I Hate the Word "Content"

Calling the output of writers, musicians, moviemakers and even the artisans of branding's dark arts "content" is like referencing the substance of every meal "food," or labeling the specific events of human experience "life."

It has slipped into common usage due to the prevalence of technology and, since qualitative attributes don't necessarily register on site architectures or CRM flowcharts, it replaces substantive description with referential convenience. Content is a box that needs to be filled, and it doesn’t matter that the entire contents of the Library of Congress could thus be called "data." The POV negates any recognition beyond format. We talk of content instead of ideas or meaning because we choose to base those conversations on process in lieu of purpose.

Or at least that's my conclusion when I read about the "content farms" that have emerged over the past few years (like this one). The premise is simple in a VC-funding sort of way: behavioral modeling can allow web sites to gauge topics in which site visitors are interested, which will then prompt content services to reach out to freelancers to produce stuff on said topics. Sites will then tee-up these prequalified articles and videos (or whatever) along with the targeted ads that are based on similar audience research. So visitors are happy because the site gives them what they want, just as sponsors are thrilled to know why the visitors are there in the first place. It's a perfect win-win exchange.

Or is it a blueprint for a perpetual motion machine? 

It's not reasonable to expect consumers to know what they want to know before they know it; conversation isn't a self-referential do-loop but rather an amorphous, porous system that requires newness. People need to acquire novel insights somewhere and somehow but it won't be through a mechanism that presumes to guess what they’re already seeking. In this sense the content farm approach is no different than Google's "last click" approach to selling: since the qualitative steps of experience are so hard to control and monetize they're literally outsourced to other providers.

In other words, let some stupid mainstream publisher go broke promoting something more unexpected or unique. Content is effectively generic and the only reason its has any value is because someone else paid for the privilege of educating or inspiring consumers to ask for it.

It gets worse. Many of the for-profit creators of art and/or information are on commercial deathwatches because they're competing with entities who are happy to give things away for free (they make money via other aspects of their business models) and individuals who are just plain disinterested in making any money whatsoever.

So while technology frees the unlimited creation and distribution of digital bits -- I'm a fan and beneficiary of it -- the result is that the Internet is flooded not with insight or awareness or knowledge, but rather...yup, you guessed it...content. Agnostic, without distinctions of authority or reliability and thus equally tolerated, online content is supposed to be vetted by the invisible, magical hand of The Crowd. Only it doesn't work all that well, despite the advocates who claim otherwise, because most subjects or issues can't be reduced to a simple thumbs up or down conclusion. 

The Crowd rates content on its content-ness but it doesn't regularly originate net-new substance. Think less library card file and more agitated audience at a daily bear bating or gladiator duel. The parties or individuals who do otherwise are more the exception to this rule and I'd wager that few if any consider themselves in the content business.

And then we get to brands, most of which have wholly embraced the content idea. 

When the substance of marketing communications is seen as content, we see the true realization of form without function as brands spend money to effectively waste consumers' time. Conversation has an absolutely value, as does entertainment, humor, and any behavior that prompts people to prompt any such behaviors in others. Content is a box that appears on PowerPoint presentations between charts on users and metrics; it's more what than why and most of the latest marketing campaigns value its frequent dissemination over what it qualitatively communicates.

I'd wager that we could track the decline in corporate reputation and price premiums with the use of the world "content" as a descriptive for what gets created by brands. So brands create content, the net regurgitates and propagates it, and then content farms respond to it by producing more of the same. This just seems like such an incidental or partial perspective on how people learn and interact. 

Since my interest is with marketers primarily, I wonder what would happen if we simply stopped using the word entirely and instead referenced the substance of our efforts by our qualitative (what we are hoping to communicate) and quantitative (what we want people to do with it) purposes? Would we create better ads and more tangibly useful social campaigns? Aren't we less "content creators" and more "sales enablers?"

Calling the guts of what we create “content,” whether as marketers or artists, imprisons our hopes and limits our efficacy. I hate the word.

Comments

[ann annberkeley]

Surely Cynthia is playing with words. She means that she is content in that she's reasonably happy, or am I being simple?

The problem with the web is that so much of what's on it is regurgitated stuff from elsewhere or frenzied yammerings from angry or egotistical people. What's the line between that sort of "content" and real creative work?

[Jonathan]

Wessel, I have two thoughts in response to your question of "what would you [I] propose we use?

First, I'd suggest we use more detailed and experientally-relevant descriptors, like "ad copy" or "funny video."

Second, I'm not sure anybody who has to describe the role of 'content' is really qualified to analyze its substance. It's like asking the folks who wired homes for telephones to be responsible for the conversations thereupon.

