It's a mantra here that 'content is king' but I have the feeling that in the real world people have a somewhat more republican approach to content. The recent furore around certain media barons' intention to start charging for content is a case in point. Particularly when it comes to online content, regular users are accustomed to getting content for nothing. And the trouble with getting something for nothing is that you take it for granted and no longer recognise its value.
Newspapers (or should I say news organisations) are struggling especially hard - fewer people buying papers, greater expectations of the online offering, and peanuts offered for licensed or syndicated content. Talk about being undervalued.
The arguments for free content are to do with the openness of the medium - isn't it wonderful how everyone now can make and distribute their film / music track / animation / book / news item? No bars on individual creativity, no publishers to stand in your way and limit your access to the audience.
Robert (RL's interactive creative lead) recently alerted me to a new talking about on content, which is all to do with the 'use economy'. Here's something I've plagiarised: 'The biggest change in a use economy is that the focus of our attention is not even on the content itself. Content plays a very important role in that it functions as the motivator. It is what gets people interested in using it. But the real value is in the use itself. What do people do with it? What kind of reactions does it create? How do they share it? What kind of conversations does it start? And most importantly, how does it make people feel?'
According to Robert, this is the point of the use economy. This is what brands should be all about. It doesn't matter if it's a news article, a pair of shoes, or a cup of coffee.
So what news organisations need to do, then, to claw back some of the social news space that's been lost to user-generation, is prove its 'use value'. With global news that is a tough call: how do you get readers/users to 'use' content about deaths in Afghanistan, or floods in Bangladesh?
My field is internal communications and in this area, I think the question is easier to asnwer. Another mantra (after 'content is king') is 'what's in it for me?' Unless a piece of internal comms addresses that central question, chances are it won't hit home with its audience. The other question we always ask with internal comms is 'what do you want your audience to think, feel or do as a result of this communication?' And maybe that's a question that news organisations need to start asking about their content, if the 'use economy' is indeed where things are heading.
Content is never ideologically neutral, for all journalisms's claims to objectivity. Maybe news providers need to stop pretending they're neutral and start taking sides, thereby offering their content as an argument in a larger conversation - for good or for ill.
18 September 2009
How 'king' is content really?
It's a mantra here that 'content is king' but I have the feeling that in the real world people have a somewhat more republican approach to content. The recent furore around certain media barons' intention to start charging for content is a case in point. Particularly when it comes to online content, regular users are accustomed to getting content for nothing. And the trouble with getting something for nothing is that you take it for granted and no longer recognise its value.
Newspapers (or should I say news organisations) are struggling especially hard - fewer people buying papers, greater expectations of the online offering, and peanuts offered for licensed or syndicated content. Talk about being undervalued.
The arguments for free content are to do with the openness of the medium - isn't it wonderful how everyone now can make and distribute their film / music track / animation / book / news item? No bars on individual creativity, no publishers to stand in your way and limit your access to the audience.
Robert (RL's interactive creative lead) recently alerted me to a new talking about on content, which is all to do with the 'use economy'. Here's something I've plagiarised: 'The biggest change in a use economy is that the focus of our attention is not even on the content itself. Content plays a very important role in that it functions as the motivator. It is what gets people interested in using it. But the real value is in the use itself. What do people do with it? What kind of reactions does it create? How do they share it? What kind of conversations does it start? And most importantly, how does it make people feel?'
According to Robert, this is the point of the use economy. This is what brands should be all about. It doesn't matter if it's a news article, a pair of shoes, or a cup of coffee.
So what news organisations need to do, then, to claw back some of the social news space that's been lost to user-generation, is prove its 'use value'. With global news that is a tough call: how do you get readers/users to 'use' content about deaths in Afghanistan, or floods in Bangladesh?
My field is internal communications and in this area, I think the question is easier to asnwer. Another mantra (after 'content is king') is 'what's in it for me?' Unless a piece of internal comms addresses that central question, chances are it won't hit home with its audience. The other question we always ask with internal comms is 'what do you want your audience to think, feel or do as a result of this communication?' And maybe that's a question that news organisations need to start asking about their content, if the 'use economy' is indeed where things are heading.
Content is never ideologically neutral, for all journalisms's claims to objectivity. Maybe news providers need to stop pretending they're neutral and start taking sides, thereby offering their content as an argument in a larger conversation - for good or for ill.
Tagged under: