Chip Griffin: Pardon the Disruption

Should I Opine About Politics? That is the Question

Some of you know that in a past life I was involved in politics and policy in Washington, DC.  I spent time on Capitol Hill, with a think tank, and in various advocacy or public affairs positions.   I haven't been involved in politics regularly in about 7 or 8 years, but every so often the political bug bites me.  Nowadays, it tends to be more on the analytical side (as it was when I Twittered about the NH primary last Tuesday, assessing the TV analysis). I do consult from time to time with corporate clients trying to navigate politics and policy online, but for the most part am out of the game.

I still have my political views, which frankly have moderated quite a bit over the years, but I tend to keep them to myself.  Certainly in public I tend to refrain from such discussion because too often it degenerates, especially in the social media space.  But in private I do share my view from time to time.  Shel Israel, for one, knows my general outlook, and we are able to agree to disagree without being disagreeable.  If that's how it were with everyone, I'd be more inclined to offer up occasional political commentary.  Or perhaps even add a political blog to my ever-expanding repertoire.  After all, I used to publish (in the dead tree media) at the rate of about one op-ed per week more than a decade ago.

VC blogger Fred Wilson sometimes shares his political views, and I admire him for doing so, though I most often disagree with his outlook.  It always makes me think about dipping my toe in that water, even if just a little bit.  Twitter friend Matt Searles (another whom I tend to disagree with, based on our private conversations -- notice a trend here?) encouraged me this week to talk politics more often.  I appreciate that.

I'm still not sure I'll speak out, and if I do so, it likely won't be very often.  But I'm certainly considering it.  I like to think I have useful and interesting things to say, but politics online today all too often becomes polarizing rather than energizing. 

As Fred pointed out in a recent post,

"I know that I mostly irritate people when I write about politics. I frequently get comments from readers who say something like 'how can you be such an idiot when it comes to politics?.'"

To me, passionate political debate -- or frankly vigorous debate about any topic of import -- should be embraced, but so too should it be conducted in such a way as to be both civil and productive.  I have many friends who agree with my outlook and countless others who disagree with some or all of my political views.  And that's great.  But the coarseness and partisanship of political discourse today often frowns upon cross-party friendships.

Shel Israel touched on this sentiment to a degree this week, and I embrace the gist of his view:

I don't see Republicans as my enemy. I see them as sincere and dedicated as my friends who are Democratic. I understand their distrust of a big government who usually screws it up. I understand their loyalty of a free market economy.

As an entrepreneur, investor, and communicator, we ignore politics and policy at our own peril.  It really behooves us to speak up, as people like Brad Feld have done when it comes to patent reform.  We need to understand the policies that impact our businesses, our clients, and our lives.  We shouldn't be afraid to voice our opinions, and it is unfortunate that it so often leads to childish taunts and inflamed rhetoric.

Now certainly as a player in the political game for nearly a decade, I'm not innocent of bombastic or hypocritical rhetoric and actions.  I don't apologize for them because those were the rules of the game, and I was in no position at such a young age to change the gameplan.  I did like to think I took a more sober view of my actions than others, but that's more likely ego than reality.

Which all brings me back to the question of whether I should opine in this space or elsewhere on politics and policy.  I certainly have the itch, but my fear is that it would detract from all the other work that I do. 

What say you, dear reader?

Throwing in the Towel on Second Life

Chip Graysmark is leaving Second Life.  For those who don't know (and from what I can tell that is probably most of you), that's my avatar's name in that online world.  I started trying out the service about 6 months ago when everyone really started chattering about it.  But I have reached the conclusion that it isn't going somewhere I want to be.

Perhaps I never gave it enough of a chance -- I stayed mostly on Crayonville Island, created by my friends at the new media marketing company headed by Joseph Jaffe.  While I enjoyed the weekly "Coffee with Crayon" event for the chance to chat with fellow communicators, it felt a bit too much like web chats circa 1997.  I would love to have a way to interact with these people without the platform being such an important part of the discussion and without the video game feel that Second Life has.

The folks behind Second Life may end up doing well for themselves, but the numbers so far seem disappointing, according to many observers, as far as giving the product an important role in online life in the future.  Proponents argue that it is still early, but anecdotal evidence suggests companies are not reaping big rewards from participating. 

