|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 9:41:04 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them.
Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen.
Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 9:52:47 GMT -6
One of the guys at work was listening to streaming songs. Some kind of random playlist. I asked him what the song was that he was listening to and he fumbled around for a few seconds and said "How can I even tell?". He meant that he wasn't even aware of how to see what song was playing. He didn't know where to look on the app or whatever he was using. I'm not sure he realized what app he was even using at the time. That tells us everything we need to know about how music and movies have lost their importance because they have lost our attention due to the sheer number of movies and songs that we have the option of consuming. There's so much to choose from that nothing is important enough to catch our interest anymore. you have the old timers who don't "get" new music and don't consume it and you have a whole generation of kids who have too much to choose from to find any single thing important so you have two generations that won't pay for something they don't value. I've seen people doing that too. "Oh it's just some channel on my phone that I like," things like that. "No idea." Good point about the "two generations." The old people are saying, "Where's the good music?" Like they don't even know how to turn on some music, because they're used to having it fed to them from radio, television, magazines, record stores. People that don't know how to use computers and phones. Used to being told what's good by big label industry, being spoon fed more or less. The younger one, I sometimes sense a disturbing amount of apathy and disdain for anything "serious." The attention span has gone micro, social media is rotting people's brains. More focus on fashion, trends, "being cool" and so on, I guess how pop always has been. I know there are still some serious young people though, I know some of them, too. There is hope, LOL. I almost feel like you have to be a musician to be a music fan now. But props to the big time serious music listeners out there who don't play much, a rare breed I think. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 26, 2021 10:04:59 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them. Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Have you looked at all the movies in Netflix or Prime? Thousand and thousands of movies, the vast majority are not hollywood caliber at all. Somehow they get made without hollywood budgets and most of them probably without distribution before the rights are purchased. I watched a few the other night that were starring/written/directed/produced by the same people and somehow they are on Netflix despite not having any of the hurdles you mentioned. I should also mention that modern DSLR cameras have been used for feature quality movies for years now. The Panasonic GH5, like I use, is approved for Netflix use and it only costs 1500$. Some of the higher end RED cameras are only in the 3000-5000$ range to start. Very affordable for professional level gear. The lighting necessary for modern cameras and lenses is much, much less than film to get adequate exposure. There's lots of run-n-gun movies being made with only practical lighting now. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 10:09:17 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them. Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Have you looked at all the movies in Netflix or Prime? Thousand and thousands of movies, the vast majority are not hollywood caliber at all. Somehow they get made without hollywood budgets and most of them probably without distribution before the rights are purchased. I watched a few the other night that were starring/written/directed/produced by the same people and somehow they are on Netflix despite not having any of the hurdles you mentioned. I should also mention that modern DSLR cameras have been used for feature quality movies for years now. The Panasonic GH5, like I use, is approved for Netflix use and it only costs 1500$. Some of the higher end RED cameras are only in the 3000-5000$ range to start. Very affordable for professional level gear. I was afraid I was missing something, as usual. No I need to dig into some "weird stuff" I guess, like you said. Do you have any recommendations? I have a GH4 here that I love, although I wish it had stabilization. Is there seriously a "Netfilx approved" gear list, like cameras? That's interesting. I'm a novice in the camera world so I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve. EDIT: there was that Quote from mark earlier in the thread, "production costs for TV series have risen in recent years as viewers have responded to more lavishly produced shows—something the industry refers to as 'prestige TV." consumers are demanding these "fancy" shows and movies, it sounds like. I don't think music is necessarily that way, although maybe it is for some people. I don't even know if there's any expensive music being made in 2021, other than your Alison Krause, Robert Plant type of old school holdovers. I think it's widely said that music budgets have gone way, way down. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 26, 2021 10:16:25 GMT -6
Have you looked at all the movies in Netflix or Prime? Thousand and thousands of movies, the vast majority are not hollywood caliber at all. Somehow they get made without hollywood budgets and most of them probably without distribution before the rights are purchased. I watched a few the other night that were starring/written/directed/produced by the same people and somehow they are on Netflix despite not having any of the hurdles you mentioned. I should also mention that modern DSLR cameras have been used for feature quality movies for years now. The Panasonic GH5, like I use, is approved for Netflix use and it only costs 1500$. Some of the higher end RED cameras are only in the 3000-5000$ range to start. Very affordable for professional level gear. I was afraid I was missing something, as usual. No I need to dig into some "weird stuff" I guess, like you said. Do you have any recommendations? I have a GH4 here that I love, although I wish it had stabilization. Is there seriously a "Netfilx approved" gear list, like cameras? That's interesting. I'm a novice in the camera world so I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve. Yes, Netflix and others generally have an approved camera list based on the resolution and encoding. The require a minimum 4K delivery now with, I believe, 10bit 4:2:2 color with higher preferred and RAW capability. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 10:20:23 GMT -6
