Excuse the bad pun, but friend and colleague Dave Cushman has started posting a series of videos from an interview with Clay Shirky (author of Here Comes Everybody).
Well worth watching.
And if you need another reason, Clay’s still holding the number 2 spot on the infamous ‘Rock Stars of Web 2.0‘ list on Ditto.net.
My Bauer Media colleague Dave Cushman has raised some interesting questions in an excellent blog post: 17 lessons for the new marketing.
Hopefully he’ll forgive me for pointing out that as an ex sub-editor and production editor, blogging has had an effect on his spelling! Unless assetts is a clever pun!
He raises important questions about the purpose and value of content in the modern world. One which is navigated via Google, RSS, social networks, and chat. One in which it’s possible to find almost any information/content for free if you have the time. And Bill Drummond’s 17 project is definitely a good trigger for thinking about new ways to consider content.
I do disagree that having an almost infinite amount of music means it loses value – in terms of interest, and whether participating always gives rise to a richer experience than being part of an audience – even of one. As a musician, I’ve had some appalling times trying to play with groups of people – and I’ve had some superb times listening to recordings alone or with friends. And sites like Last.fm allow me to listen to far more music than I’d have encountered via broadcast media.
And in the modern world, long dead musicians are being remixed, reproduced, and mashed into new symphonies by people who weren’t even alive for the original recordings. It’s not about retreading the path of the minstrel back to the dark ages by dismissing recordings, but embracing the new ways of continues creation for a piece of content by new artists and new technologies.
Perhaps this is one of the most important lessons – and one which necessitates the move from broadcast. That of constant change. What may work for me at one moment can change within seconds, and the only person who will know that change has happened will be me. And that constant change is only made possible by broadcast technology (ever wondered by uploads are so much slower than downloads?) being re-purposed by the end user in the same way as radio gave rise to pirate stations, and video and digital TV gave rise to lo-fi film-making.
What we’re both striving for is a new outlook and way of doing things to ensure future relevance and success. David sums it up with his opening question for editorial/media types:
What do you do if you don’t have any content?
And points out how that leads to the likes of Google, Youtube, Wikipedia and Twitter. Interestingly only one of them is an undisputed financial success, but in terms of content, they have an almost infinite amount and yet create nothing except the context in which to access it all.
When asked about resourcing levels, I once heard someone say ‘Content will take care of itself’. I don’t believe that’s true. What I believe is that ‘Content will be created by itself – and it’s our opportunity to take care of it’. And that means the creation experience, the publishing experience, the marketing experience and the live experience. All things that traditional media companies have experience of doing, and could now begin to perform as a service, rather than an end in itself. After all, as David would say, we’re in an era of unfinished symphonies.
(And I’ve since learned that it applies to Massive Attack’s Unfinished Sympathy:
“The percussion loop is the “belly break” sampled from a Bob James‘ cover of Paul Simon‘s “Take Me To The Mardi Gras” which was also used by Run DMC on ‘Peter Piper’. The voice at the beginning of the song is a sample of John McLaughlin“. – from Wikipedia.
Two things I’m posting as much to have them handy for my own recollection as to share.
1: I often tell my friend and colleague Dave Cushman that I disagree with him, and I also tend to be the plain English version of his slightly more long-winded explanations. But he seems to be putting across his thoughts in better and better ways, and this is a great example.
2. I hadn’t heard of Randy Pausch until after his untimely death, and although his ‘Last Lecture’ got picked up by various media in the U.S., it was only via Twitter and blogs I heard about it. Probably one the most worthwhile, inspirational, and moving ways I’ve ever spent 80 minutes. And possibly the best advert for academia I’ve seen in years.
Do it justice and click on full screen mode…
It’s interesting to see how the fairly disparate network of friends, colleagues, and random people I’ve built up over the years can sometimes converge on a topic from a variety of different angles…
Take mobile phone QR codes appearing on T-shirts for example. David Cushman has picked up on the use of them for football shirts, or any branded product. So if someone has some Nikes you like, you stop them, point your phone at them, and get taken to somewhere to find out more and purchase…
He also makes the great point that many, many important Word of Mouth conversations about a product are still happening face-to-face, rather than all on the more trackable internet.
And almost simultaneously Angus Farquhar was emailing me about this:
Found via airtight interactive, it’s one of several T-shirts and bags available which mean you can be added by anyone you meet. I’m not sure there’s a good thing in general, but it would definitely have uses at conferences/business meetings. Lost your business card? Just flash your chest at prospective clients!
