I’m sick and tired of hearing about how you should be producing “content” to attract a web following. Treating content as a category on its own is missing the point entirely. Nobody cares about content. Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, hey, I should read some content today.
What people want is opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights. The best of all these come as a by-product from actually doing stuff. The closer you are to the topics, the more natural you’ll be able to extract the goodies.
This also means that it’s hard to schedule. You can’t put neatly into timeslots when you’re going to be annoyed, ecstatic, disappointed, have a great insight or discover a new awesome technique.
The great thing is that it doesn’t really matter that much anyway whether you follow a tight schedule. Between Twitter, RSS, and the aggregator sites, good stuff usually bubbles to the top regardless.
So no more content, please.
Martin Edic
on 26 May 10As a professional writer I couldn’t agree more. Though I am co-founder of a digital publishing business, I do not consider myself to be a ‘content creator’. I provide highly concentrated and useful information on a variety of subjects to my readers. The idea that there is something generic known as ‘content’ is ridiculous- who goes searching for some content to consume? We search for solutions to things we’re interested in. Or insights. Or shared experiences…
Nano
on 26 May 10David, you didn’t produce any links or quotes of examples of people talking about the need for “content,” so I can only speculate as to what you meant. I assume you meant that people are talking about the need for “content” as opposed to “links to content” or “aggregates of other people’s content.”
I don’t see a problem with your feeling “sick and tired of hearing about how you should be producing “content” to attract a web following,” but it sounds like you’re disagreeing with the notion that “content” is a useful term. In many cases it is (specifically the case I mentioned above).
Dustin Taylor
on 26 May 10Yes… thank you for sharing this. It’s simple really… if you have something to say, then say it. But don’t just post “content” just to try and attract some followers. It won’t work. You must say something relevant and something worth reading. Just posting “content” actually would make me unsubscribe from your site.
riddle
on 26 May 10Reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/741/
Jan
on 26 May 10On that topic: http://xkcd.com/741/ (This one was just too fitting :)
Ramón Puchades
on 26 May 10Very clever, thanks for writting the ideas that most of us have in mind.
I do work on a media company rigth now and, using your words, I’m sick and tired to hear about content, specially added to other void words to create void abstract nice-looking concepts like ‘good content’, ‘quality content’ and, on the top: ‘paid content’
Adam
on 26 May 10I loved reading this article and seeing the following job ad at the top :)
http://localhostr.com/files/bf1d3c/capture.png
Greg M.
on 26 May 10I totally agree.
I’m a freelance writer, and I always get requests for content. I sometimes get the feeling people are just looking for one step above “lorem ipsum” text. Something to fill in the white space.
Frankly, white space would be more honest. White space doesn’t pretend to communicate.
Leo
on 26 May 10David, what you say MAKES NO SENSE. Let me put it to you this way: “Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, hey, I should read some opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights today. “
Do they?
Bob
on 26 May 10What about content masked as content with a rant about being sick of content?
Stop complaining.
I’m a ReWork fan, but your constant “sick and tired’ness” of almost everything, that you supposedly do so much better, is getting rather annoying.
This is a big let down.
cb
on 26 May 10I’m tired of hearing people talk about weather. Whenever I walk outside its always sunny, cloudy, rainy, windy, etc. There’s never any “weather” when I walk outside
Drew Pickard
on 26 May 10He’s talking about thinking of content as a ‘bucket to be filled’ instead of people thinking “we want to be the best purveyor of interesting news on the internet” or even “we want to be the best blog for DIY knitting on the web” and then writing/creating/filming/finding the best information/tutorials/patterns, etc on the web.
Content is not the last thing, it’s the FIRST. Purpose DRIVES everything – if you have no purpose, no goal, no point of view, no center then you have nothing.
Content is the filler word for filler.
DHH
on 26 May 10Bob, get off my lawn!
Andrew
on 26 May 10First few commenters sound like lemmings that blindly follow DHH.
Devin Reams
on 26 May 10Nano, perhaps related (and no judgement being passed here): today Anil Dash said “When there’s no time for original content, we link!” #
Bob, I enjoy DHH’s opinions. SvN also points to things they like all the time. It’s a nice balance. Unlike your comment.
Peter Cooper
on 26 May 10The idea that there is something generic known as ‘content’ is ridiculous- who goes searching for some content to consume? I provide highly concentrated and useful information on a variety of subjects to my readers.
