The 3 Pillars of Content Curation

Curation is already becoming an overused word but it's an increasingly important one. Not least because the way in which we discover content that we like or find useful, and how it gets in front of us or gets our attention, is changing radically. With an explosion of choice and noise, and attention becoming the new scarcity, how we choose to curate what gets that attention (or, as below, how it is curated for us) is hugely important to anyone in the business of creating content. And let's face it, that's now everybody. So here's my take on the three pillars of content curation that will increasingly (and already actively) shape the future of content consumption and distribution:

1. Algorithmic curation:- We see stuff because a technological process interprets, anticipates, or predicts our needs. Obvious examples include Google personalising search results through what else it knows about us, or serving ads based on the context of the content that surrounds them, or Facebook Edgerank interpreting which content out of all that which is posted by our connections is important to us, and Amazon recommending products to us based on what it knows about our purchase history and that of thousands of others. New tools like Percolate offer a potentially great utility for brands to easily curate content "at social scale" by hooking up to and filtering relevant streams of content (check out the short film below of Noah Brier talking about it). New media apps like Zite (the "personalised iPad magazine that gets smarter as you use it") that use a form of scrobbling to accumulate data, learn your tastes, and power content recommendation.

2. Professional curation:- we see stuff because a skilled editor or commisioner uses their insight into a particular audience to determine what might interest us. It's the granddaddy of curation and there remains huge value in this.

3. Social curation:- we see stuff because we, our friends, or a wider audience think it's good/relevant. Social curation has been around for years of-course (tagging and voting on social bookmarking services, ranking by ratings, Twitter lists, Google+ circles). But the applications are becoming more sophisticated all the time. Like The Guardian Zeitgiest prototype that combines social analytics (how many people shared specific pieces of content across the site, or commented) with web analytics (referrals, how many people have looked at it/read it) to create "a visual record of what people are currently finding interesting on guardian.co.uk at the moment". This is when it becomes more exciting - when these mechanics are combined with other forms of curation including algorithms that can identify the most popular content shared by the people you follow (like Flipboard does). Right now, so called 'Frictionless sharing' seems  to be the antithesis to this, dramatically changing the emphasis between declarative and implicit sharing. 

My view is that the most engaging content, and the smartest content producers, will incorporate more than one of these (if not, all three) techniques in some form. What do you think?

Image courtesy 

Comments

[Simon]

Nice summation, though I'd suggest "user defined" warrants a separate categorisation.

[Tom E]

I definitely agree that the three pillars of curation you mention, will become less silo'd.

To a certain degree it's happening already with Facebook heavily promoting their Sponsored Stories as a means of serving up Advertising content based on what is relevant to you (Algorithmic) with what your friends like (Social).

It's no wonder that publishers are seeing professional curation as viable business model for a sector that has certainly been challenged by the internet. The likes of Brainpickings or Coolhuntings serve up serendipitous content which I believe still appeals to human nature's sense of curiosity. It will certainly be interesting if we start to see a premium model develop for professional curation as I do believe there would be a viable market for it.

[neilperkin]

@ Simon yes, that's a good point - I did ponder on that, but ended up with the thought that self-curation sits as a layer across all of it in that there's a passive and an active part of it in each (the active part being things such as what we choose to search for, or who we choose to connect to, or interact with, or what media we choose to consume).

[Sean Murphy]

I think you blend two very kinds of activities in your "social curation" category: explicit decisions or choices (e.g. ratings, comments, forwarding articles ) and inferences from behavior (e.g. web analytics for "most read"). I think this is related to declarative vs. implicit sharing. I wonder if you should split social curation into explicit and implicit categories or move web analytics and other techniques that rely on inference into algorithmic curation.

[Paul Guerrieria]

Great piece Neil - we can also learn a lot from Jeremy Beadle about content curation! http://bit.ly/rE1yF4

[Axelle Tessandier]

Good post. I believe actually the best curators are the ones using the best of what you call "algorithm curation" and their own personal view and angle on a specific topic. Curation can't be automatized, as the opposite of aggregation. Offering an editorial choice is key to become a trusted resource. The most engaging producer of content will be the one that use the "humanrithm curation" technique. When we created Scoop.it (I am the Marketing director for the disc.), we wanted to build a platform where algorithms will help the curators, but never replace them.. While you find a suggested content based on key words you enter when you create your topic for instance, the curator choose the final content he/she wants to include, to edit, or organize, and offer a unique point of view. That's what good curation is all about

[citizen bay]

Hey Neil, great summary, and I agree that ideally a mix is likely to be the most beneficial.

Your post also indirectly raises another, connected question: Who decides on the curation mix?

Whilst much debate is rightly focused on the decision-makers of the future (coding for kids, Failure of recruitment companies, seeking nu-brand folk, and more), many companies are struggling with the Now.

Clients I have worked with are struggling with knowing which tools to go for, which people to depend on. There are many false prophets out there. I have found myself helping clients more and more to make sense of the curation funnel.

So one to add to your list perhaps...and to steal from Alan Moore (graphic novel, not our mutual friend)...

Who curates the curators?

[Stuart]

I agree that great curation uses all three.
Example: Guy Kawasaki usin stumbleupon and Alltop to create his feeds (social), which I then follow through him (professional), but I put his feeds through Feedly/Google Reader and Flipboard Cover Stories (Algorithmic) to decide what to read.