[LINK] "compelling content" wrecking broadband (was: Volume C
Fri Nov 22 00:45:59 EST 2002
OK. Got me there.
I wasn't objecting to "content" - of course, no content = no communication -
but that the marketing phrase "compelling content" has so much baggage ...
including the baggage the consumers have no status as content generators
(the mindset which restricts consumers from running up servers).
The marketing/analyst phrase "content is king" left a word out: "OUR content
I guess I'm averse to having my diction dictated by jargon ... the "content"
which people seem to value most is interpersonal communication; and I'd
rather not have that denoted by the same noun as denotes The Croc Hunter!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Whitaker [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, 22 November 2002 07:10
> To: Chirgwin, Richard
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [LINK] "compelling content" wrecking broadband
> (was: Volume
> C harges/interconnection/peering)
> At 02:56 PM 21/11/02 +1000, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> >We haven't really got to the point where the market, as a
> whole, gives up on
> >"compelling content".
> Nor should they. The issue of 'content is king' is true.
> The question is
> really 'whose content?' The push model is what doesn't fit in
> the networked
> world, nor should it. if we just had networks, and no
> content, there would
> be no need for the networks. They have to both be present to have
> communication. BUT, the definition of 'provider' and 'receiver' is
> problematic and seeing who has what someone else wants.
> Then you have to layer in the issue of niche markets, custom content,
> narrow-'cast' v broad-'cast', production levels [we used to
> argue with
> cable tv managers all the time about the quality of the
> content of 'Suzie
> in her tutu' from 1/2 inch tape on community program channels vs the
> 'requirement' to use 3/4 inch minimum production levels which
> most people
> don't have access to]. You can see that things get weird really
> fast. Compelling in this range of circumstances for Suzie and family
> brings up some different answers depending on who is in the
> creator/receiver chain.
> To make it more obvious, think about the acceptable quality level of
> sexually explicit materials or the quality of the first steps on the
> moon. Both could be considered compelling content, but not exactly
> technically 'acceptable' but are put on TV all the time!
> [/ramble - I really didn't have a point to end on, just some
> more grist for
> the mill]
> JLWhitaker Associates
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> email@example.com -- http://www.primenet.com/~jwhit/whitentr.htm
More information about the Link