[Jonathan]

Cynthia, I'd go a step further and say that you're MEANING. Content is a descriptor like calling a work of art "paint on canvas." No?

[Jonathan]

Stephen, your "capitalism is not democracy" comment is absolutely profound and I couldn't agree more! There was a Tom Tomorrow cartoon from a few years ago with the punchline "the future will not be terribly fun but it will be efficient." God help us.

[Jonathan]

Brad, my personal opinion is that your title should be "Chief Meaning Officer," but that's just me. :)

You raise great points and I'm not sure that I have equally great responses for you.

Are people disappointed with the output of content farms? I suspect not, generally, as the expectation for online content is pretty low and, as you pointed out, some 'content' on a local sushi restaurant that proves correct is nothing to sneeze at. But an accurate Yellow Pages+ does not substance (or meaning) make, and if the deliverable of online experience is simply referral then we have defined the Internet out of most of its promise.

I would love to find out if the content generators are losing brand or reputation. Shall we hatch a mini-project together?

Your comment about people not caring about brands is spot on...though I happen to utterly adore my toothpaste and maintain a close, personal, engaging relationship with it. Not.

[Brad Berens]

Hi Jonathan,

Nice post. I have a similarly vexed relationship with the word "content," even though my title at dmg world media (producer of ad:tech, iMedia and the CMO Executive Summits) is the absurd-sounding "Chief Content Officer."

Like your windmill-tilting at "Content" I've been arguing that we should stop using the word "consumer" for years (see http://bit.ly/bvx15c and also http://bit.ly/dkXCDu for representative examples). Both terms reduce complexity to commodity and ignore all considerations of quality. A consumer only consumes-- it's a one way relationship. "Content" is a bucket to be filled rather than the point of the exercise: say, "news" in journalism circles or a conference program in my wheelhouse.

However, while I'm inclined to agree with your POV, I also wonder whether you have any facts to support our shared opinion? Are audiences less satisfied with the creations of content farms (if I want a good sushi restaurant in my area and Demand Media provides one that results in a great meal, where's the harm?

You wrote: "I'd wager that we could track the decline in corporate reputation and price premiums with the use of the world 'content' as a descriptive for what gets created by brands." How much would you bet? Would you bet enough of your time to see if there is any data supporting this notion?

BTW, I don't think that the biggest mistake digital marketers make is forgetting that sales is their chief focus-- I think it's forgetting that most customers don't care about brands and make arbitrary decisions in the supermarket, shoe store, etc. Brands inform those arbitrary decisions, but that doesn't result in passion between customer and toothpaste.

Very sincerely,

Brad Berens

[Stephen Conway]

I agree, "content" is a word that also dehumanizes and devalues human endeavors. It emasculates, minimizes, controls, neuters, homogenizes, bleaches, and pasteurizes. It's an umbrella that chokes everything in its shadow. The proliferation of technology has democratized the marketplace, for better or worse, and has turned the spigot of message control and distribution around and into the eyes of marketing and branding people. This makes it hard to see that capitalism is not democracy.

[Cynthia Holladay]

I am content.

[Wessel van Rensburg]

So what word would you propose we use?

[Pete Salsich]

Jonathan, et al -- I'm not a marketer and have none of your experience or expertise in this area, but I am drawn to your lament about the genericization of "content" from a different perspective -- intellectual property rights.

As an IP lawyer, I often refer to my clients as "Content Creators and Users", and I think I know what I mean by that term, but your discussion has prompted me to revisit it, and to make sure that I don't fall into the trap of being too facile with my terminology.

While it's true that short descriptive terms often aid us in understanding broader concepts--for example, it can be helpful to differentiate "content" (the product of creativity in some form) from "data" (a collection of factual information)--simply referring to all things creative as "content" can be very dangerous from an intellectual property rights perspective.

No matter how you look at it, not all "content" is the same. It is critically important to understand the qualitative differences in what content is being created, how it can be used, and how it can be protected. "Content" on a website, for example, may be made up of code, text and images protected by Copyright, logos or brand identities protected by Trademark, personal identities protected by Rights of Publicity or Rights of Privacy, or any combination of these. Various and interconnected components of the same "content," therefore, might have different owners, different usage rights and different legal risks. The same is true for almost any type of "content" in almost any medium. Independent of the qualitative marketing issues you identify, one simply cannot make good business decisions about the creation and use of "content" without appreciating the different creators and rights involved.

Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I'm not sure I hate the word "content" as much as you do, but I'm certainly going to be more aware of its limitations.