Is it worth sticking with Second Life to better understand it and be prepared if it does take off?  I don't think so.  It just doesn't feel like it has the staying power or the ability to go mainstream. 

I always try to avoid living within the tech bubble and put myself in the shoes of "average" users.  That doesn't mean I won't live out on the cutting edge or even the bleeding edge, but it is important that we all never lose sight of the fact that we are an abnormal minority and not necessarily the harbinger of trends to come.

I'll always have the memories, and maybe one day I'll be proven wrong and have to slink back to Second Life with my tail between my legs, but for now I'm throwing in the virtual towel.

The New Media Cocktail

Recently I started to write a blog post about the future of media.  I planned to address the two big themes that I see playing a significant role in how we will produce and consume media in coming years.  It spiraled a bit out of control and became a 30 page e-book titled The New Media Cocktail.  It is available to download for free as a PDF.

The two themes I have identified and discuss in The New Media Cocktail are:

• Convergence
• The power of niches

Regular readers of this blog and listeners to my Disruptive Dialogue podcast know that I have been nearly obsessed with the future of media of late.  I have spent a lot of time reading, researching, and thinking about the issue.  Hopefully The New Media Cocktail contributes to the great thinking already taking place in this space.  I want to thank some of the most provocative bloggers in this space for forcing me to focus on and examine the trends.  In particular the words and deeds of Jeff Jarvis, Mark Cuban, Chris Anderson, Dave Winer, Chris Garrett, and Jason Calacanis had a significant impact on my outlook. 

I also want to thank three people who provided invaluable feedback to me on early drafts of The New Media Cocktail.  Shel Israel, Sarah Wurrey, and Jen White all contributed significantly to the final product.  (Though all mistakes are, of course, my own.)

It's a quick -- and I hope provocative -- read.  I encourage you to download the PDF and let me know what you think.  I plan to do a follow-up post soon with some of the feedback I receive here in the comments or in blog posts elsewhere.

Technorati tags: New Media Cocktail, The Long Tail, Jeff Jarvis, Jason Calacanis, Mark Cuban, Chris Anderson, Dave Winer, Chris Garrett, e-book publishers, Shel Israel, Sarah Wurrey, Jen White, media, new media, convergence, niches

10 Ways the Rules of the Media Business are Being Rewritten

Traditional ("old") media finds itself experiencing an earthquake of change as online ("new") media changes the rules of the game.  Some publishers and broadcasters find themselves struggling to adapt, while others thrive on the ability to innovate.  The competition becomes more intense by the day and the fears among old school journalists and media executives rise in direct proportion.

Let me be clear: I am not one who believes that new media will kill old media.  Newspapers, broadcast television, and terrestrial radio are here to stay.  Those who innovate and adapt will thrive; those who fail will perish.  The solid gold oldies and the young turks must all play on the same playing field today, and understanding how the rules are being rewritten will be key to future success for both camps. 

1.  Publishers are Broadcasters and Broadcasters are Publishers.

Media convergence has arrived.  Newspapers are producing audio and video.  TV and radio are producing print copy.  Media outlets no longer find themselves constrained to one specific medium.  Technology permits all media outlets to compete on each other's turf.

2.  Column Inches and Broadcast Minutes are No Longer Limited.

It used to be that print reporters would see stories dropped because there weren't enough available column inches to print the article.  TV and radio journalists would get squeezed out because an hour only has 60 minutes no matter how you slice it.  Today, the web enables all media to publish and produce unlimited content.  This is a blessing and curse because it means a lot more high quality material makes it into the public arena, but it is harder to kill low-quality stuff without telling the journalist that directly.

3.  The Audience Can be a Partner in Content Creation.

When breaking news hits, the audience now contributes.  Media outlets openly solicit still and video footage from cell phones or other portable devices for disasters and tragedies.  Remember the student whose cell phone video footage made it on CNN in a seemingly endless loop after the Virginia Tech shooting?  Local stations do the same thing for pictures of floods and other natural disasters. Even the print media has gotten into this game.

