I found 164 items that included variations on the phrase "content creators" in the year 1999 -- exactly as many as I found for the previous year.

Four key areas jump out at me when look across the literature (and especially at the key texts of this year): user-generated content, convergence, individual content creators, and intellectual property. These themes have all been present in previous years.

While we associate the phrase "user-generated content" with Web 2.0 (roughly 2004 onward), the idea that users of websites might contribute content appeared in 1990s. 1999 starts to see some interesting developments in this area. Graser 1999 and Tedesco 1999 both discuss major media companies setting up websites that mix "A-list" content creators with content from "users." These projects are seen as edgy in that regard -- can users create content that competes with that of the stars? Tedesco 1999 documents how children can become content creators.

It's not surprising to see continued discussion about convergence in multiple key texts – all media, all "content creation" becoming digitized in a global network. For example, Cutler 1999 gives a definition of convergence that is dense but quite useful:

the progressive integration of the value chains of the information and content industries — telecommunications, posts, broadcasting, print, multimedia, and data processing into a set of linked economic markets and a single value chain based on the use of distributed digital technology (Cutler, 1999, p. 101).

The phrase "content value chain" or its variants starts to appear across multiple academic studies at this point. That's an intriguing phrase: content is created (it's "raw material"), it's sent down some (convergent) pipes, it is consumed. Miller 1999 reinforces this idea, as does McKernan 1999 (see below). Olson 1999 is a weird expression of this: a company that makes mobile phone ringtones put out a hip hop compilation album, which makes that company a "content creator." Wouldn't the musicians be "content creators"? The act of compiling is "content creation"? This is so fascinating to me.

Many of the key texts focus on individual content creation –- musicians, computer graphics artists, individual actors or directors (Moltenbrey 1999; "KnitMedia" 1999). This continues a theme from the previous year. To be sure, so much of the discourse does position big media companies as large-scale content creators. Reinforcing the predominance of large-scale, corporate content creators, when the individual content creator appears, that person is most often seen as an employee (either full-time or contractual, see Doyle 1999) in relation to a media company.

A unique key text is Jeters (1999) novel Noir, which includes a passage about how all content creators -- large and small -- are united in that they need intellectual property protections. From the world of fiction to the academy, Foresta 1999 and Ponce 1999 also highlight a need for digital rights management and digital watermarking.

Perhaps one of the finest expressions of contentification comes from the editor of Videography magazine, Brian McKernan, who states:

in this age of content creation, ... the digital imagery produced for a motion picture is, in reality, assets [sic] that can be managed and repurposed as a video game, a website, a television show, a DVD, a VHS cassette, a billboard, and perhaps even a fast-food toy....

This is a clear statement about how content must be contained and channeled.

Key Texts

Cutler, Terry. 1999. “Avoiding Conflict Between Communication Policy and Convergence.” Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.06.02.1999.01.

This is a notable text because it offers defintions of convergence as well as content creators. Convergence is "the progressive integration of the value chains of the information and content industries — telecommunications, posts, broadcasting, print, multimedia, and data processing into a set of linked economic markets and a single value chain based on the use of distributed digital technology” (Cutler, 1999, p. 101). Content creators "are, for the purposes of the digital value chain, the producers of the raw material for content services. They are the generators of intellectual property and creative works often protected by copyright or other mechanisms. It is taken for granted that this material can be digitised for transport across a digital network. Content creators include journalists and writers, musicians, photographers, film and video makers, software developers, and multimedia developers” (Cutler, 1999, p. 10). Also refers to content as "raw material" that must be "transported" via digital networks. Enhancement [refining?] of "content" comes later, it seems. I should note that the scale of the content creators isn't really clear. Invoking intellectual property makes it seem as if they are large, but the idea of content being "raw" and the emphasis on branding (channel ID, book press name, etc) somewhat indicates these are individual artists.

Doyle, Audrey. 1999. “Specialized Placement Firm Matches Facilities with Talent.” Sec. 9. Computer Graphics World, April. Gale OneFile: CPI.Q.

This is notable because it's about a temp agency for content creators – what we would now call a "gigification" of the job, or what we used to call "casualization" or "precarity." "Content creators" here are individuals: "editors, compositors, and CGI artists."

Foresta, Don, Georges-Albert Kisfaludi, and Jonathan Barton. 1999. “The Souillac II Conference on Art, Industry and Innovation: Final Report with an Introduction by Martin Malvy.” Leonardo 32 (3): 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1162/002409499553244.

