I was able to find 164 items that have "content creator" in the full text and were published in 1998. That's a bit down from 1997.

While there were less items this year, I think, though I'm not 100% certain, that 1998 is the year when the individual content creator emerges. That's a big deal, because prior to this point, "content creator" was most often referencing a large company that sells content.

The individual content creator appears (ICC) in different forms in 1998. In McKernan (1998), the ICC is a powerful figure: master of multiple modes of video. This vision of a powerful, multimedia master also appears in "Finding a Purpose" (1998). That ICC requires powerful digital technologies, as is implied in "Room for Two" (1998) or "Platform's LSF" (1998). And individual academics are referred to as "content creators" in "Electronic Journals" (1998). Reading this through the lens of the mid-2020s, we might think, "Ok, here are proto versions of the powerful individual content creators we're familiar with."

But in Clark (1998), the individual content creator is relatively weak. After all, "content creator" had mainly been applied to sectors of industry: large-scale content creators like Disney or TimeWarner were in this place. Other industries were in relation to them – content distributors or content aggregators. Clark (1998), however, notes how the Web has led to a lot of small-scale, individual content creators who are relatively weak in relation to their employers. They need to unionize, she seems to argue. Hell, they still do!

So what are these individual content creators up to? ICCs must create the content that can be "poured" or "fulfilled" into various screens, as in Graser 1998. That's a pretty reductive view -- just pouring content into containers. No wonder they're weak in relation to entities like employers.

In addition, while I detected the labeling of content creation as "non-technical" prior to 1998, this year it is explicitly invoked (see Shankar 1998). So the ICC, while maybe needing powerful hardware, is non-technical in relation to web developers or other engineers who make the containers. This is going to be an important theme in my book.

In addition, the ICC is vulnerable to piracy. 1998 continues a trend found previously: how do we contain digital media so that it cannot be pilfered? Digital watermarks are discussed often, as well as encryption (See Acken, DeCarmo, Ticoll, Zhao et al 1998). This is another theme to watch for.

Key Texts

Acken, John M. 1998. “How Watermarking Adds Value to Digital Content.” Communications of the ACM 41 (7): 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/278476.278489.

There is increasing attention to pilfering – in this case, endless copying – and often digital watermarks are presented as a solution. This article discusses them at length. Content creators here are positioned as having an interest in making unique copies. All of this gets repeated years later with NFTs.

Anonymous. 1998. “Electronic Journals from NRC, Springer Verlag on SwetsNet.” Information Today (Medford, United States), April.

Tagging this key just because it’s reducing academic research to being a “content creator.”

Clark, Jessica. 1998. “Who Profits?: Online Copyright Concerns for Writers.” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 28 (2): 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/276758.276773.

This article is really about labor action among "content creators," and in fact there’s almost a transformation in this passage: they are initially “content creators,” but as they band together, they become “Web writers.” Elsewhere, “content” is used in quotes. This seems like a very, very rare moment of resistance to the idea of the "content creator."

DeCarmo, Linden. 1998. “Inside DVD.(Digital Video Disk)(Includes Related Articles on Parental Controls, Region Management) (Technology Information).” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, July 1.

Calling this a key text because it is discussing the technical specifications of a relatively new containment technology, DVD. This includes region controls and other anti-pilfering tools. Thus the article is in part about standards.

eMediaweekly. 1998. “Finding a Purpose.” October 26.

This is a key text, because it’s about how content just flows from container to container. So many containers are cited: DVD, PDF, www, print. It’s a very fine illustration of how content is just moving from container to container. The key term they use is "multipurposing" – making content once that can be repackaged in various containers. It reminds me somewhat of Langdon Winner's argument about tomato harvesters and the standardization of tomatoes.

Gamboa, Glenn. 1998. “Akron Beacon Journal, Ohio, Net Rider Column.” KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, April 6. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=krtbn00020010917du4600fyt&cat=a&ep=ASE.

Key text, because this is about homogenization and commercialization of the web -- advertising companies want structure, not “hodgepodge.” This reminds me of the demise of MySpace in the 2000s.

Graser, Marc. 1998. “Television: WWW.CROSSOVER.NET Internet Comedy Channel Aims Ideas at Cable.” Variety (Archive: 1905-2000) (Los Angeles, United States), October 19.

‘“All we’re doing is filling a screen with entertainment value,” New Tech CEO Rush says. “It doesn’t matter if it’s on a television screen or computer monitor.”’ That quote alone makes for a key text, I’d say. Moreover, the article is about convergence between television and the Web.

MacWeek. 1998. “Room for Two.” July 13.

I’ve been noticing a distinction between technical (web dev) and non-technical (web content creators), but here the distinction is between “consumers” and “professionals,” where the latter are “content creators.” The iMac is positioned in this article as purely for content consumption, not creation. Content creators -- professionals -- need higher-end machines. This would appear in other places (see "Platform's LSF Suite" for example). So while non-technical content creators are positioned as, well, non-technical, there is also a parallel or contradictory argument that they need high-end hardware.

McKernan, Brian. 1998. “Digital Renaissance.” Videography (New York, United Kingdom) 23 (8): 4.

This editor actively converts “videographer” into “content creator.” But he notes that the new “video-content creator” must have stronger aesthetics than the average person who can record something. This is an odd choice: why not label the average video maker a “content creator” and elevate the professional? Instead, it’s professional to be a content creator because one has to adapt video to many different channels/platforms, much as in "Finding a Purpose" (1998). I can’t tell if this guy thought this through, but then again he spouts off about a “renaissance.” And he also says the magazine is full of "industry-leading editorial content," rather than, you know… writing.

Muhlhauser, M. 1998. “Content Development for the Internet as a Mass Medium.” Proceedings International Workshop on Multimedia Software Engineering (Cat. No.98EX222), April, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMSE.1998.722920.

This seems like a key text, due to its emphasis on software engineering for web media genres. A philosophy of new media, perhaps.

PR Newswire. 1998. “Platform’s LSF Suite Plays Key Role in ANTZ, PDI’s First Fully Computer-Animated Feature Film.” October 7. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=prn0000020010918dua7032wj&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about the rendering technology underpinning movies like Antz and Shrek (both Dreamworks pictures). There’s a bit of non-technical content creators logic. ‘"Even with all the sophisticated animation technology at our disposal, people -- not computers -- are the most important part of computer animation production," said Mark Kirk, technical director for systems at PDI. "Technology is simply the tool, and all too often it hinders the creative process. By using LSF during the making of ANTZ, our creative artists were able to transparently tap the computing resources they needed to get their rendering done as quickly as possible."‘ There’s also abstraction: the render farm’s location and internal structures are made transparent to the animators.

Shankar, Gess. 1998. “Pictorius: Team Tool.” INTRANETS & I-COMMERCE. InfoWorld, October 12. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=infw000020010917duac003ce&cat=a&ep=ASE.

They literally say non-technical content creators -- Amazing. Key text for sure. Such a great illustration of web dev versus “content creators”

Ticoll, David. 1998. “Blanket Security.” Voices. Tele.Com, August 1.

User-generated content! email! But so much more: this is about encryption of email, or other systems for secure document delivery. So it broaches the encrypted container idea.

Zhao, Jian, Eckhard Koch, and Chenghui Luo. 1998. “In Business Today and Tomorrow.” Communications of the ACM 41 (7): 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/278476.278488.

Deals in digital watermarks. Uses “content creators” to cover a lot of ground, ranging from artists to big companies. Also uses it to cover various media. Strikes me as a key text.