Evolve Beyond Curation: Add Context, Lead Your Category
August 24, 2011
Author 
In 
Many brands (and people) have fallen into a routine of aggregating / curating their category as the extent of their social participation. They use tools and / or team members to scan the day’s news and re-share it as micro content usually comprised of a link and a headline.
This is fine way for companies to start out in the social web. They usually don’t realize it involves going deeper. But you have to move beyond it if you want to get to outcomes from social or become a truly definitive leader in your category.
The truth is we’re saturated with curators.
And, many of them aren’t really even necessary and just contribute to the noise. Despite the social web quickly turning to micro content created by singular people, the individual is still not able to predict better than crowds. Without diversity, aggregation and incentives in place, single users as curators (with some distinct examples like Guy Kawasaki and Louis Gray) are not as good at surfacing what’s interesting as algorithms and filters powered by the crowd. Reddit or Stumble’s popular sections in most categories are far more interesting than most Twitter streams. They’re all signal, no noise. Sadly most marketers still ignore this and don’t even look at how crowds are deciding.
The point I wanted to make today is curation is just the beginning of using social channels. The most mature brands leveraging social aren’t just curating, they’ve become media companies and are building a community external of the noise of real-time. They go beyond curation: they add context, commentary, opinion and ultimately become leaders.
Brands serious about owning their category online need to evolve beyond curation, and fast. I personally find myself opting out of many feeds and unsubscribing from sites who simply curate the same content I’m already getting another way. I’ve had conversations with many others who feel the same.
We don’t need more curators. We need more leaders.
image credit: Shutterstock
andrew replied | Aug 24, 2011 (35 comments)
“Curation” without context is just a list. There’s a reason museums are not stacks of paintings in a warehouse. Art in museums is carefully selected, artfully presented, and thoughtfully vetted for a reason: to provide value to the person looking at it. If you don’t add this visual and informational context, you’re just throwing a bunch of stuff up on a wall and seeing who sticks around. Most won’t.
Great stuff, Adam.
Adam Singer replied | Aug 24, 2011 (552 comments)
Indeed – art museums do a good job of this. But have you seen how most companies / brands / people “curate?” They simply list. I think so many fall back onto curation because it’s easy and doesn’t require taking any chances. Thus, not very valuable.
Elliott F. replied | Aug 24, 2011 (2 comments)
do you have any good tips on providing context?
i know it seems obvious, but things like: a youtube show that reviews clips from the week with some commentary.
a podcast that takes great snippets from the week (or reads out news that only happens in a feed). ideas like those.
Adam Singer replied | Aug 24, 2011 (552 comments)
We can dig into that more in a future post!
Dayne Shuda replied | Aug 24, 2011 (44 comments)
I know you’ve linked to it in the past, Adam, but there was a post about things people are willing to pay for on the Web.
One of those things is “Understanding” or “Interpretation”. I’ve always remembered that when highlighting a thought or an article and have tried to provide my own thoughts on the piece.
I think that’s a place companies can be in social. Take the news happening in their space and provide expert interpretation for their audience.
Adam Singer replied | Aug 24, 2011 (552 comments)
Yes, interpretation is key – don’t just share, but explain why it’s important, if it’s accurate, how it changes things, why it’s positive or negative, etc. Just parroting the news = worthless.
Danny Brown replied | Aug 24, 2011 (15 comments)
Sterling stuff, mister. I’m a big fan of curation, as it means I get to read a ton of stuff I’d probably otherwise miss.
Yet I’m an even bigger fan of quality content and leading the way by not being like anyone else. Sadly, too many people want to be the next Blogger X, instead of the first Blogger Them.
Yet it’s the latter that will win you respect, not the sheep approach of the former.
Cheers, sir!
PS – LOVE the redesign!
Adam Singer replied | Aug 24, 2011 (552 comments)
Thanks for the comment Danny – oh, and we’re glad you dig the redesign!
Barry Deutsch replied | Sep 4, 2011 (1 comment)
I agree with your comments – right on the money. So much content curation in my areas of expertise are the same posts I can obtain directly on other feeds. I get a lot of success, feedback, and leads from adding context to my curated articles. These almost turn into “inspired mini-blog articles” from the original curated article.
The great advantage of curating content without context is that with automated tools it takes zero time. The problem is that your curated content now looks like a news site instead of something coming from a trusted-expert. There is no credibility in re-publishing someone’s else blog post simply for the sake of filling space.
The downside is that curating content with context takes time. It probably takes me 15 minutes to publish a curated article with context vs. an original piece of content which might take 45-60 minutes to write.
Where’s the trade-off in time investment, authenticity, originality, trust for republishing content (curation in it’s simple form) and curation with context?
Lori replied | Sep 4, 2011 (1 comment)
Love this post. So true. More leaders! And we really need to know them not just their names. There is a ton of new blood out there – good stuff too. Btw I just redesigned my blog and we added disquis. Huge difference in number of comments. Easy for most people. :)
Johan replied | Sep 5, 2011 (1 comment)
You verbalized what I’ve been thinking for a while now.
While I can see the relative usefulness in getting curated content (lots of it is source-dependent: is it from someone whom usually provide quality content through other outlets? etc.), I’m also more likely to, at some point, not care what they twitter, as it becomes mostly noise.
It stops being valuable and just another distraction from my own projects.
The real goal should be how you can provide the most value possible within 140 characters (using twitter as an example).
Eye Floaters replied | Sep 13, 2011 (1 comment)
I think it is a very valid point about the comments with a valid point to make. If all you are trying to do is build a truck full of backlinks with nothing to offer, what will make the reader come to your site whether no1 comment or no102. The idea of commenting has become a single battlefield for pro marketers to build their backlinks without using any brain power against people who are genuinely interested in getting their point across in a constructive way so the reader wants to visit their site to see what makes them tick.I have only been involved in the blogging sphere for a very short time, and I must say, I find the comments part of increasing frustration when just spammy trash is entered. However I think it works both ways.The blogger has to have the same comitment to reading the replies as to the original blog post, and to that end should ensure the replies are as valid as the content. The atmosphere is changing rapidly out in the consumer search arena, and if the bloggers don’t run with the virtues extolled, then they will find themselves disappearing as quickly as they rose.