Work, that of pursuing a specific passion or purpose, has become irrelevant. As technology increasingly gains momentum, we’ve moved from the age of work/life blur to the age of tech/life blur.
For instance, if you’re a writer, it’s not the content that matters (the work itself), but how the content is consumed and packaged. “We are on the brink of accessing digital content through what they call the ‘splinternet,’” argues Columbia Business School professor Rita McGrath. “Devices, hardware, software, applications and content, rather than being offered interoperably in a wide-open World Wide Web are increasingly going to be stacked up in proprietary ecosystems in which denizens can talk only to each other.”
So iPad apps like Flipboard, Zite and others like it are becoming the norm and offer “a much more natural way to consume content on a tablet, and the aggregation they provide is like having a customized newspaper available at any time,” argues Matthew Ingram on GigaOm. “The aggregation, personalization and customization that such apps allow is the future of content consumption.”
The introduction of the tablet has changed the reading experience such that it is now acceptable to charge for content. This is really the way the New York Times metered subscription is set up. When you pay for a New York Times subscription, you’re not really paying for content (the work), but paying to read it on your computer screen, your tablet, your Kindle, and your mobile app. You’re paying to read it how you want to on the splinternet. You’re not paying for the work, but the technology to consume it.
In the age of newspapers, we did charge for information, but now we charge for the customizability of how that information is delivered. It’s the media company’s job to design the experience of their digital offerings, not just create the content and they can’t keep up. So now, even though newspapers didn’t invent the printing press (the rapidity of typographical text production led to newspapers), they’re being pressured to invent the next revolution.
In reality, what will happen is just how the Internet created blogs (and what many are now calling a sub-optimal reading experience), tech start-ups will continue to invent new ways to consume information, and as a result, new companies and creators will come along with new types of content in response.
This is all happening at such a rapid pace (and in all industries, not just media which I’ve only used as an example), that we’re much more concerned with the rhythm and output of innovation than we are of the work itself.
We know most content on the web is crap. We know there’s nothing really amazing or revolutionary about what we consume on our iPhones. The most popular activity is Scrabble. I like to look and see where people are on Foursquare. You might check on the weather. On Google, I rarely find what I’m actually looking for, but I will receive twenty-four million results for trying. The tech/life blur says nevermind the banality of what you consume on technology, just be subservient to the fact that it exists.
That is why there is such a ginormous focus on work fulfillment when we have never cared about such a notion before. We want to work towards something bigger than ourselves, but technology is already bigger than ourselves, and so there’s a certain confusion, an aimlessness and a fractionation of our work. That which tells us that if you’re a writer, you’re no longer a writer. You’re a blogger, and an amateur coder, you can sell, you’re a marketer, you know PR, software and a bit of graphic design, you’re an accountant and you’re a publisher. Your side projects feed into your day job. And all of your jobs feed through the Internet. This is what it means to live on the Internet, consumed by the processes instead of the action.
Work is empty. Technology fills us. It’s not what we do, but how we do it. Of course that can only last so long before the focus on how we do something obliterates all meaning of what we’re doing.
24 replies on “Work is Irrelevant”
I suppose I’m old-fashioned, but I’m increasingly grateful my work requires me to do substantial offline reading (the kind of substantial that’ll blind me if I read off a screen) and content creation (I still write outlines and drafts on paper).
I use technology/Internet more to interact with friends, family, colleagues and of course, the wider community. Not sure I want to live on the Internet or be too tied to technology although it can be wonderful, like this Sleep Cycle app I just discovered. ;-)
I agree! One of the reasons I love working remotely is because it allows me to disconnect more often and go for bike rides or runs which I find helps inform my online work in a deeper way.
While I am a huge supporter of how important the “how” is, one thing that’s really hit home for me this past year is that you still need to have good work. Yes, crap gets through, but streamlining manufacturing doesn’t do anyone any good if you’re building cars that don’t run. As a consumer, I agree we are probably paying more for the “how” instead of the “what.” You go to Disney World for the experience not just the nuts and bolts that keep Space Mountain together. There is a balance, and I believe as this Internet world we live in continues to evolve, we will see some of that come through. Or, it will end up in chaos, but let’s hope not.
Love your comments, Emily. I do think that real value and real work will be the next phase as innovation continues. And the actual product is going to be increasingly important… I don’t think I could say it any better than you already did! Thanks for weighing in.
Mmmm… too broad and vague to sustain such a claim.
What about architects? Cooks? Investment bankers? Their work, their product, what people pay them for, has (almost) nothing to do with the internet.
This a book topic, not a post topic.
Hm, really? I strongly believe every profession has been vastly affected by the Internet. Architecture has become popular culture and is really largely mediocre or panders to the architect’s “personal brand” – wrote a post about that on Modite. Cooks – it is especially all about the restaurant experience, not the actual food itself. Similarly, cooks have to hold every position, not just great chef. All of these professions have been deeply indirectly and directly affected by both technology and the Internet, and in my head with similar outcomes to content. I definitely agree the trend deserves more exploration and analysis… I am still working it out in my head.
