Done correctly, UGC = increased page views = increased ad impressions = increased revenue. If anyone views this comment and the page delivers an additional ad you just increased page views incrementally.
While I may not agree with the facebook valuation, there are revenue models that take advantage of user participation effectively.
Mark Forman
· 2 years ago
Coming from a slightly different angle on same topic-during my early days of podcasting or as a participant in what I liked to call citizen media, I had a fairly ideal hope that everyone that listened to my podcast would also take up blogging, podcasting and citizen media. Alas, I discovered what you state is true-some people are content producers and most aren't and that is fine. Good reality check piece Scott. Maybe this is another bit of trickery to game the system. Good little commercial with good song choice-Canserai Ser Sexy. The more things change...
Rex Hammock
· 2 years ago
Scott, this is exactly why I hate the term "user-generated content."
There are some incredibly talented photographers who post their work on Flickr. They've never been paid for their work, but the stuff they shoot is breath-taking. There's no way their photography is "authentic" in the way you imply "user-generated" content should be. So what do you call these people? They're not pros. They're not consumers. They are hobbiests who have an amazing talent and are very creative, but who had the sense to major in accounting and become a CPA.
Also, as I have a son who is 17, I'm lucky enough to be around some teenaged boys who are extraordinarily talented musicians, videographers and artists and who have mastered Final Cut Pro. They certainly aren't pros, but their work is far beyond that which could be called "amateur."
Or here's another analogy.
There are professional athletes -- and maybe the people who are "pro" content people are like that. But there are also athletes who play at several divisions of NCAA and there are hundreds of high-school athletes who are remarkably talented as well.
They're all great athletes.
Can we agree that the "myth" of user-generated content is that people up in the stands are NOT remarkable athletes and can't be expected to be pulled onto the field and play without having gone through years of practice and training?
I doubt many "content consumers or users" want to leave the stands and start playing -- however, there are some talented, creative, triple-A content-creators who aren't in the NFL whose work is authentic.
Rob
· 2 years ago
Scott -
I just posted to Pub Talk about User Generated Content. You make some great points, but UGC is far more than just people who want to get discovered while people who are "too busy" are likely just not compelled to contribute.
My point is that the idea of an expert is getting blurred by UGC. I love having emedia conversations with folks who aren't involved in it. They bring a fresh perspective and believe it or not the occasional idea worth testing.
Whatever you call it, UGC, citizen journalism, etc. it's not going away. Media companies that embrace it will survive (even if they make an investment or acquisition!).
Mike
· 2 years ago
I totally agree with the overall point, but user generated content does not mean created by average people it means content that it is not created by employees.
It is really about letting a creation, video in this example, become known based on its quality instead of being a function of where the creator gets a pay check.
Kevin Makice
· 2 years ago
The problem with this bit of logic is that it (almost) completely dismisses both the impact of lowered barriers to entry and collective creativity.
For the latter, I refer you to Indiana University School of Informatics professor Jeff Bardzell, who has a nice area of research developing around the notion of media primitives. The argument is that there is a difference between users who create "from scratch" (where everything has to be generated from a blank screen), those who create by manipulating primitives, and expert users (who construct through advanced use of creative tools). The middle group, who iterate on existing examples of amateur work, has a lower barrier to entry and are therefore incentivized to help advance the medium. They are reliant on a community of amateur content to advance their own skills and implicitly suggest improvements in others.
The culture of YouTube and other user generated content sites is largely NOT about professional polish. It is about providing opportunities to contribute by making mass broadcast simple and giving value to non-professional content. While pre-skilled users and marketers have found some ways to take advantage of these channels, there is more evidence that such communities are very aware when a "professional" work is intruding on the space.
Krish
· 2 years ago
Scott,
I disagree. I have been involved in open source communities in one way or another for the past decade. I don't agree with your assertion that it is not possible for ordinary users to get together to create value in the enterprise scale. From Linux and Apache to wordpress, the blogging software you are using, are a result of UGS (User generated software). If user generated software is a reality, user generated content is not a myth.
