Aggregates are not new. Until now they were just less visible because they were embedded in the old media themselves. The reason for this was space: because old media couldn''t afford to publish unlimited amounts of content, selection was an economic imperative. In on-demand media this, of course, is no longer the case. To name some examples: newspapers, TV schedules, news bulletins, music compilations, DJ sets, bookshop windows and bookshops themselves all have limited room. In all these media, making too much content available was simply not an option.
Now, the main characteristic of on-demand media is that space is no longer restricted. The physical pillar of aggregation thus crumbles away. Because of this, we might feel tempted to conclude that aggregation is no longer needed because search and recommendation engines will now do the work. In a world of infinite choice, we could say, these tools will match up audiences to content in personalised and efficient ways. Shared media experiences will disappear.
But this contradicts my earlier argument: Aggregates, especially socially shared ones, provide distinct values to their users (not to mention the media industry), and because of this they are sought-after content products in their own right. Users rely on them in order to experience what others experience: to know what others know, to listen to the same music, to be in the loop, to be in a community. Further, without this social context content is generally worthless.
Aggregates, especially massively shared ones, are here to stay. But this is not to say that the old aggregates will survive. New forms of aggregation will arise (and are already arising) that provide some of the values that old media delivered.
Comments