At the bottom, it says this was taken from the New York Times. That explains a lot. The basic gist of the article (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Internet needs to be more like TV, and that TV may borrow from the Internet, as long as they can profit from it. Ick. They don't get it. Less control from the PTB is why Artists and writers are going to the web in the first place, and they think turning the web into Network TV is the answer for profitability. Argh!
-Nice to see Joss and DH mentioned as being successful, though.
they are realizing that producing Web content may be easy but profiting from it is hard. A small number of writers, producers and actors are making a living with webisodes, but they are still a long way from establishing the form alongside television and feature films. The newfound industry lacks clear business models and standardized formats.
Ummm yeah, because it's new. I agree that it's a mistake to look at the web as a new-fangled version of TV. It's not - it's an entirely new distribution channel which will require it's own playbook for financial success. Until people figure out what the right model is for making the most moolah, it makes sense to experiment with lower-budget projects. I'm sure this was the case with film, radio and television inasmuch as in their infancy as media distribution channels, the stuff you got out of them was cheap and experimental. Because the playing field on the web is wide-open and the rule books (i.e., business models) are not yet carved in stone, it's a great space for independent creators to play. But on the other hand, as those independent players start making money, I'm also sure that just as with radio, film and TV, you're also going to see a gravitation towards standardizing those more profitable business models and a market that is dominated by a collection of big players.
It's a little interesting because the internet was something else before it became a means of spreading entertainment, and is still used for many other things. Radio, film and tv were really only introduced to the public as entertainment (/information) media - if you turn on your radio, there's some entertainment there. And if there isn't, there's a relatively finite number of places to look for it as you twiddle the dial. The internet just isn't like that, and a whole set of strategies for actually attracting viewers in the first place will have to be developed before anything like a successful online industry emerges. But me, I don't think Joss & co did all that bad...
The article almost seems to think that having a fan base is, like, cheating. Hah.
In a way it is cheating since those creators are using audiences gained through the studio system to profit independently. In other words the success of something like Dr Horrible (much as i'm happy about how well it's doing) isn't a vindication of web media because it surely partly (even mainly ?) succeeded because a large (by web standards) audience was already in place and happy to view/pay for new Whedon content. The article seems to be wondering if it's possible to get to Dr Horrible levels of success starting from scratch just with web media and I think that's a valid question.
But on the other hand, as those independent players start making money, I'm also sure that just as with radio, film and TV, you're also going to see a gravitation towards standardizing those more profitable business models and a market that is dominated by a collection of big players.
Hmm, I dunno, maybe (certainly models that work'll spread and those that don't will wither, that's just the way of the world). The big difference seems to me to be the much lower barrier to entry and it makes sense to assume that the big players with their, presumably, higher production values are gonna need to make more money to cover their costs. I really think (and hope) it'll end up a much more tiered system than it currently is, where you may have certain types of content in the hands of big players but I think (and hope) there'll still be plenty of small-scale productions that attract smaller audiences (but large enough for the creators to make a living).
And personally I wonder if integrating the web with mainstream audience's TVs (which is sure to happen sooner or later, probably on a fairly wide scale in the next 10-15 years i'd bet) will actually be a very bad thing for web content - to me it'll then become just another TV channel which people will watch in the same way they watch TV, meaning they'll expect similar sorts of "shows", meaning a lot of the edges will be shaved off and with them a lot of the uniqueness of web media.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the question of how web producers starting from scratch get a fanbase wasn't valid - it most certainly is. I was just amused how that factor seemed to be the cue for shrugging off the idea of learning lessons from Dr Horrible, in the article. I don't think it's beyond possibility that other web content producers may bring (albeit probably smaller) fanbases with them from other media - it's certainly got to currently be one of the easiest ways to generate the buzz which feeds life on the internet.
I did read the article rather quickly but I didn't get the same sense of... I guess you'd call it dismissiveness from this article as there has been from some others.
I read it simply as an article pointing to the net as the new way to go, giving a few examples of successful web shows but pointing out that there doesn't seem to be one way to ensure your web content gets viewers. Because the internet is so freaking hugh, it'd be a bit like if when TV was invented instead of just one or two channels they had given everyone what our modern day cable set up is like. Would Howdy Doody have been as popular if kids had 1000 other channels to choose from?