Scott Karp
· 2 years ago
Krish,
The people who made significant contributions to Linux, Apache, and Wordpress have one very important trait in common -- they are good (or great) coders. Can anyone be a good coder? No. There's nothing "ordinary" about it. Could you take 100 people off the street and have them collaborate to develop software or an OS? No. It takes skills, talent, and determination.
To call that User Generated Software is shear nonsense.
Krish
· 2 years ago
Scott,
I do agree that major contributors are good coders. But, there are thousands of small time coders, who may not be as good as Linus or other top coders, who have contributed to these products. It also includes the equivalents of people from streets, kiddie hackers. Well, in the case of open source software, the barrier to entry is set as someone who can code. But, content is no software. Content can be anything from a guy walking on the street capturing the moment in which plane slammed into one of the towers to a fan in Britney's concert catching some slip off. There is absolutely no barrier to entry, unlike in the case of open source software. If people from streets equivalents, kiddie hackers, can contribute to open source software, the real people from streets can definitely contribute to what is called as "user generated content". Your argument just doesn't make any sense.
Also, I suggest you dig a bit deep about open source software. You can ask anyone who has participated in the open source software and he/she will definitely agree with my characterization of open source software as user generated software. Don't try to call anything nonsense without even trying to understand the process. I hope you made a better argument to justify your statement.
Rick Calvert
· 2 years ago
I think you have it mostly right Scott. The perpetrators of this myth are the traditional journalists who like to think of their work as a "profession" similar to attorneys and doctors. The truth is they are far closer to a cross between construction workers and musicians. Partly a learned craft and partly creative talent.
Journalists like to dismiss citizen media, new media, conversational media whatever you want to call it by labeling it "user generated content". This makes them feel safe and assures them that we are all just playing at this media thing and they are the true professionals.
This also provides a simple explanation for clueless corporate types who have no idea how complicated this revolution really is.
The myth isn't that there is no such thing as user generated content. There is, but it is just a small part of the overall new media revolution.
Being a musician (a hobbyist who had dreams of being a professional) this analogy seems very appropriate to me. People have been playing music for time immemorial, some as a hobby, some who aspire to be professionals, some who achieve a small level of professional success playing weddings, small clubs, etc, a group of real professionals who make a good living playing music and finally an elite group who play stadiums and have fame and fortune etc.
Someone mentioned barrier of entry, musicians have been able to do this at varying levels of seriousness and success do to the low cost of musical instruments and the wide range of opportunities.
The tools of new media, blogging, podcasting, YouTube, Revver, internet radio and TV have reduced the barrier of entry for "wanna be" journalists, radio hosts, actors, directors, etc.
Anyone can start creating content without going to J-school, film school, or slogging it out at the small town paper.
Lots of these people are every bit as talented as your nightly news anchor, afternoon drive talk show host, or weekly op-ed page writer. And now they can share that content with the world.
I have rambled long enough on this very complicated topic so I will close by saying that new media can not be pigeon holed into a simple explanation, or one classification. Sure there is such a thing as user generated content, but any serious new media "prosumer" would be offended at the label.
Blog on! Rick Calvert CEO & Co-founder BlogWorld & New Media Expo
David Payne
· 2 years ago
Here is something interesting. It is a site that tries to make all this crappy video content and photos that average people make . . . something semi-professional. I think it is a pretty cool idea and one that may just take off well. Who is it?
Scott, UGC isn't only YouTube and the likes. Actually UGC is a far broader platform where people share knowledge, ideas, experiences and so on. Blogs (Technorati/Google), Forums/Discussions (Omgili) and social networks (Facebook/MySpace) are all part of UGC. This data is extremely valuable for marketers, PR, sales, and analysts that can leverage this data to know more about their brands and market.
Arno
· 2 years ago
Interesting post again, and what makes it even more interesting are the reactions by the (semi-)professionals. Especially Rick Calvert's addition made me think that the whole term "user generated content" misleads traditional media companies.