4.  The Media Now Competes with Its Own Audience.

The rise of blogs, podcasts, and online video now mean that media outlets are competing with their own audiences.  Anybody can create a podcast that competes with NPR, a blog that competes with the Washington Post, or a video site that competes with CNN.  Everyone can be a broadcaster and publisher, at low cost and with minimal effort.

5.  Old Advertising/Revenue Models Will Be Replaced.

You can't put a 30 second pre-roll ad on every 2 minute news story.  Nobody sticks around to watch post-roll.  Podcasts aren't radio, so the same ad structure doesn't work.  Full-page display advertising?  Not on a newspaper web site!  And classified advertising hasn't simply migrated to the web, the whole nature of it has changed.  Where's the line between classifieds and eBay auctions?  Between Craigslist and a yard sale?  Similarly, despite ESPN's efforts, ISP's aren't typically going to pay to carry content.  And subscription revenue models will need to be revamped to recognize the shifting landscape.

6.  Archives are Valuable.

In the old days, the only people who cared about newspaper morgues and tape libraries were researchers, librarians, and other hard-core information professionals.  Today search engines can help open these archives up to a public, hungry for information.  Looking at old articles no longer require microfiche or a subscription to a legacy research service.  Digging up old video doesn't need to involve a call to a service that fetches a dusty videotape and copies it.  Archives can be a source for ongoing traffic -- and thus revenue -- to media outlets.

7.  Niches Have Increasing Value.

The old media paradigm precluded effective niche publications.  A truly focused niche would likely have too few potential subscribers to justify a magazine.  Certainly a radio or TV show would be unlikely to be devoted to these niches.  But highly-targeted niches have real value for audiences, content creators, and marketers and can be exploited effectively in the new media world.  Consumers increasingly want to see just the slice of information they're interested in, and generic national, international, business, and entertainment news increasingly becomes a boring commodity.

8.  Unedited Content is Becoming More Common.

Stories are going online in print, audio, or video with less and less editing.  As news cycles disappear and are replaced by the world of instant information, credible journalists are posting to blogs and producing audio and video so quickly that editing would be impractical.  Content producers must therefore trust their content creators to make sound editorial judgment by themselves on the fly. 

9.  News Cycles are Dead.  Information is Instantaneous.

In the Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite/David Brinkley era, news cycles lasted 24 hours until the next nightly newscast came on the air.  Twenty-four hour cable news networks began to shrink the news cycle and Web 1.0 brought it down to mere hours.  Today, the news cycle is dead.  Information transmits instantaneously and responses often come before the news is completely made.  In politics, a presidential debate doesn't even conclude anymore before detailed responses, rebuttals, attacks, and supplemental information has been made public.  The "official" pundits have yet to offer their views on TV before the new media space has rendered judgment of their own.

10.  Choices, Choices, and More Choices.

For those who thought that cable television ushered in an age of too many choices for consumers, welcome to the Media 2.0 world.  There are now more information choices than there are products in a Wal-Mart Supercenter.  (A Supercenter has about 116,000 different products on sale.)  Even someone interested in a niche as focused as bacon can find 1,050 blogs tagged for that subject, according to Technorati's directory.  (I'm sure that list has a lot of fat in it, but there's lots of meat as well -- OK, I couldn't help myself.)

*****

Readers of this blog and listeners to my podcast know that the future of media continues to fascinate me.  The opportunities to innovate and excel in this arena could not be richer.  The possibilities are plentiful and the value in success is high for those who innovate and execute well.  Ultimately, consumers and innovators will both win.

Technorati tags: media consumption, media, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, online media, online video, mainstream media, new media, blogs, online advertising, journalism, reporters

Is Facebook the Answer to Social Networking Overload -- Or Is It Part of the Problem?

Nick O'Neill does a nice job today of asking (and answering) the question: "Is There Any Point In Launching Your Own Social App?" 

