Many of these old media guys think it is about them and their brand. It isn’t … it is about us … the viewers and the readers. The reason content is shrinking in importance is not because the content doesn’t matter anymore. It is because the context is rising in importance. People want to do stuff with the media they consume … they want to comment (like I’m doing here), share it with friends, mash it up with other stuff, use it as a platform for their own purpose (again … like I’m doing here). In doing so, they are no longer consumers … though I haven’t come up with a good name for this new beast (viewtributors? constributors? mesumers .. Jeff … any ideas …. I’m no good at this?). It is about ME not the media company. I kicked off a company last year centered to help forward thinking media companies become relevant by giving people the reigns … it is called FaveQuest.

Check out my recent blog post based on the OnMedia conference entitled “Hello, my name is Old Media and I’m an Adaholic” http://isfanstartup.blogspot.com

What relationship did Cecil B. DeMille, or Peter Jackson as a more modern example, actually have with their individual viewers? Would they have even attempted their projects if the value of their content was zero? Are we doomed to a future of poorly-lit and composed amateurish video, and noisy, overly reverberant, poorly-edited, or worse, phone-quality audio, put up for free by amateurs?

“…the primary brand which is me.”

That is the truth of the matter.

I have thought for some time that there must be a way to do for the buying process what the web has done for the get-information process. The latter process is assuredly all about “me” (even with an endless multitude of linked bloggers each one is still serving up their posts to the handfuls of “me’s” who come by.)

I’m not suggesting that users can create and share ads. Or am I? Would a brand marketer encourage people to build their own “ads” out of pieces of the brand? Then put them up into a MyAds app, accompanied by a “People who Played with this Harley Ad Also Played with These Ads…” app?

(FB appmakers, please dial ELdorado 6-2000)

Am I over simplifying here?

Amen to that. If advertisers don’t take risks with edgy content, they’re bound for obscurity.

Besides, CMOs get fired every two years even when they do play it safe.

I run/edit/write one of the biggest British literary blogs (ReadySteadyBook.com) and publishers are very keen to get their books featured and seen on my site. But many don’t take the time to see what my site — and the community that has cohered around it — is about. I get approached to feature sci-fi, chick-lit, fantasy, crime etc. books — but I NEVER feature such books (they aren’t bad books necessarily, it is just that ReadySteadyBook is a site for fans of Literature with a big “L”).

The “Reach - Unique Visitors - Time Spent - Page Views” doesn’t work for them for me because my community is comparatively small (5-10,000 unique visits a day). But it is hugely informed and passionate about its subject. This is “fragmentation” at work. And it is difficult for advertisers thinking in an old mode to know how to approach it.

I disagree. The value of any Web site is the quality of its content.
First, I’d argue that any connection/relationship a site provides is content.
But even social networking sites that trade in connecting users really build on the content those users create. Take Facebook as an example: People go to the site because others have added content to browse. People would stop going if their friends stopped posting pictures, journal entries and the like. Even groups are only useful if they add content. It’s useless for me to join a group for a humanitarian cause if someone in the group doesn’t add content to the page, such as how to actually be involved in the cause.
I don’t think your car analogy works; I think Web sites are more like coffee shops. People go to coffee shops for the coffee (the content). Perhaps one keeps going back to a particular shop because relationships are formed—you think the barista is cute, you enjoy talking to the guy who’s always there to use the WiFi (though attractive employees or interesting customers are as much content as connections). But if the shop starts serving terrible coffee, everyone will quit going. Maybe you stop in sometimes to chat with the people, but when you really crave a good cup of java you head to the place across the street.
Web sites are the same. If they don’t have quality content, they are worthless. The problem for most journalism Web sites is they haven’t proven the value of their content. Sometimes that’s because our content isn’t of value, and sometimes our ad sales people must be idiots. The answer: Create better content, and give sales people the proper incentives to sell the good content for appropriate prices.
My fear from your statement quoted above is that we (journalists, the media) will be led down the wrong path. I think too many media companies are too busy trying to out do Facebook and myspace and youTube. Let them do what they do best, and let’s stick to reporting what goes on in the world and delivering the report. That billions of people get news from a print or digital product every day proves our work has value.
We’ll never beat them at their game; it’s our fault if we let someone beat us at ours.

So what is the value of content in the off-line world then? I would argue that much of its value, whether it’s TV, movies, books, or the theatre (going back thousands of years to ancient Greece and Rome) can be attributed to the direct or indirect role it plays as a form of social currency.

Also with respect to advertising, the content with which an ad appears has a significant effect on most measures of ad effectiveness. Moreover, the emotional state of the person exposed to the ad–induced in many cases by the content–has a similarly powerful effect on perception of the product or brand. There’s just no getting around it - it’s possible that advertisers may never embrace user-generated content. There are just too many variables.

You’re completely right IMO about mass vs. small though. The web is by definition not a mass medium and it never will be. In fact I’ve seen some academic studies that suggest that fragmentation (of potentially everything from audience sizes to search keywords) in the online world may be increasing at a parabolic rate.

However, I doubt there’s much ROI for advertisers in social networking or similar relationship-based models that might emerge. There has to be some way to prove that you’ve generated revenue like there is with paid search and traditional media. Having seen misguided companies spend $80,000+ to build an island in Second Life that is visited by 2,000 people with not surprisingly zero impact on sales, it’s not really clear to me where this is going to go.

David

or getting close to the reception… I’m inclined to agree with Jeff Jarvis’s take on all of this:
They think it’s content. “The perceived economic value of content is approaching zero,” said Drew Lipsher of Greycroft. The reason …