The Future Of Content Curation

Image courtesy

So the good people at Mediatel asked me to write another piece for them (thankfully they weren't put off by the list post that I wrote for them last time), and so I decided to pen something on curation. Partly because there's been a number interesting pieces I've read about the subject recently, and partly because I think it is yet another area where traditional practices are being disrupted but we certainly don't yet have all answers. Anyway, they've kindly let me reproduce it here, so here it is:

One of the most remarkable quotes of the last couple of weeks came from Christopher Bailey, CCO of Burberry, who said: "We are now as much a media-content company as we are a design company, because it's all part of the overall experience."  Seems like everyone's in the content game now.

I saw the quote on twitter first, of course, like much that is new and of consequence among the advertising and media community that I'm a part of - a community that, through the links that are shared and amplified, provides it's own form of content curation (social curation if you like) which, when combined with RSS acts as a kind of mash-up between personal and community based selection that is consistently the highest quality content stream I have access to.

With an explosion in the amount of content vying for our attention, quality content curation of all kinds has a high value. It's a function long owned by magazine and newspaper publishers through the role of the Editor, but now for some at least, one performed by the networks that we're a part of, or by technology through social bookmarking services like Delicious, or Apps like Instapaper, or social content aggregators like Paper.li that collect together the most popular links shared by the people you follow on Twitter or around a particular hashtag.

The real value in social curation is relevance. It's no accident that the last ten albums I've bought are ones that have been shared on playlists by like-minded friends through the new socially enabled Spotify (and interestingly I seem to have spent more than I would normally).

Earlier this month, The Guardian decided it wanted to reflect some of the debate and discussion going on in the science community. There's good reason to - according to the Pew Research Centre science accounts for 10% of all stories on blogs but only 1% of the stories in mainstream media. They could, of course, have just asked a journalist to cover it. Instead, they launched The Guardian science blogs network, hosting content from four of the most popular and authoritative science blogs, and a science blog festival (a "celebration of the best writing on the web").

It is at one and the same time a harnessing and a distribution of scientific expertise. And it makes for a rewarding relationship: The Guardian gets expert content and in the process engages a vibrant community of science bloggers; the scientists get a broader and more diverse potential audience for their writing. Rather than competing, they are collaborating to secure a relevant and valuable audience for both. Even the ad revenue secured against the content is split 50/50.

Alok Jha, science and environment correspondent at The Guardian (quoted on the Nieman Journalism Blog), described it as "a completely new model for us", not least because the blogs will be completely unedited and the bloggers will have direct remote access to the Guardian's web publishing tools. "The goal", says Jha, "is less top-down authority, not more".

Blog networks are not new of course, but changes in the media ecosystem like this are a subtle, but important shift, and it represents the latest in a series of initiatives from The Guardian that involve external developers and readers in the content process. Initiatives that are enabled by a collaborative, open-minded approach and a willingness to experiment with new models, and more tangibly powered by their Open Platform.

What The Guardian have clearly realised is that, though important and now expected, the real opportunity for content owners is not just facilitating user-generated content or enabling ease of content sharing, but opening up the whole process of producing, hosting, and curating great content. It's what Alan Rusbridger calls 'mutualisation'. And it is about combining the best of the old with relentless experimentation with the new.

Involving audiences in the editorial process does not mean the end of traditional journalistic skills, it should mean the embracing of new ones. Social curation does not mean the end of editorial curation, it means the opportunity to combine both to make a better product.

Alongside quality, the holy grail of content (and arguably at least one way in which people will pay for it) is context and convenience. Clay Shirky once described media as "less and less often about crafting a single message to be consumed by individuals, and more and more often a way of creating an environment for convening and supporting groups".

To paraphrase JP Rangaswami, the production, consumption and distribution of information have already been democratised, and it is inevitable that curation will be too.  If we know anything about the future, it is surely that it will likely feature a mash-up of technology, social and professionally driven content curation that to those who are skilled in the art, might just represent the greatest opportunity publishers have to reach that holy grail.

Original column here.

Comments

[David Sanger]

Interesting, Neil.

As a photographer I'd be interested in your thoughts as to how still and motion photography (photojournalism or stock) would feed into this curation scenario.

[Paul Squires]

Neil - good piece. I was thinking about the Guardian's ecosystem last night, and how they have successfully understood that it's more than just content in itself. Thanks for being so eloquent, as always, with your thoughts.

[David J Carr]

I think the role of "Curator" is entwined with the role of "Filter".

It is in this context that I’ve been exploring the idea that agencies need to help brands to function as both "Enabler" (of services, content, utility, entertainment) and "Filter" (of noise, relevance, need) for people.

I think this is the role and challenge for brands now that attention has become the new battleground. The quote that best describes this is Danah Boyd’s which perhaps builds on JP Rangaswami's insight you paraphrased:

“As a technologist, we all like ‘techno-utopia’, this is the great democratiser. Sure, we’ve made creation and distribution more available to anyone, but at the same time we’ve made those things irrelevant. Now the commodity isn’t distribution, it’s attention – and guess what? Who gets attention is still sitting on a power law curve…we’re not actually democratising the whole system – we’re just shifting the way in which we discriminate.”

Perhaps in this light the role for brands in the future is to act as an Enabler AND Filter. At the moment a lot of brands are trying to act as Enablers but very few are acting as Filters – and I think that it is brands that can fulfill this role which will have a great advantage in the future.

But this role of Filter must go beyond producing a slick Flipboard style interface to RSS and social feeds or aggregating a community of blogs. It has to add unique insight and value as well as utility.

Hopefully the Guardian example will do this and offer a reason for people to devote their attention to their co-created plethora of content and sources.

[Rich Pomerantz]

"Involving audiences in the editorial process does not mean the end of traditional journalistic skills, it should mean the embracing of new ones." Yeah, you're right. Fact checking and having reliable sources of information were just a nuisance in traditional journalism anyway. Not to mention having actual quality. If crowdsourcing isn't in actual practice just another name for mob rule, I'll eat my hat.

[Tom E]

Great Post Neil,

I'm still undecided about what the long term strategy is for the Guardian. On the one hand they have created a great platform that engages with it's users. Yet on the other hand their seems to be increasing evidence that they seem intent to pursue the paywall model of The Times.

I received a questionnaire from the Guardian group which I posted here http://invisibleinkdigital.com/online-media/sign-times-free-online-news-part-3/

The tone seemed to be one of paying a monthly subscription for it's future app offerings which whilst not as severe as the complete lock down approach offered by The Times does seem at odds with the curator role it has pursued.

[Tile]

But i suspect the guardian are only doing what many online communities have already done. Use the user community to build an interesting resource and then just at the point it becomes really useful, close the door and start charging. Problem with that is once you close the doors behind a paywall its a perfect opportunity for someone smaller to come in and replace what you have taken away. Will be interesting to see how it develops

[neilperkin]

Thanks for the comments all.

@rich I disagree. I think (done in the right way) involvement of audiences in the journalistic process can make for a better, not worse, end product. As an example I'd cite The Guardian's involvment of their readership in going through 200,000 documents relating to MPs expenses. Guardian journalists couldn't have possibly done all that, but 25,000 people were passionate enough about it to help them get to the truth.
@Tom that's an interesting point, although I'm left thinking the two things are perhaps not entirely mutually exclusive - dependent of-course on where the paywall is placed and around what. Interesting to see how that plays out though

[ghd]

The comment is a hard job.I only want to say that i support you

[christian]

thanks for the sharing,all the way ,we always agree with you !

[ShopEDHardyOnline]

Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it. Youre a great blogger. Please keep it up. I cant wait to read whats next.