Often I have heard out of media execs mouths that "these dancing dogs, laughing babies and drunken Hasselhoff's on YouTube are just a hype and people will get fed up with it and return to traditional media". What these execs are missing is the point that Scott makes here: it is NOT user generated; there is wonderful content out there because it is made by semi-professionals. That makes so-called UGC so attractive and no, it is not a hype that will be over next year.
Greg Paulhus
· 2 years ago
Uhhh, file this story under the category of 'Duh'. I didn't realize anyone thought that users creating content on sites like YouTube were average consumers. Isn't it obvious that these users are not the average consumer demographic?
Rick Calvert
· 2 years ago
You nailed it Arno. I would just add that this wonderful content is created by real professionals, aspiring professionals, and pure amateurs as well.
I just recently found this blog but I am curious how many are familiar with Scott's resume?
Could anyone call this site "user generated" or "semi'professional"?
Of course not. You just can't lump all new media into one convenient category.
Kemi Oyesiku
· 2 years ago
Thanks for writing this article. I'm sure the myth of a user generated content generation has a lot to do with the perception of the new Internet being a platform for anyone to shine because it is a platform and no longer a one way road between creator and user.
It's very similar to reality TV and reactions to it. When you see a lot of "average" people on a medium that, once upon a time, had talented actors and actresses aspiring to and working at their craft for many years and who had, more often than not, some form of talent, suddenly filled with mediocre "pretty" people who don't have to act 'cause TV is "real" now, it's no surprise that along with the line between fiction and non-fiction, the line between talent and the untalented are obliterated.
I think people (offline and online) think that truly anything is possible, to the point that they create their own truths beyond even the simplest rational. Good content can't be born of nothing, or of no talent. Sure, anything is possible, if you are talented or at least you work for it.
Plus, if we think about it, how can all the good content (and there is millions of it) be created by millions of people. It reminds me of parents who tell their children that everyone is special. That's crappola! Everyone is not special and there isn't a thing wrong with that. If everyone is special, no one is special. Everyone is different. But then, that should go without saying. Or perhaps, everyone is special to certain people (*shrug*).
Anyway, as for media reaction, it's what they do. Fan the flames of a fire whether it's dying or just getting started. Like fire itself, the media doesn't care how it spreads, just that it spreads. Which honestly, I understand. It's their job, however ugly at times. It's our jobs as media consumers to determine what's true and useful to us. It's our jobs as professionals and even semi-professionals and even talented amateurs to keep on making the web itself a special place filled with good content that can be shared and viewed by anyone.
Nick Caldwell
· 2 years ago
Is the point of user-generated content really truly that media companies can "leverage" it? Or is it "generated" for its own inherent value to the creator? I don't really want to sound utopian about this, but it's not always about the money, you know.
Daniel Rhodes
· 2 years ago
Scott, I think you are looking at UGC from the wrong perspective. It is not that UGC will be used by larger media outlets, it is that UGC will replace these media outlets. They are currently constrained by limited resources (e.g. time in a day in which to broadcast shows) and thus must produce higher quality content with the broadest possible appeal. UGC does not have those constraints and therefore produces lower quality but a much more focused appeal. On television nowadays, a show appealing to one person is not a good justification to air it. Online, if it appeals to only one person that is fine as it makes no difference in opportunity cost. Since the nature of UGC allows for greater scale and more diverse levels in which to appeal to consumers, it would be economically unfeasible for any media company to be able to compete with that using high quality content. Even with that 1% of people who do contribute, it far exceeds in scale any media company's capabilities.
Michael
· 2 years ago
Interesting post. I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because a small portion of the user community decides to participate in the creation while the majority watches, doesn't invalidate that it's UGC.
jeff mignon
· 2 years ago
Do you know that user generated content for media exists in France for a while? And it works. Local daily newspapers have an army of amateur journalists that often produce more than 60% of the content on a daily basis. For example, the tenth largest paper has 250 professional journalists and 2,500 amateur journalists that they call "press correspondents". One of the reasons it works is that they pay them. Not a lot, but enough to keep them writing.