Eh? Central banking perhaps, Carlos, but I fail to see how the Internet and/or technology has (almost) nothing to do with investment bankers’ work or their product.
Quality still matters, not just the digits required to transmit content. What people pay for on the newspaper model is convenience. The convenience of reading something in print at a table over coffee matters to some people. Others want content via email or app. At any rate, good work still matters, in my opinion.
I find it fascinating that the prevailing argument on tech blogs is that now paying for content is suddenly acceptable because you get it on an app. You’re paying for how it’s delivered, and in my view, despite the arguments I made in the post (meaning that is the reality, but I don’t like it), we will still have to start valuing quality content and quality work or see it disappear.
So. Yes, I agree – we’re becoming more diversified in our skill sets – we’re not just writers, but all of the above (bloggers, coders, salespeople, marketers, PR, software junkies, novice graphic designers, etc) – but how does that affect what we do? Aren’t we still writers? Or are you suggesting (which I think you are), that all of these skill sets eventually supplant the basic core skill we started with? That is, I am no longer a writer because I am these 8 other things. Does work become meaningless because we are focused on how we do what we do and not why or simply what we do?
I understand your point: that we are rapidly shifting to a set of skills that focuses on how we do things, not what we do (an emphasis which reiterates the massive consumption of information we all engage in). But I’m not convinced yet. Do you have examples of this final pendulum swing? What’s the prototypical example of someone who’s lost all sensibility and work and just pushes information around in circles?
Or, do you think the systems will self-correct and head back in another direction, as we start to value great information again and become selective about our criteria for content creation?
I am suggesting the latter – that all the other skill sets supplant the initial skill in the first place, not only in our work, but in businesses as well. I think the great majority of workers sit around and do nothing. There is not enough work for employees in most companies and so they surf the Internet. I think this has already happened and has been around for awhile and now we’re going to see the return of real value and real work very soon, especially because the innovation that’s happening now will demand it. Hope that makes sense… thanks for the awesome comment, really made me think more critically!
Funny, my first response (internally) to you yesterday was “No, I’m still a writer!” — but as all of my other tasks take place of my ability to write, I produce less and less original content. If I get to the point (and I fear this) where I’m not producing content, and just moving things around in lieu of producing useful things — then what you’ve said rings true.
I wonder if it will be the same for businesses and individuals. I think in both instances there are a lot of ‘consumers’ and ‘producers,’ and the entrepreneurs – the people building new things, creating new work, new projects – will continue to provide the real value and real work that is being lost in more static institutions.
Great article, Rebecca – love what you’re doing with Kontrary. AND I like the return of engaging discussions. I get so tired of consuming information and moving things around :) — sometimes I just want to write (speaking of which …).
Yes, I think this is where it gets interesting. The “how” really overtakes the work right now… for me personally, that is even a very strong phenomenon and has increased since I started blogging back in the day. That’s why I decided to write about it. I often feel consumed by everything that I sit down to write and am paralyzed… I’m looking to try and return to the joy of work itself, not the hoopla around it.
As far as business, you only have to look as far as Apple to see that they want to be the centralized platform for everything and that the how is much more important than the what. We idolize the how more than we idolize the creators using those platforms. I don’t know yet if I feel that is justified or not.
If you have a chance, look at my reply to David’s comment, and also read Tiffany’s comment, which both elaborate on this notion of the medium influencing the message. I think it’s a good continuation to our discussion here.
First comment ever, hope it goes well:
I think Emily’s balancing of the statement was very important. However we seem to be an elite educated group where this is valid, not outside. It has never been about the content, that’s why people still love TV even though the percentage of crap is for sure much more visible. So I don’t know if there’s an shift in mindset or the approach to innovations rather than the appearance of another medium. I think that this analysis on media seems to come from the observations about tablets and the appearance in the last years of application stores. However I must bring back a counter example, this blog itself, which is worth paying for the content. How it’s delivered couldn’t be less important!I think what seemed to be conflicting in this post for me, and I feel it somehow in other comments, is that you seem to banalize the results of our works by saying that it’s the massive flow of information that keep us interested and that what actually grasp our attentions seems to be the rest of the delivering piece: Not the content but everything else.However you come back confirming that it’s not totally what you meant with “we will still have to start valuing quality content and quality work or see it disappear.” Then again, hasn’t it’s always been like that with books? Aren’t really amazing high quality content a lot more expensive? I wanted to make one last point being latin american and not being able to live anywhere else in the world without hard regulations and expensive visas: We cannot get the content in any other way sometimes. That mean that people buying in digital sometimes are buying access to the content, in the only single way that we can. I don’t know how to look for the numbers, but if you see people buying content that is only available digitally in most places of the world I think the argument of the how instead of the what again becomes weak.I continue to insist: This analysis has it’s true points but it’s strongly focused in a small elite that we make part of rather than a big global technological economy, even in the US and europe.
Hi David – thanks for your first ever comment and thanks a lot for sharing your unique perspective. I certainly agree that content is very important and I am observing outliers really focusing on great content so I think we’ll start to see a backlash on the “how” of work back to the “what” of work. Particularly in content.
