Warm and fuzzy agreement!

A warm and fuzzy sense of agreement all round. You’ve synthesised what my thoughts were far more effectively. I certainly don’t believe that UGC should be edited or stopped but am pointing out that the truly valuable stuff can only really fulfil its potential when somebody comes in to curate it.

One point though: You use the case of Doritos at the Superbowl which is a really good example of a big brand getting it right. I think this proves my point. The use of airtime was a competition that allowed the funniest and most entertaining content to rise to the top of the pile and then get displayed in front of a mega audience. In effect Doritos became the curator, a great role for them bringing funny stuff to the public and a great opportunity for ordinary folk to showcase something special.

Forgive me for being a cynic but to work for the brand this had to be curated. If the project was a truly open forum and someone had created a four minute montage of themselves eating 100,000 bags of Doritos over a year and becoming grossly obese as a result, would the brand have used it?

I suppose the crux of my point is that UGC is an incredibly empowering thing that gives us all a voice. This is unquestionably a good thing but for me it’s a matter of whether we use that voice to say something truly worthwhile and interesting or not. If we do then surely getting someone to pick it out of the mire can only be a good thing.