Do you consider similar categorizations like “video”, “code”, “books”, “furniture” and “cars” ridiculous too? If “content” is ridiculous and generic, why use terms like “readers” or “subjects” or “information” when you could be more specific on all of those? It’s because catch-all, generic terms are actually useful to describe things at a high level without going into inane levels of detail.
Raymond Brigleb
on 26 May 10Bi-product? Kinky!
Chris
on 26 May 10Why are you so angry, David? I could never understand a blogger that attacks the reader. It tells me so much more about you as a person, and I’m not interested in meeting you. It puts such a bad taste in my mouth for 37signals.
What would Godin say about this post?
Grow up, man. You work for one of the most forward-thinking companies on earth. Start acting like you do.
Josh Catone
on 26 May 10Hmm… semantics? Content is just the “stuff” that you offer to people who consume it using whatever verb is appropriate (watch, read, listen, feel, interact, etc.)
To attract an audience you give them stuff, because no one wants to read or watch or listen to nothingness (well, some people do, but nothingness is readily available without your help).
On the web, some people call that stuff “content.” You don’t have to, but there’s no reason to get bent out of shape because you don’t like the terminology.
Bob
on 26 May 10Devin, You are right. My comment was unbalanced and rude. My apologies to DHH.
I think my problem with this lies with David’s constant ranting regarding these topics. I’ve watched numerous interviews with DHH and it’s a constant whine fest of what everyone is doing wrong, and what he does right.
Chris makes a good point. What would Godin say? It looks to me, that this post is trying to be stark yet pungent like a Godin style post. It’s just missing all the good stuff that comes with Godin’s posts and comes off with a pile of anger and bitterness.
That’s all. I will get off the lawn now.
riddle
on 26 May 10A lot of content makers in comments I suppose.
Ian
on 26 May 10I wish “companies” would stop making “products” and selling them to “people” and “businesses.”
Lee McAlilly
on 26 May 10Love DHH’s response to Bob.
Bob go make something!
Spencer Fry
on 26 May 10I completely agree. Whenever I write “content” it’s a spontaneous thing that comes out of me like bursting hot lava. Earlier today I wrote a four page article first draft of a piece in under an hour. It just flowed out of me. That’s the feeling that produces good content.
Scott
on 26 May 10Such passive agressivess..I’m dissapointed in you lads.
Last time I checked, Meet The Press was regular. This American Life too. Pretty amazing content. Anything “created” is “content.” I suggest your distinguish useful content from useless content.
If you feel pressure to publish, please don’t—you already have brilliant tools. If anything, preach more about how your tools can solve my needs better than slate and chalk, MS Project, or Notepad.
Robert Moss
on 26 May 10The problem with ‘content’ is that it’s a generic term for crap used to fill web pages.
Many publishers treat content as a supply chain management issue instead of an act of creativity. They figure more content (good, bad, ugly or indifferent) plus more links equals more people on their sites.
So they treat content like it’s built on an assembly line and pay the lowest they can get away with. But unlike an automobile, no one’s going to get into their ‘content’ and get into a rollover accident stemming from a design or production flaw. When’s the last time you saw a publisher issued recall on a blog site? A true assembly line has oversight, it has a Kurt Kroner. But few publishers have real editors and few value individual writers. Why should they?
Tiffani Jones Brown
on 26 May 10Totally agree. But we gotta call what we do/make something, right? I wouldn’t mind being called an Idea-ist. Or a Things-That-Engage Pusher.
It’s tricky to find better words for our buzzwords!
Ariel
on 26 May 10I don’t think the problem is actually the term “content” by itself. “Content” infers something meaningful or interesting, which will totally depend on who’s consuming it. The problem actually is this “obligation” of constantly publishing new and interesting things. It just doesn’t happen that way. Can you picture Plato or Aristotle posting deep and meaningful thoughts every single day on twitter ?! I believe not. The result is the amazing amount of bullshit that goes around these days. Unless you are trying to just generate page views, frequency doesn’t matter that much.
Brade
on 26 May 10Amen, bro!
Noam
on 26 May 10But what about people who’s line of work is to write (or talk or whatever)? They don’t “do” anything but report on what other people are doing. So for them it’s content.
Some people are good at talking and some are good at doing. Some are good at both. That’s just the way it is. So for a talker to report on what a doer does can actually make sense in many scenarios (when the talker talks better than the doer does and the doer does better than the talker).
The problem comes when there are many more “reporters” than there are “doers”. You start getting “sick and tired” of bullshit content written by people who know very little on the topic they’re covering.