I've been wondering the same thing myself.  With the sudden explosion of Facebook among my friends and colleagues, it feels like there might be a central meeting place already.  As Nick points out, Facebook offers great functionality to enable it to serve as a one-stop shop for people.  Many companies are racing to roll out apps that will work on that platform to take advantage of the dramatic growth the service is experiencing.  In fact, just this morning I heard from a senior exec at a major web player who told me:

Up until a week ago I had absolutely no interest in using facebook. As a marketer, I certainly get the market impact, but I couldn't ever care much about the concept. But with the platform release, we've all been rushing around trying to get apps released onto the platform ... Its just crazy.

At the same time, however, new "walled garden" social networks are cropping up.  Many in my circle have joined either MyRagan or the Melcrum Communicators Network or both. 

It is getting to be too much, as Mary Hodder pointed out recently when she discussed "social information overload."  Shel Holtz addressed the question several months ago:

I’m skeptical that a bajillion social networks will make for good social networking. It’s not that people won’t join networks like ”The Classical Guitar Network” (although it does have only one member so far); it’s that people will belong to so many that their participation will be cursory rather than fully engaged. Nope; sorry. I just don’t see it.

Here's Nick's conclusion:

Is there any point in launching your own social application? In the long run, probably not. All sites will eventually become content providers that allow users to decide for themselves how they are going consume information. RSS feeds and OPML are only the beginning of such technologies. While this is going to take time to manifest, in the foreseeable future you are going to have access to all the information you want right at your fingertips, all from one page. While search will still be necessary to find new sources of content, users will be able to avoid navigation the web on a daily basis to consume all the information that they want. While its not going to happen immediately, Facebook has just taken a huge step in that direction.

Now mine: Facebook seems to offer some real benefits and could be the standard social networking platform going forward.  The ability to easily layer apps on top of the service provides a real benefit.  There are still issues that need to be sorted out (someone recently suggested a secondary relationship on the service, like "fans" to allow limited interaction between users), innovation that needs to occur, and of course, time must pass to see if the growth trend continues and if all these new users become regular diners and not simply nibblers at the Facebook table.

But if I were seeking to build a social network today, I'd think long and hard before I built my own closed system.  Facebook may or may not be the ultimate answer, but for social networking to be truly effective there needs to be fewer, not more, platforms.

Technorati tags: Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, social networks, Mary Hodder, Shel Holtz, Dan York, Nick O'Neill, MyRagan, Melcrum

Information Aggregation: Man vs. Machine

The concept of information overload is hardly new.  But in the age of social media, we're all inundated with so much information a daily basis that it's hard to keep up.  I know I have trouble keeping up with 233 feeds on a daily basis.  I've done my best to organize them into logical folders to help me prioritize since I know some days I can't keep up with everything. 

Like many, then, I rely on aggregators to find information that's valuable to me, especially when I don't have time to do my own hunting for big news or simply serendipity.  But what works better?  Man or machine?  TechMeme or Scoble? 

Automatic Aggregators

I visit sites like TechMeme, Google News, Topix, and TailRank, to find stories of interest in traditional and new media.  In so doing, I see what's being talked about a lot and make sure I don't miss hot topics of conversation.  But while the machines -- or more accurately the algorithms that were created by the likes of Gabe Rivera, Rich Skrenta, and Kevin Burton -- do an excellent job for this purpose, they still have the quirks associated with anything that is computer-generated.  Each has its strengths and weaknesses, as well as a unique focus, but they all suffer from a similar flaw: computers can only follow a fixed set of rules and sometimes the best information doesn't fall into a neat little box.

User Voting

In an effort to balance man vs. machine, sites like Digg, Reddit,del.icio.us/popular, and others accept user submissions of stories, compile "votes" for the various pieces of content, and then use some sort of algorithm to generate lists of popular items.  Personally, I find these sites less valuable than the automatic aggregators because the chosen content tends to be all over the map, without a clear theme or pattern to what becomes popular.  In addition, often what becomes popular does so more for amusement than practical value.  My interest tends to be more in these sites for business than entertainment, so they don't serve my own needs quite as well as they may for others.

Human Editors

Despite my love of technology and my affection for automated solutions to information problems, I continue to find the greatest value in aggregation performed by humans.  The editorial value that an individual can provide in directing me to timely and accurate information still exceeds that which a computer algorithm can offer. 

