« the blog channel? |
Main
| LiveJournal Obsession Test »
September 26, 2003
All together now: Communication is not "content"
Posted by Clay Shirky
Ah, the desperation of publishers to tell the Kontent is King story: News.com has this
choice bit of analysis about the "growth" of paid content:
U.S. consumer spending for paid Internet content jumped during the first half of 2003, due partly to more people looking for a mate online, according to a new study.
The numbers were published by the Online Publishing Association, the conceptual cousin of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Follow the logic here? "If we redefine dating sites as publishers, and treat the users as writers, then we can call online profiles content, and rationalize the success of the dating market as good news for us! And that way it doesn't matter that all the writers are readers as well. Yeah, that's it -- these people aren't trying to communicate with one another, they're engaged in cooperative cross-publishing of self-generated content!"
Social life is not "content", no matter how many studies are published trying to convince us otherwise.
Comments (8)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Scott Rafer on September 26, 2003 8:34 AM writes...
I agreed with you completely until 48 hours ago. I've started doing some work with Feedster and FOAF as as an RSS flavor is one of the things that suddenly matters to me. I think there is a large grey area in the space you describe above as rather black and white.
If you subscribe your news aggregator to a FOAF feed of your friends' friends or friends' friends' friends, it becomes people watching not "social life." It is the same motivation that makes it amusing for tourists from Dallas to walk around the East Village (and vice versa).
At what point does that kind of data consumption cross the line into content? And, what if I've paid for the privilege or click on a couple of paid search links?
Permalink to Comment2. Clay Shirky on September 26, 2003 10:12 AM writes...
The pattern you are describing is called lurking, and lurkers are part of the social fabric as much as the other participants.
You ask At what point does that kind of data consumption cross the line into content? I'm saying its at the point where the people producing it are not doing to to communicate with one another.
Permalink to Comment3. Marc Canter on September 26, 2003 12:29 PM writes...
I agree with Clay in that social interaction (formerly known as communication - is not content. But since social software is quickly becoming a feature, rather than an end result (as Jonathan Abrams called it "it's just technology") I think its appropos to spout off: "digital lifestyle means personal publishing + media management + device & Home LAN management times social networking". So there will be LOTS of content flowing, interacting, being stored, recorded, stolen, loaned, purchased, and what not. It's not fair to count Friendster accounts as content, but once Tribe starts enabling folks to post Reviews - THAT's content.
Now what about that eCommerce stuff? Or a Listing (for an apartment or to sell something?) Do they call THAT content?
Permalink to Comment4. Roger Benningfield on September 26, 2003 11:49 PM writes...
Clay: "I’m saying its at the point where the people producing it are not doing to to communicate with one another."
I dunno... seems like you're reaching, Clay. Virtually all writing is an attempt to communicate with *someone*, if only an amorphous blob of "them".
Permalink to Comment5. Barry Ritholtz on September 27, 2003 1:28 PM writes...
I agree with Clay that "find your mates no line" shouldn't be counted as content within the context of "Business models: type - paid internet content."
Otherwise, there is no distinction between Newsweek and a Pottery Barn catalogue or between WSJ online (paid-for content) and eBay listings.
Are the "personals ads" more like the former or the latter? There's your answer.
Permalink to Comment6. Nick Gall on September 28, 2003 6:38 AM writes...
When drawing lines between something being X and not-X, I adhere to the pragmatic approach: what difference in behavior will result from treating something as being X vs. not-X. Thus I would refactor the present existential question into a pragmatic question: If we start treating conversations and other forms of social life as "content", what can we do that we didn't do before. I think the answer is lots.
BTW, I think Clay's criteria about the intent of the people producing it is irrelevant. It is common to see books (content) based on letters and diaries (stuff intended by the producer(s) solely to communicate). The point of view that matters is not that of the orginators of the content, but those who use it.
Permalink to Comment7. the head lemur on September 29, 2003 9:45 AM writes...
We have seen this material before.
In the late 90's during the dotcom. thing the bean counters started counting porno site revenue.
suddenly the revenue across the net became a large figure.
we will see this material again
Permalink to Comment8. Jay Fienberg on September 29, 2003 2:20 PM writes...
"Content is Not King", by Andrew Odlyzko is a good perspective on Clay's point:
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko/
Permalink to Comment