Content, Not So Much

Kara Swisher of All Things Digital, writes about the confluence of the writers’ strike, the internet, the future of digital entertainment. Leave it to a veteran reporter to write something sensible, and encapsulating. Quote:

As is clear from the current writers’ strike, which is destabilizing Hollywood further, the heart of the issue in the battle here centers around the best way to make a success out of digital entertainment, both in terms of audiences and monetization.

So far, there has been very little true success to point to in the monetization arena, as neither user-generated nor professional content really makes the kind of dollars Hollywood moguls are used to.

The problem, of course, is that the way the industry has done business is seriously flawed for the new medium–it’s high cost, process-intensive and slow-moving, as well as full of gate-keeping mechanisms that funnel talent rather than expand it.

In the risk-to-reward ratio, Hollywood still wants much too much reward for very little risk.

The developing clash between Hollywood and the internet will make the clash between music labels and the internet look like midget wrestling. Hollywood content cost so much more to produce than a typical CD. I want to build on some of Kara Swisher’s matter-of-fact scene setting.

The victims of Hollywood-copyright infringement are large, mogulish companies, not individual artists. The inability to identify with the ultimate victim makes it harder to orient a moral compass. Donate buttons never work in this environment.

Writers have the power to strike. Their means of seeking resolution is classic, old-time labor law. OK, so nothing is disrupted in that market place.

Hollywood sells and rents DVDs. Since it offers content at explicit prices, Hollywood should have means to deny access to content if not paid. That point is shrill in a digital world, but pricing of individual DVDs is the means to limit or incent copyright violation.

Network content is much messier. Much closer to music than to movies. Especially since Networks do not routinely offer to sell their content in a manner to limit the incentive to violate copyright. By doing so, networks impeach the notion of honor-bound reciprocity - “if you like, you should pay.”

Consumers substitute Cheap for Expensive. Easy for Difficult. Honorable behavior for morally ambiguous. The torrenting or YouTubing of network content is a) cheap, b) easy, and c) morally ambiguous. This combination beats either the networks desired outcome a) unavailable immediately after broadcast, or their generic offering b) expensive, and difficult to watch.

All of this writing ignores the essential fact that intermediaries get too much of the pie. Effective competition will challenge the status-quo. The internet facilitates distribution. Competition wants to be free. Content, not so much.

Other posts on the writers’ strike:
Connecting A Dot
Strike That