We've had a while to get used to the idea that we are no longer the owners of the means of production (of content, be it 'editorial, 'advertising' or 'marketing'). We understand that the lowering of technical barriers enabled by blogs and other social networking tools mean that everyone is a publisher now. Not broadcasters, but conversation starters.
The bit that seems harder for us to get our heads round is that this also means we are no longer the owners of the means of distribution.
In a print, tv, radio, (even web1.0) broadcast world we did the distribution. We not only produced the content, we packaged it as we saw fit and handed it out through our chosen channels. There was only one central hub and we were it. So the only way for content (either editorial or marketing messages) to be distributed was by it being broadcast by the same people who created the content, through our channels.
Part two of the disruption would therefore seem obvious: Now everyone creates content, so everyone distributes it.
We saw our position as lone distributor eroded by 'viral' and 'word of mouth' but we didn't really see it as a radical challenge to the status quo of our position as 'the great mouth'.
This is a hard lesson to learn. We imagine that by 'providing a place' for people to aggregrate their user generated (and other) content we can hang on to our role as distributor, as if this can be achieved without collapsing back into broadcast mindsets.
Our aggregating, community-focused plans tick all the right boxes until someone asks about 'reach', or gets excited by how many millions of eyeballs may be scanning that homepage (hello facebook, youtube etc).
I think aggregation is the right approach because members of communities (us included, btw) need to serve one another - individuals blundering around the web cherry-picking little bits of disaggregated content will soon run out of inspiration, for example.
But I also think there's a reason sites which aggregate ugc and conversation (yes that is what facebook does, too) are currently no better at generating high click-thru rates than the rest of the web. That is, there is a reason we struggle to make the business models work.
The models - no doubt responding to those who haven't understood both elements of the disruption - attempt to squeeze the networked production of content into a broadcast-style of distribution. Just look at the page impressions on that. Slap on those banner ads... surely some have to stick... That combined with attemting to take a share of transactions generated (the middle man is only ever the next good idea away from disruption) is about all we see.
The issue is that niche community generated content doesn't lend itself to being broadcast. It's our old friend relevance over quality all over again. One man's 'rubbish' is another man's quality - and the difference is its relevance to that man. A blurred family video of a treasured moment will get distributed to the people who care about it by the people who care about it - but will not become a youtube hit. If you've ever seen a complilation of 'greatest hits from YouTube on TV you'll realise how inappropriate the broadcasting of niche ugc is. Editors selecting for the lowest common denominator get involved. Relevance disappears up the rear-end of a production meeting.
Of course there are rare occasions when someone's niche community generated content breaks out of that niche to become a hit that others want to share. But these are few and far between. The vast majority is in the long tail of 'relevant to me'.
By all means, if advertisers want to give you money to have their wares on show as users fly past them to reach (or upload) the niche content they are actually interested in, you'd be foolish to say no thanks. But response rates remain horribly low - and those responding horribly familiar.
Those advertisers are bound to want something better sooner or later. And when they do, perhaps we can all start coming up with the models that benefit from the fact that networked content production and networked distribution should work together.
Widgets make this requirement clearer, as each day passes.
Trust me, they are more than a tactic.
Widgets are as disruptive to web 'sites' (the notion of the url as home/hub/destination/centralised point of distribution) and therefore to the vestiges of our role as distributors, as blogs and social media have been to broadcast and our role as centre-out content creators.
Widgets combine the two network effects - of production and distribution. The ones that work best allow you to mash-up, creating a personalised outcome. This of course makes you more interested in a) displaying on your own space b) sharing with your friends. In a) you co-created the content. in b) You are the distributor.
But widgets also offer the greatest new opportunities for the creative minds of the media industry. Every great widget starts as the cool implementation of an idea which serves a need. The best respond to the needs of niche communities. It is built to serve and the builders need a strong understanding of who it is they are serving.
Those in a position to understand those needs and to respond with creative and useful solutions stand to benefit. And those of us in specialist media would certainly like to think we're among that number. Of course, the brightest among us will turn to the communities we know to co-create the launching widget in the first place, I hope that's a given...
