Play Conference - User Generated Content Panel

**This is not a widget post.**

So I was not going to post this, as it doesn't really have anything to do with widgets.  But when I saw the Berkeley Play Conference mildly misreported on Valleywag, I figured it should go up, as I was there, and I made an effort to capture most of what was said.

Valleywag called the UGC panel an embarrassment to Michael Arrington because he accidentally pulled up Twitter just after Stewart Butterfield posted  this:

Every time I hear "UGC", a little part of me -- and everything I've ever believed in -- dies.

It was actually Evan Williams from Obvious Corp who said this during the panel.  Stewart just posted what Evan had said.  The only bit of conflict (and it was more humor than conflict), came when somebody posted on Twitter (right before Mike pulled it up) about the mild smackdown that occurred during the panel between Mike and Evan over TechCrunch's reporting of Twitter (see below).

Anyway, here are my reactions and notes from the UGC panel:

I'm at the Berkeley Play Conference, attending the User Generated Content panel.

The panel got a little bogged down in semantics - specifically, what's the definition of UGC - but overall it was worthwhile.

A few observations - say what you want about Mike Arrington, but he's a heck of a presence.  He's brash and cocky enough to really push the panelists, which makes for a more interesting discussion.  He seems to relish butting heads with people and not really care how folks react.

Evan Williams' signal to noise ratio is very high.  He didn't say much, but everything he said had value.  I wish he had said more. 

Mary Hodder had her A game today.  Her and Evan appeared to be unphased by the moderator's swagger.

The Mozes back channel was a total distraction.  Berkeley should scrap this - it's not fair to the panelists.

Here's the play by play (paraphrased):

The panelists are Evan Williams from Odeo / Twitter, Jeff Roberto from Friendster, Mary Hodder from Dabble, Jamie Perlman from Snocap, Micki Krimmel from Revver, and Jack Kloster fom sports social network Yardbarker.  Mike Arrington is the moderator.

Company intros.

Revver - 20% payout for distributed embeds of video.  (monetizing widgets).  Remainder is split between publisher and Revver.

Mike's opening comment: " User Generated Content is something that I used to think was great."

Mike: The videos watched on YouTube are copyrighted, not user generated.  YouTube is little more than a way for people to watch professionally generated content. 

Mike: I will challenge you (the panelists) to convince me that I am wrong.  Revver is my primary target, as they have no copyrighted content. 

Micki: Every video on Revver reviewed by people to check for copyrights and hate speak.

Diet Coke and Mentos video case study.  3 weeks the video made $35K from advertising.  Then Mentos reached out, video up to $80K.  Total revenue brought on by Revver?  Not telling.

Mike: Exception that proves the rule.  If you look at MySpace, they are now being sued  by Universal.  UGC is a red herring, it's really about copyrighted content.  What does the rest of the panel think?

(implication: is revver making any money with a pure UGC play?)

Jamie / Snocap: Born out of the problems of Napster.  Need to treat content the way the copyright holders want it tto be treated.

Snocap has registration of four major record labels, protecting the content.  Distributed model.

Evan: UGC doesn't mean anything. (i think he said the quote about "dying a little more" here)

Mike: You abandoned UGC at Odeo.  It means non professional content.  Now you're bringing in NPR (?) stuff.

Mike: Facebook is a counter example.  Profiles are content.  You panelists should have come up with this.

Audience: Craigslist too.

Mary: it's like looking at Blogs five years ago, when nobody was making money.  Now people are making money.  People will learn how to make money in this new medum.

Mike: I was booed off stage at the journalist convention when i told them to stop what you're still doing, and go independent.  I believe that.  If you're good, don't work for other people.  UGC moves to professional as the cream rises to the top.

Mike: Friendster is doing well again.

Jeff / Friendster; We opened everything up.  People can now embed stuff, and then Friendster makes it searchable on Google or Yahoo.  Shifting to an open model, as some networks try and close up.

(implication: Jeff sees MySpace's blocking of widget providers as an opportunity for Friendster)

Mike: Is it true that Friendster almost bought Facebook?

Mike: Yes.

Mike: I heard it was less than $10M.

Mike: I like Newsvine because of the comments.  THe conversation piece is interesting. 

Jack / Yardbarker - that's what we do.  Participants feel like they know more than the experts. 

