The problem with content

Everything these days is content – but the word is as problematic as the implication. ‘Content’ is defined by other. It is defined by filling something else, being part of something else. It is something that only exists within another context. It implies not being of itself but of another entity. And that is the direct through line to the cultural challenge of calling everything content – it is being othered.

Andrew Lloyd Webber once argued that treating art as content is like saying the red wines of France are merely content providers for the glass making industry (per The Telegraph). While the quote may sound old school – and you can practically hear the righteous indignation dripping off the words – it gets straight to the heart of the matter. There is no written cultural law that states that art has to be content in the digital era. It simply became so because most forms of art and entertainment bowed to the lexicon and the business models of tech – and they did this because the platforms pushing this worldview were the most immediate route to audiences of scale.

There is a tendency to consider critiquing today’s dominant business models as being outdated, outmoded, harking to some ancient, past idyl. However, new does not always equate to progress. In fact, with more than a decade of digital being at the heart of entertainment, we can see what is and what is not working.

To be clear, this is not to dismiss the immense benefits that social media and streaming have brought to entertainment (rights holders and creators alike). The price paid, however, has been realigning creativity and culture around feeding content machines. Content machines that have insatiable appetites. Everyone has been compelled to play the double V game - Volume and Velocity. Always creating, always releasing, always posting. Always on.

The problem with the double V game is that it benefits the platforms far more than it does those who do the making. Calling everything content merely codifies a shift in the power equation. Because creators and rights holders do not have access to, nor control of, the all-important algorithms, they become slaves to them. BuzzFeed’s former VP of Agency Strategy and Industry Development, Jonathan Perelman, once said something that captures the dynamic perfectly: “Content may be king, but distribution is queen and she wears the pants” (via Forbes). If content is indeed still king, it is little more than a ceremonial figurehead in today’s entertainment economy.

It does not have to be this way. Nowhere is it written that rights holders and creators shouldn’t have ownership of their audiences or that they shouldn’t be able to create and distribute on their terms. They may have to opt out – or threaten to opt out - of the systems to change them. And that will be painful, without doubt. However, with ecosystems in which art is merely content, creativity is too easily reduced to processes and algorithms. And what is perfectly geared to maximise returns in that environment? Yes, you guessed it, AI.

Content may only be a word, but words have power. It is time to start speaking a different language.