So all of you doers – talk more about what you do (but don’t consider it content). And all of you reporters – do more of what you talk about! Maybe you’ll consider it less as content and more as sharing knowledge or experience.
We’ll probably get better quality and value but there will always be room for people who’s entire line of business is to generate content.
Thanks!
Rahul
on 26 May 10I love that part of what Signal vs Noise creates isn’t the post itself but the discussion around it.
Now that’s content.
Sean Tubridy
on 26 May 10Replace the word “content” with the words “design” or “development” or anything else and you’ll see how silly this argument is.
“I’m sick and tired of hearing about how you should be producing “designs” to attract a web following. What people want is color, layout, typography, imagery, and whitespace.
“Content” is simply a blanket term to describe all of the things you mention: opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights.
If anything, we need to talk more about content.
Because (and I think other designers will agree with me on this) if I have one more client come to me wanting to see a finished web design before they have a single word, picture or video ready, I’m going to lose it.
Helmut Baker
on 26 May 10Wrong. What people want is to interact and participate in the online conversation, not content, not opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights. Content and the rest are merely and outcome, a bunch of artifacts.
No one wakes up and thinks “I should consume some opinions etc.” But everyone can’t wait to get engaged, to jump in, to participate and contribute.
Leo
on 26 May 10If we’re honest, nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, “Hey, I should read some opinions (or analysis, techniques, experiences, insights) today.” That’s not really a good criteria for what to call what people want to read. They only know it when they see it.
Kevin Gainey
on 26 May 10I’m with Sean Tubridy viewpoint: {opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, insights} == content
I think producing content in order to attract a web following is ass backwards. Produce the content because you can’t NOT produce the content. Then you’ll see a web following. Don’t get it backwards.
Sherwood
on 26 May 10I think the underlying point here is not that there’s anything wrong with the idea of content, but that “content” has become like “synergy” – a term overused by people as a shortcut past the substance of what they’re talking about.
Vasily Myazin
on 26 May 10This thought very well resonates with me. Content as a category is a mistake, or a misconception at best. Content for the sake of content make the internet a worse place to get relevant, useful information.
David, cheers to you. In your expression you have every right to be who you are (not that you need my encouragement).
Allison
on 26 May 10Content is the latest get-rich-quick scheme. The interesting thing about the internet today is how you can follow the money. Start on elance and look for people who have large numbers of finished projects, high ratings, etc. on a wide variety of topics. Take a look at the project requirements and samples. Google snippets of those and find where they ended up. Follow that back to the site owner and google them. Eventually you wind up at some site that is hawking a get-rich-quick scheme and google-will-pay-you-for-clicks job advertisements. A whole damn subeconomy has sprung up around content.
Josh Hall
on 26 May 10You couldn’t be more spot on. I manage a website called www.porterstahoe.com we are an online retailer and a 50 year old brick and mortar retailer in Lake Tahoe California. Material for us is produced in a very organic way…we supply helmet camera’s and still digital camera’s to our employee’s, pay them to go ride bike, ski, swim, fish, snowboard, ski…and with all of there enjoyment in such a beautiful place we end up with truly amazing video’s and great articles. They are not required to blog or post, and what we have found that they have such a great time out there, they do it on there own. Thanks for the read…
Grant
on 26 May 10People usually don’t know what would be good for them UNTIL they actually see them. I guess that is why good “stuff” (whatever their format is) will usually bubble up to the top; personally, I have seen plenty of likes/dislikes from readers of my own blog. So, no more content, agreed!
Chad
on 26 May 10Here here! Similarly, I am sick of people saying they need food! What they need is toasted cheese sandwiches, coq au vin, and mushroom pizzas. So no more food please.
But seriously, this is a post that is, wait for it….. content! And on a content filled blog as well.
If you said that you were against insipid or vapid “content” then I couldn’t agree more, but unfortunately this post is lacking substance and is in itself contradictory. But don’t let me or semantics get in the way of good link bait.
Adam
on 26 May 10A website without content is a solution looking for a problem. That’s the trap many people fall into when they come to web shops for something that will garner an online following. Though “content” sounds like a buzzword (and it is), it has its use when articulating this problem to clients.
Big D
on 26 May 10@Sherwood – I’m with you buddy.
I think the point is “poor quality content”, rather than, “content”. Surely we’d all be doing something else like gasp talking to each other or reading or writing (man how crazy would that be?) or something, if we just stopped creating CONTENT. Wouldn’t we?
Lighten up fellers!
