I recently stumbled upon a presentation that I think is worth sharing. It was given by Danah Boyd of Microsoft Research who recently spoke at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York.
The clip runs for 18 minutes and contains a lot of concepts as the presenter speaks quite quickly and really rattles through a lot of territory within that time.
Called ‘Streams of Content’ the key analogy of the presentation is likening the flow of information in modern society to a stream.
That is, rather than relying on centralised tools for disseminating information, she talks about living in the stream and having the ability to add to the information that flows all around us. From a business point of view she talks about consuming and producing content alongside customers.
Danah also discusses providing access to information in a relevant and timely way, and making it accessible within the ever expanding surrounding stream -- without having people feel overwhelmed. Easier said than done, but that’s one of many challenges she presents.
She talks about the collapsing of distribution barriers and the power shift to those who control attention rather than distribution.
I find this idea of information broking interesting, especially when it comes to the role of the sharer versus that of the content creator.
As has been mentioned in some previous Two Cents blogs, there’s no doubt that there’s some kudos in being the first person to spread content that you think others might enjoy. But does the sharer of that information deserve more credit than the creator? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Aggregating and sharing content just as I’m doing now offers a convenient, easily digested summary, but it’s hardly as onerous as generating the original material.
However, research conducted on Twitter highlighted that many people consider crediting the person you heard it from was more important than crediting the author. Fascinating.
Not so long ago many industries had a clear creator/distributor model. Program creators developed TV content which was then broadcast by the networks, bands created music that was distributed by record companies, journalists generated articles published by newspapers and magazines and so on.
It was a given that the distributors often profited more than the creators. Now, even with the traditional distribution barriers broken down, there’s no guarantee that the creator will earn the credit due to them.
As Danah says in her presentation:
“There’s an assumption that if we get rid of the limitations to distribution the power will revert to the creators. This is not what’s happening. Distribution today is making people aware that they can come and get something.
Those who get access to people’s attention are a very small and privileged population. What’s emerging is the power of the modern day information broker.”
Clearly, as the information stream continues to expand, attention will become the new currency. Those who can capture and retain attention will be more important than ever.
Alan Kewley is an Account Director at BCM Brisbane
No similar articles.
Great post. You’ve prompted to produce an analysis of your video analysis on the anthill blog (kind of postmodern really).
Here’s a tip from one blogger to another – Add more outgoing linnks from your posts, to the Web 2.0 Expo, to the Twitter research (rather than pure self-referential links).
I guarantee it will generate more traffic. It might seem counter-intuitive but we have tested it (another way that the large media outlets are unintentionally sabotaging themselves).
James
Great post Al. I think aggregation of content is one of the greatest opportunities for brands currently. Does get you thinking about the raw deal for creators though – it is the same beef Murdoch has with Google!