Umair: It’s user-generated “context”

by Mathew on July 14, 2008 · Comments

Umair Haque, the new-media theorist who writes the Bubblegeneration blog and recently launched the Havas Media Lab, has a great take on the phenomenon of “user-generated content” and how it hasn’t really measured up to what many proponents — both outside the traditional media and inside it — were hoping for and/or expecting. In the first research paper released by the media lab (available in PDF only at this point), Umair argues that this is because user-generated content is mostly a misnomer. What users generate is *context,* he says.

As many others have, Umair notes that the Techmeme leaderboard is composed primarily of mainstream media sources — but says this makes perfect sense when you think about user-generated context instead of user-generated content. Most of those commenting on media stories or blog posts aren’t generating content per se, but are taking content that is created by others (whether the traditional media or new media outlets) and contextualizing it in some way that is meaningful for them and others who share their interests. As Umair says:

“From an economic point of view, user generated context is an entirely different good from content: a complement. Demand for one amplifies demand for the other. The tail of content is lengthening – but that supply curve is made up of new content players like PaidContent and RocketBoom.

By conflating the content and context, we mistakenly assume that what connected consumers create is inherently worthless – when, in fact, it’s by letting connected consumers contextualize content that tsunamis of new value can be unlocked (just ask Google).”

Media entities that recognize this can take advantage of it to build value, he says. User-generated context means that connected consumers “aren’t their competitors — but are vital, essential complementors, who create real value for them. The more context there is, the greater demand for their content is likely to be.” Advertisers also have to make the shift, Umair says, from thinking about advertising as something that is created and then delivered to something that is created through the process of contextualization of content. Get the whole paper here.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • antje
    I don't think anyone mistakes comments or wall postings or my social network itself as content. But I think blogs, story & literary sites, citizen journalism sites, and sites like Yelp and even a few forums are content. They are not context. Yelp maybe is straddling the middle but I don't think all user generated stuff is "contextual" (blogs being the best example) unless we assume that any blogger is now the content provder (not a user) and users are everyone else who reads and comments on the blog.
  • Good point, Antje. I don't think Umair is saying that there is no
    user-generated content at all -- although I like your idea that if you
    generate content, then by definition you're not a user. In any case,
    I think he's saying that the majority of what people are thinking
    about as user-generated content is less content and more context
    around content created by someone else.
  • Umair is right-on with "user generated context"--it's something marketing has acknowledged in its support of word-of-mouth marketing. W.O.M. extends out to messages on boards, blog posts, and other postings on social networks. When it is positive, it becomes a value-add for the product: someone's giving you an endorsement and situating your product in their community. That person is giving your product a context. In marketing, more "context" (which translates to w.o.m.) then becomes more product loyalty and product sales. It's letting users create the context, not the advertisers, and by doing so, the users let other users know the value.

    Now, if newspapers could realize what they produce is product, and that blog posts don't "steal" their content, but, rather, add context and then link back to it, then we can all sing kumbaya. But it's probably not that simple.
  • I agree, Tish -- sounds simple when you put it that way :-)
  • kareem
    when i worked at espn from 02-04 we looked at blogs as a layer of content that would add colour and texture to the discussion kicked off by the primary source (often us, but also nytimes, wapo -- basically bigger media).

    and by "we" i mean the geeks - the journos & editors were terrified of pointing people off-site b/c they looked at customer-created information as a substitute, not a compliment.
  • Thanks for the comment, Kareem -- I hope that we are getting beyond that kind of viewpoint, but it seems like it's taking an awfully long time.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: