Today’s Observer (in print form) alerted me to an excellent essay on the future of media – Post-Medium Publishing, by Paul Graham.

The jist of his theory: Rupert Murdoch’s belated attempts to charge for online ‘content’ is doomed to failure, because the publishing model only works when you’re producing physical formats – when you’re buying the Observer, you’re buying a sheaf of paper. It’s been marked up to £2 because it contains some interesting words, but the words themselves don’t have a monetary value. Ditto music: it’s the physical disc that gives the music value. People value the physical.

There are notable exceptions, particularly if those words lead to generating more money – which explains why the Financial Times can get away with charging online, while the Sun really can’t. But hell, maybe Murdoch’s a visionary. Or maybe he’s just playing hardball with Google, and is hoping to walk away with an income from the search giant rather than internet users.

I don’t agree with all Mr Graham’s points – I find his argument that iTunes is a stealth tax rather than a successful publishing business is a little hard to swallow – but it’s hard to argue with his conclusion:

“I don’t know exactly what the future will look like, but I’m not too worried about it… When you see something that’s taking advantage of new technology to give people something they want that they couldn’t have before, you’re probably looking at a winner. And when you see something that’s merely reacting to new technology in an attempt to preserve some existing source of revenue, you’re probably looking at a loser.”

I really liked two other parts of Post-Media Publishing: its title, and Paul Graham’s disdain for the word ‘content’:

“I don’t like the word “content” and tried for a while to avoid using it, but I have to admit there’s no other word that means the right thing. “Information” is too general. Ironically, the main reason I don’t like “content” is the thesis of this essay. The word suggests an undifferentiated slurry, but economically that’s how both publishers and audiences treat it. Content is information you don’t need.”

Which exactly why the tagline for my post-media creative agency Flying Leaf is ‘Creating stuff you’ll love. Just don’t call it content.”

Like Paul Graham, I’m not worried about the future. The slow death of old media creates hugely exciting opportunities for those of us interested in the way that brands communicate with people. But I’m worried about this word ‘content’. It’s time for us arty farty creative types to come up with a word that’s more engaging to describe our craft.

See my previous posts:

To free or not to free

Pirates don’t kill music: lawyers do

How much is money?

Browse Timeline

• « Facebook costs business £1.4bn? Absolute rubbish
• » Video: talking convergence on BBC2′s Working Lunch

Comments ( 1 Comment )

Add a Comment