These are some thoughts based on a discussion over at Deadline Hollywood Daily on the uncertainties over the digital future. The film and TV people - above and below the line - are at odds over what will happen once the distribution model for their work is expected to completely shift to online. In the current strike, a complaint - as explained in this United Hollywood video - has been that studio executives claim not to make any money (or not knowing what will happen), while in the same breath explaining to reporters or investors that their businesses online will generate billions. Lots of uncertainty about digital futures, for sure.
It seems that all parties in this conflict are certain about one thing: the future is online. So lets ignore the fact that below-the-line labor suffers most from this strike, and that paying writers for scripts and not for repurposing the products based on those scripts perhaps might be valid if you put writers on a payroll with benefits and so on.
Regarding the promises of the digital age, several industry observers have made reference to the importance of the "pipes" (you know, broadband bandwidth). That seems to be true - but I think may be ultimately misleading. The studios have gradually retreated from producing movies (just like the labels have almost stopped investing in artists and bands), instead focusing their business model predominantly on marketing and distribution (and some boutique creative work).
As internet is basically an open P2P communications infrastructure, it completely disrupts the gatekeeper model in journalism (hence the panic in the news industry), or the bottleneck model in, for example, film and music.
In the short term, fighting off anyone who wants to share in online revenue is a solid business purpose (to please stock market analysists). but in the long run, it seems - and I may sound too hopeful here - that talent, creativity and innovation may be a more promising investment.
Assuming for a moment that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL (the "Fab Four") will win the fight for Net neutrality, they and companies like them will be in control of distribution and access. producers and consumers of content - whether professional or amateur - will have to go through them. but they do not operate on the premise of gatekeeping - more on the level of forwarding, "gatewatching", annotating, aggregating, and so on.
In other words: what will have lasting value, is compelling content. How it will get to whoever wants to consume it, is in the short term hugely important but in the long term tremendously irrelevant.
Thoughts in progress...
Posts
CNN.com Ends Anchor-Driven Newscasts
38 minutes ago
3 reacties:
Mark Deuze, exactly right. I'm sorry I did not make clearer my point that the internet pipe-size only matters at THIS moment in time, simply because the U.S. doesn't have it yet. So WGA and next year SAG are stuck dealing with the studios because they control access to the channels. Of course this is what economists call a classic technology "bottleneck."
It is exactly why the studios are lining up to defeat "Net Neutrality." Also look for "700 MHz" -- because this abandoned UHF channel spectrum that is going on FCC auction next January could be a wireless internet pipeline into your house, and big media hopes to buy it up and sit on it for the next 20 years. It is an enormous issue, and of course reportage on it is entirely missing from the mainstream media.
But if we (we the people) get open access to a screen size-and-resolution that can rival current broadcast and cable, the whole game changes.
Once that is here, anybody can upload stuff as big as a laser screen and collect revenue from advertisers via the Google AdSense sytem. Then content really WILL be king. Creative people in Hollywood will be forming their own production alliances, making screen content, owning it, and growing.
Of course then at the same time, Hollywood creators are also going to be in direct competition with fresh talent phoning it in from the stix. Most of that will be junk, of course, but I suspect not all of it.
And there will be such a huge number of new things that it will become difficult to find the good stuff. So there may be alliances among Hollywood creative people for aggregating products and marketing them, and perhaps new sorts of business models for publicists.
In my opinion, two very different things follow from all of this, important for the present moment:
(1) If the studios come back next week and say "Okay, you can have your extra 4 cents, but we want exclusive contracts barring individuals from making any outside internet materials without our participation" --The writers might want to consider rejecting that!
(2) If you as a writer have a really great idea for a new series or a new film franchise: write it down, copyright it, put it in a drawer, and don't open the drawer for about a year or two.
I also want to restate my opinion that what the internet needs is consumer demand to get those pipes bigger. YouTube is a destination mostly for kids right now. Some parts of this country have been in a recession since the last recession, and buying a new computer is beyond the budget. It's pretty clear from activities in news reports that Google wants to find a way to make this grow, and hasn't quite cracked that nut yet. WGA might consider authorizing little YouTubes now, in return for a revenue-sharing agreement for a strike fund. YouTube has signed revenue-sharing agreements with some big content providers. Maybe YouTube should think about talking to the creative people, not the dinosaurs.
I'm not an insider, not a writer -- in fact I'm a plumber on the westside of L.A. If you want to see how I hope to fit into new media have a look at http://youtube.com/leearnold
I am puzzled by your assertion that the "Fab Four" are not gatekeepers. Google claims not to want to be one (but still is). The others definitely want to be gatekeepers and are open about this. I am not sure what you see as the difference between what they are doing and gatekeeping.
they perhaps would like to be gatekeepers, but unlike the desk editors in the news industry of old, they do not have any control over the information flow. Google operates on the premise of other people's recommendations (ie. links), Yahoo uses collaborative filtering. Furthermore, there are hundreds of alternatives (including individuals) available for their services. So even if most people use them to find information or to communicate online, their function is not one of traditional gatekeeping.
that would be my quick&dirty view - and I'd appreciate your perspective, David!
Post a Comment