PJ
on 26 May 10I think D2H just wanted to emphasize the fact that too much people write content for the sake of writing content. And that clearly makes no sense.
As Greg M. said above: “I sometimes get the feeling people are just looking for one step above “lorem ipsum” text. Something to fill in the white space.”. Who can tell this is a good approach to “content”?
Ahmed El.Hussaini
on 26 May 10Very interesting article, well done you
Clay Delk
on 26 May 10It’s so weird… I remember reading the Table of CONTENTS in Rework and thinking, damn, I hate when books are full of that crap.
Ian
on 26 May 10Not content? Well http://37signals.com/svn/posts/93-its-the-content-not-the-icons
Tim
on 27 May 10This is an awesome, timely, post.
I battle against the need to post content on one of my sites constantly. So, I just post stuff as needed.
More importantly, though, this reinforced to me the need for a writer/blogger/whatever to be absolutely close (read: passionate) about their topic.
For me, with cycling and coffee, it’s absolutely EASY to write good, useful, stuff whenever it’s to hand.
Not according to some “I must write some content on Tuesday evening at 9PM”.
So, in that regard, David’s post, I think, absolutely speaks to quality and relevance, as opposed to quantity.
There are many experts, particularly in the “how to make money blogging” arena that endlessly vomit “content”, which to me gives the content and by extension the writer, a feel of a broken record.
I’d rather have awesome quality posts from people whose ideas I adore appear once a week or whatever, rather than something appear once per day, where I might get something insightful once per month.
Fresh, not stale! Timbo
Arsene Hodali
on 27 May 10Ha, brilliant.
As a blogger I have to say I agree with you. But sadly, I still post everyday (you know- following the “blogging rules”).
The great thing is that I’ve found a way to make sure I only put up great information that i adore and that others need to see.
Like twitter. Give love to others. Whenever I’m not struck with the fire to write something, I just point people to others that are.
I’d much rather they read that, than my “content”.
D
on 27 May 10“Byproduct” – if you’re going to attack a generation of writers, please do it well.
What content is important to one person varies wildly between people – without examples as to what is a “waste of content,” everything will be important content to someone. Most of these comments revolve around people hoping to get everyone’s attention and bring them to their own blogs/sites, so most of them aren’t very worthwhile.
Bob’s earlier comments were useful – and he was communally forced to apologize. Come on now.
Dirk
on 27 May 10What a great post! It makes my day.
Richard
on 27 May 10Isn’t it wonderful when words have different meanings? Content(1) as a high level abstraction for opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights versus Content(2) as a dimensionless buzzword similar to “Colour” in adverts for hair products derived from (1) but stripped of meaning and thrown about at management get-togethers in chain hotels.
(1) is bloody important of which more please
(2) is not.
This post is possibly (3) deliberately fusing (1) & (2) in something that could have been an example of (1) but veers toward (2)
Fannar
on 27 May 10Remember What Really Grinds my Gears by Peter Griffin? :)
I loved that show.
Hannes
on 27 May 10as an professional reader and an unprofessional writer I only say: amen :D
Benjamin
on 27 May 10It sounds to me like he hates the word “content” like I hate the word “solutions”. I think things like opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights are types of content unless the word has been demonized without me knowing. Maybe he just hates content for the sake of content?
Luis
on 27 May 10@ Sean Tubridy
I totally agree with you.
Alexandre
on 27 May 10what’s too often true about “content” is that a lot of companies just want content to fill their website and think they will make some seo.
i’m sick and tired too of hearing companies buying or making partnerships to get contents from other websites. this is how you sometimes get exactly the same shitty content on every website your visit when trying to find something
the same companies will probably not get a lot of success at long term. i lived it and hated it
maybe that it was what David was complaining about?
Maria
on 27 May 10I also agree with Sean Tubridy’s comment above.
As a writer, podcaster, and screencaster, I proudly bear the label “content creator.” after all, that’s what all this is: content. My blog posts cover a wide range of content topics, from rants like this one to how-to pieces to reviews to general observations. What do we call this if not “content”?
This is a silly blog post.
Chip
on 27 May 10Well it’s a provocative statement to get a lot of comments, but when did anyone define content so narrowly? Reality is that opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights are all CONTENT—just community-generated content vs. centrally published content.
So if your community is going to be interesting, relevant, exciting, and attractive to your audience, you need to build structure, incentives, and a culture in the community to encourage community engagement, interest, and contributions for lively community-generated “content”.