I began my career almost two decades ago in Washington, DC and there we relied on a daily fax newsletter that summarized key political news in newspapers across the country.  In those pre-Web days, National Journal's Hotline was a "must read" and the only way to digest the latest on campaigns and policy debates around the country.  Even today when we can easily access newspapers from across the nation online, the Hotline continues to play an important role in distilling this flood of information into a digestible form.

Of late, I have also come to rely on Robert Scoble's shared links to help find interesting items that I might otherwise overlook.  He says his goal is to help save time for others.  Like the automated web sites, his offering isn't perfect (I don't share his affinity for cat pictures, for instance), but his interests parallel mine pretty closely and I find a lot of value in it. 

For years, Steve Rubel has offered his del.icio.us links as part of his daily blog feed, and those are also a great resource, though much narrower in focus and volume than what Scoble shares.  Jason Calacanis just announced he's getting into this game as well and is in fact trying to create a broader network of like-minded people that will share a combined feed on del.icio.us. 

Yet these human solutions all have their own major weakness: the human element!  People get busy, have biases, and fall into their own patterns. 

So What's the Answer?

For now, there's no magic solution to the challenge of information overload.  Machines are more timely and consistent, but humans offer greater judgment and more serendipity.

Like many, I will continue to use all of the methods above plus continue to read feeds on my own.  The short-lived SearchFox application once tried to bridge this gap by trying to analyze my feed reading behavior to organize information in a priority fashion.  It was a good start and I was sorry to see it disappear.

In researching this post, I came across an item from Huw Leslie who wrote an excellent item a few weeks ago in which he talked about a product called Particls which is currently in invitation-only beta.  From the way Huw writes about it, it sounds like it has some of the elements I liked about SearchFox, so I definitely want to try it out (anyone have an invite?).

Andy Beard talks about some interesting approaches to the problem, in a section titled "Custom Meme Trackers" in a longer post on productivity.  Stowe Boyd touched on the subject not long ago.  His points on the importance of networks I thought were particularly relevant.  Richard MacManus talks about a recent Forrester report on Enterprise RSS that talks about information overload and how some vendors are trying to solve the problem.

I expect this fall's Defrag conference will touch on some of the issues, challenges, and solutions that impact this arena, but ultimately there's no single answer out there.  The focus on Trust/Attention/Relevance should prove illuminating to this subject matter.

For the entrepreneur who finds a good way to address this problem and smartly combines the best of man and machine in an aggregator, however, fame and fortune await.

UPDATE: Eric Rice has a great post that talks about some of these issues, as well as others: "Lately, I’ve been paying attention to an onslaught of new applications and how they fit into my normal flow of must-read-every-bit-of-information-that-exists-EVER..."

Technorati tags: TechMeme, TailRank, Google News, Digg, reddit, Scoble, Steve Rubel, Jason Calacanis, Topix, Gabe Rivera, Rich Skrenta, Kevin Burton, Andy Beard, Forrester, information overload, Particls, Huw Leslie, Stowe Boyd, SearchFox, del.icio.us, aggregation, aggregator, RSS, National Journal, Hotline, Richard MacManus, defrag conference, attention, trust, networks, social media, RSS reader, productivity

Information Aggregation Cycles

I've been doing a bunch of thinking about online information in recent weeks because my gears have been churning ever since hearing about the Defrag conference and reading the blog posts from Eric Norlin and Brian Oberkirch on topics related to it.

Today I was noodling on whether emerging trends point toward greater information aggregation or disaggregation.  And I came to the realization that information really follows cycles of aggregation because of all the technology already available.

Let's follow the path of an article in a trade publication:

• Individual data points are aggregated by the author to create an article.
• The article initially exists on its own, or disaggregated, from other content.
• A publisher then aggregates the article along with others to create a web site or print publication.
• A search/monitoring service then finds the article and may deliver it to an interested reader as an alert, or a disaggregated piece of information.
• The reader/searcher then may compile the article into an update for colleagues with information from other sources, thus re-aggregating it.
• And the cycle continues as the next consumer of that information acts on it and remixes it.