I also like that you brought up that it’s always been this way with television – I think this is true. New forms of content follow technology. What’s been especially intriguing to me over the past ten years is that this is happening at an increasingly rapid pace. And so there’s sense of trying to keep up with the technology instead of just producing quality work in whatever form. The consumer (or reader) is trying to do the same. People now adopt new technology whether their favorite show or author is on it simply because it’s new and supposedly better. And, again, that then puts the pressure back on the creators to focus on the how (and keeping up) vs the actual work itself.
Your comment really helped me clarify a few points, so I hope that all makes sense, and thanks again for sharing a perspective outside of the US!
Late comment here, and I didn’t read through all the comments so sorry if you’ve addressed it… But I wonder what your thoughts are about the Google +1 search, I don’t know too much about it but I think it helps you find relevant stuff that fits in with your social circle and the stuff you like?
Although seems like a big Google magnifying glass following you around.. scary, but it’s there to help, but it’s following you, but it’s there to help, but it’s following you, but it’s there to help………… Get it?
I think you’re referring to the echo chamber which is an oft discussed notion lately and on the minds of many -with so much personalization, will we only learn what we want to and not what we need to? Will we only hear from people just like ourselves? Such personalization isn’t really good for the person who searches, but it is good for the advertiser who wants to reach that person. Remember, Google and Facebook aren’t collecting data to help you, but to help themselves. Ultimately, I think this kind of technology increases the navel gazing that we go through and adds to the sense of boredom and aimlessness that we have sitting in front of our computers. Suprise and delight doesn’t come about through +1.
Anyone interested in this subject should dig into Marshall McLuhan, particularly the concept “The Medium is the Message.” It’s not just about media, but about how innovation itself can affect relationships, society, culture, norms.
His ideas are very influential (and sometimes controversial) in mass media theories and research a well.
In some ways, his ideas call us to look more critically at the “medium” itself than the “content” it contains, because the medium is what is an extension of ourselves and is also what affects our selves. Interesting.
But I think this whole discussion is really about a paradox rather than a pronouncement. Is work relevant or irrelevant? That depends. Both on society itself, and on you.
What we do, the content, the work, it matters, when it is important to us as individuals and communities. How we do it, the technology, the innovation, the paradigm shifts, those matter too, both to individuals, and to society as a whole.
But also, each is not completely distinct from the other, creating a paradox.
Both the content and how we experience it can affect, influence, and shape. making both relevant. And it’s been so just about as long as technology has been around. Think about the book, for example. Before the written word, there was oral history. And that is a form perhaps more about content than any other medium. But still, the medium influenced the participation with the content. That’s always the way it has been. In fact, within philosophy, there is an idea that even language itself is problematic, because speech molds and shapes the sharing, understanding, and experience of an idea.
All that to say, it’s a complex, complicated issue here. Interesting to read everyone’s thoughts.
Amazing comment, Tiffany. I love when I learn things from the comments section and you never fail to provide that :) I haven’t delved into Marshall McLuhan in a long time, so will definitely have to do some more research there as I only have a surface understanding of what his theories are about. I totally agree that the situation is a paradox and inherently difficult to make a conclusion about. Your last paragraph about the medium influencing the message is something I’m increasingly interested in and wonder what these new mediums will influence creators to build and do. Any guesses? In the media space, short stories seem to be making a comeback (both in terms of Amazon’s investment in the space as well as ebooks), and user-generated video content is exploding. But what I’m really interested in is what comes after that? Curious if you have any thoughts on it.
Interesting question.
Actually, I think this is where work becomes really relevant, because in wrestling with both content and medium, we have the opportunity to do the “how” work, the innovating what happens with what we create (content).
So we can both shape the medium and the message. And that’s powerful stuff. Especially since we have more access to the information and knowledge about how to build and create and shape the medium within this space than ever before.
To me, this is where the tension of fragmentation comes in and makes things messy and difficult. It’s often noted in discussions of creativity that it’s easier to create within constraints than with wide open, endless possibilities. Because it gives our minds parameters to operate inside of. So I think maybe this is part of how things will evolve. We will start with the boxes we are given (jobs, blogs, iPads, stories, etc.) and bring innovation to those forms. So maybe that’s a complicated way to say that it doesn’t surprise me that we are taking older forms, like short stories, and finding ways to bring them new life. That’s exciting, and has lots of possibility, so wherever things go, at least it should be interesting!
I dis/agree, as many of the commenters have: this is a classic form v function question. Of course content still matters, and of course the medium affects the message– this blog is a good example of both: we pay for the content, but the Comments section is half of the content we enjoy.
IMHO Rebecca may see technology as largely supplanting substance, but (again, as pointed out) for many other professions that’s not quite so thoroughly the case.
These left brain concepts jordan air max which allow non-artists to be good at things like business, science and mathematics are not air Jordans 11 skills that artistic, right-brained people find interesting or easily understood.
[…] again, we support the pipeline instead of the content creator. As a pipeline aggregator, Flipboard “derives revenue with […]
[…] again, we support the pipeline instead of the content creator. As a pipeline aggregator, Flipboard “derives revenue with […]