For the year of content creators 1996, I found 234 items. It’s actually one of the biggest amounts per year until the late 2000s. That’s gotta be due to the web, right?

As one would expect, Microsoft is a big topic at this time. There's an interesting bit of competition between Microsoft and Silicon Graphics in multiple stories. The latter was making high-end computer hardware and getting companies like Discreet Logic to make multimedia production software for them, while Microsoft worked with Intel to make less expensive machines. We know how this competition would sort out -- what I find interesting is how both of these comprise different visions for “content creation” -- high-end, expensive (Silicon Graphics), or less expensive and less capable (Microsoft)? See Ziegler 1996 for one example.

Of course, when we think 1990s and Microsoft, we also think “Netscape.” The big story, I think, is the stressing of user-generated content, particularly by Mark Andreesen of (at this time) Netscape fame. It’s the mid-1990s, it’s the World Wide Web becoming popular, and alongside that, Andreeson (and others) have the idea of turning web surfers into web content creators. See “Netscape Goldrush” 1996, “Netscape (NSCP”)” 1996.

This is, in part, a shift in scale – so many of the 1990s-era article are about large-scale content creators (e.g., News Corp, or Disney -- see Baubin and Wirtz 1996). The definition of "content creators" at this point is a big media company that uses its intellectual property holdings to globalize. As I will stress later in this project, this conception never goes away -- it’s still in use today (in 2026).

But some, (e.g., Daun 1996) define “content creators” such that small-scale or individuals could create content. Daun 1996 is one of many, many law articles contemplating copyright and referring to the creators of any intellectual property as “content creators.” This label is flexible enough, of course, to encompass the individual users Andreesen imagines along with the big corporations. And, from a different angle, I could put the media theorists Cunningham and Finn 1996 here, as well, since they use a proto-masspersonal communication framing.

Speaking of intellectual property, there's a fair bit of digital rights management (DRM) discussions this year, which brings with fears of “piracy” (or “pilfering” as I am playfully calling it). For example, Disney et al resisting a new media container, the DVD, for fears of piracy. See “Film Producers” 1996. Or take a look at Hutchinson 1996 for a discussion of “content control,” which sounds a lot like what we’d call DRM now.

Intellectual property is, of course, fundamental to the OG content creators -- the big corporations of the globalizin’ 1990s, slingin’ movies and toys and IP around the world. Digitization is an opportunity here. And a threat. In a prescient article, Hedlund 1996 warns about the plundering of the past. The concern of creators (here, referring to big-name directors like Steven Spielberg) is that their older works are being sold to other companies who use their ownership to remix/alter/re-present them without the creator’s consent. There’s discussion of digitally resurrecting dead actors. Digital media as able to “rapidly rearrange the very molecules of what we know.” Sounds quite familiar.

Steven Spielberg is concerned. But so am I. In a text that kicked off a whole side-quest of mine where I find the most offensive use of the term “content creator,” “Intergraph Announces” 1996 labels one of my favorite jazz musicians, Herbie Hancock, as a “content creator.” If there is any text that bothers me more than any other, this might be it -- the reduction of an artist to a corporate label.

What of content distribution? There are new methods of moving content around. High-speed internet connections, such as those discussed in “Akron/Canton” 1996. And alongside the mixture of internet and cable, there are continued discussions of convergence in the 1990s, though it seems as though whatever that was is fading under the weight of the Web. Cunningham and Finn 1996 are here, as well as Ziegler 1996. Somogyi’s analysis of software (Somogyi, “The Next Convergence”, 1996) is here, too.

But let’s face it, it’s all World Wide Web this year, isn’t it? Somogyi’s other 1996 article in my collection is about web browsers -- that classic Netscape versus Explorer contest. Wagner 1996 discusses web authoring software. Maybe that web authoring is happening on fancy new “intranets” -- see “Finding Intranets” 1996. Who’s doing that authoring? For a brief moment, the people adding to websites were “webmasters” (see Maddox 1996).