Tamara K Sellman
· 2 years ago
UGC is so problematic to me. I'm a writer, not a user generating content. When I use a camera, I am a photographer. Etc etc. So when I see the term UGC, I'm thinking of robot hacks making words and pictures to sell products, which is, in fact, the last thing on my mind when I'm writing or shooting photographs. I have always been suspicious of the term because it seems to render the human element of creativity invisible, and isn't that exactly what corporatization does on a grand scale? Reduce people to their salaried tasks, their output? Ugh.
online market research report
· 2 years ago
The problem is not with content, it is with formulation of contents, which the end user struggling to conduct but time is running outfor conventional media to look for savour in companies like facebook and MySpace.
Ben Speaker
· 2 years ago
All,
Scott, nice posting. I'd also like to express my appreciation for all the responses. In fact, I'd like to focus on them. Scott's a professional, and the responses here probably come from the full range of amateurs, semi-pros, and full pros. The responses, including this one, are valuable UGC.
Something I didn't see above is the attraction to UGC by media outlets. The big attraction, I assure you, is not the fact that UGC is so good or done by pros, but that it's free, possibly explosive, and can be "automagically" repurposed and sold to customers. Some large media companies are now implementing strategies to get customers to show up (be a community) and participate (add salable content to our databases). Is it all premium content? of course not, but if it can go viral . . . there's a huge payoff for little expense and effort compared to traditional publishing models precisely because some of it will be premium content: content that media companies usually have to spend pots of money to find, buy or license, produce, and sell. The idea that some of it might just come in over the transom is thrilling to watchers of the bottom line.
Remember the recent post here on the value of data?
Ben
Rando
· 2 years ago
Use generated content has been around for years in the form of editorials in your local newspaper. On average a very small but passionate percentage of a newspapers readership write a letter to the editor. Some newspapers allow for a User Generated Content in the form of a Sound Off column where the "Users" name is NOT required for publishing.
So, with a fairly literate (ability to write) population a typical newspaper (100,000 circulation) may receive 500 letters to the editor a week.
Once you whittle the population down to those with the ability to produce audio/video content the field is very small. A small percentage of this group will have the desire to develop material for the web etc.
On the other hand the number of people with the technical ability to develop content is growing as a percentge of the total population. At some distant point in the future the software used to develop the content will be easier to use and publishing will be as easy as writing a letter.
Michelle Ferrier
· 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree that UGC does not equate with quality journalism and well-packaged stories, in many instances. What these platforms allow is a greater freedom of expression to a wider audience than previously available. Because content is aggregated onto these platforms, "content" can rise above the clutter and "be seen". You get what I call the "graffiti phenomenon" where folks want the latest digital spray paint can so that the world knows they exist.
What I found in my research is that people -- when given the tools, will use these content-creation functions to create a virtual sense of community. They matter in the world because they were clicked. And that is a sadder commentary on our society than this author's contention that media are hoping to prey on this isolationist phenomenon.
I believe MyTopiaCafe.com, a citizen journalism/user-generated content site launched by the Daytona Beach News-Journal can be different...not because the next Pulitzer prize winner will be found among the stories on the site...but because the site may help build the social capital that is slowly eroding our communities. I think the technologies can help facilitate real-world changes...not a new ad campaign for iPhone, but meaningful social changes as those with like interests find one another and create action.
As users on MyTopiaCafe move from viewing to posting to commenting to communicating face to face (and they will), I hope to capture these transitions and demonstrate that these user-generated content models are not just fodder for news stories but a useful view of community life and a vital part of how communities function.
Al
· 2 years ago
UGC is real...but it ain't no big deal like it's made out to be here.
The term 'user' stems from the computer industry, either hardware or software. Anyone who operates a computer is a user. Hence, anyone who expresses an idea or shares information by uploading or posting to a site is what y'all refer to as 'generating content.' I agree with the earlier post that the implied meaning is content created by users who are not employees or contractors of the site, but you never know.
