Curation nationFor a while I’ve been wrestling with the simple question, “How does anyone manage to keep up these days?” The question applies broadly, but even in just my professional universe, what spills over resembles Niagara Falls. The simple answer to my simple question is, “valued and trusted curation.” We rely on organizations and individuals whose judgment and insight can guide us in areas we don’t have time to fully understand. For better or worse, many of those organizations are shifting away from curation. Newspapers cut book reviews; independent bookstores reduce staff or disappear entirely; and retail chains focus on stock velocity to the detriment of choice and serendipity. We feel the gap in a variety of ways. Advocates in a variety of roles have stepped up to fill some of that gap. Tools like Twitter help keep the ball rolling. I value the opinions of people I follow. When they endorse a book, I want to know more. I may even “Re-Tweet” the recommendation, amplifying the original endorsement with an implied one of my own. But that’s not quite a business model. As my colleague Mac Slocum noted, “The world definitely needs a clear-headed curation advocate, particularly one that links it directly to revenue (this labor of love stuff only goes so far ...).” Historically, reviewers got paid by newspapers, who relied on some mix of advertising and subscription revenue to create and deliver a comprehensive product. It’s believed that few people read everything, but the “one size fits all” model was accepted by readers and advertisers alike. Booksellers are paid for curation when they sell something. Unfortunately, the small, independent bookstore whose title mix reflects a niche, a neighborhood or a community is hard to sustain. This curation question came to a head two weeks ago, when Amazon appeared to delist titles with gay and lesbian content. As Mac points out, curation also dovetails with the scale issue—it’s only sustainable if you’re lean and efficient. The weight of traditional business structures (offices, benefits, other overhead) crushes it. It has to either be one person working on their own, or a distributed group of contractors. In a recent post Jeff Jarvis tackled the journalistic side of curation. The lessons he tried to apply to journalists can apply to book sellers and their advocates, as well. We have to divine new ways to add value, ways rooted in how people seek and find information. Those paths haven’t been paved yet, but they do feel much more small-d democratic than the ones they are replacing. CommentsThe best “curator” ever in my lifetime was the librarian in the children’s reading room at the branch of the Phila. Library I went to. Her name was Miss Apple and she had not only read everything, but knew everything I had read. Where is Miss Apple today? Posted by Ava Seave on 04/27 at 09:06 AM
You’ve put your finger on one of the most pressing subjects of the current era. There is NO way to keep up, and Twitter actually needs curation more than just about anyplace else. (I just saw something on ReadWriteWeb this weekend that promises to move the ball on that...) I always say “verticality” is the answer, and certainly good curation will come partly from the development of vertical organization. But that’s not the whole answer. I think there is ultimately a “job” in here for a human to provide services on top of automation for other humans. Posted by MikeShatzkin on 04/27 at 09:48 AM
Mac Slocum’s comments in the post underscore what Ava and Mike talk about - we trust people to help us navigate a glut of information. Systems are useful but not necessarily conclusive. There really does seem to be a market for businesses who can provide what is scarce: insight and direction. Posted by Brian O'Leary on 04/27 at 10:33 AM
I have to say, I love the term “curator” and think your comments on the practical application of the new definition of “curator” are thought provoking, especially where curators intersect with business models and questions of revenue. I said over the weekend at a reader convention in Orlando that the two most important tools a blogger has in building an audience are consistency and credibility. That when you interact online, the currency of your reputation is generosity and authenticity. The “labor of love” stuff is the most powerful element: the answer to the cynical question, “What’s in it for you?” is exactly that: “I labor to write this review because I loved this _____ .” Intersecting that currency with ACTUAL currency is a delicate negotiation, and can very easily cost a blogger/curator his or her audience. While those of us who spend long hours working on our sites do so because of the enjoyment and pleasure we get in community interaction, it is a costly hobby, and the eventual market that will build around the new sources of “insight and direction,” as Brian O’Leary said above, is something that I am very, very curious to see. Posted by SB Sarah on 04/27 at 11:35 AM
This is similar to what Clay Shirky was talking about as filter failure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabqeJEOQyI, and absolutely one of the keys to the future for books. It is also what gives me hope for the survival of indie bookstores, if they can figure out a way to parallel online the face-to-face curatorial role they’ve played in their communities. I grew up in Denver and I can’t think of any big aggregator or freelance reviewer I would trust more than some of the smarter employees at Tattered Cover - maybe employees with expertise in popular subject areas could have their own blogs and Twitter feeds, with tie-ins to brick-and-mortar events like readings or discussions? The same goes for active local libraries (Ava’s Miss Apple). There is so much more that could be done. Posted by on 04/27 at 01:03 PM
Nice piece, Brian! A secondary issue—and one I often confront—is separating the fun parts of curation from the work. I suspect many folks get a thrill out of the hunt-find-share cycle, especially since Twitter, blogs, RSS, etc. make it so quick and easy. I love this stuff and could do it all day. But there’s the problem. At some point, curators need to translate a percentage of their audiences into customers who will pay for naturally scarce services (consulting, education, in-person events, etc.). Creating those conversions is the tough part. Posted by Mac Slocum on 04/27 at 02:12 PM
I like Mac’s comment which makes me think of another one.
Posted by MikeShatzkin on 04/27 at 02:16 PM
I’m tempted to stop blogging and start building the curation business… Maybe when I start to make money from either, I can decide Posted by Brian O'Leary on 04/28 at 10:06 AM
I was planning on taking you with me, Mac. Someone has to actually curate, after all. Posted by Brian O'Leary on 04/28 at 10:15 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
|
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.