What is media’s ‘super content’ supposed to look like?

[webfact]

OPINION

What is media’s ‘super content’ supposed to look like?

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

“Content is king” was what people like me in the media industry were repeatedly told a few years back.

 

BANGKOK: -- It was meant to be part motivation and part words of comfort, as we were staring at a brewing “perfect storm” that was threatening to rip conventional news media outlets to shreds. You could be afraid, run and hide, the comforters said, or you could use your fear to stir yourself up and fight back.

 

After all, the storm was supposed to blow away various “platforms”, but good content should hold sway, many people said. We, the media professionals, were on the “content” side, so let the platform owners like TV and print entrepreneurs worry about imminent destruction. “Content is king” was based on a belief that the audiences would still watch, read or listen to you no matter what.  

 

One tiny little problem is that content, whether it’s king or pauper, still needs a platform. In other words, content still needs an employer. Lots of folks have launched one-man-show YouTube channels and drawn millions of views. The good news there is that you can be your own boss, your own brand and get really rich. The bad news, though, is that maybe 0.001 per cent of us could pull it off.

 

In addition, the emergence of digital TV channels has muddied the waters a little bit. Thanks largely to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission for either its naivety or ignorance, nobody was warned that digital TV was a disaster with its hair combed. Well, “disaster disguised as a gold mine” sounds more like it. The “content is king” school of thought was no match for the overwhelming optimism. Everyone was in on it, from those with the fattiest bank accounts to virtual beggars in the industry. 

 

So, we have been dropping like flies. The digital TV gold rush helped amplify the perfect storm and the domino effect has now crossed over from the print media to the broadcasting segment. One of the latest industrial round-ups has Channel 3, one of the two biggest names in the television sector, punch-drunk. And if Channel 3 is struggling, there is no need to talk about the rest.

 

Now everyone is squirming collectively. Studio crews, directors, assistant directors, TV hosts and TV reporters have joined print journalists in search of a media Holy Grail – content that can make the makers survive. Profitability can wait; now the goal is to avoid going belly up.

 

No one knows the answer. Not even Dr Somkiat Tangkitvanich, the big boss of Thailand’s Development and Research Institute, who is the “content is king” flag-bearer and has been widely quoted in the wake of the gloomy TV industry report. He said something along the lines of “Only super content can save the media outlets”.

 

The phrase says it all. “Super content” means content that is great. If it’s news, content it must be all-round, with good background, good analysis and good visuals or presentation. If it’s non-news content, it must be attractive, creative, inspiring and thought-provoking. With all due respect to Dr Somkiat, we don’t want to know that. 

 

We want to know how to create content that doesn’t go viral on the social media half an hour after publication or being on air – with the originators getting zero and being able to do nothing about it being freely shared.

 

Not everyone is as lucky as the makers of “Game of Thrones”. A recent episode was hacked and made available for all to grab online for free, but the official rating for that episode was one of the highest in history. Well, the phenomenon can be attributed to the content being “super”, but we are seeing an exception here and not the rule.

 

The problem of the media industry is not complicated. There used to be a dozen or so newspapers and half a dozen television stations sharing the advertising cake. Now, imagine a hundred more wanting some of that cake as well and many of them are as effective, if not more, in reaching marketing targets. Somkiat talked about “super content”, but we’ve seen plenty of “fake” or “crazy” social-media influencers laughing all the way to the bank. And there is nothing “super” about content blared from video projection screens at intersections, but their owners are smirking at mainstream media entrepreneurs.

 

Dr Somkiat can check out the leading moneymaking influencers to see how many have super content. Their ranting, showing off or simply nice looks are adding salt to media professionals’ wounds, but providing food for thought as well. Content might not need to be super after all. Maybe, just maybe, you only have to strike a balance between making it repulsive enough to ward off “thieves” and uniquely attractive enough to turn advertisers’ heads.

 

Of course, that could require some creativity, but certainly not the kind of creativity Dr Somkiat was talking about. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30323925

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-16

[canuckamuck]

I think he is saying is, help us find a way to make the same crap content we always make but at the same time keep anyone else from making any money from their new ideas.

[SABloke]

"We, the media professionals, were on the “content” side, so let the platform owners like TV and print entrepreneurs worry about imminent destruction."

 

Wait, so TV station owners and publishing companies aren't media professionals??? 

 

Another Wednesday, another rant by the sciolist, Tabtim.

[PeCeDe]

When he finds the solution, hope he lets us know, because in the news media particularly all I see is biased reporting from political party yes men/women. Perhaps BBC is the only English speaking news channel I see with unbiased (mostly) stories and the opinion segments are labelled as just that.  In terms of entertainment it's a free for all scenario which inevitably is ending with mediocrity.