Perhaps my 'updated definition of media brands' requires a further update:
- A media brand is a platform for a community with shared interests.
- Focused on the interests of this global niche community, we should provide the tools to allow the co-creation and aggregation of content, products and services
- Services are best delivered at the point they are needed – and that is always, always mobile!
- Focused on the interests of this global niche community, we should provide the tools to allow the co-creation, aggregation AND DISTRIBUTION of content, products and services
Your thoughts, as always, very welcome. Please post below.
I'm not fan of unnecessary terminology, certainly not web 2.0 or even the word 'Widgets'. A widget to me is an un-named, un-defined unit. A 'thing', if you like.
ReplyDeleteBut in the context I think you're trying to describe above, 'Widgets' or 'Plug-ins' or 'Applets' as they've been known throughout the ages, have been around since I started creating websites, maybe somewhere around 1996; and so most definitely before then.
Their existence stems from a general software development mantra: code re-use, ideally *portable* code re-use. It's a matter of efficiency, not content syndication, advertising or meeting the needs of the community. So that basically means they can be and do anything, and with that in mind, they aren't really anything at all.
Apologies, but I find talk about 'Things' without defining what they are somewhat annoying.
Sorry. I could have been clearer. My definition of widgets is, as described previously on the blog (I should have added some links... perhaps try the 'widget' link (just added!) under the post for previous references)
ReplyDeletewidgets, for me (at least the ones that disrupt distribution) are those a user can take and do with as they wish.
That user/consumer/prosumer cares little for the efficiency of code. I don't think youtube's distribution model and success is just a happy coincidence with an easier life for a developer (sorry if I'm misunderstanding or exaggerating your point pablo). Which I guess is why I say widgets (at least as a distribution model) have rather more value as a strategic understanding than a simple tactic than perhaps you are suggesting?
The following is lifted out off my white paper 'marketing and advertising models for a networked world. I'm reusing the encoding of ideas... :D
Widgets force you to think in engagement terms.
Is the widget useful/fun/worth sharing/ can you create a personal outcome?
Getting this right in the eyes of your users reveals what the brand means to those consumers.
Allowing them to shape the outcome (create their own versions/subvert the message or create their own) reveals what they think about your brand and creates an ever-more-authentic, community led brand voice.
Widgets rely on virality to have a life at all. Which means if they don’t like what you are offering all is lost and or can’t change it to something they want to offer, all is lost. As detailed in this post:
http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-go-viral-lose-tv-envy-and-tell.html
1. Speak in an authentic voice (close the gap between creation and marketing)
2. Lose the TV envy (think relevance over quality)
3. Give people tools to make it their own (that which we create, we embrace)
4. Don't bother with urls, links or 'brand messages'. (We don't do spin) If people are interested they will search. Buy the keywords if you want to make it easier for them.
I like that Pablo is pulling this discussion away from the widget world. I more latched onto the philosophical thinking on David's new post. And, here is my ridiculously long rambling comment on what his post has got me thinking about this AM:
ReplyDeleteI like David's description that we are all the 'conversation starter' and I also love the idea of all individuals being 'the great mouth' in user-generated content.
Within all of these conversations we are all starting -- I see value in an audience of 3 vs. 3 million, and that it is good to see broadcasters also recognizing the value of quality vs. quantity in niche viewership and audience interaction. Most broadcasters who have the resources to develop platforms that invovle more user generated content in a 'YouTube' style are totally spot-on the right path in my opinion.