Martial
on 27 May 10@ Drew Pickard hits the nail on the head: What is your goal?
If the goal is “content”, then bleah. If your goal is “provide insight into [X]” or “design great [Y]” or even “kick someone’s ass”, then you’re cooking.
Have a great goal before you write. Or do.
Martial
on 27 May 10One more thing, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”...
Schwanson
on 27 May 10There is content we search for, and content we stumble upon. If it looks like fun – we consume it. Whether or not it’s on today’s agenda.
eg: Millions of people find their way to a collection of moronic videos on youtube everyday. None of these people wake up with a resolution to ‘browse youtube today.’
The web shows that there is a place for websites full of random content.
Nollind Whachell
on 28 May 10I’m sick and tired of hearing about how you should be producing “content” to attract a web following.
This is it in a nutshell. If your focus is just on “producing” your quota of content (i.e. “Oh no! I need to write my daily blog post today! What should I write about!”), you’re doing it all wrong. You’ll only end up producing something that is only slightly better than latin filler.
Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, hey, I should read some opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights today.
I agree. I think that was a bad example as well. I want to wake up in the morning and find something that relates to my life in a new, meaningful, and inspiring way. It doesn’t really matter how or where I get this (i.e. reading, watching, listening).
But I think that’s what David was getting at. You can communicate or absorb something meaningful and inspiring anywhere (i.e. Twitter, RSS, etc). In effect, it’s not so much how you communicate, as what you communicate and why. I mean you could be inspired by a quote off the back of a soda pop bottle.
foljs
on 29 May 10Chris makes a good point. What would Godin say?
Doesn’t matter, because Godin is just a bullshit artist, i.e. content creator.
foljs
on 29 May 10Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, hey, I should read some opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights today.
Speak for yourself.
I do wake up in the morning and think: hey, I should read some opinions and techniques today.
This is why I read op-ed pieces, and why I frequent tutorial sites.
Opinions, tecniques, insights etc are specific enough to have a point.
“I’m gonna read some content today” on the other hand is not.
Your point again?
Rosamundwo
on 29 May 10If content is not about opinions, analysis, techniques, experiences, and insights, then what is a content?
Placing content in a category is for easier navigation, imo
dandellion
on 29 May 10I guess that what really bothers you is the way some people think about content. Usually those are marketing people that want large traffic on their websites and they need whatever will attract web spiders and high SERP positions and maybe even actual visitors. But, whether it is good or bad, it is content.
Well, not exactly put into timeslots, but ask any journalist worth its salary and she will tell you that mood-changing at will just to write an article is not just possible, it’s often tool of trade.Hannah
on 29 May 10Hey,
This is great if you’re not a global corporation that needs oversight, planning, localization, and a plan for your content.
Cannot really wait for the “bubbles.”
You are dismissing an important topic too quickly and based on your experiences as a company made up of a handful of people. This seems to be a trend at 37 Signals.
Think of how your advice applies to someone beyond yourselves.
Mike
on 29 May 10Ha – wow, some serious heat here. I actually agree with dhh here. Clients always ask me “What do I post on Twitter? What about facebook? Can you do it for us?”. Umm sure if I knew 2 shits about construction, baby products, or whatever other industry the client happens to be in. My simple answer is “Don’t brag, bitch, or belittle. Instead teach someone something interesting about your world, as many people read to learn.”
Kapil Gupta
on 30 May 10I absolutely agree regarding the content. As a digital marketing company, we very strongly believe in this philosophy, though we use appropriate tools to capture and schedule these insights, opinions, analysis, experience, etc.. :-) Creativity has its own very special place in Social Media, but needs to be complemented with processes and schedule. Neither should become the driver alone.
Kim
on 30 May 10I can understand David’s frustration with content and the different viewpoints by the commentators.
I’m new to the blogging and internet but in the short time that I’ve surf the blogging world, I noticed that the same information gets recycled over and over. It’s not just from independent bloggers, it’s also from the large reputable magazine and newspaper. If you search for a specific topic, you end up reading the exact same article 15 times with no extra value and perspective.
John Gallagher
on 31 May 10Wow. Amen to that.
For a long time I’ve got uncomfortable whenever someone talks about “content” and never been able to identify why. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
The word for me is clinical and depressing – it feels like it isolates us from the fact that what we’re reading in blogs is interesting and thought provoking articles.
Andres
on 31 May 10There is a fine line between being opinionated and being a prick… about content or anything else for that matter
This discussion is closed.