? Heading to Orlando |
| Blogging When You're Writing ?
March 24, 2006
What should we call "content?"
Interesting flaps from Doc Searls and Sheila Lennon about tech lexicon. "Content-producing consumers." I agree it grates on the ears. I don't mind the idea that consumption extends beyond the realm of eating (and tuberculosis). What I object to is "content." Such a bland and empty word. I should do a search to see if I've ever been guilty of using it in BW. (I'm sure I've used it on this blog, where I'm a lot less careful about jargon.) Trouble is, content groups a host of more specific words, like songs, pictures, articles and videos. Stuff, material, products, offerings aren't much better. Anyone have an alternative?
Trouble is, content groups a host of more specific words, like songs, pictures, articles and videos.
That's why "content" is used, to hoover up all possible types. I agree there must be a better word. Maybe "creatives" or "originatives" ... but they're not as clean-cut as "content". We may be stuck with it, unless we come up with a new portmanteau word. How about "contenticles"?
Posted by: John Evans (Syntagma) at March 24, 2006 07:44 AM
You could give it a Web.2.0. vibe and google/yahoo-fi it...Coontent-Contentoo!
Posted by: Jim Dermitt at March 24, 2006 11:39 AM
Contenticle has a nice ring to it. It's the way I feel when I eat great Roman-style calamari.
Posted by: steve baker at March 24, 2006 02:30 PM
LOL, I'd stick to "consumer's intellectual product"
Posted by: Frances M. at March 24, 2006 10:38 PM
So we have to include food as well? My, this is a tough assignment. :-)
Posted by: John (Syntagma) at March 25, 2006 06:07 AM
You could call them connected people...CPs for short. Or, talking heads, opinionators, contorts, ..
But if content is really the core of what people create, how about "cons"? But, they may be negative, and overlook the pros..."ProCons" or PCs for short. Schpeilbergs.
Please, shut me up!
Posted by: Chas Martin at March 28, 2006 03:21 PM