"User Generated Content" is a term and concept intentionally fabricated by lazy, but smart & entrepreneurial, web programming geeks who decided that they are not going to waste their valuable time doing stupid grunt stuff like producing content for free. They're not going to ho' themselves by selling out their valuable knowledge for a couple of bangs on their links.
Rather, they create systems that let others do the hard work for them...while they cash in on their labor. Sure, they'll pay you token chump change for your work if you land some clicks. But we all know who's really making the money.
UGC is essentially just another way of saying let's make money off someone else's dime (or in this case, time and ideas.)
It's another "Revenge of the Nerds" movement where geeks fight back by exploiting all the unsuspecting "popular kids" of their knowledge, time, and social contacts.
Yes...darkly hidden behind this fascade of "pro-people, democratized internet, technical innovation, community and collaboration", etc...is just a front for geeks to make more money for themselves...by fostering internet addictions based on the basic human needs of communication and belonging.
Content serve as eyeball flytraps in which sites can 'adhere' advertisements (adhere as in "Your Ad Here"). Don't make a difference who makes it...so long as someone consumes it. Intellectual content is consumed by intellectual people. Stupid content is consumed by stupid people. Content laissez-faire.
Hey, if you don't know the value of your time, there are plenty of web 2.0 sites that do.
Dev Doll
· 2 years ago
Hey REX, What do I call these people? Suckers- who give away their talent. As many a person has said: "If YOU do really good work- of any kind- then post it for the world to use- without proper compensation- someday all this- will be MINE. Haha!
Having sense to become a CPA- but giving their photos/art away? Too bad they didnt have *enough* sense. Friggin non artists - like REX - just dont get it.
Rex wrote: ..There are some incredibly talented photographers who post their work on Flickr. They’ve never been paid for their work, but the stuff they shoot is breath-taking. There’s no way their photography is “authentic” in the way you imply “user-generated” content should be. So what do you call these people? They’re not pros. They’re not consumers. They are hobbiests who have an amazing talent and are very creative, but who had the sense to major in accounting and become a CPA.
Jon
· 2 years ago
Interesting post - I really like and welcome UGC. Nick's ad is a very good, and genuine example - I met him completely by accident at the Leopard launch - have a look here >>> http://theappleofmyi.com/blog/?p=1270
Suffian
· 2 years ago
I think a lot of people are missing the point in UGC. Scott is right; most UGC is crap, anyway. The point is that it's okay for it to be crap. People don't expect to watch Michel Gondry or Steven Spielberg on Youtube all the time. People are okay with amateur stuff because anyone can do it. It's about empowerment and acceptance. As long as people are still be moved by those sort of feelings, UGC will be cool. It will never take over 'professional' media. It's just a fun and engaging outlet. That is all.
Nathan Ketsdever
· 1 year ago
Very on point. Users don't always need an incentive to create content. Brands get talked about a lot. I think users do need a motivation to create quality and engaging content.
I understand that Steve Outing's company had the problem of creating a steady stream of quality UGC to drive ad revenue models.
All Comments
While I may not agree with the facebook valuation, there are revenue models that take advantage of user participation effectively.
There are some incredibly talented photographers who post their work on Flickr. They've never been paid for their work, but the stuff they shoot is breath-taking. There's no way their photography is "authentic" in the way you imply "user-generated" content should be. So what do you call these people? They're not pros. They're not consumers. They are hobbiests who have an amazing talent and are very creative, but who had the sense to major in accounting and become a CPA.
Also, as I have a son who is 17, I'm lucky enough to be around some teenaged boys who are extraordinarily talented musicians, videographers and artists and who have mastered Final Cut Pro. They certainly aren't pros, but their work is far beyond that which could be called "amateur."
Or here's another analogy.
