When I was younger, Dad would constantly remind me that we were "entering the new knowledge economy." The new knowledge economy, it seemed, was going to change everything, and all that could prepare you was getting the best education you could. The old rules, he said, weren't going to apply. And so it is, nearly a decade later. If you have any doubts that that reality hasn't played out, watch this and this.
The world has expanded and matured alongside my own generation, and because of that, the ways that we as young people interact with knowledge are vastly different than ever before. Part of this relates to our personalities, and part of this is dictated by the maturity of the platforms available. We've lived our entire intelligible lives bombarded with more information than any generation in history (and no doubt, this number will only continue to compound). Case in point: UC Berkeley researchers estimated that the amount of new content in the world grew at about 30% a year between 1999 and 2002, meaning that the amount of information in the world nearly doubled in that time. The past several years have afforded us the opportunity to experiment with various media, to see how creative we can be, to expand the amount and the type of content that we consume. We have progressed from a society where information was tightly controlled, disseminated by the media, the government, and a few prized creators, to a society where nearly everyone can create and share their content. This is a profound shift, with monumental implications.
In January 2010, 3 of the top 10 sites in terms of worldwide unique views were user-generated content (and 7 of the top 15). Facebook takes the cake among these user-generated sites with its 133+ million visitors, successful no doubt because it allows contributors to create conversation around what they know best - themselves. Facebook allows you to push content at your own pace, on your own terms, with your own interests. This makes a hugely attractive platform for the general user to connect with others. Somewhere further down the list is Twitter, less recognized but just as talked about. Twitter's contributors are valued less for their insightful or creative content and more for their speed (an attribute that I have never been able to master, and hence, why I don't have a Twitter account). Even those who solely consume (as in, those who don't publish any new content of their own) look first for the quickest way to learn what's relevant to them. Facebook and Twitter are successful because they are able to filter sources that you choose as important to your conversation stream, something that Google Buzz is trying to capitalize on. Blogs, on the other hand, are like more conventional news sources - it takes some searching, some trial-and-error, to find the right newspaper, television channel, radio station to enrich your conversations. My own Google Reader feed is evidence of the frustration of trying to maintain the balance between relevance and chatter. But on the upside, blogs, like traditional media sources, allow consumers and creators to engage in deeper conversations, and help identify and develop subject-matter experts in a way that other sources just can't. So where does the sweet spot lie? In being able to create deep conversations in a platform that makes it easier to identify who's relevant and who you want to listen to (thanks Karan, for the link).
In a lot of arenas (medical devices being one of them), the market still rewards those who follow traditional, conventional forms of creation. The regulatory structure, the quality control needed to make medical technology, means that creation is limited to a select few. But I imagine that in my lifetime I will see a paradigm shift in the way we create something as rigid as medical devices. The advantage, then, will go to those who understand that it's not the how we create, but the why we create - those who can correctly assess the markets, the disease states, and the patients, both in traditional markets and in the developing world.
I'm not the first to comment on the nature of creation and consumption in the internet age (as I said, speed is not my forte). But I've matured enough in my content consumption to be ready to become a meaningful contributor, and I'm excited to participate in the conversations that hopefully will follow.
The world has expanded and matured alongside my own generation, and because of that, the ways that we as young people interact with knowledge are vastly different than ever before. Part of this relates to our personalities, and part of this is dictated by the maturity of the platforms available. We've lived our entire intelligible lives bombarded with more information than any generation in history (and no doubt, this number will only continue to compound). Case in point: UC Berkeley researchers estimated that the amount of new content in the world grew at about 30% a year between 1999 and 2002, meaning that the amount of information in the world nearly doubled in that time. The past several years have afforded us the opportunity to experiment with various media, to see how creative we can be, to expand the amount and the type of content that we consume. We have progressed from a society where information was tightly controlled, disseminated by the media, the government, and a few prized creators, to a society where nearly everyone can create and share their content. This is a profound shift, with monumental implications.
In January 2010, 3 of the top 10 sites in terms of worldwide unique views were user-generated content (and 7 of the top 15). Facebook takes the cake among these user-generated sites with its 133+ million visitors, successful no doubt because it allows contributors to create conversation around what they know best - themselves. Facebook allows you to push content at your own pace, on your own terms, with your own interests. This makes a hugely attractive platform for the general user to connect with others. Somewhere further down the list is Twitter, less recognized but just as talked about. Twitter's contributors are valued less for their insightful or creative content and more for their speed (an attribute that I have never been able to master, and hence, why I don't have a Twitter account). Even those who solely consume (as in, those who don't publish any new content of their own) look first for the quickest way to learn what's relevant to them. Facebook and Twitter are successful because they are able to filter sources that you choose as important to your conversation stream, something that Google Buzz is trying to capitalize on. Blogs, on the other hand, are like more conventional news sources - it takes some searching, some trial-and-error, to find the right newspaper, television channel, radio station to enrich your conversations. My own Google Reader feed is evidence of the frustration of trying to maintain the balance between relevance and chatter. But on the upside, blogs, like traditional media sources, allow consumers and creators to engage in deeper conversations, and help identify and develop subject-matter experts in a way that other sources just can't. So where does the sweet spot lie? In being able to create deep conversations in a platform that makes it easier to identify who's relevant and who you want to listen to (thanks Karan, for the link).
In a lot of arenas (medical devices being one of them), the market still rewards those who follow traditional, conventional forms of creation. The regulatory structure, the quality control needed to make medical technology, means that creation is limited to a select few. But I imagine that in my lifetime I will see a paradigm shift in the way we create something as rigid as medical devices. The advantage, then, will go to those who understand that it's not the how we create, but the why we create - those who can correctly assess the markets, the disease states, and the patients, both in traditional markets and in the developing world.
I'm not the first to comment on the nature of creation and consumption in the internet age (as I said, speed is not my forte). But I've matured enough in my content consumption to be ready to become a meaningful contributor, and I'm excited to participate in the conversations that hopefully will follow.