Evan.  What does user mean?

Mike.  To me it's pretty clear.  TechCrunch is user generated content.  I'm just a guy with a blog. 

Mike.  Some of the best content is private.   I didn't join Twitter because everything was public.  If it's private, you can't generate massive page views.

Evan: You misreported.  You've always been able to make stuff private on Twitter.

Mike: UGC Model breaks.  Ross Levinsohn - said he likes all free content, which can be monetized.  But the best stuff is private.  Is there a business model for private stuff?

Mary: Good example is Grouper.  Originally Grouper was private content, then relaunched as public.  In between place - semi private interactions, but majority of content is public. 

Evan - Gmail is private but makes money from advertising - I assume they make money.

Mary - your assumption that advertising has to stay in the broadcast mode.  It shouldn't be a spray.  What about the deep, contextual advertising that hits the right 5 people.  It's hard to do, but it will happen.

Smackdown over Mike's inaccurate coverage of Twitter when Mike pulls up Twitter on the screen.

Mike: we've gone on a tangent that i don't like.  Definition of UGC.  Let's say it exists, that there is some line when it turns professional.  Who are the long term users if this trend continues?

Mary: they will survive if they do the filters and editing.  Trusted filters are as valuable as content creators.  Small percentage are good content creators, small percentage are good filters.

Mike: Can the NYT compete against Digg?

Jamie / Snocap - assumption is that there is only room for one editor.  (quotes somebody else) Long tail - it's not a long tail for me.  For me, it's tier one content.  There is room for more filters than just one mainstream one.

Micki - I will never stop going to the movies, cause i enjoy the experience.

Jack / Yardbarker - NYT becomes validators, not producers.

Mike: if Digg takes on in other verticals it's game over.

Evan: but where would Digg point?

Mike: great point.  To Techcrunch, to journalists in the field.

Mary - we still need reporters, folks need to collect the info.  Value of NYT is to turn into a filter of content.  It would be bad if all the trusted media feeds away.

Mike: why?  what about Fox News?

Mary: there's access issues.  Live access to press conferences.  Bloggers can't all fit.

Question from audience: what defines content quality.  Who decides.  Example wikipedia.  How do you define quality.

Micki: I like the inherent distrust in social media.

Mary: when i look at wikipedia, i feel like i get the picture.  In the blogosphere, we tend to be news junkies, can handle unlimited amount of content.  I like the option of Wikipedia to give one concise summary.

Mike: what if every story of the NYT was filed, like Digg.  And you can read what you like.  Would it work?  OF course it would.

Micki - frightening that you only see what your friends like.

Question: how does social media take care of the lazy person?

Mary: Digg fails be being too much.  NO filtering of the filtering.  Other issue is that Digg is a game.

Comment from audience: there should be customized filters for each person. 

Mary: my Sims project was to filter news by topic communities.

Mike: look at netscape.  They put editors on top, and it's gone flat.  People don't want it.

Mike: ultimately the NYT will filter stuff.  People will trust the brand, but they won't be in the news generation biz.

Jamie  - there's room for both.

Audience:  the difference between quality and popularity - democracy has limitation of trolls.

Mike: that's how democracy works.

Someone in Audience - i read the newspapers for the ads. 

Mike: why?

Someone in Audience - because its useful

Woman from Caterpillar Mobile asks a good question.  Mike pulls up her site invites her to give her card to Oliver from MobileCrunch.

Question: What are the coolest UGC sites?

Mary: Pandora.

Mike - how is that user generated?

Mary - recommendations are based on what people do.

Micki - Vox

Walk through of Micki's Vox Site.

Audience Member summary: def of ugc, will ugc win against pro media, what is the magic formula towards creating a community.

Mary: every community has its own formula.  needs to be open and let people express themself.

Micki: transparency required.  Money making, being honest about things work, TOS that benefit the user.

Question: how do you prevent gaming?

Jack / Yardbarker: example, somebody gamed us.  Community chimed in, commented.  The guy ended up apologizing to everyone.

Rob Hayes, First Round Capital - I don't know if you can say "i'm going to build a community."  That's not how it works.  You give tools, and people use the tools.  Then the community grows out.

Can you set out to build a community? 

Friendster - built in order to meet friends of friends.  Now it's about content.

End.