I was afraid I was missing something, as usual. No I need to dig into some "weird stuff" I guess, like you said. Do you have any recommendations? I have a GH4 here that I love, although I wish it had stabilization. Is there seriously a "Netfilx approved" gear list, like cameras? That's interesting. I'm a novice in the camera world so I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve. Yes, Netflix and others generally have an approved camera list based on the resolution and encoding. The require a minimum 4K delivery now with, I believe, 10bit 4:2:2 color with higher preferred and RAW capability. I found this link: partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capturedidn't see GH5 on there but S1H is on there, that's an expensive new full frame sensor one. and they give some leeway for nonfiction productions, I guess documentaries and such. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 26, 2021 10:45:19 GMT -6
Yes, Netflix and others generally have an approved camera list based on the resolution and encoding. The require a minimum 4K delivery now with, I believe, 10bit 4:2:2 color with higher preferred and RAW capability. I found this link: partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capturedidn't see GH5 on there but S1H is on there, that's an expensive new full frame sensor one. and they give some leeway for nonfiction productions, I guess documentaries and such. It used to be on their list. They might have removed it or it might be an incomplete list, but I know someone who submitted GH5 work and it was accepted. But oh well, there's little chance I'll be submitting anything to Netflix so I'm not too worried, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 10:51:09 GMT -6
It used to be on their list. They might have removed it or it might be an incomplete list, but I know someone who submitted GH5 work and it was accepted. But oh well, there's little chance I'll be submitting anything to Netflix so I'm not too worried, lol. Maybe you'll get accepted to YouTube, LOL! Same thought here, my aspirations don't really go that far with cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jan 26, 2021 11:32:04 GMT -6
This post was so real it gave me shivers. Nice post. One of the guys at work was listening to streaming songs. Some kind of random playlist. I asked him what the song was that he was listening to and he fumbled around for a few seconds and said "How can I even tell?". He meant that he wasn't even aware of how to see what song was playing. He didn't know where to look on the app or whatever he was using. I'm not sure he realized what app he was even using at the time. That tells us everything we need to know about how music and movies have lost their importance because they have lost our attention due to the sheer number of movies and songs that we have the option of consuming. There's so much to choose from that nothing is important enough to catch our interest anymore. you have the old timers who don't "get" new music and don't consume it and you have a whole generation of kids who have too much to choose from to find any single thing important so you have two generations that won't pay for something they don't value. Wow wow wow wow wow |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 26, 2021 12:20:21 GMT -6
It used to be on their list. They might have removed it or it might be an incomplete list, but I know someone who submitted GH5 work and it was accepted. But oh well, there's little chance I'll be submitting anything to Netflix so I'm not too worried, lol. Maybe you'll get accepted to YouTube, LOL! Same thought here, my aspirations don't really go that far with cinema. 11 years ago a director friend and I crowdsourced and self funded 10K$ to shoot a feature film written by the director. At the time we used a hacked GH1 for the first part of the shoot and a hacked GH2 for the second part of the shoot. We borrowed and rented gear and paid the crew a very small amount of money as well as catered the shoots with food. We took nothing for ourselves but we also burned through that money and still had to add more from our pockets. I believe the movie is still on youtube somewhere but I've never looked. I also have some other video work I've done on Youtube and such. I still prefer Vimeo though. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrano on Jan 26, 2021 14:14:11 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them. Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Then why are millions watching TikTok? And Youtube, Vimeo and dozens of others? Me, I used to be a movie fanatic. Until Dolby THX certification came along. There's far more interesting content on Vimeo these days and I'm in control of audio levels. Everybody's got a camera these days. Far more camera's then home recording setups... |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2021 14:22:02 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them. Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Then why are millions watching TikTok? And Youtube, Vimeo and dozens of others? Me, I used to be a movie fanatic. Until Dolby THX certification came along. There's far more interesting content on Vimeo these days and I'm in control of audio levels. Everybody's got a camera these days. Far more camera's then home recording setups... I guess I'm stuck in the past. I do most of my viewing on YouTube also. But I've been getting more into Netflix and feature films lately. Never really used Vimeo or TikTok. I'm not sure if those are competing with Netflix, but I wouldn't know since I haven't spent any time there. I thought TikTok was short phone camera stuff for young people but I have no idea. I think I saw some independent productions on Vimeo once that were good, something to aspire to. I still don't see that as a big competitor to Netflix, but I could be wrong. I'm just here to learn. I know more poeple with music gear than I do people with "good" cameras. I guess we travel in different circles. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 26, 2021 14:55:19 GMT -6
Far more people coming out of community colleges with recording arts degrees than studios.....far more studios than bands.....
