Smart Content

There are several characteristic features of so-called smart content.

• Content enhanced to be fit-to-purpose ... content that is organized and structured for customer tasks and needs, not just for the production, packaging and distribution of physical documents. (Mirko Minnich, ex Elsevier)

• Self-organizing and transparent content, organizing itself automatically depending on your context, goals, and workflow, and allowing you to see why it's doing what it's doing. (Mark Stefik, Xerox PARC)

• Granular at the appropriate level, semantically rich, useful across applications, and meaningful for collaborative interaction. (Gilbane Group)

• Has good metadata (not lots), fit for purpose, uses classifications to provide context and aid discoverability (Madi Solomon, Pearson)

And there are several characteristic technologies that are supposed to facilitate smart content, among other things. Some of these technologies are linked to Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Come on Tim!

• Semantic technologies to cross-reference and cross-polinate with other kinds of content. (Madi Solomon, Pearson)

As Natasha Fogel pointed out, "smart content is in the eye of the beholder" - in other words, the perceived smartness of content is relative to its context of use.

But in this post, I don't want to talk about the technologies themselves but about the emerging value propositions that may be supported by smart content. Last year, when he was a SVP at scientific and technical publisher Elsevier, Mirko Minnich talked about two key enablers for smart content. Firstly a value-adding process - transmuting content into scientific data, and transmuting scientific data into solutions. And secondly what he calls a product bridge, not only linking content with data but also linking the content business with the data analytics business. The product bridge appears to be a kind of platform, and Mirko was using the term "Smart Content" to refer to the platform itself as well as the content delivered on the platform.

Mirko's strategy at Elsevier represented a strong drive towards asymmetric design - in other words, recognizing that in order to deliver indirect value into a complex ecosystem you have to move away from a traditional product-based business model (in Elsevier's case, selling scientific journals) towards regarding your business as a multi-sided platform.


Mark Stefik (Xerox PARC) puts smart content into an organizational intelligence frame - the intelligence is now located (reified) in the content as well as in the people producing and consuming the content. Instead of the user asking "what content do I need", Mark wants the content to ask "who needs me?" Madi Solomon (Pearson) seems to be suggesting the exact opposite when he mentions the Big Shift from Push to Pull in his recent presentation on Smart Content. We can resolve this apparent contradiction only by understanding the intelligence as the property of the whole system rather than trying to locate it in one place - see my material on organizational intelligence.

---

Sources

Seth Grimes, Six definitions of smart content (Information Week, Sept 2010)Several of the quotes above come from this article.


Technology in Publishing (Editors Update, Elsevier, Jan 2011)
Next Generation Clinical Decision Support (Elsevier Press Release, Feb 2011)

Madi Solomon, Making Information Pay (April 2011)

Content or Platform?

Yesterday I was talking to a guy from a large media company about its social media strategy. The company is already successfully using social media for distributing and sharing content with its customers, but it doesn't have as much corporate presence as it might like. How might we use social media to talk about ourselves, to let people know about, say, job vacancies or our corporate ethics, he asked.

A media company is judged by its customers according to the range and quality of the content it provides - the company essentially provides a platform for this content. But how do you talk about the platform without interfering with the content? Will customers be turned off if we use the platform to talk about the platform?

At one extreme, there will be customers who really don't want to know about the platform at all. @dgwbirch tweets "I don't want to be friends with my bank, I want to be friends with my bank account. I want to follow my credit card, not my issuer".

But at the other extreme, there will be customers who may value other kinds of interaction. For example, a media company is always swamped with requests from young people for internships and work experience, and we can only grant a limited number of these requests. But suppose we could use social media to give a much larger number of young people the opportunity to develop some skills and show what they are capable of, provide them with decent feedback, and allow them to earn some token of experience that they could mention on their CVs.

Note how an innovative approach to strategy (in this case social media strategy) is driven by a quest - looking for different and innovative ways of creating direct and indirect value within our ecosystem. The widespread success of social media depends significantly on the fact that people are motivated by all sorts of things other than money.

---

When I was a teenager, I entered a DJ competition, for which I had to nominate three singles. I chose one current hit, one old hit, and one new release. I failed to win the competition, and I guessed that my choice had been too obscure for the mainstream. The new release I had chosen was a folksy cover version of a song by Joni Mitchell; several months later, it started to get some airplay and shot to number one. I'm sure there's a lesson there somewhere.

Controlling Content

Some discussion from DevHawk and Scoble around owning/renting music. 

One problem I experience around rental is the anxiety of non-ownership. 

• What if the content provider wants to charge a much higher rental for my favourite content?
  

• Do I have to pay content providers whenever I upgrade media?
  

• What if the content provider restricts the media on which this content is available? (For example, forcing me to use a more expensive or less flexible format.)
  

• What if the content provider forces me to upgrade to a new version when I prefer the old version? (For example, I understand that Mike Oldfield regrets the haste with which the original version of Tubular Bells was produced, and would probably prefer us all to listen to the new perfectly engineered version. For my part, I prefer the original version.)
  

Scoble comments that most music isn't worth owning. Of course that's true. Some people like to listen to the same rubbish over and over, while others prefer a constant stream of new material (within a predefined genre). There are loads of radio stations that can satisfy both sets of people. (See my previous post on Shuffle). 

Of course, these risks don't only apply to music. I have lost track of several large repositories of useful material on the Internet. Have they been renamed/relocated, merged into something else, disappeared behind a subscription barrier, or taken down altogether? Perhaps I should have kept copies of some of the papers? 

Conversely, there is some content I'd prefer not to manage. Lots of fiction isn't worth reading more than once, so why do I keep so many novels? 

These are important questions in a service economy - the control and governance of the service and its content. Service dependencies in business dependencies; so service reliability/durability has an important bearing upon business risk. In some contexts, we may need some kind of service/content escrow to protect the consumer.