Editor 2.0

It’s not often that I have an epiphany in a book store. Today, however, was the exception. I was lazily wandering around Trident Bookstore (a sort of Boston version of the Tattered Cover but with more humus options on the menu), looking in vain for a present for my mother. Granted I was distracted by the idle bookish banter going back and forth between myself and the friend I was with, but I finally got tired of the hunt, said “forget it!” and walked back up to the front of the store. And there, neatly displayed in convenient impulse-buy format was the book shelf devoted to employees’ picks of the month. From a small set of choices I was quickly able to find something I thought she’d like (The Red Tent). And herein came my epiphany: what the world needs now is not more content but more editors. And to boot, it dawned on me that a lot of the interesting startup ideas I have seen recently are following this trend - reintroducing the editor back into our lives.

You Can’t Make Choices without Bias 

Let’s step back a second and understand what’s happened in the world of media consumption in the last 10 years. Pre-internet (which sort of sounds like “pre-modern-day” now) pretty much everything we consumed was controlled by a limited number of sources. Whether it was classic fourth estate newspapers, Sam Goody and the Wherehouse, or a small offering of cable channels, our access to content was limited. Of course not every newspaper or television channel that leveraged its distribution monopoly into our homes became successful. Those that rose to the top did it through excellent editorial oversight.

Editors essentially have two functions: pick the most important content from the various sources they have at their disposal and manage the brand or positioning that is projected through those choices. That said, the blessing, the curse, and the not so unobvious dirty little secret of said editorial function is that it introduces bias into the equation. In the end though, it’s this bias which leads to consistent editorial choices. 

Slouching Towards Authorgeddon

Take a newspaper editor’s choices of content for example. They have AP feeds, staff writers, freelance writers (stringers), op ed pieces, etc.. all at their disposal when putting together their dailies. On top of that, they have multiple choices about richer media with which to emotionally paint their pieces. Remember the bru-ha-ha [scroll down] over the differing OJ Simpson covers on Time and Newsweek? For every issue, an editor makes 1000s of choices to about what to print and what not to. 

A friend of mine who is the editor of the Atlantic Monthly recently told me he has over 12,000 non-fiction submissions (not including his own staff’s work) to choose from a year. And in the television world, through a friend of mine who has written for CSI, Vanished and Chuck, I have heard about the reams of spec pilot scripts that NBC, CBS, etc.. have to choose from each season. Any way you slice it, the editorial function has been busy at work for us over the last 10 years.

This all changed one day when someone inspirationally stuck the word “citizen” in front of “journalism” and  “media” in every 2002 VC presentation about the changing face of online content. And with that one small step, a giant leap for mediakind was taken. 

With the dawning of user generated content, we have cast aside the editorial function, and in the process migrated from a consumption generation to a participation generation. Blogs, YouTube, Wikipedia, Podcasting, Facebook, Flickr – the alphabet is littered with participation economy portmanteaus and poorly spelled company names that allowed anyone with an internet connection to become a content producer. The last time I checked, Technorati reported 57MM blogs in existence (its probably much more by now). As of 6:00pm EST, MySpace has had 75,195 videos uploaded TODAY. And last year’s 90,000 member strong National November Writing Month [www.nanowrimo] novel-in-a-month club generated 473,201,894 words all slouching further towards Authorgeddon in only 14 days!

None of this goes through an editor. It’s all headlines on the global front page that is the Internet. Unless I get to start using more than 10% of my brain, I think I’m going to have to pull a Gary Larson pretty soon: 

The Production Curve and Community Percolation

Okay, so after a few years generating all this stuff (insert appropriate George Carlin “stuff’ reference here) we clearly have the problem of too much stuff. How do people end up picking what to read and watch and what to ignore. Well, what we’ve seen so far is three emergent solutions to this problem. The first is what I would call the quality over quantity (QoQ) approach, the second I’m going to name “community percolation”, and the third is the authority approach. 

