Why Digital Abundance May be Good for Quality

If you’re reading this blog entry then you’ve made an important decision.  You’ve decided that among all the different ways you could spend your time, reading my blog is a worthwhile option.  So, in the same way those in the airline business do, I say to you: we know you had a choice of blogs to read today, so thank you for choosing to read my blog.

We’ll come back to this thought in just a moment.

Classic economics deals with demand in the face of scarcity.  In business school it is pounded into you that price is a function of the demand for something relative to its supply.  In the digital arena of consumer-produced (largely free) content, these principles have been knocked on their head: scarcity has become abundance.  Supply massively outweighs demand.  The price, in this case, becomes the opportunity cost.  With so much supply, we can only consume so much and, therefore, must sacrifice something in favor of another.  Competition for our limited mental capacity has created a new economy: the attention economy.  For example, with thousands of blogs to read and a finite amount of hours in the day it is simply not possible to consume but the smallest, most trivial amount of content.  Might this partly explain the popularity of Twitter: that the short bursts of content from multiple sources provides an illusion of editorial breadth and depth?

Ok, so having more choices is not new; there have always been more newspapers or more movies to watch than any one individual could ever get to in a given period.  What makes our choices infinitely more complex is the magnitude of choices.  Today we can get our news from thousands of sources.  The entry barriers to content creation have largely been eliminated resulting in the ability for each of us to be a printing press or movie director.

So what?

A popular argument is that more content doesn’t mean better content.  It may just mean lots of really bad content.  That is often largely true: lots of videos of beer pong tricks are often nothing more than a collection of bad videos of beer pong tricks.  But it’s not an argument that can be used to prove that digital abundance is the same as digital waste.  I propose that the same market forces are at play that helps individuals make choices: collectively a large group will review and surface the things they like and relegate the things they don’t to the far end of the long tail.  For content to emerge above all the noise requires a type of pseudo-Darwinian selection.  Further, I argue that abundance may in fact improve quality of content.  Sure, in an economy of abundance there will be a lot of videos of cats playing the piano, but among the volume of garbage there will be a handful that will be quite good.  And if you’re a person who finds cats playing pianos funny, that’s a good thing.

If you are a creator of digital content, you still need to create content people want.  And that means you need to innovate to stand out.  You need to produce quality–defined in so many different ways–and add value for the consumer.  In an economy of digital abundance, innovation is king.

If you’ve reached this far in my blog, again I thank you.  You had a lot of choices and for some reason; you chose to read my blog.  In an environment of millions of blogs and many other choices of how to spend your time, you chose to spend it here.  And that proves in some small way that the ease at which one can create bad content hasn’t resulted in a dearth of digital content of value to you.


This entry was posted in Innovation, Trends. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why Digital Abundance May be Good for Quality

  1. eric imbs says:

    Hi J.

    Interesting topic. It’s one of those ‘how long is a piece of string’ conundrums.

    We produce content to hold people…to sit them still for a moment as they interact with our application in the way we need them to, to derive our return; a return that is multi-layered, but that’s another topic.

    And, as you have alluded to, that return is not proportional to the length of time you can hold the participant; Twitter is a fine example and in fact shares that approach with insight management systems whereby the app itself extracts content from the participants, which in turn supports the application and drives interactions.

    When we launched our first insight management tools at Insurance Australia Group, I used any available real estate to place news items, company alerts, CEO news and general information for users to peruse as they clicked through to input their insights.

    Based on participant feedback and recording pages views for the additional content, we removed ALL content apart from the submissions of the audience and with only that change, we saw participation rates climb…and climb.

    Another interesting statistic was the increased time each participant spent reading, supporting and commenting on the insights of others.

    Here, clearly, abundant content only distracted participants from the stuff they deemed to be a value.

    So, my take on abundance may be good for quality is to start with an over-abundance, then pare back based on participant feedback and data. This will help you better understand your audience and their needs and over time, your content, in relation to the needs of your audience will be of a higher quality.

    Nice post J, thanks.

  2. Dave Drager says:

    In the new content economy, where there is an overflow of information, the goal of a truly innovative company is to actually reduce the amount of content delivered to you and increase its utility.

    The best way to do this is to reduce the amount of “Buzz”, so to speak, and increase the usability of information that reaches your eyeballs (or ears). Twitter succeeds at this because it forces you to boil down and reduce a thought or concept to 144 characters or less.

    Great post, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the topic!

  3. eric imbs says:

    Hi J.

    I’d like to add that it’s not just content that keeps and audience engaged. I think content can be supported and enhanced through responsiveness.

    If you push content out, but don’t respond or interact with those who take the time to read and comment, you run the risk of losing their attention, regardless of the quality of your content.

    There needs to be considered in your investment allocations, time and resourcing to develop and manage response mechanisms and processes.

    Back to the Twitter example and to Dave Drager’s point, I propose that people would not use Twitter if they didn’t get any followers. Why would they interact with the crowd, if they get nothing in return?

    Twitter makes it easy to respond to the tweets of others, so getting that affirmation that someone is listening is made easier.

    For blog and other content authors, the response/affirmation process is more complex and sensitive; you’re asking people to do more at your site than read 140 characters, so the importance of your response strategy is amplified significantly.

    Thanks again.

  4. Thanks Eric and Dave.

    Keep the feedback coming. This is helpful in evolving our thinking on this subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s