I think we will agree that content on the web is ubiquitous these days.
We’ve entered an era in which we’re having to place a tremendous amount of trust in our consumers to persuade them to pay for content.
Consumers tend to value ubiquity over quality – ask any professional photographer who’s feeling a little “undervalued” right now or consider the average quality of an MP3 downloaded from a torrent. The question is, do we “devalue” the quality of content to make it ubiquitous? Or, do we restrict the availability of content give it value?
The answer may be painful for content providers, but one which must be acknowledged. It’s a paradox – restricting availability only serves to devalue the company which places the restrictions. Restrictions are harmful considering the “right click” can easily replace the “shopping basket”.
When rights are liberated, companies may find a new relevance which seemed unattainable before. Being relevant in the era of choice IS the new brand equity. The company that trusts its consumers will win.
Who wants a piece of this, and how do we get it started?
Tweet This!
Print This Post
17 Responses to “60 Second Rant: Content”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
March 14th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Content: Ubiquity vs. Quality…
Consumers tend to value ubiquity over quality – ask any professional photographer whos feeling a little undervalued right now or consider the average quality of an MP3 downloaded from a torrent. The question is, do we devalue the quality of content to …
March 17th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I wrote this down on a post-it months ago to blog, but never got around to it:
Isn’t it cool that information is no longer something we’re willing to pay for? It’s funnier that we’re happy to pay for something like an RSS reader (FeedDemon) or a PVR (TiVo) but in many cases not the information itself.
There’s so much information, content, etc. that we’ll pay for something to sort through our info and sometimes filter out what we don’t want for us. We’re so overwhelmed by information that we’ll pay for the filters sooner than the information and content itself. Crazy.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“Crazy”… No; it actually makes perfect sense; and once again nothing is new. Content itself is ‘overwhelming’… In the past there have always been filters that sort and rank content into manageable ‘nuggets’ or streams…
Radio station playlists
The A & R guys at record labels
The labels themselves deciding on what does and does not go into the distribution channel…
The Newspaper editor
The publisher…
On and on… We have always, and will always pay to have our content presented to us ‘in context’.
Heck, I might even pay Collin here one day as he seems to do a pretty good job collecting and consolidating information I like to have on the topic of social media.
Nothing new here… ‘raw’ unfiltered content has NO value. Value is assigned either by its assignment of value by a trusted source and/or its difficulty to obtain… Content is becoming more and more easy to obtain, so there is less money to be made by controlling distribution; BUT there being such a flood of content, the value is shifting to those trusted sources who can put it into context… basically assign it a value.
AND here’s the end game of DRM… you can be sitting on a pile of content the size of and Apollo spacecraft; have that locked down with more paperwork than sits in the library of congress… but if you do not let it stream out it cannot be assign value; therefore… its worthless. Conversely, if you do stream it out, you run risk of it being missed, or perceived by the ‘filters’ as worthless…
This is the google end game; own the most trusted filters; provide the best sorting mechanisms; AND become the most trusted ‘filter’ of opinion…
Oh, and you creator folks… Musicians, Writers, Graphistors [photographers, painters etc,], Mutimediators… [film makers etc.]… Its still the same old same old…
You gotta make something that someone thinks is valuable, that A&R guy, that publisher, curator or distributor… That someone, whose gonna assign that thing of yours value…
March 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am
So, DRM is a shambles as “Digital Rights” simply cannot be managed in this world of the never-ending flow of digital content.
So, the “filter” becomes the new “channel” from which value is assigned to content, and content is put into context for consumption by the consumer.
So, these filters take on any form from a well crafted search logarithm through to “trusted agents”… AND this system is supported by and for… Social Media.
Simply look at “Fark” and Matt Drudge… They both employ filters that sort through the 1000 of daily news posting and assign them a value according to a certain perspective, humor & conservative opinion… Fark goes one step further in so much as it places these items into a social media pool and creates an instant and continuous conversation around them [I note that the Globe and Mail is starting to do this quite well as well]… Fark not only provides me with a daily does of ‘reality’ humor; but also provides me with a group of ‘trusted’ agents who point me in the direction of News Items I may find of value…
YouTube, same model… and if someday Google can improve the sort mechanism…
——–
Why didn’t the ‘Star Wars Kid” share in the value assigned to YouTube? Why should it? It may have contributed to the stream, but the value was created by the community [Social Media, Population], which was created by YouTube… hence, YouTube “”"owns”"” the value [as fleeting as that may be]…
NOW, here’s the only way I can imagine a “Creator” can make money in this model [apply this to a band if you like]
1. Create something
2. Stream this something into appropriate communities through social media
3. Be ready to pounce on your moment… If that moment comes; if the community assigns your something value… [YOUR MOMENT]
4. Turn that popularity back onto the community in the form of an object; or a moment that can be commodified… A t-Shirt; OR another moment, a live performance…
OR at your moment, sell that moment to some dupe at an ad agency who thinks that your something carries a visceral appeal that will contribute to the brand of that something they are trying to market.