There are professional athletes -- and maybe the people who are "pro" content people are like that. But there are also athletes who play at several divisions of NCAA and there are hundreds of high-school athletes who are remarkably talented as well.
They're all great athletes.
Can we agree that the "myth" of user-generated content is that people up in the stands are NOT remarkable athletes and can't be expected to be pulled onto the field and play without having gone through years of practice and training?
I doubt many "content consumers or users" want to leave the stands and start playing -- however, there are some talented, creative, triple-A content-creators who aren't in the NFL whose work is authentic.
I just posted to Pub Talk about User Generated Content. You make some great points, but UGC is far more than just people who want to get discovered while people who are "too busy" are likely just not compelled to contribute.
My point is that the idea of an expert is getting blurred by UGC. I love having emedia conversations with folks who aren't involved in it. They bring a fresh perspective and believe it or not the occasional idea worth testing.
Whatever you call it, UGC, citizen journalism, etc. it's not going away. Media companies that embrace it will survive (even if they make an investment or acquisition!).
It is really about letting a creation, video in this example, become known based on its quality instead of being a function of where the creator gets a pay check.
For the latter, I refer you to Indiana University School of Informatics professor Jeff Bardzell, who has a nice area of research developing around the notion of media primitives. The argument is that there is a difference between users who create "from scratch" (where everything has to be generated from a blank screen), those who create by manipulating primitives, and expert users (who construct through advanced use of creative tools). The middle group, who iterate on existing examples of amateur work, has a lower barrier to entry and are therefore incentivized to help advance the medium. They are reliant on a community of amateur content to advance their own skills and implicitly suggest improvements in others.
The culture of YouTube and other user generated content sites is largely NOT about professional polish. It is about providing opportunities to contribute by making mass broadcast simple and giving value to non-professional content. While pre-skilled users and marketers have found some ways to take advantage of these channels, there is more evidence that such communities are very aware when a "professional" work is intruding on the space.
I disagree. I have been involved in open source communities in one way or another for the past decade. I don't agree with your assertion that it is not possible for ordinary users to get together to create value in the enterprise scale. From Linux and Apache to wordpress, the blogging software you are using, are a result of UGS (User generated software). If user generated software is a reality, user generated content is not a myth.
The people who made significant contributions to Linux, Apache, and Wordpress have one very important trait in common -- they are good (or great) coders. Can anyone be a good coder? No. There's nothing "ordinary" about it. Could you take 100 people off the street and have them collaborate to develop software or an OS? No. It takes skills, talent, and determination.
To call that User Generated Software is shear nonsense.
I do agree that major contributors are good coders. But, there are thousands of small time coders, who may not be as good as Linus or other top coders, who have contributed to these products. It also includes the equivalents of people from streets, kiddie hackers. Well, in the case of open source software, the barrier to entry is set as someone who can code. But, content is no software. Content can be anything from a guy walking on the street capturing the moment in which plane slammed into one of the towers to a fan in Britney's concert catching some slip off. There is absolutely no barrier to entry, unlike in the case of open source software. If people from streets equivalents, kiddie hackers, can contribute to open source software, the real people from streets can definitely contribute to what is called as "user generated content". Your argument just doesn't make any sense.
Also, I suggest you dig a bit deep about open source software. You can ask anyone who has participated in the open source software and he/she will definitely agree with my characterization of open source software as user generated software. Don't try to call anything nonsense without even trying to understand the process. I hope you made a better argument to justify your statement.
Journalists like to dismiss citizen media, new media, conversational media whatever you want to call it by labeling it "user generated content". This makes them feel safe and assures them that we are all just playing at this media thing and they are the true professionals.
This also provides a simple explanation for clueless corporate types who have no idea how complicated this revolution really is.
The myth isn't that there is no such thing as user generated content. There is, but it is just a small part of the overall new media revolution.
Being a musician (a hobbyist who had dreams of being a professional) this analogy seems very appropriate to me. People have been playing music for time immemorial, some as a hobby, some who aspire to be professionals, some who achieve a small level of professional success playing weddings, small clubs, etc, a group of real professionals who make a good living playing music and finally an elite group who play stadiums and have fame and fortune etc.