Quality over Quantity (QoQ)

QoQ occurs when content producers decide that the best way to attract consumers to their content is by adding a higher degree of production to it. By pushing up the production value, one can argue there is a direct correlation to moving from the right to the left in the classic long tail curve. The most obvious (and first) examples would be produced blogs. Sites like TMZ, Gawker, TechCrunch, Engadget, AskTheVC, etc.. are all what I would call lightly produced QoQ content. That means that someone (or more likely a team) with actual writing or journalistic skills puts some effort into silly little things like fact checking, correct punctuation and grammar (clearly I don’t strive to elevate myself to this level), editing, and generally well-written or thought out pieces. People go to these blogs because, on the whole, they are guaranteed a more valuable consumer experience (e.g. there are few posts about what movie Mike Arrington watched last night). But wait, you say, this is really just like a newspaper or magazine. Well, as I will explain in a bit, it’s not, because for the most part it’s all sourced by the staff bloggers themselves. Yes, there is an editorial choice about what to write, but the key is that it’s not culled from multiple sources. 

We see the same phenomenon on YouTube and MySpace with the emergence of higher quality content channels (MySpace’s Roommates excepted!) and also with a number of higher production quality independent pod/videocasts like the one from my good friend Dana Brunetti at TriggerStreet.com. In general “production” can mean higher core quality (e.g. using something more than a Motorola Razr to take video at a Tool concert) or thoughtful post-production editing like you see on TriggerStreet or another friend of mine’s Citizen Sports Network.

And to some extent the QoQ approach has worked. Feedburner quotes 768K (yes that’s 768,000) subscribers to TechCrunch. While that’s not quite the New Yorker’s 1M subscriber base, if you include what is probably a much higher secondary and tertiary readership with blogs (most people not using subscriber email or RSS feeds), we’re talking aggregate readership levels that the ABC would register firmly as a blip on their publication radar. 

Community Percolation

The second solution I mentioned is what I call community percolation. Community percolation can really be attributed in origin to Digg (and its multiple successors and automated derivatives like TechMeme and StumbleUpon). Many people call this community filtering but I think that moniker is a bit misleading. Filtering, to me, implies an intentional slicing of a data set using specific criteria. By definition, the masses have no common criteria other than  grunting “this blog good” while hitting a button. Semantics set aside, the idea here is that the wisdom of the masses shall help the cream of the blogosphere rise to the top. If you believe this will solve all of our problems let me remind you of two things: first, Jaron Lanier’s fantastic treatise on lowest common denominators, Digital Maoism and second, Bush’s second term (come on guys, that one was tee ball). While Digg does reduce the overall noise, it serves in reality as a band-pass filter not a high-pass filter (yes, I took one EE course at MIT – and all I got to show for it was one semi-intelligent sentence in a blarticle). 

Authority

The last solution is the authority approach. This has a few derivatives but generally follows the mantra “if X is an authority on Y and I am interested in Y and X recommends something about Y its worth my time to check it out”. This takes place in the form of recommendation engines (Amazon and NetFlix), the Technorati Authority system, and my friend Matt Cutler’s random indie music recommendations (most recent would be Bassnectar and Phantom Planet). In general this can work in limited circumstances (picking a horror movie to add to your NetFlix queue), the problem is that it’s hard to find out who is an authority on anything very quickly on the net. Go ahead, try and find out who is a real authority on Bangladesh in less than 2 minutes. I just tried this and it’s not so easy! 

So after a few years of user generated content, what we’re seeing is that the three solutions I mentioned do help a bit but not in the way that any of us really want. The metric for “really want” is simple – it still frigging annoying to find content you like on the net. And the more people hit the publish button the worse its getting.

The Return of the Editor 

If you consider a spectrum with the New York Times on one side and your average blogger on the other, it’s interesting to consider what the two end points really represent. Some might see that spectrum as simply the continuum from professional journalism to citizen journalism. But I’m sure most people could point out a blogger that writes better than an in-house journalist or a journalist that is more insightful and free of voice than some bloggers. So I don’t think that’s the scale. What I think the scale is really about the editorial function.

On the left we have a tightly controlled editorial function performing both a filtration and assembly mechanism pulling from a number of different sources and also introducing bias to the benefit of the readers. On the right we have an individual voice, someone who by definition has a bias, but generates all content and thus provides no filtering or assembly other than what they choose to write about. So what’s half way between Bill Keller and me? This is what I call Editor 2.0. 

