The case for cultural relevance

You beat me to it chaps – cultural relevance is the key (albeit no magic bullet – that is more likely to be a combination of a lot of things) and I have been working on a new agency proposition for the last 4 months which is entirely based on being culturally relevant with a planning process to drive it – watch this space.

Anyway – great presentation so thanks for sharing – although I have to disagree with your analysis – the Times hasn’t become culturally irrelevant – it just happens to now charge people for its POV on current culturally relevant events and some folks are less interested in paying for what they could get for free elsewhere. This is not about quality it is about price and behavioral intent. Just because they go elsewhere doesn’t meant the content is no good or culturally irrelevant – far from it – it just means they aren’t going to pay for it.Therefore I think you are confusing cultural relevance with potential cultural capital manifested in social spaces.

Also I would think that it’s value is not made less cultural by charging – in fact I would argue by your definition it is actually perceived to be more valuable to those within that community. Putting a value to something doesn’t diminish its quality – or cultural relevance – it just rules out those not prepared to value it enough in the first place to pay for it.

Anyway – need to think a bit more bout this…

Hi Mark, thanks for the comment – we’re really hoping some worthwhile conversations will unfold here, so cheers for kicking things off with a rather meaty rebuttal. I’m going to have my say on it, if that’s ok.

You say: “The Times hasn’t become culturally irrelevant – it just happens to now charge people for its POV on current culturally relevant events and some folks are less interested in paying for what they could get for free elsewhere.”

The end result of The Times charging people for content is that fewer people are reading, talking about and sharing Times content. The Times is on fewer people’s radars. My point is that this very fact makes Times content less relevant to the broader community. It’s a de facto kind of relevancy: in the content-saturated social web, if I don’t know about something, that something is not relevant to me.

You go on to say: “This is not about quality it is about price and behavioral intent. Just because they go elsewhere doesn’t meant the content is no good or culturally irrelevant – far from it – it just means they aren’t going to pay for it.”

I agree with you that this is not about quality: people might decline to take up Times content simply because they don’t want to pay for it. However, the end result is that The Times – or any other publisher that employs an all-or-nothing paywall – has a smaller audience. Fewer people follow that publication: it is less relevant to society as a whole.

Your assertion that I am “confusing cultural relevance with potential cultural capital manifested in social spaces” makes me think we simply have different interpretations of what cultural relevance is. Perhaps ‘social relevance’ would be a better term for what I mean, which Sulzberger sums up as [being the] ‘thought leader’: meaning the most, to the most people. Does that definition resonate with you (or, other readers, with you)?

Do I make a clearer case, do you think, or am I missing your point? Further comments are massively welcome though – from you and from anyone else who cares to speak up.

Here’s the VF piece, by the way: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/09/rupert-murdochs-war-on-the-new-york-times.html

ps – I’m curious about this agency planning proposition – it would be awesome to learn a little more about that.

The paywall may make Times Content less relevant to the broader community, but it will make Times Content MUCH more relevant to the those behind the paywall.
By charging for the content, they are raising the perceived value of the content. People who are paying for the timesonline are likely to defend the paper to justify their financial outlay, and become more loyal to the paper.
We could say that although the number of readers has been reduced, the quality of readers has greatly increased in the eyes of the paper, and its advertisers.

Hi Sara – thanks for the reply and of course it is only appropriate that you respond to my ‘meaty rebuttal’ ;)

So to your points:

1) ‘The end result of The Times charging people for content is that fewer people are reading, talking about and sharing Times content. The Times is on fewer people’s radars. My point is that this very fact makes Times content less relevant to the broader community.’

I would say that it is not that it is ‘less relevant to the broader community’ – it may have relevance but merely less available to everyone. There is no actual tangible value in mass availability but there is in scarcity and therefore its value increases to those in the paying community – who may choose to share it with the broader audience who might then decide to pay for it in the future.

2) ‘if I don’t know about something, that something is not relevant to me.’

It may be relevant but I just don’t know about it. If my influencer group who pays for the content (because they value it more than freely available content) suggests that there is something worth talking about and I don’t have it – perhaps then I might be motivated to have it too.

3) ‘Fewer people follow that publication: it is less relevant to society as a whole.’

It is not less relevant to society as a whole – it is less available to society as a whole. Luxury goods work the same way.

4) ‘social relevance’ would be a better term for what I mean, which Sulzberger sums up as [being the] ‘thought leader’: meaning the most, to the most people’

Agreed, but we tend to value that which we cannot have more than that which is readily available. ‘Social relevance’ has some cultural capital but perhaps not tangible value. Not a lot of use for anyone trying to make money from content. It is better to be a thought leader of substance which in turn becomes ‘socially relevant’ which in turn people are prepared to pay for – the BBC is a good example.

5) I would love to share the new agency planning proposition with you – get in touch.

Does this make more sense? I am not sure we are disagreeing – or perhaps we are.
Your thoughts welcome…

best

M

hmmm.

mark and john, i’m not sure i buy the idea that putting a paywall around times content necessarily makes it more relevant to some people.

can you apply luxury category principles to something as ubiquitous as news?

when it comes to such readily available commodities, i’m imagining that behavioural economists like dan ariely would argue that the value of free is infinitely more powerful than the value of limited availability. i’m imagining that value will eventually extend to those who are currently behind the paywall…because you can so easily compare the content of what you get from the times to its competitors.

what’s the differentiating quality that you’re paying for? can you really believe you’ll get better insight or argument than is offered on the telegraph/guardian/other broadsheet sites?

(i’m obviously ignoring all the #murdochgate stuff here.)