This tells me that the future of information lies neither with aggregation or disaggregation.  Rather, it means that there are multiple points in the cycle in which innovation can occur:

• data mining tools for writers
• search/monitoring for readers
• niche-information aggregation
• services to assist in re-mixing and/or redistributing content
• research tools to help track the information aggregation cycle (I harp on understanding the flow of information, or message travel, because it could tell us so much about patterns of influence)

I'm interested in what others think about this.  Does my cycle concept make sense?  Or do you see aggregation or disaggregation playing a more significant role in the future?

Technorati tags: Defrag conference, Eric Norlin, Brian Oberkirch, aggregation, disaggregation, data mining, information analysis

Doing Second Life Right

Mitch Joel offers up a post today on examples of some marketers he thinks are doing Second Life right.  He sees a shift from the "build it and they will come" philosophy to one in which companies seek to engage consumers in the Second Life experience through contests and other activities.

In the past couple of weeks it would seem like Marketers are starting to understand the power of marketing in Second Life and other virtual worlds. My main contention with previous Second Life marketing initiatives was that brands were entering the Metaverse, buying islands and were then “open for business.” It became apparent – quickly – that the Field Of Dreams model of, “build it and they will come” was not the ideal execution. We’ve seen countless islands that are now abandoned and seem more appropriate for a Discovery Channel documentary on lost civilizations then in the still-buzzing hype of Second Life.

Singled out for credit are Coke's Virtual Thirst campaign being run by crayon and an avatar creation contest by fashion company Lacoste.

Mitch concludes:

Both examples seem simple enough… and that’s the point. Second Life is complicated enough, so the big Marketing lesson is to leverage the Second Life community, make it easy to enter and fun to win. It also helps that both of these examples enable non-Second Life residents to take part and get interested. This has remarkable strategic by-products: it may well be that what Lacoste and Coke are doing in Second Life will stimulate people who never would have entered the Metaverse to take a look, and – hopefully – try out virtual worlds.

Second Life marketing is coming of age… and this is just the beginning.

I'm still not convinced about Second Life as a marketing vehicle.  I do participate in the weekly Coffee with Crayon event where about 30 online marketers get together inside Second Life to chat about issues of the day.  And I do feel like I get value out of it.  But it also feels a bit clunky to me and I can already sense the novelty of commenting on the style and appearance of others' avatars is wearing thin.  In many respects, I feel like I've turned the clock back 10 years to when I used to organize online chats. 

Perhaps what concerns me most is that there seems to be relatively little discussion of outcomes.  I believe that Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson did touch briefly on the ROI potential of Virtual Thirst on a recent episode of For Immediate Release, but in general I think companies need to do a better job of thinking through what they want to accomplish by participating in Second Life and then subsequently monitoring and measuring to see if those goals -- whatever they may be -- are being achieved.

Technorati tags: Mitch Joel, Second Life, ROI, crayon, Virtual Thirst, Lacoste, Shel Holtz, Nevill Hobson, For Immediate Release, virtual worlds

Dell (In)Direct?

I found this story in today's New York Times to be fascinating.  In a world in which customization, direct service, and online shopping seem to be the order of the day, Dell seems poised to break from its past and consider selling through retail channels.  That's a dramatic departure and one seemingly at odds with current trends.

Or is it?  One of the things that the modern Internet teaches us it that people want immediate gratification more than ever.  People expect to be able to download software on demand and start using it immediately.  None of this ordering it and getting it shipped.  They want to be able to sign up for a web-based service and use it now, not later. 

Of course, it's harder to get immediate gratification with computer hardware without the retail experience.  Go ahead and try to download your next computer and see how far you get. 

The challenge for Dell is that unlike Apple or Lenovo (maker of Thinkpads), the Austin, TX company focused on delivering customized computers to consumers.  Others who sell through retail outlets offer a streamlined selection of cookie-cutter solutions.

So the question that must be answered is: can Dell balance the need for immediate gratification with customization?

Technorati tags: Dell, Michael Dell, customization, business models

Content is Not -- and Should Not Be -- Free

I was listening to Joseph Jaffe's Across the Sound podcast recently and he expressed the oft-heard point of view that "content wants to be free."  Though I often agree with what Jaffe has to say, in this instance I must say "hogwash." 

