In a recent post Tim O'Reilly wonders why short-form content is successful on the web, and offers as explanations that (i) it is easier to read, and (ii) it is more 'modular' - making it easier to build aggregate content collaboratively.
Perhaps. But I would add a third explanation: because the web is PC-based. PCs are unsuitable in those places, physical positions and moods where we like to enjoy a long read; and PCs are often used at the office, where it's not acceptable to spend an hour reading something that is not work-related. As to video, PCs are used by a single person at a time, and so the social inappropriateness of compulsive channel-flicking doesn't apply (but that won't carry over to internet-TV beyond the web).
To keep beating my old drum, people don't want content. They want to read a certain book in bed, watch TV with their partner in a warm room, read the paper over breakfast, watch a movie over Indian food, or retire to the study to browse the web. Content only exists as a (sometimes senior, sometimes junior) partner in a larger dance (the medium) in which such banalities as ergonomics and household routines play a large role. The medium doesn't just change "the format in which content is delivered"; without an appropriate medium to exist in, content would not get made.
(Of course people do consume and want content, but only in the sense that when I want an ice-cream I want sugar; the idea is to sell the ice-cream, not the sugar. And of course you get some people who just need sugar, but you get my point.)
Comments