I understand that Steve Outing’s company had the problem of creating a steady stream of quality UGC to drive ad revenue models.

Having sense to become a CPA- but giving their photos/art away? Too bad they didnt have *enough* sense. Friggin non artists – like REX – just dont get it.

Rex wrote:
..There are some incredibly talented photographers who post their work on Flickr. They’ve never been paid for their work, but the stuff they shoot is breath-taking. There’s no way their photography is “authentic” in the way you imply “user-generated” content should be. So what do you call these people? They’re not pros. They’re not consumers. They are hobbiests who have an amazing talent and are very creative, but who had the sense to major in accounting and become a CPA.

The term ‘user’ stems from the computer industry, either hardware or software. Anyone who operates a computer is a user. Hence, anyone who expresses an idea or shares information by uploading or posting to a site is what y’all refer to as ‘generating content.’ I agree with the earlier post that the implied meaning is content created by users who are not employees or contractors of the site, but you never know.

“User Generated Content” is a term and concept intentionally fabricated by lazy, but smart & entrepreneurial, web programming geeks who decided that they are not going to waste their valuable time doing stupid grunt stuff like producing content for free. They’re not going to ho’ themselves by selling out their valuable knowledge for a couple of bangs on their links.

Rather, they create systems that let others do the hard work for them…while they cash in on their labor. Sure, they’ll pay you token chump change for your work if you land some clicks. But we all know who’s really making the money.

UGC is essentially just another way of saying let’s make money off someone else’s dime (or in this case, time and ideas.)

It’s another “Revenge of the Nerds” movement where geeks fight back by exploiting all the unsuspecting “popular kids” of their knowledge, time, and social
contacts.

Yes…darkly hidden behind this fascade of “pro-people, democratized internet, technical innovation, community and collaboration”, etc…is just a front for geeks to make more money for themselves…by fostering internet addictions based on the basic human needs of communication and belonging.

Content serve as eyeball flytraps in which sites can ‘adhere’ advertisements (adhere as in “Your Ad Here”). Don’t make a difference who makes it…so long as someone consumes it. Intellectual content is consumed by intellectual people. Stupid content is consumed by stupid people. Content laissez-faire.

Hey, if you don’t know the value of your time, there are plenty of web 2.0 sites that do.

What I found in my research is that people — when given the tools, will use these content-creation functions to create a virtual sense of community. They matter in the world because they were clicked. And that is a sadder commentary on our society than this author’s contention that media are hoping to prey on this isolationist phenomenon.

I believe MyTopiaCafe.com, a citizen journalism/user-generated content site launched by the Daytona Beach News-Journal can be different…not because the next Pulitzer prize winner will be found among the stories on the site…but because the site may help build the social capital that is slowly eroding our communities. I think the technologies can help facilitate real-world changes…not a new ad campaign for iPhone, but meaningful social changes as those with like interests find one another and create action.

As users on MyTopiaCafe move from viewing to posting to commenting to communicating face to face (and they will), I hope to capture these transitions and demonstrate that these user-generated content models are not just fodder for news stories but a useful view of community life and a vital part of how communities function.

So, with a fairly literate (ability to write) population a typical newspaper (100,000 circulation) may receive 500 letters to the editor a week.

Once you whittle the population down to those with the ability to produce audio/video content the field is very small. A small percentage of this group will have the desire to develop material for the web etc.

On the other hand the number of people with the technical ability to develop content is growing as a percentge of the total population. At some distant point in the future the software used to develop the content will be easier to use and publishing will be as easy as writing a letter.

Scott, nice posting. I’d also like to express my appreciation for all the responses. In fact, I’d like to focus on them. Scott’s a professional, and the responses here probably come from the full range of amateurs, semi-pros, and full pros. The responses, including this one, are valuable UGC.

Something I didn’t see above is the attraction to UGC by media outlets. The big attraction, I assure you, is not the fact that UGC is so good or done by pros, but that it’s free, possibly explosive, and can be “automagically” repurposed and sold to customers. Some large media companies are now implementing strategies to get customers to show up (be a community) and participate (add salable content to our databases). Is it all premium content? of course not, but if it can go viral . . . there’s a huge payoff for little expense and effort compared to traditional publishing models precisely because some of it will be premium content: content that media companies usually have to spend pots of money to find, buy or license, produce, and sell. The idea that some of it might just come in over the transom is thrilling to watchers of the bottom line.

Remember the recent post here on the value of data?

Ben

It’s very similar to reality TV and reactions to it. When you see a lot of “average” people on a medium that, once upon a time, had talented actors and actresses aspiring to and working at their craft for many years and who had, more often than not, some form of talent, suddenly filled with mediocre “pretty” people who don’t have to act ’cause TV is “real” now, it’s no surprise that along with the line between fiction and non-fiction, the line between talent and the untalented are obliterated.

