So you want to create content

Paradoxically sharing some considerations

Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.

I assume you have something to say. If you are considering to publish it and create content, you are facing one of four possibilities:

1. It is not new and not better presented: do not bother with it.
2. It is not new but better presented: with the better presentation you are going to reach a wider audience, consider on a per-case basis how wide it is and how relevant the content is for them. Try to find your audience and pivot with it. Ideally, your content provides valuable lessons for your audience, consider the remaining points.
3. It is new and not actionable: this category is populated primarily by entertainment. You are competing in a huge market that ultimately destroys time, the most valuable asset for mortals. Again try to find your audience and cater their preferences, the competition is fierce. The best case is the fourth.
4. It is new and actionable: this is your competitive or unfair advantage, your “secret” (Zero to One, chapter 8). This is the best case, and your best option is acting on the idea that you were planning to transform into content.

Diagram of your four main options when considering to create content.

Simple enough, I think. HAND!

Wait, how do I act on my idea?

You have to check that on a per-case basis.

1. If directly actionable, “just do it!”. Most startups exist around an idea that was not published but acted on it. It is hard, and normally it is worth the effort. This is the peach option, but excess of venture capital may attract lemons. The second option is not as good, but you may choose it anyway.
2. Some ideas require a large organization to act on them or benefit from them. The percentage of such ideas largely depends on infrastructure, culture, regulation, and many other factors. If you cannot directly act on it, you may publish it to market yourself as an idea producer or explainer, for example working on your h-index with academic publications. Be aware that you will be competing with many lemons at their game, and that the “publish or perish” culture causes people to say as much as they can, while struggling to find something to say.

Take a moment to learn about peaches and lemons if you did not before. The problem with signaling with something, e.g. h-index, is: showing great commitment to an option may backfire if there is a better option. The message would be: “I am not good enough for the better option”.

A PhD student is someone who forgoes current income in order to forgo future income. — RealScientists

This is more complex than it seems. For example, groups of people may assign greater value to wrong signals, i.e. higher-order thinking should show that something is overrated. Ultimately, Darwinism or Thomas theorem will prevail, and some tribes will dissolve, or maybe not! The inertia may last for centuries in some cases, which should be enough for you to develop a successful and satisfying career in an ultimately failing group.

My only advice here is: If you think something will be fulfilling, go for it, but before that try to consider as many perspectives as possible. Some decisions at a young age shape the path of the rest of your life, do not rush them. You will most likely not realize that you made a mistake, but that will not save you from its consequences.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair

There is another reason to choose the second option, i.e. sharing and not profiting: altruism, as in the Salk’s dilemma. Moloch may eradicate altruism, except for occasional anomalies, but it is an option nonetheless. Feel free to choose it, again being aware of what you are choosing and the consequences.

Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value. He is considered successful in our day who gets more out of life than he puts in. But a man of value will give more than he receives. — Albert Einstein, really

Side note: Altruism may be more sustainable and impactful when profitable enough to at least break even.

I see, but why did you write this in the first place?

And why did you say that any of this was paradoxical?

This is a completely legitimate question at this point:
— Is this content new?
— Most probably no.
— Is it better explained?
— I guess someone explained better at some point.
— Why bother then?

Paradoxically (1st), I have written this. My main interest is in the “act on it” group. This group may be the most numerous, but also the most quiet. Paradoxically (2nd), the other groups are responsible for most of the content that reaches us (sometimes pushed to us, possibly pumped to us!). A generation may be wasted on the delusion that the economy runs on words and hot air.

1. The primary reason for writing this is giving the chance of thinking twice about it and hopefully dispel that delusion, if only for a few people.
2. The secondary reason is that I already wrote this, and I keep referring to it, lacking a better reference. Now I have a better link.
3. It is a good excuse to run an experiment and see how Medium works in the retribution of content. If I am wrong, it may be profitable, which is the final paradox.

Now you may be confused

No wonder, there is a lot mixed there, there are three main points:

1. If you are considering creating content, ponder your options. Action is normally more effective, for any goals you may have.
2. Peer-reviewed research may arguably be “the highest form of content”. Before committing to anything, consider your goals and strategy; have them clear.
3. Your goals may be transcendental and fulfilling or just profit, nothing wrong with that. Just be honest with yourself.

Final warning

Many topics are not covered here, and some may create confusion. For example: Be careful with anything making the goals or the strategy less clear. A misunderstanding of the “attention economy” may direct too much attention to proxy goals like “building an audience”. While an audience may be considered as an “asset”, if it does not have a clear function in your strategy, it is useless, and your efforts to build it would be sunk cost.

Building an audience with the sole purpose of selling them “knowledge” about how to build an audience and selling them “knowledge” is a classic ponzi scheme. Arguably, it is marketeers “informal research” or innovation, judged not by peers but by markets. Feel free to play that game, but do not mistake it with something else, like one of the four initial possibilities.

The concept of “attention economy” which considers “human attention as a scarce commodity” implies that either attention is scarce, or content is abundant. Those are two perspectives on a fact: there is too much content for the amount of attention that there is. Before putting additional content out there, there are three questions that may be useful (I think I have seen them somewhere else):

1. Does someone need to listen to this? Is it valuable and clearing confusion or is it creating more confusion and noise?
2. Do I need to say it or may I find a reference to just point at it? Has someone put the time and effort to explain it in a good enough way?
3. Should I say it now or other things have greater priority? Of all the things that I could say and do now, is this the best thing that I can do?

Again, many topics may create confusion. Feel free to reach me if something is unclear or you think it is wrong. Half the quotes are probably misattributed, but still nice quotes.