We sometimes forget the debates over whether user-generated content could actually replace professionally-produced content in the news, video and other content realms, though two to three decades ago, that was a key issue.
And we continue to see new forms of that older debate played out when proponents talk about the architecture of Web3. Some might say the original ethos of the early pre-Web internet-- participation and sharing--continues as a meme.
But coming content generated directly by artificial intelligence might limit the amount of UGC influence and the opportunities to monetize UGC.
If there is a difference to the Web3 debate, it is over the concept that UGC can be monetized by its creators. The interest in blockchain is partly its role in allowing content creators to monetize their creations. In a real sense, the principle of decentralization is driven by the belief that UGC can be monetized directly by UGC creators.
We have already ended the debate about UGC monetization at a macro level. The business success of YouTube, Facebook and social media in general, where users create the content, is clear. The rise of social media influencers also has shown an early glimpse of how UGC can be monetized by its creators.
Platforms use customer reviews as a commerce-related form of UGC as well. And the existence of robust advertising and marketing revenue streams attests to the viewership UGC drives. The existence of what we now call the gig economy is further evidence of how monetization can happen around users monetize their time.
But that is where the debate now rests. We no longer debate the attention-getting value of UGC. We do not doubt that platforms can monetize that content. The only unsolved issue is monetization of their UGC by content creators.
The big debates that started in the 1990s were about whether UGC could actually gain attention at the expense of professionally-produced media. The juxtaposition was usually something like “blogs versus newspapers/magazines; short form video versus TV/cable; direct distribution of UGC music versus sponsorship by branded labels and so forth.
Rarely, two and a half decades ago, were the big issues about monetization of their content by the creators. But monetization did happen for the aggregation platforms: IMDb, Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube and Google, to name just a few.
In an extended sense, the existence of any platform for buyers and sellers also uses the “UGC” concept, only in the sphere of asset ownership. So Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, Lyft and other e-commerce platforms essentially mobilize latent assets, with the owners being paid for participation.
Some now see live streaming, mostly from mobile devices, as an incipient market. Gaming might be another content area where UGC could grow.
In fact, the value of metaverse worlds might be said to be as dependent on UGC as on realism, experience persistence, three-dimensional environments and the ability to interact, create, consume, buy and sell within the experience.
Left to be decided are issues such as the trust level of content, recommendations, opinions and arguments made by users, as compared to brands (who supply the equivalent of professionally-created content), in the metaverse. If history is a guide, UGC will be quite potent.
How much artificial intelligence contributes content might be a growing issue. Already, artists object to AI-generated art. Writers will soon have to contend with AI-generated text and content. And so on.
But the extent to which UGC can be monetized directly by creators is going to be an issue. Opportunities will be greater in some contexts than in others, and might still be relatively rare that generating significant monetization amounts is possible.