Someone mentioned barrier of entry, musicians have been able to do this at varying levels of seriousness and success do to the low cost of musical instruments and the wide range of opportunities.
The tools of new media, blogging, podcasting, YouTube, Revver, internet radio and TV have reduced the barrier of entry for "wanna be" journalists, radio hosts, actors, directors, etc.
Anyone can start creating content without going to J-school, film school, or slogging it out at the small town paper.
Lots of these people are every bit as talented as your nightly news anchor, afternoon drive talk show host, or weekly op-ed page writer. And now they can share that content with the world.
I have rambled long enough on this very complicated topic so I will close by saying that new media can not be pigeon holed into a simple explanation, or one classification. Sure there is such a thing as user generated content, but any serious new media "prosumer" would be offended at the label.
Blog on!
Rick Calvert
CEO & Co-founder
BlogWorld & New Media Expo
StudioNow.com
StudioNow
UGC isn't only YouTube and the likes. Actually UGC is a far broader platform where people share knowledge, ideas, experiences and so on. Blogs (Technorati/Google), Forums/Discussions (Omgili) and social networks (Facebook/MySpace) are all part of UGC. This data is extremely valuable for marketers, PR, sales, and analysts that can leverage this data to know more about their brands and market.
Often I have heard out of media execs mouths that "these dancing dogs, laughing babies and drunken Hasselhoff's on YouTube are just a hype and people will get fed up with it and return to traditional media". What these execs are missing is the point that Scott makes here: it is NOT user generated; there is wonderful content out there because it is made by semi-professionals. That makes so-called UGC so attractive and no, it is not a hype that will be over next year.
I just recently found this blog but I am curious how many are familiar with Scott's resume?
http://publishing2.com/author/scott-karp/
Could anyone call this site "user generated" or "semi'professional"?
Of course not. You just can't lump all new media into one convenient category.
It's very similar to reality TV and reactions to it. When you see a lot of "average" people on a medium that, once upon a time, had talented actors and actresses aspiring to and working at their craft for many years and who had, more often than not, some form of talent, suddenly filled with mediocre "pretty" people who don't have to act 'cause TV is "real" now, it's no surprise that along with the line between fiction and non-fiction, the line between talent and the untalented are obliterated.
I think people (offline and online) think that truly anything is possible, to the point that they create their own truths beyond even the simplest rational. Good content can't be born of nothing, or of no talent. Sure, anything is possible, if you are talented or at least you work for it.
Plus, if we think about it, how can all the good content (and there is millions of it) be created by millions of people. It reminds me of parents who tell their children that everyone is special. That's crappola! Everyone is not special and there isn't a thing wrong with that. If everyone is special, no one is special. Everyone is different. But then, that should go without saying. Or perhaps, everyone is special to certain people (*shrug*).
Anyway, as for media reaction, it's what they do. Fan the flames of a fire whether it's dying or just getting started. Like fire itself, the media doesn't care how it spreads, just that it spreads. Which honestly, I understand. It's their job, however ugly at times. It's our jobs as media consumers to determine what's true and useful to us. It's our jobs as professionals and even semi-professionals and even talented amateurs to keep on making the web itself a special place filled with good content that can be shared and viewed by anyone.
Scott, nice posting. I'd also like to express my appreciation for all the responses. In fact, I'd like to focus on them. Scott's a professional, and the responses here probably come from the full range of amateurs, semi-pros, and full pros. The responses, including this one, are valuable UGC.
Something I didn't see above is the attraction to UGC by media outlets. The big attraction, I assure you, is not the fact that UGC is so good or done by pros, but that it's free, possibly explosive, and can be "automagically" repurposed and sold to customers. Some large media companies are now implementing strategies to get customers to show up (be a community) and participate (add salable content to our databases). Is it all premium content? of course not, but if it can go viral . . . there's a huge payoff for little expense and effort compared to traditional publishing models precisely because some of it will be premium content: content that media companies usually have to spend pots of money to find, buy or license, produce, and sell. The idea that some of it might just come in over the transom is thrilling to watchers of the bottom line.