Simply put, there is no such thing as free content.  Content providers receive value and consumers expend resources.  It need not always be a pure and direct financial transaction, but ultimately producers and publishers are "paid" and the audience "pays."

Lots of Thinking About "Free Content" Today

Jeff Jarvis, who spends more time thinking about the future of media and content than most (other than perhaps Rafat Ali though I guess he more reports than predicts), wrote about this last month when he said:

Who cares whether content wants to be free? It already is. Deal with it. ... I criticize publishers for still whining about circ revenue and not figuring out the ways to go with the flow and find their cash flow in new ways.

Ultimately, Jeff and I are probably in a similar neighborhood of thinking on this, but I think it does a disservice for those of us who focus on these issues to talk about the need for content to be available for free.  I realize it is semantics, but I have opined in the past on the power of language, and I do believe that talking about content wanting to be free leaves many with the wrong impression -- namely, that content cannot be monetized.

Jason Calacanis has been a particular champion of financial compensation for those who create user-generated content, and indeed he did just that when he reinvented Netscape and sought to lure link contributors from rival sites like Digg and reddit.  And I support efforts to do that, though we must also acknowledge these content producers are already compensated in other ways.

Matt McAlister yesterday keyed off of something that Dave Winer recently wrote ("what we’re doing now, in journalism, as with all other intermediated professions, is decentralizing") to conclude that this whole debate is moot.

Umair Haque and John Hagel have suggested in their investigations of edge economics that any job function that makes money off the friction of distribution of information is threatened.

This kind of ends the whole debate about whether or not content wants to be free. That doesn’t really matter. The question is more about how else can we remove friction in the flow of information.

What we really need, however, is a better understanding of the value extraction and contribution process that goes on with all content. Ultimately, consumption of content results in a series of value-oriented transactions.

How Content Providers Get Paid

In each content transaction, those who provide, produce, and publish content receive some sort of payment, though not always financial. Some of the compensation models are listed below (with examples of what I mean by each)

• direct monetary remuneration
• subscription fees
• advertising revenue
• psychic value
• emotional pleasure in sharing information/commentary
• cathartic release of writing
• satisfaction at publishing written material or releasing audio/video content
• indirect revenue generation
• improving individual/corporate profile and reputation
• educating potential customers
• professional development
• learning through writing/producing
• networking with like-minded individuals

How Consumers Pay for Content

Just as the producers get paid, so too must consumers pay.  Indeed, in some cases the consumer pays in multiple ways for a single piece of content, even though the individual may not readily realize that fact. Examples include:

• direct monetary payments
• subscription fees
• per-item charges (DVD/CD purchase rental, archived article fee, MP3 download, etc.)
• indirect financial compensation
• clicking on ads
• visiting sponsors
• buying products
• contributing to psychic rewards
• contributing comments
• rating content
• thanking the producer
• magnifying the content value
• sharing it with colleagues/friends by emailing, discussing, etc.
• quoting the content in new works
• personal sacrifice
• time commitment

In addition to what I have outlined, you may want to check out Chris Garrett's excellent e-book on "Killer Flagship Content" in which he describes many of the benefits of creating blog content.  Many of these translate into other media as well.

Content Isn't a Zero Sum Game

Even though content is not free, it isn't always a 1-to-1 transaction either. As you likely noticed from the lists above, what a consumer pays doesn't always match up precisely with what the producer receives. Moreover, this analysis doesn't consider how producers pay nor how consumers receive value. Ultimately, the best content is that which allows both the consumer and the producer to end up with a net increase in resources. 

Conclusion

Content isn't free -- and it shouldn't be.  Content producers must -- and do -- receive value for what they create and publish.  Consumers must -- and do -- pay for what they read, watch, and listen to.  We simply must recognize that these aren't all cash payments and receipts and that there are other ways to contribute and extract value in a content transaction.

But, please, let's end the whole "content wants to be free" meme that circulates regularly.  As Jeff Jarvis has said, the debate needs to be about different things.

Technorati tags: content wants to be free, free content, paid content, media, content monetization, value of content, content producers, Jeff Jarvis, Chris Garrett, Matt McAlister, Jason Calacanis, Dave Winer, Joseph Jaffe, Across the Sound