Unfortunately by the time you sell your moment; the community will have moved onto the next moment and your moment will have once again become valueless…
One hit wonders… again, is there anything new here?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Looks like I have been “out ranted.”
thanks for the post Gord.
collin
March 19th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I think you are wrong about starwars kid… however most of what you are saying I agree with.
The platform is important, but the content is more important. The tube that takes you to the premium content should be paid, the content house should be paid, and the content provider should be paid.
Who pays?
That is what needs to be figured out.
(Let me stop you before you say “the user”) There is nothing in it for them when they can get it free elsewhere.
I don’t care if this is not new… I just want an answer that works.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Ah… I get it, its a concern over ‘Artist’ revenue…
Correct me if I am wrong. You feel that YouTube is beholden to The Star Wars Kid?
Why?
March 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Ooops, posted this in the wrong thread…
hmmm… I should clarify; “nothing new” is not in anyway an attack on your opinions here; but rather a suggestion that you really don’t have to look much further than the history of commerce to figure out the economies of Social Media. As a matter of fact; much of the model is probably better suited to 2,000 year old economics that those of the 1970’s; which many of our media companies now find themselves stuck in.
If I’m wandering through the Market in Rome in 56 AD, looking for oranges the first thing I’d probably ask Googlius where I might find the orange vendors. If there were too many, or they all seemed to have oranges of similar quality and price, then I might ask my pal Agrigatus, who knows the orange market more closely than I, to make my choice for me…
Of course, there’s a good chance that Advertitus probably had paid off Googlius to point out a select group of Venders first; and Agrigatus would most likely be both working with Advertitus AND getting kick backs from the Vendors…
March 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
If we are to believe that social media builds brand equity, should we not share in that brand equity?
With something as easily measured as Youtube (metrics like views, links, comments, etc.) you would think a model could be sorted out.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Should I have shared in the 300,000,000 million when MySpace sold to Fox?
Should I have shared when Flickr sold to Yahoo?
Should I take a share of their advertising revenues?
What does Digg owe me when they land a deal with a manufacturer; what do I owe LinkedIn when I land a marketing gig with someone in my network there?
If YouTube enters a deal with Viacom for content; why don’t I get the same deal…
What do I sign on for when I sign up to a Social Media network?
…and what about eBay.
Uncle GoGo’s New Media Economic models… within 24 hours. Right here on ‘Radical Trust’!
March 20th, 2007 at 7:36 am
With Myspace, Youtube, Flickr, Digg and all the others that get better the more that content is contributed… I say yes. The more you contribute, the more equity you should share in the property. Have a look at Revver
YouTube is actually working on their model for this right now.
I agree, if YouTube makes a deal with Viacom, I think they should consider making the same deal with users. The question with 3rd parties posting is… who gets paid for the content that is posted? The user or Viacom? Will Viacom know what content is the most interesting to be posted? Or is it the user that will decide what they think is the funniest, or the best?
Viacom gets a billion views on their content and they scream foul… I would love that kind of exposure to my content.
Linkedin is a service that does not require you to continually offer content to make it better, in fact, the more you offer Linkedin, the better it gets for you. In other words, the gig you get from Linked in IS your payment! I think it is a great example of providing value to the contributer.
What about eBay? It is already doing it. You pay them for listing. That makes perfect sense.
It is not one model for all, it is one model for each. The same way you can’t apply one model to every business in meat space.
Great conversation Gord!
March 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
“Great conversation Gord!”… hopefully I’ll find time today to add to it…
Preview:
“With Myspace, Youtube, Flickr, Digg and all the others that get better the more that content is contributed… I say yes. The more you contribute, the more equity you should share in the property.”
I disagree with this, completely… almost!
March 20th, 2007 at 8:11 am
“It is not one model for all, it is one model for each. The same way you can’t apply one model to every business in meat space.”
- Are, you sure about that?
March 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
sure?
Unless you say “Make Money” But that is a motive, not a model.
Eating fruit and farming it are different things.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I haven’t said that, nor would I… Just as aside as I reach page 14 of my reply to this post…
I keep hearing folks in advertising, and say, the music industry wondering how they’re going to ‘make money’ in this new model… I think their problem is more; how are they going to make “as much money as they currently are making”… AND, well…
They’re not
March 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“Eating fruit and farming it are different things.” Proof to me that you’ve been getting some solid Board Room experience over the last few years!
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 am
Sadly true
Cheers!
c