If they do take off, it’ll be interesting to see if GapingVoid switches to doodling on moving people…
Developing my ideas about the missing piece of The Long Tail theory has taken a surprising turn, as a rather hopeful email to Chris Anderson, The Long Tail author and Wired Editor-in-Chief was met by a prompt and thoughtful email helping me to crystalise some of my ideas… Just goes to show that the connectivity of the internet is more than theory – it’s reality. And also helping are my constant discussions, disagreements and challenges to blog chum Dave Cushman from Faster Future…
As I said previously, Chris does a superb job of reminding readers that the new culture of niche interests in the internet-accessible long tail does not mean the end for big entertainment companies producing hits aimed squarely at the short tail. But the justification for this is left implicit, understandably, as it’s the Long Tail which is the radical new idea. Just a shame then, that a surprising amount of people manage to completely miss the point and go straight to proclaiming all mass media dead.
But there are reasons for these big companies to survive, as they transform into agents of the new prosumer, rather than content creators.
As I said previously, the excellent Long Tail theory implies how major media companies will continue to co-exist with the long tail of prosumers, but doesn’t justify their continued existence.
That posed me with enough of a problem to email the author (and Wired Editor-in-Chief) Chris Anderson, who inspired me to continue with a thoughtful response. And to discuss the concept further with fellow blogger Dave Cushman from Faster Future.
Although I see major media companies forced to adapt to become agents for content creators, rather than creators themselves, there are some good reasons why we need these big players to continue, rather than fading away, or choosing to plug-in unpaid user generated content rather than backing artists with significant funding.
One major reason is Context. As much as we want increasingly more personal relevance from our niche entertainment, we still want to be indentifiable to larger groups. Tagging yourself with your favourite films on a site like Facebook is an art in itself, as you move between common signposts (Star Wars, Titanic, etc), and more obscure arthouse or indie movies. As much as the watercooler discussions about the latest hits have diminished, they’ve migrated to online debates on forums and message boards, and the cult of celebrity is as strong as ever.
Much of the current crop of user generated content is also based upon these reference points, whether it’s a mash-up of famous films (my favourite, here), a parody, or fan fiction based upon these titles. It can be much easier to gain popularity for an unknown prosumer by referencing these common cultural signposts than to begin with totally original material. How many film fans wouldn’t recognise the sound of a lightsaber being drawn in Star Wars?
Another main reason is Inspiration. Whilst the likes of Speilberg, Lucas, Cameron or Kubrick made interesting student films and could doubtless do wonders with the technology available to home users at the moment, there are still differences in what becomes available when you have several million or more to spend. And while OK Go can inspire a certain time of fan film for Youtube, there are doubtless many amateur filmmakers who aspire to making Schindlers List, or 2001.
The final of the trio of reasons in Financial Aspiration, often sidestepped in studies which proclaim prosumers just do it for the love of it and the recognition.
Many people do co-create and share to exchange knowledge and ideas, and to simply get their voice out there. Any audience they receive is valued and appreciated, and they fit their creative sides around their day jobs.
But that isn’t the total picture. Many amateur musicians, film makers and writers would give various body parts to ‘make it’ in ever bigger arenas. Partly for financial reward, and partly because, if you strive to do something better, it takes more time and effort. And the demands of a 9-5 job might not stop you from achieving your dream, but they complicate it immensely. Lauded indie directors such as Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater made their names with tiny budgets but certainly didn’t hide from major studios when they got the chance. Partly the old methods of film distribution made it a neccessity, but partly it meant they could get paid, use studio lots, and get access to a whole world of professional film casts and employees.
Writing, making music, or making movies isn’t easy. There are those who are naturally talented, and there are more resources than ever online to help guide aspiring talent. But in order to reach a reasonable level of quality takes time and practice, especially to hit that level consistently. If hopeful artists can’t aspire to paid employment then there is no opportunity for university, for example, which gives many people the time and space to find their voice, or for any further training, without indulgent and wealthy parents.
Artistic endeavour has always been interlinked with financial reward, since the first wandering minstrel received a meal and a pint of ale for producing entertainment.
I’d be very interested to hear how these ideas stand up, especially as I fully intend to use them the next time I hear the cry that big companies are now dead, or that we can cull all our paid staff because users will just churn out endless reams of content without any input. So as ever I welcome all comments and feedback, good or bad. Whatever happens, it’s an interesting time, especially for someone who works for a major media company 9-5.30pm at www.motorcyclenews.com, runs a publication which aspires to make money at www.disposablemedia.co.uk, and blogs purely to have a voice. Three sides of the same coin…
Inspired by a comment on my recent post about the myth of User Generated Content, I figured colleague and fellow digital person David Cushman deserved a fuller response than my reply…And hopefully this might inspire more people to get involved.
