes his criteria visible, someone who helps people orient themselves when there is too much information and it’s hard to understand what to pay attention to.
That is the opportunity I see. To become a trusted filter, someone who can make better sense of what is already there.
References
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
Edelman
Reuters
Nieman Lab
Sacra
Backlinko
Paradata
Intent / Why: I have been advocating curation for the longest time. As early as 2003-2004, when RSS feeds came of age, and from 2011 to 2014, when the focus was on real-time news curation, I truly felt that curation was a completely underrated skill and editorial strategy that brought benefits to all parties involved. I saw in it the pragmatic opportunity to learn from each other, and to organize and re-frame our own knowledge and discoveries. I saw in curation one of the best ways to learn any topic. But curation got hijacked by marketing and sold as a tactic to create value without having to make any effort: just collect a bunch of links, scrape what others have said about them, rewrite those and sell it as quality curation. Curation as a shortcut is what people in the online world have been offered. Save time. Save effort. Look good with little effort. But the truth couldn’t be further from this. Curation takes more time and effort than original writing. By far. That’s why there’s so little of it around and why it brings such great authority to those who have understood its true value and who curate with intent and focus.
So the other day I became curious to see whether to see whether by now, there were tangible proof, papers, research or studies going beyond my own personal beliefs and experience. Was there now actual proof that curation is a fast-growing, in-demand, high-value strategic editorial strategy, that accrues value, credibility and authority to those who practice it with intent and focus?
And so I set out to search and see what I could find to prove my point. This article is the fruit of this pursuit.
Process: I wrote down what I wanted to verify and ideally prove and then asked two different AIs to research in that direction and see what would emerge. The results didn’t show any ultimate evidence or tangible proof, signalling in my view that we’re still early in understanding and adopting this editorial mindset, but they identified multiple key trends all converging in the same direction. So I proceeded to analyze these reports and in filtering and eliminating what didn’t match my experience and what I felt was not essential. I verified the sources and their trustworthiness and kept those that looked reliable. I then asked each AI to take the other AI report and see where it failed, where it could be improved and what it lacked. I then generated upgraded versions of each and then asked each AI to create a unified version that included all the key facts from both. I chose the one from ChatGPT, because - for my needs and preferences - it writes in a style much closer to what I want, than Claude does (Claude is more performative, while ChatGPT - in my use - is more informational, factual and pragmatic). I finally added this Paradata section, conceived and designed the cover and proceeded with further vetting and verification before publishing. For the cover design I ask ChatGPT to read the article, its title and subtitle, and to suggest ten possible concepts for a possible cover image. So, from those written concepts I select two, explain in detail how I want them executed, and ask AI to generate three image variations from each. Unsatisfied with the results, I pinpointed to the elements I wanted to changed and how, through multiple iterations until I got what I wanted.
Time: Topic identification and briefing: 1 hr. - AI-assisted research and verification: 2.5 hrs. - Editorial process, vetting, remixing, re-assessing, re-writing: 2.5 hrs. - Formatting and links: 1 hr. - Cover concept and design execution: 1.5 hrs. Paradata writing: 1 hr. - Verification and corrections: 1 hr. - Total apx time: 10.5
Tools:
Claude Cowork w/Opus 4.8
ChatGPT 5.5 w/Deep Research
Cover image: Curator as constellation cartographer - Concept & Design by Robin Good executed by ChatGPT Image 2
Learn More About Curation
I help experts and consultants who are building a new online career gain the authority, credibility, and visibility they initially lack.
I do this by teaching them how to become trusted curators in their area of expertise.
For this purpose I’ve created a focused 55-minute video workshop that walks you through:
Why curated content formats are so useful for building credibility and authority
When to use them and what requirements they have
An updated list of real-world examples of curated formats at work
The specific tools you need to curate
The actual key steps that transform researching and writing into curation
The 11 typical mistakes novice curators make
One-to-One Audit & Strategic Advice
For experts and consultants looking for ways to:
a) Create Value and Build Trust
I help you identify and master your own personal ways to gain authority and create value by curating insights, research, news, resources and tools in your field of interest.
b) Improve Credibility and Trust
I review your content, positioning and goals to identify the best editorial strategies to build trust and credibility around your focus.
c) Positioning and Personal Branding
I analyze your market positioning to identify key strengths and weaknesses. I help you redefine a strategy to differentiate yourself from the competition while increasing the practical value you bring to your readers.
Available in two tiers: a) for those just starting and b) for those who have been publishing for more than a year but are not seeing results.
Follow a path with a heart.
The time is now.
From Koh Samui (TH)
Robin Good
So good Robin. I especially appreciate "Curated content without a visible point of view does not build much authority."
What stood out to me is the argument that curation is becoming more valuable than simply producing more content. In a world overflowing with information and AI-generated material, trust increasingly belongs to people who can filter, connect, and contextualize ideas rather than simply add to the noise.