How to pay for this content, Web or otherwise? Silverberg 1996 to the rescue: sell ads around content! And if you use digital tools correctly, you can gain insights into your markets and target the ads at them. It’s of course the dominant model we face today. But this is early on, before advertising on the Web was standardized (as I wrote about in my first book). And, this article is yet another indication of a persistent divide: content creators and advertisers are not the same thing.

Key articles

PR Newswire. “Akron/Canton First To Launch New High-Speed Online Computer Service.” February 20, 1996. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=prn0000020011015ds2k00bqo&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about higher-speed internet being provided to that region of Ohio from Time Warner Cable and Time. These would also provide "local content." QTD from Steve Fry of Time Warner Cable: "LineRunner will provide the best of this area's digitized, local intellectual content, plus national and international content from the world renowned libraries of Time Inc. and Time-Life, at speeds faster than today's fastest consumer PCs." In terms of the local content, "Content advisors from Time Inc. are working with each local provider to develop interactive "home" sites. LineRunner has also contracted with local "webspinners" to create new local "home pages."" The connection will also be free to schools. There are large-scale content creators but also the local, smaller-scale ones.

Baubin, Thomas, and Bernd W. Wirtz. “Strategic Management and Transformation in Converging Industries - Towards the Information Society.” In Information Superhighway and Private Households, with Lutz Kolbe and Walter Brenner. Physica-Verlag, 1996.

This edited collection chapter defines content creators, which is rare. Their definition is really tied to scale – large-scale content creators. "Content Creators generate information and entertainment."

Cunningham, Stuart, and Mark Finn. “Media Theory and the Internet.” Media International Australia 80, no. 1 (1996): 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X9608000114.

This is an academic article asking if media theory as it stands (in the 1990s) is adequate to understand new media. The main challenge is to “comprehend various forms of convergence.” As the first quote above states, the Internet is “already converged.” This is a proto-masspersonal communication article, since it describes shifts from “large as well as small audiences.” “Other so-called new media are still in varying stages of convergence, and do not pose the same direct challenge to established media theories.” (Cunningham and Finn, 1996, p. 84)

Daun, Fara. “The Content Shop: Toward an Economic Legal Structure for Clearing and Licensing Multimedia Content.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 30 (1997 1996): 215.

Also defines "content creators," but in a potentially smaller-scale than Baubin and Wirtz.

“Content creators" include two and three-dimensional artists, musicians, filmmakers, photographers, writers, performers, and designers. They may originate works specifically intended as multimedia content, or they may create works without contemplating any use outside the original media.” (Daun, 1996, p. 3)

Ties content creation to multimedia. So for Daun, "content" is a blanket term for multimedia.

Consumer Multimedia Report. “FILM PRODUCERS RESIST RELEASING PRODUCT ON DVD.” February 5, 1996. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=cdrt000020011013ds250002s&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is a repetition of some previous articles. But it does have some new stuff. Disney and Buena Vista holding off on releasing things on DVDs. "Studio also is waiting for piracy issue to be resolved, and to see how materials such as hardware and disc are priced, she said." The issue, again, is international marketing – having a general-purpose DVD means that new movies will have their international debuts undermined by DVD imports. Is this about pilfering? It's definitely about DRM. It's kind of about flows – controlling the flow of digital information by preventing DVDs from moving faster than film reels.

Hedlund, Patric. “Artists Rights in the Digital Universe. (Industry Legal Issue).” Digital Media, May 14, 1996.

This is an intriguing article. Discussions of the plundering of history for content, with reference to the appearance of US presidents in Forrest Gump. The concern of creators (here, referring to big-name directors like Steven Spielberg) is that their older works are being sold to other companies who use their ownership to remix/alter/re-present them without the creator’s consent. Discussion of digitally resurrecting dead actors. Digital media as able to “rapidly rearrange the very molecules of what we know.”