David has talked at length on his blog, Faster Future, about his concept of people becoming ‘Famous for 15 people‘, rather than ‘Famous for 15 minutes’. And in some ways, it makes a lot of sense.
After all, if you can reach the people most obsessive about a particular interest, whether you call them early adopters or obsessives, then you’re going to accurately target those most likely to engage and respond.
But this does miss some of the reasons for UGC creation, and some of the reason why certain UGC sites maintain an advantage. it’s also why I believe that there should be a bridge between ‘old’ media and new, rather than discarding the old.
To start with, I’d split UGC into two types. The first is that which comes from small groups of friends chatting, for instance on a forum, with high levels of interaction.
This is the type of UGC which most directly works with the ’15 people’ model, as posts to these key people will have a big effect.
But there is another type of UGC creation, which I’d call ‘formal’ or ‘broadcast’ UGC. This ranges from blogs to live webcam shows, and includes user radio shows, user videos etc. Many of these are not simply created in a desire to interact with users who share an interest, but are an attempt to gain fame and respect from the largest possible audience. It’s the only equivalent of appearing on Big Brother, or sending a story into a newspaper, and is part of human nature for those reared on the cult of celebrity. Those people will actively pick Youtube over a niche site, in order to get the widest possible audience for their video/photo/blog. While they’d be happy with interaction from a small number of people, they’d be happier still with a huge number of people. In the same way, I value the small and growing number of blog readers I have, but I’d be happier if they were part of an audience far larger, if only to gain leverage for getting stories.
There is also another aspect which i think the ’15 people’ concept appears to overlook, and I’ll hope Dave will forgive me if I’ve missed the explanation somewhere.
If I’m looking for content on a subject on which I have no previous interaction, I have a number of ways to find it.
A search will bring up those sites who have the best search ranking, or have paid, and I’m unlikely to go through more than a few pages of results.
I’ll post on a site I already use, and hope that another forum member shares my interest, and can recommend something. But I have no way to guage their knowledge of that particular subject.
I might spot a mention or link to a niche site recommended somewhere else, and go and visit. But even with a passionate niche site, I have no way to verify the information I’m given. Or I can choose a ‘traditional’ site, and hope that their professional journalists have integrity.
Those sites with huge audience figures and a mix of both professional and user news, reviews and opinions will win out, because they will have the highest ranking, the most familiar name, and the biggest implied trust on the first visit. And it’s perfectly possible for them to allow their audience to self-niche into smaller groups of interest.
It might seems paradoxical that a web 2.0 fan is debating such a web 2.0 concept, and coming out on the side of the internet and print monoliths, but I think it’s important to keep stating that there is a middle ground being ‘old’ and ‘new’ media which offers the best of both worlds, without any detriment to the user. Social news sites provide good examples of how a site with little or no editorial judgement can skew the news, with Digg, and Fark offering some strange views on the world on any given day.
For instance, Fark today has a ranking of 37 for a story from the Telegraph regarding Tony Blair’s last day in office, and the same ranking for a story about a man who wanted to see his dead girlfriend topless!
A UGC advocate could argue that it demonstrates both stories have equal appeal for readers, and to some extent that’s true. But if you were simply looking for topical stories of the day, there’s no reason why the site would even be this balanced.
Whereas a mix of a respected news source, such as the BBC, CNN, or whatever flavour news you fancy, combined with the UGC predeliction for the oddball stories you’d have emailed your friends in the old days, would have the best of both worlds.
I realise that some of these issues are perhaps wandering away from the original ‘famous for 15 people’ concept, but I really do feel that user needs are intertwined so much with new media that it’s hard to separate the issue into bie-sized chunks without missing the big picture.
And while I’d welcome comments from a small number of eloquent, intelligent regular readers, I can’t see a day when, as a writer, I wouldn’t want my work to be read by the widest possible audience.
There’s a lot of buzz about Twitter at the moment. If you’ve missed it all, the site allows you to post what some commentators would probably call a ‘micro-blog’, but ‘d say is a mix of a forum post and a blog, limited to 140 words.
A few notable people have signed up around the web, and it does offer a happy medium between broing people on forums with stories of your life, and writing 500 word essays about the fact you’re late for work.
The other interesting thing will be mobile integration. While I may disagree with the gold rush timescale of mobile broadband predicted by some of my colleagues, such as Dave Cushman at Faster Future , and in more established mobile broadband areas the novel etc is claimed to be the mobile reading of choice…for the US and UK short snippets should work pretty well on mobile
Recent Comments