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamsambas on Jan 26, 2021 20:53:34 GMT -6
One of the more profound pieces of advice Bob O ever shared with me was this.
The end product of an artist- the thing which an artist is selling- is not their music- but their audience.
I still can't fully wrap my head around it. But one thing is clear- 99.999% of artists today have nothing to sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 27, 2021 11:32:43 GMT -6
More specifically, I meant selling access to their audience. It's all about engaging a unique group of people. It's as much being a cheerleader as it is being a musician or singer. Most people go to pop music shows at least as much as for the other fans as for the artist. Serving brownies could be a very effective part of a show.
As for downloads, the tech industry managed to convince the RIAA that they were fighting student hackers rather than SillyConMan Vallee banksters. By the time they figured out that they'd been conned, it was too late. The video industry didn't repeat that mistake. Still, effective, reliable, hack-proof copy protection locking files to the owner's computer could have been allowed by Micro$oft and Apple but wasn't made available.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyrano on Jan 28, 2021 12:53:51 GMT -6
If it's all about selling access to your audience, and I believe that's true, DRM is about the worst thing to have. It's the ultimate disconnect for your audience.
In the nineties, I processed data from a marketing project that tried to measure the intrest for a centralised unique digital identifier for every recorded song out there. In my mind, the data couldn't be reliable, with something like a 98% rejection factor.
So I started checking by phoning the interviewees. I was pretty amazed. Nearly all were negative in the end.
One of the music industry execs I talked to, enlightened me: the one idea nobody would buy was complete accountability. So they missed the chance to run along the digital revolution.
I remembered seeing a very similar result when Philips launched the CD. First off, it was Philips, the creator of cassette tapes! Secondly, Philips was leaning heavily on the argument CDs would never wear out. Nobody in the music business welcomed that.
Both are examples of things being a lot different from what is generally presumed and sold to the public and to politics. The biggest robbers are inside the music industry. So accountability is as useless to them as ever-lasting products.
In business in general, this isn't unusual. In the 70s, a company in the DDR created an everlasting lightbulb. No intrest at all from their fellow manufacturers. And today, only Dubai has real everlasting LED lightbulbs because of one very stubborn sheik. The rest of the world has an inferior product.
The film industry, OTOH, has avoided some of these mistakes. I don't know why. Simply smarter execs?
But still, once they get big, companies are run by bankers, not by music lovers.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 2, 2021 16:16:48 GMT -6
Good stuff in this thread, didn’t read it all. I agree there is still a wall to climb to compete for a Netflix show. But it IS getting easier and cheaper. The thing I think that will eventually kill cinema is when there is enough free 4K stock footage that you can build whatever scene you want and ‘green screen’ in your characters. (Which already don’t even need green screens) A library of wide shots, library of close ups, library of ultra close., library of body doubles, library of stunts, clothing, etc. That’s when they’ll discover filming on location is too expensive. I hope it never happens. But I just saw a kid show on an app where the outside of their home is poorly done CG outer space. And they are getting the streaming audience, meaning other more expensive shows aren’t. So I guess it got the wheels turning in my head! It’s not so far away to think you just need a MacBook, a room, a couple actors and some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2021 18:06:27 GMT -6
I think it was Bob O who pointed out once, the film industry is organized, the music industry isn't. That's the lag. As I've mentioned before (dunno what thread), it is excrutiatingly difficult to copy protect video - the problems are pretty close to insurmountable. This is not the case with audio.
Also the business factors are quite different - what's killing the current movie market is audience accessibiliy. Before the pandemic they were doing fine and it has taken approximately a year with no audiences to adopt this new strategy.