I guess, from my own experiments with YT/Current and other video sharing platforms, it is a little freaky and kind of amazing how, and what, audiences seem to latch onto in random content sharing. I recently checked some views on my YT channel and was shocked at my most viewed video, which is a totally random, blurry mobile video of an art demonstration, which now has about 50,000 views, and a lot of comments and threads from all over the world. You can check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv-HLZ6q6H8
Another video, randomly filmed on a bus, has 8,000+ views, and I'm thinking about asking one of the big broadcasters to do a talent 'hunt' for this kid, because people are really loving his random rap act:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tClUMEXf9U
When I actually try to 'produce' a video, all in a most amateur user-generated approach, and try to create something with better quality to it, no one seems to give a flying fff about it, and this shows me that it really is not about the quality and proves that in the hit or miss world of attracting viewer interest, it is so impossible to control. Really you can only seed it, show it, and share it with who you know and wait for the audience to react, and then learn from the response, or lack of it. I worked really hard on a podcast for Current, but for whatever reason, it is drawing a lot less attention than the lesser quality random mobile videos I've posted over on YouTube, you can see my podcast Jacqui Rock here:
http://current.com/watch/175873112
In my own DIY, hands-on experience I'm gaining, and maybe relevant to your post and discussion, I do notice that, unlike news value in normal broadcast pieces, a forgotten about YT video that has been up for more than a year or so, can suddenly get an explosive audience -- that doesn't seem to care when the video was taken, and quality matters not. Unlike news broadcasting, where so many headlines and topics are lost, YT seems to live on forever like undiscovered gems in the archives of the internet. I absolutely love that aspect of what is happening, as it really serves as a record of our own, individual niche of human history and experience.
Just hope that top tier broadcasters, along with YT and all the other new multimedia platforms, including anything Emap has, will be able to invest in helping all this emerging user-generated content live on for many more generations, so our ancestors can find these snippets of our lives.
We are all creating our own digital time capsules, for people to watch in the long distant human future.
So thanks David for inspiring some Friday thoughts about content, I, and likely all of us out here who are generating conversations, enjoy having a bit of thoughtful pause about the bigger picture of what it might all mean, for the future.
-Lisa Devaney
Hai Media Group
http://www.haimediagroup.com
Hi Lisa, thanks very much for your great contribution to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteOne particular take-away for me is how we are all constantly surprised by what proves most 'popular' among our UGC.
It's a great illustration of how the role of 'editor' is becoming increasingly overtaken by the wisdom of the crowd, by the widsom of serving your community first!
Editing is, at its heart, guessing at the thing(s) you expect your 'audience' to want.
Time and time again, creating ugc and releasing it on to the web shows us we didn't know what we thought we knew quite as well as we'd like to have...
That's a great post David, and I agree wholeheartedly with where you are coming from on this. Russell Davies has written some interesting posts around this area. The first in the series is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/2e5myr
Hi Neil - thanks for your kind words. I saw Russell present that at Widgety Goodness - very entertaining too. Don't 100% agree with Russell though - as I wrote at the time (following link also has video of Russell's presentation): http://tinyurl.com/2uq829
ReplyDeletebest dc
"That user/consumer/prosumer cares little for the efficiency of code."
ReplyDeleteIf it was in-efficient, they wouldn't use it.
But I think I said that the efficiency is in the re-use of code, not the efficiency of the code itself. It makes everyone's life easier.
I looked for the 'widget' link, but I couldn't find it amongst the other 12 'widgets' on your site. Maybe we can make a widget to find the widget I was looking for. ;-)
David, I love your thinking behind this. Engage your audience, get them to create their own content about your product or a related activity and give them something they like so much they want to take it with them and show it off to everyone they know, advertising your product for you for free.
ReplyDeleteThis is great and definately something that I have seen done before to great success. However...
I have several problems with yur implication that this is the answer to the current issues with display advertising.
Firstly, this will only work with products that people are passionate about, why would I create/use a widget about my new mortgage or lawnmower?
Secondly, your asuming that everyone that loves a product will have a place to display your widget. I know very few people that have a presence online other than a very underused Facebook or MySpace page, which brings me on to my next point.
The majority of people still just want to be consumers. Everytime figures are released on the number of people that upload to UGC sites Vs the number of people that simply consume, the ratio is incredibly small. So what makes you sure that there will be enough people in that already small group that are also passionate enough about your product to do your advertising for you?
And finally, where in this scenario do the content creators/agregators - whether they be independant blogs or big media companies - actually make money out of this? The ultimate goal is for the product maker is to raise their brand awareness and trust so that more people buy their product, but if you don't charge for your product and rely on charging other people to raise awareness of their's then how does anyone in media make a living?
