Are you reading and thinking any faster than you used to?
Comments I've been reading from many different sources suggest that the traditional process of creating magazines is outmoded, and doomed, because of the lag between writing an article and having it reach the end user. This "gratification curve" seems to assume that delivery time trumps reporting and research, editing and design, which take time if they are to be done well. That goes for selling advertising (which subsidizes 70% of most consumer publishing) and back office work (invoices, renewals, customer service and audience development).
A question has to be not only how content creation gets paid for in money (an important, and so far unsolved issue), but also in time to do the work, the two being firmly linked. And the term "content creation" takes in more than research and writing an article, but also designing and presenting it, which takes in illustration, photography and design, none of which can be done instantly or even much faster than they've ever been done. (For that matter, does it take any less time today than last year to set up a sales call, take a meeting and get a contract signed?)
What is often forgotten in a push-button society is that the human brain doesn't work much faster today than it did a few years ago; and that human conversation (a key component of an interview and research and sales transactions) proceeds at pretty much the same pace it always did.
Computer graphics are amazingly fast and versatile, as is social networking, but both are driven by thought processes that haven't appreciably speeded up. Some of the best work is done by sitting and thinking, which seems to move at pretty much the same pace it always has. The stress many people feel today in creative endeavours like writing and publishing is driven in part by the imperatives of speed as well as by the need to make an income. But most of us type at the same rate we did last week or last year (and it has to be remembered that typing is not writing).
Something like this blog can react very quickly to a story, but the story has to have been created for links to happen and the online conversation to take place. Twitter can pour an avalanche of tiny thoughts into your inbox, but it takes about the same time to read and comprehend 140 words today as it did last week or last year. And if you are going to act on those things, you'll realize that the creative process takes pretty much the same amount of time in your hands as it ever did.
Nobody who works in magazines has not lamented one time or another about lead times but most of us realize just how quickly processes of turning ideas into journalism has become. And there are some bottlenecks for the delivery of a physical product such as the printing process (which has, itself speeded up incredibly in recent years) and the postal delivery system (which hasn't). One of the reasons why digital publishing will probably play a larger and larger role and come to dominate delivery is readers' (and advertisers') insistence on overcoming those bottlenecks.
But creating the page or document you're going to read? The article, the illustration, the video, the links, all take time, regardless of whether you see it on a laptop screen or a printed page. Less time, perhaps, taking advantage of various technologies. But a lot of what we consume would be better, shorter, more beautiful, more insightful and more engaging if the required investment of thinking and doing time is acknowledged as a cost of providing original creative material.
There is a saying "Do you want it fast, or do you want it good?" There seems to be the assumption that we can have both, something that probably can't be sustained.
A question has to be not only how content creation gets paid for in money (an important, and so far unsolved issue), but also in time to do the work, the two being firmly linked. And the term "content creation" takes in more than research and writing an article, but also designing and presenting it, which takes in illustration, photography and design, none of which can be done instantly or even much faster than they've ever been done. (For that matter, does it take any less time today than last year to set up a sales call, take a meeting and get a contract signed?)
What is often forgotten in a push-button society is that the human brain doesn't work much faster today than it did a few years ago; and that human conversation (a key component of an interview and research and sales transactions) proceeds at pretty much the same pace it always did.
Computer graphics are amazingly fast and versatile, as is social networking, but both are driven by thought processes that haven't appreciably speeded up. Some of the best work is done by sitting and thinking, which seems to move at pretty much the same pace it always has. The stress many people feel today in creative endeavours like writing and publishing is driven in part by the imperatives of speed as well as by the need to make an income. But most of us type at the same rate we did last week or last year (and it has to be remembered that typing is not writing).
Something like this blog can react very quickly to a story, but the story has to have been created for links to happen and the online conversation to take place. Twitter can pour an avalanche of tiny thoughts into your inbox, but it takes about the same time to read and comprehend 140 words today as it did last week or last year. And if you are going to act on those things, you'll realize that the creative process takes pretty much the same amount of time in your hands as it ever did.
Nobody who works in magazines has not lamented one time or another about lead times but most of us realize just how quickly processes of turning ideas into journalism has become. And there are some bottlenecks for the delivery of a physical product such as the printing process (which has, itself speeded up incredibly in recent years) and the postal delivery system (which hasn't). One of the reasons why digital publishing will probably play a larger and larger role and come to dominate delivery is readers' (and advertisers') insistence on overcoming those bottlenecks.
But creating the page or document you're going to read? The article, the illustration, the video, the links, all take time, regardless of whether you see it on a laptop screen or a printed page. Less time, perhaps, taking advantage of various technologies. But a lot of what we consume would be better, shorter, more beautiful, more insightful and more engaging if the required investment of thinking and doing time is acknowledged as a cost of providing original creative material.
There is a saying "Do you want it fast, or do you want it good?" There seems to be the assumption that we can have both, something that probably can't be sustained.
posted by D. B. Scott at
8:04 am
4 Comments:
This goes straight to my theory that content is migrating to its most effective platform. Now that we have choices, readers will read things/learn about things where it makes the most sense: online for news, print for long-form writing, to simplify, and everything else somewhere in-between. You're right, there's a beauty to a well-planned, well-written, well-laid-out piece of work in a magazine that just can't be done quickly. But a lot of things that do go into print don't necessarily merit all that effort. Of course, this depends on the survival of print...
Awesome article. Great work.
Great post DB. Recently, while scanning Twitter, it occurred to me that I feel more informed than ever--but less thoughtful. I'm not suggesting we turn away from new media, but that we recognize there's a difference between gobbing information in a kind of info-equivalent of a hot-dog eating contest versus taking some time to enjoy and savour what we're taking in--the steak dinner model, if you like. I love the ready access to online media--but I gotta say, I'm trying to add back in more dead-tree media--magazines of course, plus papers and books.
Attention span is the ultimate resource that matters online - this is becoming all the more clear. More than money even, online publishing comes down to giving the reader the most value for their attention span. You cannot think about two things at once. This small but crucial fact makes individual attention span the gold standard for currency in the online world.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home