Reflecting on the relationship between creator and constituency

A set of expectations or responsibilities that govern the relationship between a creator and their constituency. Originally published on May 18 2021.

Audience as Constituency

Constituency as media creation is itself a political act that if successful can result in political power. But also constituency as the goal or focus of any media outlet in the digital ecosystem has to be action, mobilization, and loot, whether attention or money.

Audience as a concept seems as outdated as broadcasting, but it has some relevancy as there is a difference between a passive or active one. Yet constituency also evokes a larger notion of responsibility, as well as co-creation.

For example I avoid using the word I and prefer to say we and employ inclusive collective pronouns when describing our work. Even if Metaviews is currently derived largely from my labour, and most issues are written by myself, the enterprise is driven, and fueled by you. I consider each iteration or production to be collaborative, even if the only contribution you make is to open the email.

Speaking of which, if you’ve gone through the trouble of opening the email, and then reading the words, and following this sentence, please allow me to take the moment to remind you of the obvious, so obvious I neglect to remind you often enough, that there are algorithms which lord over us all.

These algorithms require bribes, or kick backs, that give them the grease to do their jobs, which is to promote this content. Hence if you bother to read our email newsletter, and are not entirely offended by it, then might you consider clicking the like or heart button that is at the top? It’s also available at the bottom.

While I could include an image spelling out to you exactly what to do, I’m also willing to give you one on one tech support to help figure out how you can perform your duty as a reader, which is to train the evil algorithm to promote our content.

Algorithms Matter

I often forget this, as I’m a recovering broadcaster. I was raised to produce quality content, and respect our audience, which tragically is no longer relevant or important at all. What matters now is how the algorithm perceives our content, which means hate clicks can sometimes be more valuable than other kinds of clicks.

In this context it’s not enough to have a metaview and see the big picture, but we also have to adapt, and keep adjusting our strategies, also in the hopes that others may benefit from our knowledge and experience.

Perhaps then the concept of a media social contract, (as distinct from a social media contract), is applicable?

That as part of the media creation, distribution, and consumption process, there should be rights and responsibilities for all involved? Clearly set out expectations and even minimums that mandate membership in the larger meta network?

I’m using general terms as I feel that this can be a model for both community media but even large scale media who are currently experimenting with business and membership models.

For example, how many Substack subscriptions can a simple person maintain? Substack’s response to this is bundling, but even that seems limited.

And it’s not just about newsletters, but any content you might pay for.

And all media is paid for, because your attention is valuable!! There’s no free media, just media that costs your attention, which suggests you may not be getting the best value out of that relationship.

The Ask:

Like what you consume.

Post a comment in response. Any comment. However suggestions, brain storms, or idle thoughts regarding potential algorithmic exercises that we can do together are appreciated.

Share with friends! Spread the love.