Do I think it's going to last?
Good question, but in the long run I'd say "No." This is a temporary stopgap measure. My guess is that things will get back to something approaching "normal" within 2-3 years after the pandemic is under control. People like the "theater experience", and taking a date to a movie is very different from asking her (him, it, etc.) over to watch TV.
The audience experience is quite different as well. Even with today's oversize TVs, very, very few people can match the total experience of watching a film in a good (or even reasonable) theater.
Whaqt killed the audio biz was piracy, plain and simple. And by "piracy" I mean both the traditional pirates on the web and the "legal" streaming companies (many of whom are run by the same people.)
If something is easily copyable you have a problem. And with audio all it takes is a set of clip leads and a recorder.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2021 18:17:56 GMT -6
Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Have you looked at all the movies in Netflix or Prime? Thousand and thousands of movies, the vast majority are not hollywood caliber at all. I should also mention that modern DSLR cameras have been used for feature quality movies for years now. Svart, I don't really se how your statemens really conflict with Dan's at all.
The real question is whether you're willing to wade through all the utter crap on video streaming to find something worth watching. I recently got Netflix and the amount of useless crap is unbelievable. I mostly use it to put on Deep Space Nine reruns late at night to sleep to. I've found a few BBC nature docs and a few music docs I'd been meaning to get around to, but most of it's just another worthless wasteland. The only thing worse is normal cable (which does at least have the news, I guess...)
And I'm a guy who keeps the TV on nearly constantly. And ignors it for most of that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2021 18:25:00 GMT -6
I don't think the cinema industry has suffered from the same, "Everyone is doing it now" thing that happened in music. There's still a high barrier of entry to even make something that doesn't look like a horrible B film, or cringe comedy. Financially rigorous for the equipment, huge specialized teams are required, extensive location requirements for sets. Probably more time is required too, than tracking a few pre-written songs and mixing them. Any dimwit with a computer can make a "pretty good song" now but I don't think the same thing is true for film at all. I think it's harder. Both in terms of skill, and this huge, expensive machine that has to be put into motion to make a good one happen. Even the shows we pass over, a lot of them were highly involved projects with a lot behind them. To even be considered for a video streaming service I think is a high bar, still. Music streaming has become a landfill that we dump our work into. Then why are millions watching TikTok? And Youtube, Vimeo and dozens of others? Me, I used to be a movie fanatic. Until Dolby THX certification came along. There's far more interesting content on Vimeo these days and I'm in control of audio levels. Everybody's got a camera these days. Far more camera's then home recording setups... Why? NOW?
In most cases because right now there's no choice. I'm not saying that when things open up they'll stop, but they'll have choice again, and besides, it's really boring squinting at a small tiny screen for hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2021 18:26:56 GMT -6
Not in the least.
DRM is really only a problem when it is obvious to the audience. The audience is never even AWARE of the DRM involved in most movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 3, 2021 18:34:16 GMT -6
Good stuff in this thread, didn’t read it all. I agree there is still a wall to climb to compete for a Netflix show. But it IS getting easier and cheaper. The thing I think that will eventually kill cinema is when there is enough free 4K stock footage that you can build whatever scene you want and ‘green screen’ in your characters. (Which already don’t even need green screens) A library of wide shots, library of close ups, library of ultra close., library of body doubles, library of stunts, clothing, etc. That’s when they’ll discover filming on location is too expensive. I hope it never happens. But I just saw a kid show on an app where the outside of their home is poorly done CG outer space. And they are getting the streaming audience, meaning other more expensive shows aren’t. So I guess it got the wheels turning in my head! It’s not so far away to think you just need a MacBook, a room, a couple actors and some time. You have just outlined the death of video. |
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Feb 4, 2021 23:01:47 GMT -6
Quentin Tarantino was asked how he felt about the barrier to entry being broken down in film. And he thought it was a great thing that people with a lack of resources will be able to make something great to be seen if they have the tenacity. And those who make something great will standout amongst the trash films, even if there are more of them. I think it's very parallel with music. But there have to be those young artists/filmmaker who actually desire in their bones to make something great like the art they grew up absorbing that inspired them. I've thought about this a lot and I don't think the real problem is barrier to entry. Because shit is shit, and if you make a movie or a song that sucks, it will most likely go nowhere. I think it's the growth of small scale mobile electronic devices that are pulling people farther and farther away from being able to digest art in a way that promotes its depth and truly inspires. I.e what Dennis Villenueve is talking about. If you ask yourself - what affect does a giant movie theater have on the experience of an amazing film? How much impact does it offer? How much less impactful will this amazing film be if I watch it on my Macbook with Macbook speakers? Then you get down to the bottom line which is depth in art is going further down the priority list because of the current mediums of its consumption. So that means less people are going to be inspired by art with depth because they aren't consuming it in an environment that's awesome (movie theater, great sound system, concert). But what happens when our computers can envelop us in some amazing display of a film on a 200 inch screen with amazing speakers for fairly cheap - will the problem be solved? Maybe. But we're not there right now and attention-span is the name of the money game and art with depth doesn't hold a candle to 6 second cat videos. And great films are getting beat up by cookie cutter shit films that are getting spots on netflix because the ratio is 100:1, and the great films can't even properly flourish because a tiny screen with bad sound is not what it was designed for. So really great art is becoming almost niche, so much entertainment is being supplied by superficial social media. Many people who would normally be inspired by great music or film are being distracted. But maybe when a 200 inch 10K television is affordable an appreciation for quality will resurface?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 11:44:47 GMT -6
Not in the least.