I think people (offline and online) think that truly anything is possible, to the point that they create their own truths beyond even the simplest rational. Good content can’t be born of nothing, or of no talent. Sure, anything is possible, if you are talented or at least you work for it.

Plus, if we think about it, how can all the good content (and there is millions of it) be created by millions of people. It reminds me of parents who tell their children that everyone is special. That’s crappola! Everyone is not special and there isn’t a thing wrong with that. If everyone is special, no one is special. Everyone is different. But then, that should go without saying. Or perhaps, everyone is special to certain people (*shrug*).

Anyway, as for media reaction, it’s what they do. Fan the flames of a fire whether it’s dying or just getting started. Like fire itself, the media doesn’t care how it spreads, just that it spreads. Which honestly, I understand. It’s their job, however ugly at times. It’s our jobs as media consumers to determine what’s true and useful to us. It’s our jobs as professionals and even semi-professionals and even talented amateurs to keep on making the web itself a special place filled with good content that can be shared and viewed by anyone.

I just recently found this blog but I am curious how many are familiar with Scott’s resume?

http://publishing2.com/author/scott-karp/

Could anyone call this site “user generated” or “semi’professional”?

Of course not. You just can’t lump all new media into one convenient category.

Often I have heard out of media execs mouths that “these dancing dogs, laughing babies and drunken Hasselhoff’s on YouTube are just a hype and people will get fed up with it and return to traditional media”. What these execs are missing is the point that Scott makes here: it is NOT user generated; there is wonderful content out there because it is made by semi-professionals. That makes so-called UGC so attractive and no, it is not a hype that will be over next year.

StudioNow.com
StudioNow

Journalists like to dismiss citizen media, new media, conversational media whatever you want to call it by labeling it “user generated content”. This makes them feel safe and assures them that we are all just playing at this media thing and they are the true professionals.

This also provides a simple explanation for clueless corporate types who have no idea how complicated this revolution really is.

The myth isn’t that there is no such thing as user generated content. There is, but it is just a small part of the overall new media revolution.

Being a musician (a hobbyist who had dreams of being a professional) this analogy seems very appropriate to me. People have been playing music for time immemorial, some as a hobby, some who aspire to be professionals, some who achieve a small level of professional success playing weddings, small clubs, etc, a group of real professionals who make a good living playing music and finally an elite group who play stadiums and have fame and fortune etc.

Someone mentioned barrier of entry, musicians have been able to do this at varying levels of seriousness and success do to the low cost of musical instruments and the wide range of opportunities.

The tools of new media, blogging, podcasting, YouTube, Revver, internet radio and TV have reduced the barrier of entry for “wanna be” journalists, radio hosts, actors, directors, etc.

Anyone can start creating content without going to J-school, film school, or slogging it out at the small town paper.

Lots of these people are every bit as talented as your nightly news anchor, afternoon drive talk show host, or weekly op-ed page writer. And now they can share that content with the world.

I have rambled long enough on this very complicated topic so I will close by saying that new media can not be pigeon holed into a simple explanation, or one classification. Sure there is such a thing as user generated content, but any serious new media “prosumer” would be offended at the label.

Blog on!
Rick Calvert
CEO & Co-founder
BlogWorld & New Media Expo

I do agree that major contributors are good coders. But, there are thousands of small time coders, who may not be as good as Linus or other top coders, who have contributed to these products. It also includes the equivalents of people from streets, kiddie hackers. Well, in the case of open source software, the barrier to entry is set as someone who can code. But, content is no software. Content can be anything from a guy walking on the street capturing the moment in which plane slammed into one of the towers to a fan in Britney’s concert catching some slip off. There is absolutely no barrier to entry, unlike in the case of open source software. If people from streets equivalents, kiddie hackers, can contribute to open source software, the real people from streets can definitely contribute to what is called as “user generated content”. Your argument just doesn’t make any sense.

Also, I suggest you dig a bit deep about open source software. You can ask anyone who has participated in the open source software and he/she will definitely agree with my characterization of open source software as user generated software. Don’t try to call anything nonsense without even trying to understand the process. I hope you made a better argument to justify your statement.

The people who made significant contributions to Linux, Apache, and Wordpress have one very important trait in common — they are good (or great) coders. Can anyone be a good coder? No. There’s nothing “ordinary” about it. Could you take 100 people off the street and have them collaborate to develop software or an OS? No. It takes skills, talent, and determination.

To call that User Generated Software is shear nonsense.