Content: Curation Versus Creation

Looking back to an earlier post, I touched briefly (sort of) on the shift from a monolithic system of branded content creation to a more diffuse system in which the end user can also generate media that ties back to or directly represents a brand.

As this diffusion of publication capability through social media has made every consumer a potential creative force, media has become as much of a horizontal process as it was vertical in the past.  Media is no longer simply created by a handful of agencies and pushed out through narrow channels to an end point.  It is created at downstream points as well as upstream, and can be passed easily from one person to another.

The dream has been realized; everyone can find any information and themselves contribute to the global discussion.  Some will get to write for the Huffington Post, or get mentioned in a Penny Arcade comic.  Maybe you will meet Mitch Krpata sometime at a convention, and hear some pretty smart things (you could read them at Insult Swordfighting also).  You can debate writers from The Economist now on their site, and brands like Ford are actually launching new product promotions entirely using social media,with the new Fiesta.

This change has led to the rise of the importance of the concept of "curation" alongside "creation."  Marketers and social media companies have to become aggregators and collections management specialists as much as creative agencies.  With all of this content being created and spread on the web, organizing it, packaging it, and making it accessible is a big deal, and a big business.

The issue for me is that after spending all of this time getting to a point where the end of the content production chain is no longer a dead-end at the consumer, the channels by which we access all of this media are quickly consolidating.  New boss might be the same as the Old Boss.

All we see these days are stats and articles about how big and how fast services like Facebook and Twitter are growing.  Facebook is unapologetic about wanting to be the connective tissue for the entire internet.  Think about it this: how often do you read articles now that you didn't come across via Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, or Digg?  I admit, aside from the NY Times and the Economist, I get most of the rest of my news from links that come from those sources.

Granted, the obvious argument is that these content aggregators simply provide the vehicle, and that the sources of information that I get are actually myraid, since there are people behind those tweets.  Still, most articles that trend online are those that get passed around and around, tweeted and liked and re-tweeted, in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I am afraid that as we become more passive media consumers again, allowing information to be given to us rather than seeking it out, more and more editorial power will come to those services that are the conduit, even if they don't exercise it.

I get nervous when a handful of private enterprises, now matter how benevolent they claim to be, or even are, have so much control over the content that we see.  Hopefully, I am worried about nothing, but even if it isn't a matter of some vast conspiracy or information monopoly, I just worry that fewer sources channeling information will inherently lead to a narrowing of worldview on the part of the people who depend on them. 

When everyone reads the exact same articles that circle the social sphere, the conversation gets boring fast.