Some notes on what I think content is.
As I mentioned yesterday that I’ll be spending most of my time thinking about the content manifesto (which I have now updated) and my theory that content will kill your agency. I should point out that (as in the case of this post) some of the things that I will be posting on this subject will be very rough; they will be little notes or sketches of some of the ideas that I will want to build upon at a later date.
I’ve received rather of lot of mail around just what I actually mean by content (it would seem that there are a great deal of people that would like to see their advertising agency killed by it) and so I’ve tried to outline my understanding of the word here.
Content is the stuff on the inside.
Content is the stuff that things get stuck too - when you stick stuff into content it ceases to become content (David Lynch explains this really rather brilliantly - many thanks to David for pointing us in the right direction).
Content gets surrounded by stuff. Yes, content gets walled in and surrounded by noise.
Content drives culture and can influence cultural change.
Content doesn’t have a target audience.
Content can be dangerous (I would strongly advise you to listen to this BBC Radio 4 podcast on gaming in South Korea - brought to us by the fantastic speechification team).
Content could be anything;
- a book (I talked a little about this in "How content will kill you agency #1"),
- a story,
- a game,
- a film,
- a painting,
- a song,
- a band,
- a poem,
- a television show,
- a web site,
- a blog,
- a concert,
- a piece of design,
- a chair,
- a house,
- a building,
- a home,
- and it could also be a business (I’ll try and explain this later - consider this; take the TV out of reality TV).
Content is close to costing nothing to "distribute". (Werbeblogger points us to a brilliant 45 minute presentation by Chris Anderson at the Nokia World 2007 about "the costs of doing things being nearly zero" - this is a really important factor in the argument that content will kill your agency).
Content is the product and the service but costs (nearly) nothing to "consume".
Content creates currency through connection, aura and reputation (I’ll be building the compensation model out of this bit - it will probably be a mashup of Social Objects, Herdesque stuff, a bit of old Walter Benjamin, Paul Virilio and Jean Baudrillard - oh and Google).
Like I said at the beginning, these are just some rough notes but I would still be interested to get your take on all of this. Has this made my notion of "content" clearer to you? What would you change, add or update?
If you think that others might been interested in this would you be so kind as to Stumble it?
<
This work is licensed under
Creative Commons
Valeria Maltoni
What you don’t say here is that content can take years to mature, bubble to the surface and be produced. The greatest content gets used up (your consumed) even more quickly.
There’s also something else I’ve been thinking about with respect to our conversation on agencies — and that is content does *not* equal process. In fact, process may be a hindrance to the creation of content and the achievement of bigger outcome. There may be a post in me on this soon.
Good food for thought.
Jan 7th, 2008
zeroinflunencer
OoOooOooooooOOooh. I like ‘take the TV out of reality TV’ That would be funny…
Jan 7th, 2008
The Kaiser
Valeria - thanks for the build. Your right, content can take years to mature/be made etc. but it can also happen very quickly. I like your thinking on process - “getting to the point” has never really been the strength of any artist.
David - I thought you might like that. I’ll try and explain that piece later this week.
Jan 7th, 2008
lauren
ooh, can i pick up on the “content does not equal process” business and disagree?
i think that artists do actually ‘get to the point’ rather well, marcus, it’s just that ‘the point’ is not commodifiable, easily packaged, distributed or traded in an open market economy. therefore, the idea of ‘getting there’ and ‘not to the point’ or process, becomes confused with and discounted as ‘not content’.
it is the documentation of the process in creating content, especially if it is transparent, inclusive/interactive and enlivening (ie, good) which creates engagement and therefore currency in and of itself, rather than as a ‘means to an end’. which is exactly why this whole web2.0 bullshit is a thing, because the idea of process comes to the fore and not the final ‘content’ and therefore ‘product’, rammed down the face of consumer.
and marcus, as a performer, fan of joseph beuys, g&g and other conceptual kids, i’m surprised you backflipped on the ‘process is not content’ business so quickly - shame on you lovely
Jan 7th, 2008
The Kaiser
Lauren - you can disagree with whatever you wish. I think you will find that my stance on process has always been a rather pragmatic one - with one foot firmly planted in a sound working class ethic and the other in a more programmatic Bauhaus manifesto kind of place (I’ll be writing about that later tonight - so you can beat me up over it when you wake up).
To be honest with you Lauren, I really don’t see my stance as displaying a “backflip” - in fact (with the exception of perhaps Beuys - but you’ll be hard pushed to find artist who played with the concept of content as product better than him) I’m actually quite comfortable with examples you give.
Jan 7th, 2008
lauren
i look forward to the working-class-ethic-based programmatic-bauhaus-manifesto post when i wake up!
and trust me, i use the term ‘backflip’ as endearingly as possible. i would just hate to see the idea of process being shovelled out of the picture at the first hurdle. i promise i’ll be patient next time
Jan 7th, 2008
The Kaiser
Lauren - oh you’re going to love it (I may even use the word dialectic just to annoy Mr. Dodds.)
Process is important but it is (and in my opinion should be) a very private thing - it’s the journey to the destination but you’ve got to arrive somewhere at some point - but don’t worry it won’t be pushed aside at the first hurdle. At the second maybe, but not at the first.
Jan 7th, 2008
Colin
So, what you’re saying is that agencies should start doing what? Making art? If that’s what you’re saying that you’ve finally gone and lost it. Absolute bloody nonsense.
Jan 7th, 2008
The Kaiser
Colin - hello and a happy new year to you. Welcome back. I’m looking for a new way of doing things; a new way of building an agency and a new renumeration model - and most of the ideas I have are based on art theory (that’s my natural, intellectual home).
I’ve just been having a chat with Mr. Dodds who, quite wisely, suggested that we “avoid nonsense at all costs”.
I’m not suggesting, per se, that agencies start producing art, or even think of the work that they do as art - I’m suggesting that it may be quite helpful and interesting to look at other creative areas to see if we can find some answers to the massive problems that the advertising industry faces.
You may like to have a look at this book: http://tinyurl.com/23bd9t
It’s called “Sticky Wisdom” (I know some people will find it surprising that I’m promoting something from whatif - but it is an excellent book).
Jan 7th, 2008
neilperkin
Hi Kaiser. Happy New Year to you. I have a question for you. Is technology a form of content? Some have said that the difference between Yahoo and Google is that the latter understands precisely that. If you think about something like Google Maps - is that not content? What you can do with it looks a lot like what you can do with content - take it, use it, re-use it, re-purpose it, populate something with it, provide something useful with it. Are not widgets and applications a form of content? What you can do with them looks a lot like what you can do with content - take them, use them, enjoy them, pass them on, connect with them. Be interested in your thoughts.
Jan 10th, 2008
The Kaiser
Hi Neil,
happy new year to you too. A very good question, and something that I have been working on a little - and hope to get a post out on the subject soon. If you check the content manifesto you’ll see that I’ve popped Russell’s widgety series in there - just a hint for the stuff to come.
Jan 10th, 2008
Reply to “Some notes on what I think content is.”