This is a collection of small essays from a conference. One key idea they stress is that "content creators" or artists are every bit the equal to engineers – they are to be considered "creative engineers." (As opposed to regular engineers, who are not creative?) In addition, content creators/artists are "non-linear," meaning their work is not directly aimed at commercialization. But it can be commercialized if it is done within the right environment. Finally, content creators who make content can really drive broadband, since their content fills up the broadband capacity. It's a weird document that implicitly undermines my observation about non-technical content creators but also recapitulates it by contrasting artists with engineers – similar to the STEAM idea. "Content creators" becomes a container to hold a variety of artistries. It also individualizes it and places it under the aegis of commercialization, though there is mention of "small arts enterprises." There's also mention of DRM and digital watermarks.

Graser, Marc. 1999. “Film: POP STAKES ONLINE REEL ESTATE.” Variety (Archive: 1905-2000) (Los Angeles, United States), November 1.

This is about some big Hollywood people (Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg) and companies (Dreamworks) setting up a website, Pop.com. They note that they will do the "unusual move" of enabling "Netizens" to make content – a clear user-generated content move. Those who make good content might get development contracts. The user-generated content will not be the focus, though: there are some A-list content creators under contract, too.

Jeter, K. W. 1999. Noir. Bantam Spectra papeback edition. Bantam Spectra.

I need to read the whole book, but it is discussed by Shaviro (2003), and the passage in question links the concerns of large-scale content creators with those of individual content creation – they all need intellectual property protections to survive, and stealing their shit is a sin.

McKernan, Brian. 1999. “Shepard’s Media.” Videography (New York, United Kingdom) 24 (11): 4.

McKernan has really set himself apart as a theorist of content creation. He is the one who, last year, said videographers need to become "content creators." In this column, which is an obituary of Jean Shephard, McKernan calls the radio host, author, and film writer a "content creator par excellence." Also, McKernan builds on his argument that content must be made to be repackaged: "in this age of content creation, ... the digital imagery produced for a motion picture is, in reality, assets [sic] that can be managed and repurposed as a video game, a website, a television show, a DVD, a VHS cassette, a billboard, and perhaps even a fast-food toy….” That's what I call a "killer quote."

Miller, Mark. 1999. “Editor’s Introduction: First-Person P.O.V.” Game Developer (San Francisco, United States), November, 3.

This is a "content is king" editorial, arguing that hardware is subservient to the content that it enables. Bad hardware with good content (or software, as he puts it a bit confusingly) is better than great hardware with no/bad content. Also argues for open standards so content creators can make content that can be live on and be repurposed (much as McKernan does), and consumers have a clear upgrade path. A convergence argument.

MOLTENBREY, KAREN. 1999. “REAL TROOPERS.” Sec. 54. Computer Graphics World, October. Gale OneFile: CPI.Q.

This is somewhat the opposite of most use of the term in that it moves from “digital-content creators” to referring to the artists as artists, who are doing highly technical and complex work to try to make an action show that has more realistic movements. They are computer graphics artists working in 3D. There's also a passing, but interesting, gender dynamic: they can create lots of alien bugs but they can’t create long-haired characters -- “female characters with long, flowing hair.” (Reminds me of current issues in AI-generated imagery).

Olson, Catherine Applefeld. 1999. “Merchants & Marketing: Phone Service Touch Tunes Bows Compilation.” Billboard (Archive: 1963-2000) (New York, United States), March 20.

This is about a compilation produced by a company that sells ringtones. I don’t know how compiling a bunch of hip hop tracks makes them a “content creator.” But they make that claim. It stands in, I would say, for how large-scale content creators exploit the labor of their workers who make what Cutler might call the "raw material" of the "information economy."

Ponce, B. 1999. “The Impact of MP3 and the Future of Digital Entertainment Products.” IEEE Communications Magazine 37 (9): 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/35.790866.

This article is very invested in music as an industry, with content that can be sold or distributed for cheap, leading to sector growth. Music could be QTD “cheap and disposable.” It compares music to the porn industry, another sector where piracy is rampant and yet growth is massive. It’s not music; it’s music content, and the "content creators" of music are possibly breaking away from "content producers" (I gather, record labels). And this is largely about the rise of a particular container, MP3, and how that container might shift how "content creators" relate to "consumers."

PR Newswire. 1999. “KnitMedia & Liquid Audio Announce Live Library(TM) @ The Knitting Factory.” May 20. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=prn0000020010829dv5k01tga&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about a venue that hosts musicians (content creators) and often records them. This place, the Knitting Factory, is able to gather “inexpensive content” by recording those shows. There's a definite contrast between the artists/musicians' self-conceptualization and the marketing-speak. In addition, discussion of DRM and piracy.

Tedesco, Richard. 1999. “INTERNET: MTV Makes Big Noise Online.” Broadcasting & Cable (Archive: 1993-2000) (New York, United Kingdom), March 1.

This is about children providing user-generated content to a website, Nick.com, mixing children's "content" with other content creators. Similar to the Graser 1999 story about Pop.com. It's the leading edge of the next phase of content creation.