Comments on: De-Scribed on User-Generated Content http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/15 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:59:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: ben.l.roberts http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/15/comment-page-1#comment-14 ben.l.roberts Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:58:41 +0000 http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/15#comment-14 Perhaps partly what is at issue here is that I see two distinct sorts of claim being made about user-generated content: (i) the 'long tail' argument that suggests a weakening of brand control over the market place; (ii) the 'network public sphere' argument that suggests that wikis, blogs and so on represent a new form of public sphere which can set the agenda for political debate and counteract the effects of mass media. The two arguments, while superficially similar, are actually somewhat independent. I'm kind of agnostic about the economic argument; it seems reasonable to suggest that UGC is causing some kind of shift in market rules but I think I agree with you that there is no reason to suggest that this is leading to a weakening of brand culture. But even if new media market/economic condition continue to favour brands and large enterprise I don't think this necessarily affects the argument that UGC represents a change in the way that public culture operates. That's partly because I don't think the issue of ownership is as important to new or micromedia as it is to mass media. Specifically I don't think that owners have anything like as much ability to exert editorial control over content. Does it matter that all these blogs that are supposed to be constituting the network public sphere are being hosted by Google, News International and so on? Maybe not. Of course these companies can always take the ultimate sanction and remove content that they don't approve of but doing so is bad PR and I'm not sure censorship will 'scale' very well. Equally even if youtube is owned by MTV I'm not sure that it would affect the type of video artefacts that their users can generate (although maybe you know more about this?) So I don't see the economic argument as being as significant as the public sphere argument. I think that brand culture can continue to be a dominant force *and* something genuinely interesting can still be happening in relation to public culture/public sphere and new media. By the way, why is the case of UK tories 'infiltrating' social networking sites an example of corporatism? Perhaps partly what is at issue here is that I see two distinct sorts of claim being made about user-generated content: (i) the ‘long tail’ argument that suggests a weakening of brand control over the market place; (ii) the ‘network public sphere’ argument that suggests that wikis, blogs and so on represent a new form of public sphere which can set the agenda for political debate and counteract the effects of mass media. The two arguments, while superficially similar, are actually somewhat independent. I’m kind of agnostic about the economic argument; it seems reasonable to suggest that UGC is causing some kind of shift in market rules but I think I agree with you that there is no reason to suggest that this is leading to a weakening of brand culture.

But even if new media market/economic condition continue to favour brands and large enterprise I don’t think this necessarily affects the argument that UGC represents a change in the way that public culture operates. That’s partly because I don’t think the issue of ownership is as important to new or micromedia as it is to mass media. Specifically I don’t think that owners have anything like as much ability to exert editorial control over content. Does it matter that all these blogs that are supposed to be constituting the network public sphere are being hosted by Google, News International and so on? Maybe not. Of course these companies can always take the ultimate sanction and remove content that they don’t approve of but doing so is bad PR and I’m not sure censorship will ‘scale’ very well. Equally even if youtube is owned by MTV I’m not sure that it would affect the type of video artefacts that their users can generate (although maybe you know more about this?)

So I don’t see the economic argument as being as significant as the public sphere argument. I think that brand culture can continue to be a dominant force *and* something genuinely interesting can still be happening in relation to public culture/public sphere and new media.

By the way, why is the case of UK tories ‘infiltrating’ social networking sites an example of corporatism?

]]> By: Graham Lally http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/15/comment-page-1#comment-13 Graham Lally Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:10:36 +0000 http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/15#comment-13 Hi Ben, good to see you back in blogging action :) To take each paragraph in turn... I think the concept of 'originality' is probably a key, yet murky concept here. One of my points was that the distinction, between 'context' and 'content' is one that should be accepted thus - in order, possibly, to break out of the 'old content' vs 'new content' hype that seems to proliferate at the moment. That is, fan culture innovation is more prevalent than a culture of *independent* innovation. In trendy buzzwords, a large proportion of the 'long tail' is actually intrinsically linked to the other, mainstream end of the spectrum. To tie in with the second paragraph, then, this cultural 'dependency'/context is the lead-up to an increasing corporatisation of user-generated content. I'll probably blog these soon, but some examples I can think of 1) Nikon providing Flickr-style 'gallery' space for Nikon users, 2) the UK Tories looking to make inroads into social networking systems, 3) MTV possibly looking to buy YouTube and extend control over it. The end result, made not just possible but *probable* by a mass-produced culture, is less of a co-existence, and more of a co-opting of new 'media'. In reality, then, the only thing likely to change 'radically' is simply the 'product' delivery system. Not, as many people would like to think, the whole economic infrastructure or network of control over what we consume. Hi Ben, good to see you back in blogging action :)

To take each paragraph in turn… I think the concept of ‘originality’ is probably a key, yet murky concept here. One of my points was that the distinction, between ‘context’ and ‘content’ is one that should be accepted thus – in order, possibly, to break out of the ‘old content’ vs ‘new content’ hype that seems to proliferate at the moment. That is, fan culture innovation is more prevalent than a culture of *independent* innovation. In trendy buzzwords, a large proportion of the ‘long tail’ is actually intrinsically linked to the other, mainstream end of the spectrum.

To tie in with the second paragraph, then, this cultural ‘dependency’/context is the lead-up to an increasing corporatisation of user-generated content. I’ll probably blog these soon, but some examples I can think of 1) Nikon providing Flickr-style ‘gallery’ space for Nikon users, 2) the UK Tories looking to make inroads into social networking systems, 3) MTV possibly looking to buy YouTube and extend control over it. The end result, made not just possible but *probable* by a mass-produced culture, is less of a co-existence, and more of a co-opting of new ‘media’.

In reality, then, the only thing likely to change ‘radically’ is simply the ‘product’ delivery system. Not, as many people would like to think, the whole economic infrastructure or network of control over what we consume.

]]>