about ugc and you and me
Michelle's Consuming Louisville post about her local radio station's UGC photo promotion prompted a pretty impassioned response from me in her comments so I figured the topic deserved a longer treatise from me here. I should be working right now but the Holidays have already captured my brain.
And I will open this with a caveat - while what I'm going to discuss is informed by my work at the mouse nothing I'm going to say is specific to any of our current, past, or future projects.
For the purposes of this conversation, let's consider UGC this - copy, images, and video created and submitted by website guests who do not have a formal relationship, state of employment, or contract with said website or it's parent company.
Professionally generated content in this conversation is material sold to or produced in partnership with a website or it's parent company. It can also be content that passes the "professional" smell test and/or has it's own brand. UGC content is 99% of what gets posted to youtube. The other 1% like Epic-fu and Tiki Bar TV is PGC.
Understand this about Traditional Entertainment Mainstream Media Companies and UGC promotions: for them, user-generated content is almost never about the content.
Let me write that again: for them, user-generated content is almost never about the content.
MSM gets much more value from professionally generated content. It's extendable, distributable, licensable, and has tried and true copyright agreements around it. In the online space, professionally generated content is thought of the same way. Professional content makers that are selling their existing products or producing in partnership with MSM websites bring with them their own cache - built-in audience, expertise in the online content model, and the level of creativity and "professionalism" that is the equivalent of their television or movie content creation counterparts.
So, what does MSM get out of user-generated content promotions? If they are smart, they are getting what good UGC models provide - a dedicated and invested audience, increased page views, increased time spent on the site, a committed community to market to and sell advertising against, and, lastly, interesting enough content that passive users like to see (although probably not pay for). MSM is not looking for professional work to come in from professionals through UGC promotions and, in fact, have to protect themselves against those kinds of submissions in their disclaimers and terms of use.
A fan or hobbyist wants to participate. A professional wants to get paid. UGC is for that first audience and explicitly not for the second.
Also, realize that in the online space, it's cheaper to get professional content, particularly copy and photos. UGC promotions/applications are expensive to create and manage. Professionally generated content has set costs. I can buy one photo from a pro for what? $50, $500, $5000? How much does it cost me to sort through and manage complicated usage rights for 5,000 user-submitted photos? 50,000? 500,000? And for how long?
If I'm MSM and I want pro content, I'll hire a pro. It's quicker, costs less, and doesn't come with huge legal hurdles.
Understand this as a person who creates content, you don't get to be both. You either are an amateur or you're a pro. If you're a pro, copyright your material, protect your intellectual and creative property, determine your own rules about distribution. I post my pictures to flickr under a creative commons license that pretty much marks me as a hobbyist. You can take my pictures and do what you will with them as long as I get credited. If, at some point in my life, I decide to become a professional, I would change my license and probably limit the amount of work I have available online for free. I'd understand, though, that my material from before I considered myself a pro, is probably open season.
I don't post my writing anywhere without a prior agreement about that work. I don't consider writing a hobby. I've been paid for my writing, hired for my writing, speak about my writing. It's professional work. I give it to you for free here. I'd fight it's appearance elsewhere tooth and nail if I thought it was without permission (this gets a little hinky with RSS feeds but that's for another day).
As I said on Michelle's post, don't look for a MSM company or website to protect your rights. They are far too busy (and scared) protecting their own.
Comments
...and devil's advocate here: When does UGC become PGC? Aren't Steve and Zadi simply good and organized UGC creators? Where does that blurry line sit?
Now, I'll make a couple points here - 1, this is about my perception of that license. The simple fact that I'm considering the license probably means I'm thinking about my work much more than a typical "ugc" target user and 2, I haven't been keeping up on my EFF/Creative Commons law lately but I know that creative commons licenses have been challenged as valid licenses for copyright law purposes.
And, again, ultimately as a content generator, it's my responsibility to manage my distribution. If I think a CC license is enough for me in that regard than it's good enough. I'd think, though, that if photography was how I made my living, I'd probably be working under something a little more standard than the CC license no matter my love for the concept.
Epic-FU isn't UGC. They own their brand (hell, they changed the name of the show to have a better handle on that brand). They have targeted and specific distribution models (primarily on their own site) on the places they choose to share their work. They can "sell" their show and their content if they choose to.
Same with Ze Frank and Ill Doctrine and on and on. This was a common topic of conversation I participated in at Pixelodeon over the Summer. These folks are no different than a TV show producer but they do have a big advantage in that they have direct access to multiple ways of distributing and monetizing their content. They don't *have* to go the MSM route if they don't want to.