Media

Empty Content

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I hear about “Content” constantly, and I’ve grown tired of it.  People need Content for their YouTube channel, to keep an audience, fill books, etc.  I finally realized why it gets up my nose – because the focus on Content doesn’t consider meaning.

Too often, when people talk about Content, it’s about needing to have it for some reason.  The channel has to have Content for the algorithm!  The blog needs Content to keep people’s attention.  The Podcast needs Content because you’re on a schedule and people expect it.  The existence of Content matters more than what the Content is.

When we speak of Content, we mean writing, discussions, videos, etc.  We’re talking about something that is meaningful or should be.  It may be a good chuckle or a life-changing revelation, but Content is about something supposedly that has value in itself.

The demand for Content makes our creations secondary to mathematical formulae and marketing calculations.  Content is just something we use to fill a space, the packing peanuts of the soul.  The meaning of that Content is secondary to just having something to pour into a container.

That’s what irritated me about the constant chats about Content – the value, the importance of the creative work wasn’t relevant.  You could boost the YouTube algorithm with a picture of you shirtless and silently reading Terry Pratchett or a detailed guide to creating resumes, and the result might be the same.  The idea of Content these days flattens the value and meaning of creation itself.

This situation makes it harder to become better at what you do.  When your critical goal is creating Content, then shoveling works out the door takes priority over making better works.  It’s all attention or meeting a wordcount, or whatever first, the work is secondary.

There’s a soullessness to it all and I can now put words to it.

For me, I think I’m going to think over what I make and why a little more.  I can see where I’ve fallen into the Content trap and where I’ve sought depth.  I also see where I may get distracted by “shiny Content” and not ask if it’s something I care about.

But for now, when I cringe at yet another discussion of Content I’ll know why.

Steven Savage

The Transformation Conundrum

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

Not a week goes by where there’s not some question of why a big company/author/etc. doesn’t do something innovative and transformative.  Usually, it’s Disney, at least as of late, but I’ve been seeing this question for years.

Why doesn’t this big company/important person who could genuinely engineer culture do so for good?

Sure we’ve seen some good, along with a lot of evil from media companies.  But they’re in a prime position to change the world for the better, and they don’t!  That’s because sometimes being big and powerful is the very thing that keeps you from changing.

Giant organizations depend on many, many things – cash flow, supply chains, media deals, etc.  Just keeping something like that running takes a lot of effort, but it also means that such organizations are risk-averse.  When your entire giant communications colossus is a huge juggling act, the first thing to do is not drop any balls.

Changing the world means not just risking dropping the balls but throwing them.

Large organizations are also distributed.  They’ve got multiple physical footprints, studios, deals, and clients.  Distribution of resources is often a key to security and stability but may also make you vulnerable due to various dependencies.  It’s hard to change the world when your world is so complex.

Stability can be stagnation.

Finally, imagine if a big media company decided to change the world and engineer a better culture – they’d probably have to work at their own destruction.  Large, monolithic organizations with a lot of power controlling culture aren’t good for long-term social and cultural health.  If they truly innovated and improved culture, the stockholders, board members, etc. might not go for the results.

Honestly, except for one or two Big Media Companies, we may be doing better than we could be due to constant activism, pushing, and some well-meaning people.

If you wonder what kind of media company landscape I’d want to see, I’d probably say “distributed network.”  Many media organizations (sometimes cooperating) and multiple distribution systems (sometimes cooperating) to allow for innovation and opportunity.  Such “best-sized” organizations could survive and prosper, but neither could seize control of too much, and the loss of one will see it replaced in time.

Perhaps someday. Until then, don’t let up on them.

Steven Savage

What to Marvel at

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

Marvel media (movies and TV) are something Serdar and I discuss a great deal because they influence modern culture and modern creators.  They’re unavoidable culturally, commercially, and in influence on the media being developed now.  Unfortunately, I think Marvel productions are leading people to the wrong conclusions.

Is this going to lead to me bashing the films?  No, because most Marvel media are good and many are great!

What would you find in a typical Marvel production?  Near-universally excellent casting, some of which cultivates or recognizes considerable talent.  Direction, productions, and effects deliver breathtaking action and heart-touching moments.  Scripts may not be award-winning, but they are clear, well-paced, and often surprise with genre analysis and interesting twists as Serdar notes.

If you want to be entertained and maybe get a bit more?  Marvel delivers.

The problem I have with Marvel is that it’s omnipresence has a warping effect.  Everyone is trying to do extended universes – which is nice in small doses but boring when everyone does it.  Once a rare subject to cover, superheroes are everywhere – and I like superhero stuff.  Marvel did well, but now everyone is doing Marvel, and there’s a sameness to it all – an unsustainable one in my opinion.

Success breeds imitation, and I’ve had enough imitation thanks.  To add to all of this, imitating what Marvel did – quite well – misses the major lessons of how Marvel made this work.

The secret of Marvel is valuing competence.

The lesson to take from Marvel is not to imitate what they make, it’s to look at how they consistently deliver solid, entertaining productions.  Analyze the effective and surprising casting.  Note how the films and shows pace themselves.  Examine the use of genres and genre-bending (especially as superhero stories are essentially meta-genres).  Learn from the media, not the overarching gigantic media machine.

Trying to imitate Marvel will only produce imitation without the foundation – and it probably won’t work unless you have money to throw at your efforts.  Instead, you can look to the foundation to find out how to build your own thing.

Besides, there’s only so much room for the same thing.

Steven Savage