After reading Derek Powazek's blog entry on user-generated content, I too have come to despise the term UGC. When did the novelty of blogging become something so dreadfully commodified. It seems like a throwback to the Orwellian 1984, my blog is not newspeak nor will it ever be, and that's what UGC makes it out to be a part of.
In addition, UGC is implying that because I'm writing from the position of the end user, I'm just not as good as other outlet's produced content. This is complete bull. I've read hired published writers who's vocabulary might be more extension than mine, write complete garbage. I've seen news conglomerate who are bias to the point of disgust.
The contents made by the end users weren't meant to be rated, and I agree with puchoo from India when he says, "the quality assigned to a UGC platform is never absolute but perception based."
I leave you with this from Henry Copeland: "Calling blogs consumer-generated media is like calling sex the "clothless generation of heat, musk and mucus." The essential excitement and motivation just doesn't come through, does it?"
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Blog Content for Sale
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
On one hand I am also insulted that UGC insinuates poor quality or biased ideas, but on the other hand many people like you and me see UGC as the ONLY reliable or honest information source.. my best example would be when I try to find a Chinese Restaurant in DC (I do this frequently because there aren't any good ones). I always look up a bunch of restaurant names, go to their sites to check out prices and then to other review sites to check on food quality and service. Most restaurant websites have reviews of their food on them, but obviously it doesn't mean crap.
Your quote made me laugh, very nice.
wow I got portuguese semi-spam!? I feel all warm inside =]
Hey hey- I got the same spam!!!
I actually went it and moderated/deleted it out. But yeah... very thought-provoking post you've written here. I like your quotes and sources. Nice job!
Jeff
i agree. i am not a big fan of calling blogs user-generated content... when a student turns in a paper, or you pass notes in class, i wouldn't call that user generated content... technically, yes, it is content generated by the user, but in technical jargon sense, i think the notion of blogs as ugc is a little off.
nice new layout.
I don't think UGC insinuates poor quality but I do think it is different from traditional media. UGC appears and is disseminated in a different forum, usually by one person. And even if hey are the same thing who cares what something is called. If people feel the UGC is substandard for some reason than calling it something else isn't going to change that. It will probably just make it not noticed as they are pushed into the same category as traditional media who have money and infrastructure to dominate their media realms.
I say instead of trying to change what it is called we work instead to make UGC a name people and proud to have their media associated with.
UGC isn't grouped with traditional media. Traditional media at current is actually trying to use UGC.
The problem with UGC is that its a term that's all encompassing and that marketers do look down upon UGC. UGC to the market = amateurish.
There's always going to be a Chris Crocker type "UGC" for every...anything really. So improving quality really doesn't do anything.
The main problem is that UGC is a term that just doesn't fit.
If a blog is'nt user generated content, what is it?
i correct myself, the problem isn't with the term, its how the marketing industry is using that term.
Post a Comment