Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Sunday, December 04, 2011
The erosion in the paid media pyramid
Seth's Blog: Since the invention of media (the book, the record, the movie...), there's been a pyramid of value and pricing delivered by those that create it
This blogger points out the trend in media to make more of the media outlets free. It seems as though this is having a detrimental effect on the quality of information that gets out to the public. With the internet outlets including blogging encroaching on the book and news markets I feel as though there is a lack of fact checking and quality control that was inherent in the publishing process. With music and movies being able to be purchased over the internet I feel as though it levels the playing field between the major studios and the independent filmmakers. There is so much information to be accessed in the current system but it seems as though it is getting harder to find reliable and consistent sources. Every nut job can put up information now and it leads us to be much more skeptical of our information. The digital revolution is great for the dissemination of information but that as with all technologies is a double edged sword.
This article is extremely interesting. It clearly breaks down how we have changed as a society in terms of art.
I am all in favor of art reaching as many people as possible. So while it is a problem economically, the art is still getting out to a wider and more diverse audience. I think that in the long run this can only help artists. Because things are easily accessible people are exposed to them and deem them valuable even though they are not paying for it at the moment maybe they will down the line if the art form is threatened or if they want to see it live. Artists should learn how to integrate free media into there lives so that it helps their art and does not hurt it.
Luke raises a good point. It is not really possible to give up "corporate media" entirely and replace it with free blogs, youtube, and facebook. There needs to be a balance between fact checked, "professional" media and consumer-produced content. Finding this balance might be hard, but will allow many viewpoints to be shared while still making sure that the democracy has an informed populace to make decisions. I also think that the removal of the mass media (as much as I am not sure it is entirely true) is not necessarily a bad thing. If people can watch or consume the media that is exactly what they want, then they will tend to consume more of it. Hopefully this will prompt an increase in the arts, culture, and information that we consume. It will also be interesting to see if this collapse sparks a new nonprofit "free" arts model. Art that is distributed digitally at low cost to the consumer would be a great thing for our country and might spark creativity and collaboration across geographical boundaries.
This is a nice and concise explanation of something that IP thinkers have been writing about for 5 or 10 years now. Just because fewer people are buying their copy of an album, doesn't mean that there isn't money to be made. A number of creative options exist for engaging the audience who wants to pay for works versus the audience that is only going to consume the 'mass' product and won't pay anyway. Artists who recognize that second group as another kind of fans, and a kind that is really terrific publicity, are able to serve the needs of both groups. The die-hard fans who aare willing to spend money are likely willing to spend more than the cost of a CD. They might be willing to shell out for a vinyl copy, T-shirts, a poster print, or even just a signed CD. The people who don't want to pay aren't going to anyway, so really there's no reason not to give them the music for free and enjoy the free publicity. All of this can be done without a major record label intervening, creating a much closer bond between the recording artist and the audience.
A friend recently showed me an interesting model for buying games - the set of games they were buying allowed you to pick your own price for some items, but it also allowed you to adjust the percentage of all the money that went to the developers or to a charity of your choosing. So you could get some games for free (if you chose to) and others cost a few dollars, but if you chose to you could funnel all of the money you were paying towards the EFF, for example. This model especially interested me because it retains some economic value for the game, while allowing the consumer a wide range of choice and not alienating potential audience.
I find this post really interesting. While I agree with a lot of what the author and commenters are saying, the conclusion I draw is that critics have become much more important. In an age where there is a lot of media that is readily accessible, someone or something to filter it becomes really important. Possibly more so than the media itself. If you have to wade through 50 bad songs for every 1 good song, you’re going to be a lot less inclined to listen to music. If, however, you instead sorted through 50 critics until you found one with whom you really align and who consistently provides music choices suited to you, you would be much more likely to listen to music.
Your article is most uniquely written and very informative. You got my attention by sharing your viewpoints so effectively. I agree with a lot of your content. Great quality article.
6 comments:
This blogger points out the trend in media to make more of the media outlets free. It seems as though this is having a detrimental effect on the quality of information that gets out to the public. With the internet outlets including blogging encroaching on the book and news markets I feel as though there is a lack of fact checking and quality control that was inherent in the publishing process. With music and movies being able to be purchased over the internet I feel as though it levels the playing field between the major studios and the independent filmmakers. There is so much information to be accessed in the current system but it seems as though it is getting harder to find reliable and consistent sources. Every nut job can put up information now and it leads us to be much more skeptical of our information. The digital revolution is great for the dissemination of information but that as with all technologies is a double edged sword.
This article is extremely interesting. It clearly breaks down how we have changed as a society in terms of art.
I am all in favor of art reaching as many people as possible. So while it is a problem economically, the art is still getting out to a wider and more diverse audience. I think that in the long run this can only help artists. Because things are easily accessible people are exposed to them and deem them valuable even though they are not paying for it at the moment maybe they will down the line if the art form is threatened or if they want to see it live. Artists should learn how to integrate free media into there lives so that it helps their art and does not hurt it.
Luke raises a good point. It is not really possible to give up "corporate media" entirely and replace it with free blogs, youtube, and facebook. There needs to be a balance between fact checked, "professional" media and consumer-produced content. Finding this balance might be hard, but will allow many viewpoints to be shared while still making sure that the democracy has an informed populace to make decisions. I also think that the removal of the mass media (as much as I am not sure it is entirely true) is not necessarily a bad thing. If people can watch or consume the media that is exactly what they want, then they will tend to consume more of it. Hopefully this will prompt an increase in the arts, culture, and information that we consume. It will also be interesting to see if this collapse sparks a new nonprofit "free" arts model. Art that is distributed digitally at low cost to the consumer would be a great thing for our country and might spark creativity and collaboration across geographical boundaries.
This is a nice and concise explanation of something that IP thinkers have been writing about for 5 or 10 years now. Just because fewer people are buying their copy of an album, doesn't mean that there isn't money to be made. A number of creative options exist for engaging the audience who wants to pay for works versus the audience that is only going to consume the 'mass' product and won't pay anyway. Artists who recognize that second group as another kind of fans, and a kind that is really terrific publicity, are able to serve the needs of both groups. The die-hard fans who aare willing to spend money are likely willing to spend more than the cost of a CD. They might be willing to shell out for a vinyl copy, T-shirts, a poster print, or even just a signed CD. The people who don't want to pay aren't going to anyway, so really there's no reason not to give them the music for free and enjoy the free publicity. All of this can be done without a major record label intervening, creating a much closer bond between the recording artist and the audience.
A friend recently showed me an interesting model for buying games - the set of games they were buying allowed you to pick your own price for some items, but it also allowed you to adjust the percentage of all the money that went to the developers or to a charity of your choosing. So you could get some games for free (if you chose to) and others cost a few dollars, but if you chose to you could funnel all of the money you were paying towards the EFF, for example. This model especially interested me because it retains some economic value for the game, while allowing the consumer a wide range of choice and not alienating potential audience.
I find this post really interesting. While I agree with a lot of what the author and commenters are saying, the conclusion I draw is that critics have become much more important. In an age where there is a lot of media that is readily accessible, someone or something to filter it becomes really important. Possibly more so than the media itself. If you have to wade through 50 bad songs for every 1 good song, you’re going to be a lot less inclined to listen to music. If, however, you instead sorted through 50 critics until you found one with whom you really align and who consistently provides music choices suited to you, you would be much more likely to listen to music.
Your article is most uniquely written and very informative. You got my attention by sharing your viewpoints so effectively. I agree with a lot of your content. Great quality article.
Post a Comment