Editor 2.0

If we can have citizen journalist (bloggers), citizen media (YouTube and people on the street uploading live coverage on UStream.tv) we can definitely have citizen Editors. This, in my opinion, is the next step in the future of media. 

Consider for a minute some of the trends that are pointing in this direction. First, let’s consider the editor function of filtration and assembly. Last time I checked, pretty much every single thing on the web was getting delivered by a feed or was designed to share. Flickr, blog entries, YouTube videos, del.icio.us tags, etc.. these are all input sources akin to the Reuters and AP newswire feeds that most daily editors cull from. Second, while blog entries are already published when you find them, such fragmentation in the market means they are probably relatively unread and assembling them into an aggregate format and republishing them to a broader audience probably encroaches little on their readership loyalty by the fact that they might exist elsewhere as well.

Second, consider that many people already play the editor role, if but for themselves. iGoogle, myYahoo, NetVibes, the Daily Me, etc.. they are all really just systems set up to let people become their own editors using the familiar section-based format of a paper with access to all the feeds underlying those sections. If you took this model and you turned it outwards, not inwards, this would be citizen editing in its simplest and roughest form. 

Tabula Rasa

But let’s get a bit more specific about what the next generation of media is going to look like. Let’s take the easy one – blogs. A while ago a friend of mine, Eric Herman, and I came up with an idea we called Tabula Rasa (TR). TR was in essence my first exploration into citizen editing. I was frustrated with the insane growth in blogs and more particularly the breadth of topics covered in most blogs I read (e.g. a blog purportedly about PeopleSoft sometimes has random entries about a vacation spot the blogger went to). I was so overwhelmed culling through the sheer volume of blog entries in my blog reader every day that I simply gave up and took the lazy blogosphere approach (a derivative of the more general Lazy Web). The lazy blogosphere approach relies on me staying in sparse communication with the smarter bloggers and entrepreneurs I know and relying on the fact that if anything really important comes up, someone will send me a link to it. Frankly I think this works pretty well as I just got two links to the same NYT article related to something I am working on within 5 minutes this morning. This, as a side note, was a subconscious default to the authority solution I mentioned above. 

What we really need is a new platform designed for the editorial function. This is what Eric and I envisioned TR to be. A sort of console for taking incoming feeds, finding related media, and cobbling together a front page of the best of the best. If you wanted to add your own blog entries to it, then by all means. Imagine that rather than write a blog about Tennis I was more interested in pulling together the best writing about Tennis on a daily basis. The TR platform we designed would let you do this in 15 minutes.

One of the beauties of the TR concept is that it would publish in a newspaper front page format. What I mean by this is that it disrupts the time based entry format of blogs. This is one of the biggest problems with blogs in my opinion. The best content is seldom at the top of the blog. When I scan my blarticle readership, seldom is the top entry the most read (due to inbound links from Google and emailed links to outside readers). With the front page format, citizen editors could choose to keep important articles and stories on the front page for longer, swapping out side stories that might be more current. In my own blog I’d love to keep some of my better and more timeless pieces prevalent on the blog but I am relegated to making a “best of the best” sidebar set of links. 

The other beauty of the TR concept is that different media types about a subject could be sourced from different places. Maybe there is a fantastic blog entry on Wimbledon but the best picture is from Flickr and a great video of the final match is on YouTube. TR would allow me to assemble these quickly into one seamlessly produced front page.

I know, I know, everyone will say “what about licensing issues”. Well there are a few simple half-solutions (like creative commons licensing) and blurbing (ala Google News) and such, but in general I think the benefits would outweigh the means and you could always include attribution and eventually advertising revenue share to all the content contributors. 

And the same thing is emerging in video. With live video platforms like Ustream.tv and Justin.tv becoming more popular, it won’t be far off when we can skip between multiple live video streams of events. An editor can easily insert themselves into this process and hand direct the best “camera” angles in real time just like TV stations do for sporting events and live TV programming.

