The big buzz right now is about content networks. Everyone is wondering how best to ally themselves with other people who are producing quality content in order to ensure they get seen by as many people as possible. The thinking goes that, as a "network's" viewership increases, all the shows "on" that "network" will benefit.
This is not true. Here's why:
Content Networks, as controlled by individuals or corporate mindsets, are inherently dangerous.
1. The most popular shows will need to subsidize the smaller shows, making the smaller shows dependent upon the success of the big shows.
2. The big shows will become handicapped because, if they fail, they take the whole channel down.
3. Channel moderators can only afford to promote so many shows at once, which means the vicious pecking order at the water hole will destroy any goodwill among the larger and smaller shows trying to jockey for position.
4. Smaller shows who can't break in will threaten to leave for bigger paychecks at other networks.
5. Smaller shows who aren't meeting a minimum viewership quota will get axed to make room for new shows.
Sound familiar? And here I thought we were moving away from the TV model.
Instead, I see a future where EVERYONE IS A CHANNEL.
We already each have the capacity to create and share content, which essentially means we're each already a channel, even if we're currently "offline." But with so many voices in the wilderness, how will anyone know whom to watch or listen to?
Answer: it won't matter.
Look at
Digg or YouTube. The reason they succeed is because of democracy. Everyone's voice counts equally, and the cream (allegedly) rises to the top.
Thus, what we need is a peer-to-peer RSS system that allows us to watch / listen to / read all the updated content from our favorite podcasts / blogs / websites, delivered to our front door in the customizable format we choose (rearrange interfaces, customize a la MySpace, minimalize or maximalize -- your channel would be an expression of YOU).
Here's why it would work:
1. Everything we subscribe to, via iTunes, Feedburner, FireAnt, etc., would be housed in one interface, similar to a glorified My Yahoo homepage or (egad) MySpace.
2. Instead of needing to click through and watch videos or read articles, they could alternately appear in scalable pop-up windows within this channel interface, allowing users the option to stay integrated or bounce outside.
3. The service works in two ways: as a personalized aggregator of the content you want to experience, and as a shared device for promoting the content you'd like others to experience.
4. Anyone who visits your "channel" could watch / read any of the content you've linked to (thus necessitating a likely personalized channel for everyone's porn habits -- unless we become THAT open of a society).
5. Load this channel into a widget and add it to your blog / homepage / MySpace, etc., and then ANYONE can experience your personalized stream of content.
Gone are the days when I need a show picker at ABC to tell me what I should be watching. Instead, I might want to see what
Steve Garfield is watching this week... or my cousin... or some random truant on MySpace.
Here's why the personal channel idea is vital to the continued growth of the emerging medium:
1. Democracy. Everyone has a chance to be seen, and now viewers can become evangelists for their favorite shows by making them available on their own personalized channels.
2. The wisdom of crowds. The more channels that "promote" a show, the more people will be able to see it. Thus, the two kinds of content we already experience in every medium -- the good and the merely popular -- will come to the fore.
3. Absence of malice. If every person you meet has the potential to promote your content to every other person they meet, you no longer have to worry about being dropped from any one person's channel. All you have to worry about is making content that people (whether the masses or a niche) want to see.
4. Freedom. Content producers won't need to be yoked to a specific channel or adhere to one outlet's content creation requirements. They can follow their own rules and speak their own voices, and the public -- aka their fluid viewership -- will respond.
Presumably, several things will happen as a result of this system:
1. Early adopters will make popular the first batch of shows that truly deserve the hype (a la Rocketboom being light years ahread of the medium by literally being five months ahead of their contemporaries).
2. Followers will learn about the service and jump in while it's still "in beta," adding a wealth of consumer test marketing to the experience and widening the talent pool for new shows to make a splash among a larger audience.
3. The mainstream will catch on several months later and crash the party, trying to play catch-up. Horrible plugins will be created, resulting in atrocious web design among 13-18 year-olds and people who still own Eminem CDs.
4. Businesses will realize the technology exists and flood the market with their own shows and promotional campaigns specifically designed to aggregate their content on as many personalized channels as possible, so someone on Madison Avenue can create a new kind of "Nielsen Ratings System" to base advertising values on.
And then -- and this is very important -- THEN we can ALL start making money at this, both big and small.
But not via web advertising, because that model is inherently UN-democratic. Instead, there will be an even more basic currency at work that will enable each of us, whether our audience is 100 or 100,000, to be compensated.
Curious? Stay tuned. The future is coming fast.
We don't. Not a video-enabled one, anyway. A few of the cast members do, but the office that creates these video spectacles is iPod-free.