Remember the recent post here on the value of data?
Ben
So, with a fairly literate (ability to write) population a typical newspaper (100,000 circulation) may receive 500 letters to the editor a week.
Once you whittle the population down to those with the ability to produce audio/video content the field is very small. A small percentage of this group will have the desire to develop material for the web etc.
On the other hand the number of people with the technical ability to develop content is growing as a percentge of the total population. At some distant point in the future the software used to develop the content will be easier to use and publishing will be as easy as writing a letter.
What I found in my research is that people -- when given the tools, will use these content-creation functions to create a virtual sense of community. They matter in the world because they were clicked. And that is a sadder commentary on our society than this author's contention that media are hoping to prey on this isolationist phenomenon.
I believe MyTopiaCafe.com, a citizen journalism/user-generated content site launched by the Daytona Beach News-Journal can be different...not because the next Pulitzer prize winner will be found among the stories on the site...but because the site may help build the social capital that is slowly eroding our communities. I think the technologies can help facilitate real-world changes...not a new ad campaign for iPhone, but meaningful social changes as those with like interests find one another and create action.
As users on MyTopiaCafe move from viewing to posting to commenting to communicating face to face (and they will), I hope to capture these transitions and demonstrate that these user-generated content models are not just fodder for news stories but a useful view of community life and a vital part of how communities function.
The term 'user' stems from the computer industry, either hardware or software. Anyone who operates a computer is a user. Hence, anyone who expresses an idea or shares information by uploading or posting to a site is what y'all refer to as 'generating content.' I agree with the earlier post that the implied meaning is content created by users who are not employees or contractors of the site, but you never know.
"User Generated Content" is a term and concept intentionally fabricated by lazy, but smart & entrepreneurial, web programming geeks who decided that they are not going to waste their valuable time doing stupid grunt stuff like producing content for free. They're not going to ho' themselves by selling out their valuable knowledge for a couple of bangs on their links.
Rather, they create systems that let others do the hard work for them...while they cash in on their labor. Sure, they'll pay you token chump change for your work if you land some clicks. But we all know who's really making the money.
UGC is essentially just another way of saying let's make money off someone else's dime (or in this case, time and ideas.)
It's another "Revenge of the Nerds" movement where geeks fight back by exploiting all the unsuspecting "popular kids" of their knowledge, time, and social
contacts.
Yes...darkly hidden behind this fascade of "pro-people, democratized internet, technical innovation, community and collaboration", etc...is just a front for geeks to make more money for themselves...by fostering internet addictions based on the basic human needs of communication and belonging.
Content serve as eyeball flytraps in which sites can 'adhere' advertisements (adhere as in "Your Ad Here"). Don't make a difference who makes it...so long as someone consumes it. Intellectual content is consumed by intellectual people. Stupid content is consumed by stupid people. Content laissez-faire.
Hey, if you don't know the value of your time, there are plenty of web 2.0 sites that do.
What do I call these people?
Suckers- who give away their talent.
As many a person has said: "If YOU do really good work- of any kind- then post it for the world to use- without proper compensation- someday all this-
will be MINE. Haha!
Having sense to become a CPA- but giving their photos/art away? Too bad they didnt have *enough* sense. Friggin non artists - like REX - just dont get it.
Rex wrote:
..There are some incredibly talented photographers who post their work on Flickr. They’ve never been paid for their work, but the stuff they shoot is breath-taking. There’s no way their photography is “authentic” in the way you imply “user-generated” content should be. So what do you call these people? They’re not pros. They’re not consumers. They are hobbiests who have an amazing talent and are very creative, but who had the sense to major in accounting and become a CPA.
I understand that Steve Outing's company had the problem of creating a steady stream of quality UGC to drive ad revenue models.