Hmm, I dunno, maybe (certainly models that work'll spread and those that don't will wither, that's just the way of the world). The big difference seems to me to be the much lower barrier to entry and it makes sense to assume that the big players with their, presumably, higher production values are gonna need to make more money to cover their costs. I really think (and hope) it'll end up a much more tiered system than it currently is, where you may have certain types of content in the hands of big players but I think (and hope) there'll still be plenty of small-scale productions that attract smaller audiences (but large enough for the creators to make a living).
I think you're right there with the low barriers to entry. I think what what you're describing is the "Long Tail" model where you have both (i) a few players who own a very large portion of the market and (ii) many players who own the remaining portion of the market. The latter part is the "long tail" which you don't see in markets with high barriers to entry because it's too hard for smaller independents to get in the game.
That's interesting BrewBunny, must admit i've heard the term "long tail" around but i've just kind of roughly "got it" previously, didn't know any details. But yeah that's exactly it really, not an emerging market but an emerging type of market - there's probably never been a better time to be a fan of obscure stuff, though I guess it remains to be seen how good a time it is to be a creator of obscure stuff.
At the bottom, it says this was taken from the New York Times. That explains a lot. The basic gist of the article (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Internet needs to be more like TV, and that TV may borrow from the Internet, as long as they can profit from it. Ick. They don't get it. Less control from the PTB is why Artists and writers are going to the web in the first place, and they think turning the web into Network TV is the answer for profitability. Argh!
-Nice to see Joss and DH mentioned as being successful, though.
TDBrown | September 03, 17:48 CET
Ummm yeah, because it's new. I agree that it's a mistake to look at the web as a new-fangled version of TV. It's not - it's an entirely new distribution channel which will require it's own playbook for financial success. Until people figure out what the right model is for making the most moolah, it makes sense to experiment with lower-budget projects. I'm sure this was the case with film, radio and television inasmuch as in their infancy as media distribution channels, the stuff you got out of them was cheap and experimental. Because the playing field on the web is wide-open and the rule books (i.e., business models) are not yet carved in stone, it's a great space for independent creators to play. But on the other hand, as those independent players start making money, I'm also sure that just as with radio, film and TV, you're also going to see a gravitation towards standardizing those more profitable business models and a market that is dominated by a collection of big players.
BrewBunny | September 03, 18:35 CET
The article almost seems to think that having a fan base is, like, cheating. Hah.
skittledog | September 03, 18:45 CET
But on the other hand, as those independent players start making money, I'm also sure that just as with radio, film and TV, you're also going to see a gravitation towards standardizing those more profitable business models and a market that is dominated by a collection of big players.
Hmm, I dunno, maybe (certainly models that work'll spread and those that don't will wither, that's just the way of the world). The big difference seems to me to be the much lower barrier to entry and it makes sense to assume that the big players with their, presumably, higher production values are gonna need to make more money to cover their costs. I really think (and hope) it'll end up a much more tiered system than it currently is, where you may have certain types of content in the hands of big players but I think (and hope) there'll still be plenty of small-scale productions that attract smaller audiences (but large enough for the creators to make a living).
And personally I wonder if integrating the web with mainstream audience's TVs (which is sure to happen sooner or later, probably on a fairly wide scale in the next 10-15 years i'd bet) will actually be a very bad thing for web content - to me it'll then become just another TV channel which people will watch in the same way they watch TV, meaning they'll expect similar sorts of "shows", meaning a lot of the edges will be shaved off and with them a lot of the uniqueness of web media.
Saje | September 03, 20:25 CET
skittledog | September 03, 20:50 CET
I read it simply as an article pointing to the net as the new way to go, giving a few examples of successful web shows but pointing out that there doesn't seem to be one way to ensure your web content gets viewers. Because the internet is so freaking hugh, it'd be a bit like if when TV was invented instead of just one or two channels they had given everyone what our modern day cable set up is like. Would Howdy Doody have been as popular if kids had 1000 other channels to choose from?
NYPinTA | September 03, 21:45 CET
I think you're right there with the low barriers to entry. I think what what you're describing is the "Long Tail" model where you have both (i) a few players who own a very large portion of the market and (ii) many players who own the remaining portion of the market. The latter part is the "long tail" which you don't see in markets with high barriers to entry because it's too hard for smaller independents to get in the game.
BrewBunny | September 03, 21:46 CET
Saje | September 03, 22:15 CET