DRM is really only a problem when it is obvious to the audience. The audience is never even AWARE of the DRM involved in most movies.
Yeah they are. All that stuff you can’t skip on Blu-Rays. They don’t know it’s drm but it’s drm. Streaming killed mainstream downloadable piracy for movies and music because it was easier and 20 bucks a month. Piracy takes more effort than typing in a credit card number. Of course this cut off access to rare movies and music because many of those went out of print first on physical formats. The physical formats of popular music even goes out of print in certain territories, leaving only the lossy stream available or not at all. The media companies love to stick it to the consumer for trying to be ethical. They first did it in the movie theaters when VHS took over and then on the radio in the 1990s with Clinton’s FCC reforms. They want to control what you view, hear, and buy by limiting your access to it. If the music and film industry produced more things with mass appeal, they would earn more money. They haven’t recently outside of super hero movies, Taylor Swift, and licensing out oldies. They pretty much stopped funding mid budget movies. The major labels did similar things. They got the massively contracted business they deserved and everyone else suffered. 1. Limit the market. Sell-outs, radio reform, street teams. Let big box stories use CDs as a loss leader to kill record stores. 2. New technology lets the audience get whatever they want. 3. Are forced to give the house away for pennies because they can’t control anything anymore except for reissues, tie ins, and payola playlists and reviews. It’s like a gated subdivision that’s been abandoned, the lawns are all weeds, and the McMansions are crack houses and meth labs. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 8, 2021 19:46:34 GMT -6
If it's all about selling access to your audience, and I believe that's true, DRM is about the worst thing to have. It's the ultimate disconnect for your audience. In the nineties, I processed data from a marketing project that tried to measure the intrest for a centralised unique digital identifier for every recorded song out there. In my mind, the data couldn't be reliable, with something like a 98% rejection factor. So I started checking by phoning the interviewees. I was pretty amazed. Nearly all were negative in the end. One of the music industry execs I talked to, enlightened me: the one idea nobody would buy was complete accountability. So they missed the chance to run along the digital revolution. I remembered seeing a very similar result when Philips launched the CD. First off, it was Philips, the creator of cassette tapes! Secondly, Philips was leaning heavily on the argument CDs would never wear out. Nobody in the music business welcomed that. Both are examples of things being a lot different from what is generally presumed and sold to the public and to politics. The biggest robbers are inside the music industry. So accountability is as useless to them as ever-lasting products. In business in general, this isn't unusual. In the 70s, a company in the DDR created an everlasting lightbulb. No intrest at all from their fellow manufacturers. And today, only Dubai has real everlasting LED lightbulbs because of one very stubborn sheik. The rest of the world has an inferior product. The film industry, OTOH, has avoided some of these mistakes. I don't know why. Simply smarter execs? But still, once they get big, companies are run by bankers, not by music lovers. Seriously doubt the PRO's want to use something like blockchain to identify every spin and purchase - then they'd actually have to pay everyone the correct amount. Actually, if we used blockchain technology, I'm not sure why we'd need PROs...well, I guess someone would have to manage the data. |
|
