Content vs. community: Which will rule?
June 20th, 2008 by Todd Van Hoosear
Back in September of last year, I posted a question on Facebook that was bugging the crap out of me. It was one of those chicken and egg existential questions that you either shrug off or spend way too much time thinking about. I asked my network:
When it comes to social media, which comes first: content or connection?
The responses I got impressed the hell out of me. They came from folks like Judith Perrolle, Associate Professor of Sociology at Northeastern; B.L. Ochman; John Cass; Shel Israel; David Parmet; David Evans; Matt Searles; Scott Monty; Todd Defren; Catherine Marenghi and several others.
I share the details of the feedback below, but the conclusion from this panel of 15 social media experts was clear: content rules! These results were validated in March when AdAge reported (subscription required) on research from the Online Publishers Association (please note the potential bias here), indicating “that consumers actually spend a relatively small share (only 7.5%) of their time online with community sites….”
According to AdAge’s article, the OPA’s Internet Activity Index showed that “42.7% of consumer time online is spent with content sites, 28.6% is with communication sites, 16.1% with commerce sites and 5% on search sites.”
Francois Gossieaux challenged this whole line of thinking, or at least the research methods, arguing that treating community the same way that you treat
content, communications, search and commerce, is like comparing apples and oranges. Or better yet, comparing apples and oranges with air or water. Communities are combinations of content, commerce, communications and search. And communities affect the usage pattern of all the above categories and vice versa. So if I am spending time on Amazon.com, am I spending time with commerce, content, search or community?
Jim Nail of Cymfony poked a few more holes at the argument that content trumps all.
So where does this leave us? I’m still torn on the issue, but here’s my two cents:
Community comes first, but content is ultimately more important. There are really two questions, which comes frist, and which is more important. It’s absolutely critical to get out there and be known, and that means community. It doesn’t necessarily mean creating a community, it means joining a community, and interacting with them. But you very quickly have to be able to contribute more than the occasional witty riposte in order to grow your presence. Ultimately you need content, backed by relationships with the right online communities. Content may still be king, but without a community, it has nothing to rule over.
The results of my Facebook survey follow. While I’ve removed attributions, feel free to play the game of who said what. I will say one thing, Catherine Marenghi was the one with the great literary analogy! I think I have comments from Doug Haslam, Awais Sultan and Sandy Kalik mixed in as well.
PRO-CONTENT SENTIMENT
- Definitely content comes first. the beauty of social media is the ability to connect to new people whose content is interesting.
- Content is king! Period! Although connection will, in some cases, shape and dictate content. If you have nothing useful to say, who cares who you are saying it to.
- Content is king. Show me a single site where connections rule. Even LinkedIn is primarily focused on content, especially for recruiters.
- Yes. But seriously, I think there are a couple of different levels of social media we’re talking about. One is the digital manifestation of face-to-face relationships; the other is creating relationships from scratch. For the latter you need content.
- Great question. Likely answer is that it depends on the individual. I am sure my 15-year old would say “connections” (all his friends are on FB or MySpace), but in my own experience, the “content” of my blog led to many connections I never woulda made.
- IMHO, it is content. Content is the prime driver of the connection. Without content even the strongest connection gradually becomes an acquaintance, then an affinity, then a remembrance.
- Contention
PRO-COMMUNITY SENTIMENT
- There is nothing social about content. Giving content that others appreciate is social. Connections as a way of keeping score is of dubious value to me. Connecting with people who share a common interest, now that comes first in my book.
- Connection. Content is a commodity. Connection is what social media is all about.
- connection–if my friends weren’t on facebook, I wouldn’t be!
NEUTRAL SENTIMENT
- Social structure and culture give rise to both of these.
- Both are equally important.
- Both are equally important. Either existing connections are made stronger with social media, or content builds new connections.
- It seems like a metaphysics question, there’s a sense where the organism and the environment, if you really want to understand them, are not really discrete entities.. there distinctions have more to do with what question we ask then the thing in its self
- There’s a line from a Yeats poem — how can we know the dancer from the dance?
Special thanks to Jeff Connors of Orange Notebook for pointing me to the Ad Age article.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 8:18 am and is filed under PR. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.















June 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Hi Todd - thank you for continuing the conversation. I was not arguing between content and community…but instead arguing about the categorization that OPA used.
If the question is community vs content, then the answer is clearly that you cannot have community without content - and that is something that many community managers miss as we found in our research (http://tinyurl.com/6xzdkn) and as I wrote about here (http://tinyurl.com/59a65t).
June 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
As I think of it now, I think the answer probably lys in alchemy, kinda sorta.. If we thought of the nature of experience as.. crystallizations.. Imagine that all experience was made up different combinations of basic elements configured in different ways.. like molecules in matter…
Ask what’s the content of the connection, or what’s the connection of the content..
Underlying and driving consciousness is conflict. Conflict drives consciousness in the same way that it drives the plot in a story. Conflict is like the demand portion of supply and demand in economics. Conflict defines how we value content on a personal level.. It is what we are looking for.. and its the underlying factor in principles of social cohesion.
If a group of people get together, if you were to perform a statistical analysis on the conflicts underlying the consciousness of the component individuals.. you would find that.. in a supply and demand sorta way, this is influencing the hierarchy of the group.. what it cultivates in the group members.. and has everything to do with the group consciousness..
Nietzsche would tell you your will isn’t free, that beneath the surface of what you call your will there’s really many wills vying for the top position.. the dominant will we then identify as “our will.” Morality, for Nietzsche, is a hierarchical ordering of the wills… what drives the hierarchy is quite a bit like the Abraham Maslow stuff.. and ultimately speaks to the question of the conflict.
So consciousness.. thecrystallizations… what we are pulling together.. the face of reality as we experience it.. all comes down to conflict.. and that’s sorta “the connection of the content.” Another words the conflict is driving the crystallizations.
Its as if to say the nature of the material world is chaos and this is the process by which we organize it into a conceptual framework.. a “reality concept” through which we interact with it.
Or that’s some of “Matt’s Social Media philosophy 101″ anyway…
June 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Wow, Matt. Thanks. I’ll need to sleep on some of that. But I like what you’re saying about conflict. I’d probably state it a little differently (given, as you know, my binary leanings): underlying and driving consciousness is contrast (as opposed to conflict). Swap out those two terms and what you’re saying still makes sense.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Todd, I have no recollection what I said at the beginning of this debate, but it seemstome you are right about chickens & eggs and Francois is right about fruits & meteorological elements. You cannot have a terrestrial community with dwellings and marketplace, support services, governing bodies, etc. Likewise, as Francois also points out, a community without content has no value for the community members and thus has no value at all.