Day: February 15, 2012

  • Are media in the content business?

    The Guardian launches its new Media Network my essay asking whether we in media are really in the content business. Here’s the first half (in the rest, I catalog the methods I think are worth exploring to rethink our role…. I’ll be expanding on that later).

    * * *

    What if we in media are not in the content business?

    Oh, yes, we will produce content; that’s what we do. But perhaps our greatest value is not in what we produce but in what it produces: signals about people’s interests, about authority, about topics and trends.

    That is how Facebook, Google, Twitter and company see content – as a signal generator. That is how they extract value from it, by using those signals to serve more relevant content, services, and advertising. But they are not in the content business. They are in the relationship business. Shouldn’t we also be?

    A US TV news executive I know complained to me recently that Facebook and Google, in his words, use media’s steel to build their cars. “Mark Zuckerberg,” he said, “does not value content.”

    No, I said, Zuckerberg values more content than we do. We think content is that which we make because we are content people – we see content as a scarcity we produce and control. Facebook and Google, on the other hand, see content everywhere – in the allegedly useless creations, chatter and links made by people in the course of their lives. They see content as an abundant resource to learn from, value and exploit.

    The problem is, the media is not built for relationships because our industry was born in a time of factories, not services. We rarely know who our readers are (and we still call them just readers or at best commenters, not creators or collaborators). We do not have the means to gather, analyse and act on data about their activities and interests at an individual level. Thus we cannot serve them as individuals.

    Our product, content, is not built for that. It is built for masses. That is what our means of production and distribution demanded. So now we try to adapt that content for new tools, impressed that we can add motion, sound or touch to what we have long done. But our online books, magazines, and newspapers are still recognisable as such. We haven’t gone nearly far enough yet to rethink and reinvent them….

  • Economist debate on sharing: closing

    You are free to live in a cave of your making, Andrew, and you can be assured that I shall neither drag nor entice you out of it. But it is difficult to believe that you would be content in that dark, quiet, and lonely space, considering how you do seem to adore the spotlight of publicity and crave open argument as a route to recognition (and book sales). Is this debate not evidence of that?

    Here you pull me under your klieg light, calling my openness a “fetish,” granting me power I do not claim as “an engineer of the human soul” because I celebrate others’ freedom, and going so far as to lump me with Marx for harboring hope in technology’s power to advance the public’s potential.

    But you see, Andrew, it’s not technology in which I have faith. It’s humanity. Technology merely enables us. It gives us the opportunity to connect and create the publics you appear to fear. If you do not trust the public, then I wonder how you can support democracy (why let us govern ourselves?), free markets (why allow us choice?), reform religion (how can you permit us to talk with God?), or for that matter, education, journalism, and the arts (why inform or attempt to enlighten the public if we are by nature doltish?).

    I do not share your cynicism about us and our fate with your notion that stigmas are essential to the human condition — any more than I believe that bigotry, hate, fear, ignorance, stupidity, intolerance, or isolation are necessary products of society without the possibility that together, we can diminish them. I hope for progress.

    Where we surely disagree is over your unwavering affection for legacy institutions left unchallenged — though you do pick and choose your loyalty, confessing that you share my “enthusiasm for the revolutionary impact of social media in authoritarian societies in the Middle East.” Yet you consistently defend the institutions of the West: the Establishment. Are you so sure you want to stand by them all? Do you believe the banks have served us as trustworthy guardians of our worth? Are you ready to defend governments that have hidden too much of the people’s business from the people? Do you think that Washington works? Do you truly believe that media — the industry you so doggedly defended in your last book — have used their monopoly over the tools of publicness well and generously?

    I assume, since you mock Marx, that you celebrate capitalism and the competition on which it thrives. I do. So then I would think you would welcome the meritocratic contest we see developing to demand better of those institutions — or, yes, in some cases, to replace them. I celebrate the new governments we see rising in Tunisia, Egypt, and even Iceland, even as I worry about the hard work and uncertain future ahead of them. I welcome YouTube giving networks and studios a run for our attention. I am glad that Wikileaks exposed, above all, the banality of government’s secrets. I wonder at the humble hashtag that enabled a diverse lot of people to gather around an empty vessel of frustration — #occupywallstreet — not only to express their disappointment but also to voice their hope and expectations.

    On a personal level, Andrew, you are free to share or not. If you choose not to, you can be confident, as I’m sure you know, that I would not seek to know that which you do not wish to say. I respect your privacy as I respect our friendship. Then I ask you to respect my publicness and the opportunity it brings us all to leave the cave and to join with others in an ever-more-connected, ever-more-social world. I ask you, Andrew — and all of you reading this — to respect and protect that choice and the tools that now make it possible.