Hutchinson, Art. “The Ying and Yang of Content Control.” Opinion. CommunicationsWeek, November 4, 1996.

this article defines content (as “anything digital”) and discusses disputes over content’s flows. It discusses “secure software envelopes” for “content control.” The article compares digital media to paper -- you can sign a document, seal it in an envelope. It calls for the same for digital content. This opinion piece is very much in favor of “content control.” It consistently raises what cybersecurity folks call “the insider threat.” It’s not the most exciting text but it seems key. #pilfering #digitalrightsmanagement

News Release. “Intergraph Announces New StudioZ Workstations, the Next Step Toward Real Time Reality.” August 6, 1996.

So HERBIE HANCOCK is a fucking content creator? I’m labeling this a key text because there are a load of individuals who are labeled as “content creators,” ranging from Hancock to a one-person animation studio to an exec at Adobe. While this is about creating computer graphics, they wrap all this up in “content creators.”

Maddox, Kate. “Masters Of The Web.” InformationWeek, April 29, 1996.

The article itself is about the position of webmaster, which was obviously emerging at this time. "Webmasters face several challenges. Their jobs are often poorly defined, changing as fast as the technology that drives it, and misunderstood by senior management and other decision-makers across the organization." Webmasters often make up the job as they go and report to multiple units, so there's confusion. There is often no specific budget for it. This is an intriguing article. It's more detailed about the web and its content. I will consider it a key text.

PR Newswire. “Netscape ‘Gold Rush’ Contest Kicks Off Netscape Navigator Gold Public Beta.” January 29, 1996. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=prn0000020011015ds1t006ie&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is a press release about Netscape Navigator. As is clear from the quotes, the claim is that web authoring in Netscape will convert "content consumers" into creators. This becomes a key idea from Netscape. The press release notes Netscape is working with ISPs to host homepages on the web. The contest is for making a homepage with Navigator.

“NETSCAPE (NSCP) FOUNDER AND VICE PRESIDENT MARC ANDREESSEN ADDRESSES THE JUPITER COMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ONLINE SERVICES CONFERENCE.” NBC - Professional, February 27, 1996. NexisUni.

This is an interview with Mark Andreesen. It has the idea that would be circulated by Netscape: we can make content consumers into content creators. He also has an expansive vision of the scale of content creators: "The software should be able to deliver universal access to the end user. It should be able to deliver easy content creation from single person content development shops all the way on up." So this is individual content creation, what we would call user-generated content. Not the first time this is proposed (see Dyson a few years back) but certainly a major strain this year.

Silverberg, Roger H. “Advertising: Why Add It To Your Success Equation Part 1 -- The Money Just Might Be Your Lifeline.” Multimedia & Videodisc Monitor, April 1, 1996. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=muvm000020011014ds410005x&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is a two-part article exploring how advertising might be integrated into multimedia: "In this two-part series, I'll offer a snapshot of where advertising stands today in new media. Is it right for your project? How can you, the developer, find opportunities to offset some of the costs and risks of development? Advertising -- or more accurately, thoughtfully integrated sponsorship opportunities -- can be a godsend if you're in this to make money... and you must be if you're reading this article." The article is from a advertising company director. The basic idea is: you're making niche multimedia content. It costs money to make good content. You should sell advertising space to offset those costs. And "what will the user think"? "All indications are that as long as the advertising content is context-sensitive, user-selectable, and related to the main topic of the title, consumers don't object -- particularly if advertising is perceived as holding the costs of access down."

Somogyi, Stephan. “The next Convergence. (Software for Joining Web Servers and Databases) (Industry Trend or Event).” Digital Media, April 8, 1996.

This discusses the growing competition over web server software, not just the browser. The goal is to make software so people can easily deliver content. Somogyi coins the term "caulkware": "Unlike middleware, which has the thankless task of making legacy data accessible today, caulkware, to coin a term, solves the problem of making the disparate elements of a content server work together as a seamless whole." An example is a CGI, which converts databases into html, or html into data. Perl used as an example. "These issues and others are driving the development of content, site management and creation tools that plug the gaps between the Web servers and the databases that feed them their data." The article concludes with the second quote, which is really about standards and abstracted publishing tools to "smooth the gaps between the creative and technical realms."

