Comments: Consumer Comes Up Again: We Need A Better Name

Mary, I just jumped into my New World Dictionary and looked up "author", here's the def.:

author: 1. one who makes or originates something; creator; originator 2. the writer (of a book, article, etc.

The folks who have built the Dublin Core metadata had many, many conversations before settling on "creator".

Just as the word "actor" has lost its gender connotation the word "author" could take on its larger more general meaning. And it's a short word, 2 syllables in English.

Why do we need a new word? We can use the word we already have.

-Bill A

Posted by Bill Anderson at August 7, 2007 01:15 PM

Hey Bill,
I didn't mean we should make up a new word that no one has ever heard before. I meant work up a new word, or two or three together for a phrase, that would cover this concept as specifically as we could.

Consumer Generated Media is three words.

Author Generated Media seems redundant. Obviously someone made it but who? Same with Creator Generated Media.

I hate Prosumer (as in Prosumer Generated Media).

Some people hate User Generated Media because they either think it sounds like people are stealing the media to make it, or stealing it from a legitimate maker, or, they are too closely associating it with drugs.

So.. any ideas for something that would help here?

I do like the definition of author, and amateur, as long as you define it as "media made for the love of it".. is good, but you can't define something each time it's used and it can sound condescending. However, if people took it back, owned it, it could have meaning.


Posted by mary hodder at August 7, 2007 02:07 PM

Mary: In hectic transit right now. I'll reflect more deeply on your thoughtful reply, but one very important quick reaction upon which I know we're on common ground. Re: the PBS person's reaction, NO ONE should be righteous or condescending in their preference for any particular term, even consumer. I I'll be the last one to line up with anyone who plays that game. Back to this topic shortly.

- Pete

Oh, and I just joined the PGM group. I'm sure I'll learn a few things.

Posted by Pete Blackshaw at August 7, 2007 03:24 PM


How does just "Media" sound to you, without any attribution to who's generating it and who's consuming it. Any term or phrase that's longer stands the risk of being too narrow, or of becoming obsolete.

(the "dude" you snubbed - rightly I might add)

PS - I hope to meet you at one of the Thursday breakfasts!

Posted by Vivek Hutheesing at August 7, 2007 06:39 PM

Hi Mary!

Thanks for posting that. We are on the same wavelength. I actually saw your post after I created the group. We have over 105 members in just under 24 hours. If you are reading this and are on Facebook, come join the group!

Posted by tagami at August 8, 2007 12:47 AM

Mary, the problem with jumping in is that I don't always get the whole story.

I was thinking of "folk media", as in folk music. I know it sounds corny, but it's accurate.

Vivek's idea of just using the word "media" also has value.

Unless there are distinctions about who and how the content is generated and performed. In that case why not use the word "independent"? Or "indie'?


Posted by Bill Anderson at August 8, 2007 05:41 AM

Hi Ted,
Sorry about that. You email to me in face book where you said, "I think we are on the same wavelength today! I just read your post on the CGM group. I heard "consumer" one too many times, and thought I'd make the People Generated Media group to voice my displeasure..." made me think you'd made the group in reaction to my post.

When I looked at the group at that moment, there were only two people in it, so I figured it was new, joined it and assumed.

I'll change the post now to reflect.


Posted by mary hodder at August 8, 2007 08:55 AM