And please only refer to World Wide Web content…

What it comes down to though, is that content still matters. Blogs, movies, books, Hulu, it’s all content – and as there is only so much time in the day, people have to choose between all of that.

That’s why (some) content producers will outlive many superstars of today.

I elaborate on that on my recent blog post – would love some comments on that!

I wonder, Jeff, if the problem isn’t that many people don’t actually CARE about the “elegant organization of a community” in the fashion that newspapers provide it. As you point out, the ultimate rationale for the specific form of community organization provided by newspapers is a democratic rationale. In other words, a public rationale. What if people don’t care about that kind of organization … or at least don’t care in a way that is easily monatizable?

Flip that thought and consider if all those websites disappeared and Google search was all that was left? Here, have fun searching an empty void.

It’s just illogical to suggest that content is not more important.

True, the real winners (from a revenue standpoint) in this new market will probably be the aggregators: The Googles, iTunes, and Netflixs that dont make any content of their own.
But, just remember, aggregating and indexing nothing is a pretty lousy business model.

maybe the two of them can relate to the tune i linked to under my id above.

“Social” is the other ingredient in the new services’ growing popularity. I am referring to the value that accrues to content as it is actively discussed. Comments on a user’s wall post add to the value of that post. A twitter thread increases in value as views are exchanged.

I dispute Christopher’s point that content does just fine without organization. Look at the furor that resulted when Facebook users couldn’t find content they were used to seeing in the redesigned site. In that regard, newspapers have what it takes – a clearly defined structure to help readers find the information they want, as well as related content that might not come up in a straight search. Can newspapers hope to catch up?
I believe so, if they let go of outdated revenue models and find ways to package and sell participatory versions of select, “premium” content:

1) print editions will go away
2) online editions will need to adhere to a blog model with reporters actively interacting with commenters
3) Advertising will continue to pay the bills
a. Most newspapers will lose subscriber revenues
b. Exceptions will be archived material and op-ed (a la NYT)
c. Local/regional news and sports could also be subscription-based as micropayments evolve
d) Outlets with pronounced editorial stamps (I’m thinking Fox News as written content type thing) or content not duplicated elsewhere (WSJ) could also charge for access.

Must newspapers change? Absolutely? Are they roadkill? I don’t think so.

I would argue that MySpace and Geocities both failed because of the same reason: lousy management. The fact that they took this long to die is testament to how good the idea is, not how bad.

Isn’t Google greatest asset the content that others create? Without which there would be nothing to search in the first place.

Content is King if you’re able to expand your definition of content. We used to think content was just media. And that media was just text, pictures, movies, and sound. But now content is iphone apps, games, text messages, phone calls, blog replies, etc.
Those comments you make on your friends facebook wall? Content. The pictures you look at in their albums? Content.

Content can (and does) exist just fine without search or “elegant organization”. Especially the free stuff (conversations, relationships, communities).
The inverse however is not true.

So, is Content still not king?