From the musician who uses his MacBook to record and master his latest album and upload the music video to YouTube, to the runner who downloads and listens to some Beautiful Songs on her iPod Touch or the web-savvy mother who catches up with the RSS feed of the Huffington Post on her iPhone. Sometimes we consume, sometimes we create but most of the time (and most of us) do far more of first than the last.
Despite the inherently ‘democratic’ nature of content-creation and sharing in which the web allows us to participate, the majority of people using web-enabled devices consume far more content than they create. Even those who are prolific at sharing this content cannot avoid consuming what they disperse.
It makes sense for those well versed in social media to expect that their devices and software place them at the intersection of all three sets in the prettily coloured venn diagram above , and that these have the ability to create content alongside a facilitated ability to distribute (a form of communication). See here for a much better take on this than I could write.
I would think that most people (cf. Facebook users) sit in fairly firmly in the green set. A little creation, a fair amount of communication (which is sometimes distribution, but not most of the time) and lots of consumption.*
Creators need consumers of their content, just as consumers need creators of their content. I think that anything that simplifies things for either of those groups can’t help but help. Having new ways of handling data will always be of benefit to at least one side of the equation.
I’d bet that devices that handle extremely easy consumption are more than likely to be pretty popular with consumers (especially glossy, stylish whizzy ones). And if you’re a creator, while the canvas might remain familiar and the distribution continue to tend toward free at least these new galleries will be marked in their proliferation. Bums on seats, eyes down, fingers on iPads – audience matters.
*Granted, without creation, there is nothing to consume, and just as better tools for producing content are necessary, perhaps more importantly, innovative models of creative sustainability are desperately needed to help support both the artist and the engineer.
Another seemingly obvious idea examined by those clever chaps over at Wired magazine, with some nifty stuff from Clay Shirky for good measure.
I think that the crucial parts of this kind of ‘good enough’ thinking are ’shareability’ and ‘convenience’. These two elements in particular are what seem to allow the ‘good enough’ idea to be most easily approachable and quickly disseminated. And perhaps they are valuable ideas to keep in mind when taking content from creation to consumption.
I’m not arguing for that the quality of content should suffer to achieve these aims(far from it) but I do think that by keeping them in mind when approaching how to best produce* a creator’s content and developing an attitude which bears these qualities in mind as important (particularly when producing for the web) will serve both creator and consumer well.
“There comes a point at which improving upon the thing that was important in the past is a bad move,” Shirky said in a recent interview. “It’s actually feeding competitive advantage to outsiders by not recognizing the value of other qualities.”
Quality of creation should never suffer, but ‘quality’ of production (which I think can often correlate with the ‘amount’ of production) usually has some fatter margins to be shaved. For the consumer of a creator’s content, it shouldn’t seem like the content has been produced at all. Highly visible content and invisible production should surely be the aim.
So that’s a big part of what I think Has Legs would like to get right.
If you can’t tell we’ve been there then it’s all going to plan.
*to not only connect it with the right audience, but also to connect it with the right other creators and help the content to reach its own most natural conclusion, and to best bear it from the point which it is created to the point at which it is consumed.
A fabulous blog post from Miranda at My Wandering Days about the importance and the difficulties of dealing with the outside influences to your own creative output and maintaining your own sense of a project. Some choice snippets (both from the blog and from the insightful comments):
I used to think that writing was more like running a (political) campaign. You don’t keep your project secret; you keep it the opposite of secret. You talk about it until your throat goes dry; you solicit input and approach every interaction with an admirable but alarming earnestness. I used to think that…
You would think, wouldn’t you. You would even, if you were being charitable to the human race, hope. You would hope that the creative process be a collaborative, not a secretive, one. You would hope that every insight might bring us closer to a finished and powerful product….
…my readers are not constituents. And if I treat them as such, I immediately lose that rare and balanced relationship between a creative and his consumers. My readers are human beings, each one completely independent from me. They do not need me, thankfully, to fix their broken healthcare system, or invade another country for them, or soothe their financial burns. They do not rely on me for anything which is fundamentally crucial; I’m not the protector of their liberty or the harbinger of their glory. I’m the person who entertains them, and, if I’m lucky, makes them think.
I agree with Ben… Listen to others, respond to them, think about them in what you do. But ultimately give ‘em what you want to give ‘em, and hope they like it.
It’s crucial to have dominion over your own work, and the authority that comes with such an ownership brings with it duties. This sovereignty comes not only the responsibility to make changes as you see fit to make them, but also the necessary understanding to balance the directions you choose to take from others with the direction you want to take things in yourself. Miranda’s post makes an important and relevant point. Go read it.
A talk given at TED Global in Oxford, 2009. Daniel Pink examines what really makes us do what we do, and despite his slightly shouty presentation, demonstrates that a passion for things that matter to you, believing that there is a purpose to what you do and the journey involved in mastering the skills that you use to create are far better motivators than the money behind it all. It’s a bit obvious in parts, but its nice that the science is there to back these things up. The ROWE (Results Only Work Environment) seems of particular relevance to creators and producers of content, and reflects that way in which creators tend to naturally work.
A fair and equitable recompense for what you do (or for what you produce or create) is important, but a narrow focus on the finances is merely distracting.
I’d like Has Legs to always be mindful of these kinds of powerful motivators and recognise that as well as making happier creators, they often produce better content. This is how good things get made.
