Creating vs. consuming content

These days it’s really easy to be a content creator. The tools are all there, whether you want to focus on words, images, audio or video. Self-publishing has really taken off, and the line between content creators and content consumers is starting to get very blurred — if it’s even there at all.

But as it gets easier and easier to publish self-created content, two things become obvious. One, the quality is mostly non-existent. Two, the new content creators are finding out that creating quality content that people want to consume, on a regular basis, just isn’t easy. I might go further and add that the two are intertwined. Quality takes time, and time is a precious commodity. Most people don’t have enough of it, especially with full-time jobs and chores that need to get done. Something suffers, and it usually is the content. While it’s easy to turn on a webcam and record your kitty or puppy rolling around on the floor, it’s hard to produce quality. It takes time. It takes effort. It takes dedication.

And that’s where the wheat separates from the chaff, as they say. Or rather, where people find that sometimes it’s better to leave things to others. And they give up, or resort to blog posts that are nothing more than automatic links to real blog posts, or compress other people’s videos (oftentimes copyrighted) and upload them to YouTube or other sites. Or they give up altogether, and so we end up with the casualties of Web 2.0, little blogs here and there that haven’t been updated for months and years, dead or rotting websites that we sometimes stumble upon when we search for things.

You see, in the past, the barrier to entry in the world of publishing, whatever world that might have been — print, photography, TV, radio, movies — was high. While we agree that was a disadvantage, it was also a distinct advantage. That high barrier ensured that only motivated people — the ones that wanted to do it for a living — entered the field. And motivated, hard-working content producers meant, for the most part, that the quality was there. And because the players were relatively few, and the distribution channels were established, revenue streams were also decent and estimable. Not so these days. Today we’ve got fragmentation upon fragmentation, and little blogs and podcasts and video shows fighting to eke out some revenue here and there. Old newspapers are dying. TV stations are having a harder and harder time maintaining revenues. Movies are making less money, and piracy abounds. Radio is a dying breed. Print is in a ridiculous state: more and more stuff gets printed, but less people read it — unless it’s trash or gossip, of course.

What this all means is that while every Joe or Mary gets to experiment with self-publishing, at the very same time, they’re responsible for diminishing the audience that these established businesses have. It means that, collectively, we’re all responsible for laying people off. You can call it capitalism, but it’s not like the financial returns are there on our end. In other words, it’s not like the funds that used to go to TV or radio stations are now coming to us. They aren’t. So if we’re taking over their market share, we’re doing a really pathetic job of making money. Speaking purely in capitalistic terms, we should be out of business, and the only reason we aren’t is that most of us aren’t doing it for money. No, we sit there at our computers and put out content, most of it mediocre, but we do it for free while we hold down real jobs.

Then, we also complain that we don’t have enough free time. And we complain when a good program on TV gets replaced by more sex and violence, or when the local radio station gets taken over by a mega-corporation and our favorite DJs get fired. And so on and so forth.

I’m not exactly sure where this post is headed, but I wanted to point out some of the problems I see with this Internet revolution of ours. It leaves a lot of dead, rotting carcasses behind it, on both sides. Except when the losses occur on the losing side, it hurts more people, in more ways than we know. And I wish people would stop and think about that for a moment before they go around bashing mainstream media and start calling themselves bloggers or podcasters or whatever. It also wouldn’t hurt if we bought a newspaper subscription. And if you’re presented with the opportunity to copy a movie, don’t. Buy it, or rent it. Same with music. It’s all fine and good that we’re able to self-publish, but let’s remember the folks who are doing it for a living, the ones who are in it for the long haul.

One more thing: just because so and so can make a living from blogging and brags about it too, it doesn’t mean you or I can do it too. Not unless we’re willing to put in some serious work and time, just like the mainstream media does. And if we do, we become part of the mainstream media. Given enough time, we’ll be the ones getting bashed by the newbies who think they know it all.

To get back to the title of this post, the truth of the matter is that most people are better off being content consumers. There’s a natural balance to the marketplace that can only be maintained if people realize not everyone can be a content creator. When that happens, there aren’t enough consumers. Instead we have a chaotic marketplace where everyone’s screaming for attention, or for a link, if you will. And that’s a sad, sad place to be. It’s not where I want to be.

It really all gets back to knowing our priorities. I’ve been spending some time over the past few weeks examining my busy schedule, and finding out what I really want to do, and how I can make time for it. I know that creating content is what I love doing. Whether it’s text or images, I love it. Video’s a bit interesting as well, but good video takes serious time that I haven’t got. So for now, I’m happy to be a video content consumer. I’ll probably write more about my efforts to prioritize, but I really wanted to say that more people should take the time to do some questioning, especially the ones who are trying to get involved with self-publishing. Is it really what you want to do? Do you realize the effects of your efforts? Are you willing to put in the time, effort and consistency that it takes to produce quality content? If you aren’t, you’d better stop while you still have your free time, and find more relaxing and meaningful ways to spend it.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Subscribe to my feed Follow my posts. It's easy and free.

4 Comments    «have your say»

Comments are moderated. It might be a good idea to read through the comment guidelines before submitting. RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI.

  1. Julie Barrett says:

    Great post, Raoul. I’m trying to catch up after a short road trip, but I was wondering if you heard of Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap. Of course, none of us want to be producing said crap (well, a good many of us don’t. A sizable portion, I suspect, doesn’t care).

    Much of what you said hits home because I’m searching for new ways to make revenue. (Yep, Zooomr is looking good!) I know I’ve commented on this very thing in your blog, so I won’t repeat myself. But sometimes I think I can make more money flipping burgers than producing quality prose. It’s sad. Yet, I do think the market will shake out at some point. I just hope I can hold out that long.

    Comment — June 10, 2007 @ 9:29 pm

  2. Jim Goldstein says:

    There’s a lot to be said for quality. With todays self-published content we’re left to make due with the organic process of mob rule/discovery. Even in the old days and especially today the most widely watched, read or listened programming isn’t alway the best. The amount we have to sift through these days is just much greater. Content production no matter what the medium is always more difficult than it would seem.

    Comment — June 21, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

  3. The value of microblogging services (part one) says:

    [...] Numbers 2, 3 and 4 is where the action is. If you are a content creator (refer to this post of mine for the details on that term) self-promotion can be valuable. If done in a non-sleazy way, it can make your contacts aware of something interesting that you’ve either just published or are about to publish, and can potentially extend the reach of your work. I publish links to my blog posts, my photos and my videos on both Twitter and Jaiku. [...]

    Pingback — July 24, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

  4. The value of microblogging services (part two) says:

    [...] When it comes to Twitter, it has no feed aggregation service. As a matter of fact, the only way to get things in there is to type them in manually, but that’s not a lot of fun if you want to share a lot of stuff. (Remember to put that statement in the context of the differences between content creators and content consumers.) But what Twitter does have is a very nice and open API, and that means other people can build great functionality on top of the standard feature set. Wouldn’t you know it, someone went and did just that? I discovered a great service called Twitterfeed, which lets me aggregate my feeds just like Jaiku. Here’s a screenshot from my Twitterfeed page: [...]

    Pingback — July 25, 2007 @ 8:57 pm

Who are you, and what would you like to say?