I've moved my blog to WP: idefiningi.wordpress.com
June 5, 2015
publishing (v., n.)
I came across an HBR article on marketing today that I saved long ago, and I realized it may be about time I blog about what I do; ya know, professionally. But I'm going to call it "publishing." Here's why:
publish (v.) mid-14c., "make publicly known, reveal, divulge, announce;" alteration of publicen (early 14c.) by influence of banish, finish, etc.; from Latin publicare "make public;" also "to disgrace, put to shame; denounce publicly." In Middle English the verb also meant "to populate; to multiply, breed" (late 14c.)The article's premise is that marketers need to think more like publishers and use content as a way to get the public's attention.
"Start by figuring out what you have to offer the world."
When I started my Masters at SFU, we talked about publishing being Dead; but we quickly realized it's actually ubiquitous, as the web has increased both supply and demand for content. The traditional publishing model has been disrupted as distribution channels have opened up. Publishers are having to relying more on digital media to cut costs or increase margins through advertising, and companies are increasingly putting money towards "content marketing" as a way to hook discerning consumers.
"If you expect people to listen to you, it’s best to have something meaningful to say."The increased democratization of publishing in the last five centuries, thanks to the same online tools marketers use, has put less power in the hands of the traditional publisher or "gatekeeper" and more onus on the consumer to determine what will surface to the top. Or at least, that's the idealist's view.
But there's far more business in it than art. Big players are stepping in to help readers navigate the vast amount of content out there, filtering out what they determine to be "good" from the "bad." They roll out algorithms to manage the floodgates - in exchange for information. These formulaic approaches for pushing good content up, (in search engines, for example,) rely on precedents set by the consumer - by popular vote, behaviour, pattern. In addition to this, companies like Google and Facebook, who hold onto vasts amount of content, have a heavy hand in determining what readers do find. (Think not just organic virality but PageRank, Open Graph and sponsored/paid content bidding wars.) What gets read, keeps getting read. Not terribly sophisticated of an observation, but eerily Catch 22-ey, if you ask me.
Marketers - and arguably, publishers, too - are taking note of this, are reading and cracking the markets (think: content strategy), to earn their spot - and if they can't earn it, they can afford to compete in the system by paying for it.
This isn't to say that there isn't valuable information being published. I just think we can't take those google results at face value or trust "top 10" lists as really an objective standard.
"Publishing can be a great way to build unique bonds, but there has to be a true value exchange rather than just a promotion."
But what do readers today value?
I would like to think maybe...their time? Yet we waste a lot of time reading crap.
Arguably, too many of us consume our content like fast-food America: On the cheap, and on the go. We're often not willing to do the work (grazing the surface of headlines and feeds); yet, we expect to have the best body.
I would like to think maybe...their time? Yet we waste a lot of time reading crap.
Arguably, too many of us consume our content like fast-food America: On the cheap, and on the go. We're often not willing to do the work (grazing the surface of headlines and feeds); yet, we expect to have the best body.
Publishers (contributors, gatekeepers, bloggers, content marketers, call them what you will,) know this and they've figured out our vices. But it's important that consumers realize all of this, too.
We should try and understand the business motivations that influence what content makes its way into our feeds and why (and what we give up in exchange for reading). Right now, our votes are getting counted on priced-out impressions - the value of our eyeballs, our attention. We can't always control which content finds its way to us or who benefits from it, but we should realize that we always have the power to vote with what we choose to read and engage with. Otherwise, we may never get to see the content that will more fully satiate and nourish our intellects because we'll be too busy snacking on 2-cent candy (really, that's pretty much what a paid impression costs these days).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment