In the halls of the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild, and on the streets of Hollywood and everywhere, you're likely to hear that New Media is a complete "game-changer," and some eagerly anticipate that right around the corner is a world in which content makers can cut out the middlemen who currently stand between them and their audiences, a sort of creators' paradise. I'd like to dispel that notion.
The story is that with traditional media, you needed a lot of capital to distribute content - broadcasting equipment, affiliates, whatever - and distribution was the limiting agent, so whoever controlled distribution (studios, networks) called the shots. But now, with the advent of New Media, distribution costs have become negligible. Now content producers can directly reach their audiences and cut out the meddlesome and exploitative middlemen - excitement about this is understandable.
But what would this New Media world, this creators' paradise, really look like? For one thing, it would be a mess. 7 billion audience members. However many hundreds of millions of "shows." As a consumer, what do you do, wade through every single bit of content on your own? That's not even possible, let alone a pain in the ass. No, the mess wouldn't last long, at least not on a massive scale. You'd go to a portal, or a channel, or a gatekeeper, or whatever you want to call it.
Distribution itself may not cost anything, but these portals have devoted resources to creating a brand and being consumers' first stops once they board the New Media train. And since they will control the flow of audience to content, we can expect them to act like the same old middlemen. Take a look at how self-publishing works at Amazon. You can upload your novel on Amazon and sell it directly to Kindle users, totally bypassing the traditional publishing establishment. Oh, and Amazon takes seventy cents on the dollar.
I don't have a completely apocalyptic view of the New Media world. It would be possible, after all, for creators to buck this new system in a way that they couldn't before - you can start your own portal, and portals are only as good as their content. But building an audience from scratch involves a huge amount of risk. Portals are a hedge against that risk, since they have a built-in audience, and there's no such thing as a free hedge.
Hearteningly, the Amazon self-publication model may not be the world's most applicable example. It's not that it's capital intensive - which it probably isn't, in the grand scheme of things. It's that it's completely proprietary and currently the only (major) way to do it - it's a monopsony not unlike Wal-Mart's, and Wal-Mart-like behavior should come as no surprise.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Are you in the "halls of the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild, and on the streets of Hollywood" ? Mediums for media have changed dramatically in the last century- even more so in the last 25 years. Your notion that a "New Media World" would be a mess because of a large number of consumers and suppliers- is rediculous. Do you sift through every website on the internet before deciding which site you want to go to? Were you trying to imply that Amazon is price gouging by charging 70 cents on the dollar? I hate to inform you that there is no such thing as price gouging-unless you are refering to the exorbitant costs added to goods and services in order to fund governments at all levels(taxes). In your own argument- Amazon would be a monopoly- not a "monopsony". However, even that has no foundation. There are too many substitutes to consider Amazon a "monopoly". Even if it were a monopoly- do you have any idea what the total loss to society is by having a monopoly vs an oligopoly vs perfect competition? The main reason I respond to your article is because of your trendy a nauseatingly popular attack on "Walmart and walmart like behaviour." Please do explain how Walmart has ruined the world. Do you have any idea the benefit to society- ESPECIALLY THE LOWER CLASS- that has come as a result to Walmart. I think that is a good idea. We should ban Walmart and watch the living standards of the poor and middle class Americans plummet. That will really piss of Obama's voting base.
Really Lucasgrisham? Don't you kinda feel that Amazon's "70 cents on the dollar" and Wal-Mart's "Hey we sponsored a little-league team" kinda represents the bare minimum?
I'm one of those "Lower Class" you mentioned and my little town of Ozark Missouri was doing just fine before Wal-Mart came along. We shopped there for the low prices and convenience. And we know the profits don't go to our neighbors like it used to when the stores were owned local.
We got no one to blame. Maybe this is just part of the evolution of the capitalism-consumer relationship. Wal-Mart got ahead of us. We're trying to evolve into better consumers and maybe Wal-Mart will change with us and sacrifice some of their profit for American Made products and better employee benefits.
But I do hate hearing how much we "Lower Class" have benefited from Wal-Mart. I do have a lot more "Stuff", but I also have a lot less "Pride" We're working on it.