Somogyi, Stephan. “Think Medium, Not Software. (World Wide Web) (Internet.” Digital Media, April 8, 1996.

This article argues that both Netscape and Microsoft are thinking about the web wrong. Netscape is doing it wrong because it is buiding extensions that are aimed at software developers, not advertisers, who don't think in terms of software platform market share. (I'm guessing this is because an advertiser is not interested in signing some exclusive deal with Netscape – they want to put ads on the web and want everyone to see them, regardless of browser. So Netscape is paying attention to developers, not advertisers.) Microsoft is doing it wrong because it's builing web authoring tools that encompass all the parts of the process. Somogyi argues that, if we look at print publishing, the linotype person is not messing with the text itself, and the copywriter is not messing with images. The jobs are distinct. But Microsoft is mashing it all up into all-purpose web authoring tools. "Making publishing tools that work like software development environments, where tools for the entire process are intertwined as much as possible, indicates that the software-oriented mindset is predominant at Microsoft as well, without considering how things need to work in the content creation field. It's always easier to stick to the things you know: Microsoft has never been a player in the print publishing world, and it shows." This is a key text because Somogyi (as in the other piece) is starting to differentiate "content creation" in ways that map onto media creation practices, not just as a catch-all term for digital content. He argues the web is a medium, not a software market.

“Finding Intranet Solutions at Comdex -- Look Who’s Talking about Intranets. Products and Services Abound on the Show Floor.” Show Guide. CommunicationsWeek (Manhasset, United States), November 18, 1996, 95.

This is a description of a product from SoftQuad to make websites. Interesting that it refers to the tool itself as a “content creator.” Hence this shitty little article being a key text. #toolsAsContentCreators

Wagner, Mitch. “What’s the Story? High-End Tool Helps Create Web Magazine Sites.” The Internet. ComputerWorld, November 25, 1996.

This is about software to build and manage “very large, rapidly changing Web sites.” There’s reference to the “editorial process”, but it’s from an engineer. Content, meet container: “content such as text, images and multimedia files and for information about presentation such as Hypertext Markup Language templates and back-end programs.” Content creators, meet container managers: “As a result, it lets business managers, writers and artists focus on creating content while information systems managers focus on the technology and presentation.” “content and presentation” separated (much as in HTML and CSS) There’s a detailed workflow, and it includes artists: “A writer or artist builds text, image and multimedia files using their favorite tools and uses StoryBuilder to combine the component files in multimedia ‘stories.’ Finished stories are automatically passed to an editor, who can make changes, send the story back to the writer or clear it to be posted. A webmaster has an overview of the entire process and can schedule individual stories to be viewed only at particular times. The webmaster can also see where each story sits in the process.” The full creation is a story. This is quite distinct from other ways of discussing this. There’s more nuance. I’m calling this a key text.

Ziegler, Bart. “Entertainment + Technology (A Special Report): Web Sights --- Up and Running: Why Did the Web Replace Interactive TV as The New Mantra? A Simple Reason: It’s Here.” The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 1996.

This is about the transition away from interactive TV to the Web, happening over the past few years. Interactive TV, the article suggests, was associated with the Information Superhighway. Instead, every executive is talking about the Web: "Web magazines, Web shopping, Web sports betting, Web chatting -- the list is endless." But, the author notes, this sounds pretty much the same as Interactive TV. The difference is that this is not TV-on-demand so much as promoting shows via the web, etc. "The catalyst behind this shift is simple: The Web is here today, while interactive TV remains a distant promise." A Silicon Graphics exec teamed up with Marc Andreesen to make Netscape – they anticipated the shift. Apparently Java was meant for interactive TV? In any case, it sees more tied to large-scale content creators.