Sooner or later someone will construct something like this and the citizen editor will emerge. And once the citizen editor has emerged, community editing will emerge as well. A few like minds can pretty easily keep on top of a topic or two on the net and edit it into one useful front page. 

Swinging the Pendulum

I am starting to think there is a palpable gestalt emerging around this right now. You can even see it in traditional media. Walk into any bookstore and you will note that some of the most popular titles on shelves are edited compendiums. A good example would be the “Best American Writing” series. These things are everywhere and they espouse the value of an editor. If you hunted around you could find all the articles yourself but I can tell you from personal experience it’s worth just buying the book. It’s scary to identify a media trend by pointing at something from the printed media world, but let’s not get too full of our internet selves here. 

Whether traditional media goes first or entrepreneurism comes to the rescue, it’s definitely time the pendulum starts swinging back towards the middle.

Comments

[Dress Shoes]

So their filtering is what they choose to write about...but that's just like the blogger. And bloggers like Arrington still link out to other sites all the time -- is not this "another source" that's being brought into his site? I guess I'm not understanding the difference between either end of the "editorial function" scale.

[lacoste womens shoes]

The left side of the spectrum (like NYT) has a staff that generates 90% of the pieces; so if they pull from "multiple sources" it's the occasional freelancer or op/ed contributor. Is this what you mean? Perhaps Huffington Post would be a better e.g.: they cull from multiple contributors and filter through it all to ensure high quality content. So their filtering is what they choose to write about...but that's just like the blogger. And bloggers like Arrington still link out to other sites all the time -- is not this "another source" that's being brought into his site? I guess I'm not understanding the difference between either end of the "editorial function" scale.

[Coach Outlet]

Itis a moving story!

[Toby]

is this what Palio is going to do?

[paradise]

Herbalife Head office has appointed paradise T&L as Official Destination Management Company for 2009 Herbalife Aisa Extravaganza in order to ensure a smooth and convenient experience for participants of the Korea event.
Paradise T&L promises to provide immaculate accommodations, transportation and tour services for the participants of the Herbalife Asia Pacific Extravaganza 2009. Website http://www.paradisetnl.com/herbalifewill be opened on January 15th.

[Ben Casnocha]

(re-posting comment since my HTML didn't show)

Niel, two questions.

1. Where does Squidoo fit in this?

2. I don't understand this:

"On the left we have a tightly controlled editorial function performing both a filtration and assembly mechanism pulling from a number of different sources and also introducing bias to the benefit of the readers. On the right we have an individual voice, someone who by definition has a bias, but generates all content and thus provides no filtering or assembly other than what they choose to write about."

The left side of the spectrum (like NYT) has a staff that generates 90% of the pieces; so if they pull from "multiple sources" it's the occasional freelancer or op/ed contributor. Is this what you mean? Perhaps Huffington Post would be a better e.g.: they cull from multiple contributors and filter through it all to ensure high quality content. So their filtering is what they choose to write about...but that's just like the blogger. And bloggers like Arrington still link out to other sites all the time -- is not this "another source" that's being brought into his site? I guess I'm not understanding the difference between either end of the "editorial function" scale.

[Ben Casnocha]

Niel, two questions.

1. Where does Squidoo fit in this?

2. I don't understand this:
On the left we have a tightly controlled editorial function performing both a filtration and assembly mechanism pulling from a number of different sources and also introducing bias to the benefit of the readers. On the right we have an individual voice, someone who by definition has a bias, but generates all content and thus provides no filtering or assembly other than what they choose to write about.
The left side of the spectrum (like NYT) has a staff that generates 90% of the pieces; so if they pull from "multiple sources" it's the occasional freelancer or op/ed contributor. Is this what you mean? Perhaps Huffington Post would be a better e.g.: they cull from multiple contributors and filter through it all to ensure high quality content. So their filtering is what they choose to write about...but that's just like the blogger. And bloggers like Arrington still link out to other sites all the time -- is not this "another source" that's being brought into his site? I guess I'm not understanding the difference between either end of the "editorial function" scale.

[Wiseclam]

Oprah... the ultimate editor, no?

[Nitin Goyal]

There is a site run by Seth Godin - www.squidoo.com - that is purportedly a paltform for editors.