Please change your name from cowboy wisdom to just cowboy. And please don't preface arguments by labeling yourself with a certain socio-economic condition; it does not add any validity to your logic. Prices can't be excessive if they aren't manipulated by governments. They are only signals. Prices can not be good, bad, gouging, etc. They are only signals. The price system is a naturally occuring phenomenom created by millions of people over time. No one invented the price system. But it is the price system that has allowed the specialization and division of labor- and the opportunity to maximize effeciency in every market in the world were it is allowed to exist- increasing the living standards of human civilization as whole. You need to read about price theory before you claim that a price is "excessive." I really don't care if Wal-mar does or doesn't sponsor a little league team. By your own admission they were better than their competitors(in the form of providing you with more choices and more goods at lower prices increasing everyone's purchasing power thereby directy increasing their standards of living).I am sorry that your "pride is hurt." If everyone felt the way you do- Wal-Mart would go out of business. Instead the masses vote with how they choose to spend their own private property(money) and they chose Wal-Mart. In essence what you want to do is restrict the freedom of every individual and take away their liberty to do what they want with their own property-for your pride. It really boggles my mind that you could have a problem with the profits a company like Wal-Mart makes or what it does with them. You just don't comprehend that not only do the consumers benefit from the goods and services WM provides at lower costs, but every average joe with a pension fund or savings that chooses to invest in WM(because it is a publicly traded company)makes more money and profits from the success of WM! Furthermore, Every time they reinvest and capital they are providing even more jobs not only to their emplpoyees, but to everyone who is involved in some way with supplying WalMart with its products. WM's responsibility is to the consumers who shop their, the employees that they provide jobs to, and the shareholders. It is not worth mentioning your wanting to dictate how much employees make(whether in the form of wages or benefits it doesn't matter). No one works at WalMart because they are a slave or are forced to. It is a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee and they can quit any time. I guess everyone should make 100,000 dollars a year. Because according to you prices mean nothing. In reality they ar a reflection of the value that person brings to the company. A checker or bagger does not add 20 dollars of value per hour to the company. I that were so, another company would do what WM does and pay their employees more. Then everyone would work at CowboyMart and Walmart would go out of business. This is enough for now. If you are an intellectually honest and open-minded human being I recommend Price Theory by FA Hayek. If knowledge and truth is immaterial to you than I am sorry.
Mr. Grisham,
The authors of the blog and our ideas are totally fair game when it comes to making comments in the comments section. Writing insults ("Please change your name from cowboy wisdom to just cowboy") about others who comment on the blog, however, is not okay. From now on, please be respectful to Mr. Wisdom and any others who wish to participate in constructive commentary. Name-calling and general vitriol is not welcome on The Pickle. Thanks.
lucasgrisham,
I read your comments, and I never meant to imply many of the points you criticized. So I don't know where all that is coming from.
I was speaking from a first hand account. While you may have experience in economic theory, I have experience in growing up in a town that didn't have a wal-mart, and now does.
I probably won't get around to the "Price Theory" book, but thanks for the recommendation- sounds riveting.
The bottom line is that I'm looking for a way to improve the quality of my life as well as the quality of life of my community. That doesn't always mean buying the cheapest product or doing what's easier- like not recycling.
Even if we don't agree on what's an appropriate blogger identity, I do think we would agree that good information leads toward good decision making. And maybe I should read "Price Theory" For now I'll stick to blogs like "The Pickle" where heavy topics get whittled down to something I can read during my lunch break.
Luvh's - "A Creator's Paradise?" brings up many interesting points/facts that may come into play when I consume or vote. As well I find value to the information you added in your comments to the article- although picking apart and dramatizing sections of someone's blog for the purpose of criticizing seems like the easier thing to do... like not recycling.
I apologize Cowboy Justice for attacking you. I do not apologize for attacking your position. I did not dramatize anything. I merely expounded upon the issues you raised with respect to firms like a WM in the marketplace. However, I do sincerely apologize for getting angry with you- it was not, is not, and should not be personal. I do hope you get a chance to read the book I recommended. Regardless, I wish you the best.
I meant "cowboy wisdom"- "justice" was unintentional.
Sincerely,
Lucas
lucasgrisham-
I baited the hook there some, so I had it coming.
I think there will always be cases where someone's "experience" is different than what is "observed".
Thanks for posting an alternate perspective on this site. It broadens my view.
Sincerely-
Cowboy Justice Wisdom
Post a Comment