The world of social media lives and dies on content. Everyone who uses the Internet, whether it's just Facebook or much more sophisticated social networks, is drawn to those networks because of the content they provide us.
No one logs on to the Internet in the hopes of reading the same joke they heard last week, or to read the same story about a corporate event from six months ago. Corporations aren't investing in their social media campaigns so they can post up last fall's catalogue and then never change it. It's all about new content, fresh content, and content that no one else has.
Mmmmm, Internet istockphoto.com |
So, for information whores like me, the Internet has been like a free, all-you-can-choke-down buffet. Some of the items on the buffet are premium fillet mignon. Most of what is on offer is more like overcooked breakfast sausage floating in grease. But it's all free, and you can take as much as you want.
Now, an economist might take a moment away from pretending to be relevant, and ask the simple question, "How exactly is anyone making money from creating all this great content and then giving it away"? The rest of us might then raise our heads from the trough just long enough to grunt, "I dunno", before plunging back into another helping of informational chicken nuggets.
Clearly the Internet model does work - people keep paying billions of dollars to acquire the latest hot social media company, but some content providers have noticed that the people making the billions, aren't usually the people producing the content. Facebook makes so much money that it's executives sleep on huge bags full of million dollar bills, but when was the last time you actually saw any content on Facebook that was produced by Facebook itself? They don't have to produce content - your idiot friends keep refilling the buffet table with their inane stories about Fluffy the cat and, more importantly, links to good content elsewhere.
So finally, some content providers are taking a stand. The New York Times is going to take all of it's online material and hide it behind a pay wall. Want to read all that great journalism? Be prepared to part with $20 a month (rumour has it). Similarly, The Daily has just launched - a pay for content magazine available only on the iPad and only with a subscription.
Will this work? I have some sympathy for these content providers. I read multiple stories from the New York Times every day, and I never click on ads or do anything else that would earn them a penny. I like hearing a first hand view from one of their reporters in Cairo, but I'm not helping to pay his salary.
Alas, I don't think this move to paid content has much of a chance of success. There are just too many content providers who remain content to post for free. I love the New York Times, but I don't love it $20 a month worth, when I can pull in the full feeds of fifty other newspapers just as good for absolutely nothing.
The Daily sounds interesting, but I'll never find out if it's any good because I already have so much free stuff cued up on my Google Reader that I could spend all day reading until my legs atrophied into stubs.
What is the solution? How do we ensure that people who create quality content are rewarded?