I'm not saying that widgets are a bad idea, in fact I believe quite the opposite. But I also think that the use of widgets should form part of a coherant whole that includes all forms of marketing, advertising and networking.
Widgets work great in small numbers, but I don't see any reason why they wont reach saturation point in the same way that display ads have and henc eloose as much of their power as display ads have.
I know many blogs that are a case in point with so many widgets on that they look rediculous and are very hard to read and those are not even usually for commercial products. I usually either ignore them or go to another cleaner site - much the same problem that sites with too much display advertising have.
I also wanted to address something that Lisa brought up in her comment: "quality matters not".
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very contentious subject. Quality is always important, but it is not always the video quality that is important.
Quality of the content is paramount. Technicaly quality is not always necessary if the content is good enough, but that is entirely dependant on the type of content that we're talking about.
My point is demonstrated if we look at the video examples that Lisa posted. The art piece and the kid rapper are perfect examples of spur of the moment captures, where the content is excelent and only happened once. Users will accept that to be able to re-witness this one-off event then whatever means of capture must be used regardless of the technical quality.
If you look at the minidoc that Lisa loaded up to Current then both the content and technical quality are an issue.
The comments under the piece highlight this, in essence "interesting film, but the production quality isn't very good."
Now, no-one looking at the instant capture clips made any reference to technical quality, but when they are a) in an environment where they are expecting higher standards, and b) watching something that took time to produce and so could have been produced to a higher standard, they then expect that technical quality to be present.
In a year and a half of producing video for the web I have had successes with both produced and instant capture content and the lesson has been the same time and again. User don't mind the quality if it is obvious that lo-fi was the only way you would capture the moment, but as soon as they see you producing low grade videos on subjects that could have been conducted with a little more care (a review for example) then the complaints start to roll in no matter how good the quality of the content inside the film.
I suppose the point I am trying to get at is essentially the same as I made in my previous comment. There is a time and a place for everything. Get it right and your content will get used, get it wrong and it will be passed over. But once again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Don't forget either that both of the Youtube videos that Lisa used as examples are also in popular areas of content. Look at the related videos on the Pixel Roller and you will see that most of the videos on that, lets face it, pretty cool bit of kit have all got over 45,000 views. Some are even up to 150k.
And I'm pretty sure that the rap and hiphop keywords are fairly highly searched terms on Youtube from users looking for music videos or cool freestyling. There is a good chance that someone watching a Kanye video would look at the related items and click on the cute kid rapping on the bus.
Great to see so many joining in and enriching this conversation.
ReplyDeleteI'll do my best to join in as it branches!
Pablo: The link I'm referring to is in the list of tags under the original blog post. One is 'widgets'. But I'm sure you've got my drift by now.
AngusF: I can think of several models that monetise this and which would see users getting passionate about the things they join in creating (if you've ever told a friend about your new mortgage deal you're already in advertising...). I've discussed the broad principles many times on here. Perhaps, rather than repeating, I could ask you to read the white paper I have available for download : "Marketing and Advertising Models for a Networked World" See if it answers any of your questions - or raises some more! Be good to see you at our internal event to discuss further.
Try not to think of widgets as a replacement for the broadcast model of banner ads (your reference to tidiness of sites and moving on to other ones makes me think these are not places that are particularly relevant to you?). You'll put up with the mess of my blog to engage in its conversation if you think it's relevant to you, for example. When you go broad, the pursuit of the lowest common denominator sets a different set of requirements. And that's fine for your hits. But Reed's Law tells us that given time the network effect will always come to dominate the overall economics of a system. I think we're in that time (and hard economics seems to be backing that conclusion).
Angus you refer to 'getting it right' being the key. It's really important for us to understand what we mean by that now. I don't think it's as simple as 'quality' (who gets to measure that?), or what is best fit for our community as judged by us.
I think the key for 'getting it right' is in providing the tools to enable relevance. That way people set their own 'quality' standards among their own group of relevance.
Thanks for making me think some more!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBTW: If you're more of a visual thinker, David Armano has this: http://tinyurl.com/2jzn8y which he describes as Models for "Advertising" in an Application Economy. I think we're singing off the same hymn sheet.
ReplyDelete