The present and future of post production business and technology

The way the hype has been growing around vlogging, video podcasting, consumer/user/viewer generated media, some people have extrapolated that we’ll all end up producing video. I don’t think that will be the case.

Many years ago, at least 5 but probably closer to 7 or 8, I promulgated the idea of “Video production as another form of literacy.” I wouldn’t say the general acceptance of my idea was strong - in fact my colleagues in the production community were only too happy to explain to me why I was wrong.

Not surprisingly, I think I was right then and that I’ve been proven so by the above-mentioned consumer/user/viewer generated media.

Literacy, in the sense of “reading and writing” has not been an almost-universal skill for that long in history.

For most of human history, the vast majority of people in every society were illiterate. In 1879 in this country, 20% of the population was illiterate and more than 70% of the black population was illiterate. Yet by 1980 – in a few generations — nearly all adults in the US had achieved basic literacy. Regrettably, 860 million adults worldwide remain illiterate.
Presented by Dean Debra Friedman on November 18, 2005, as part of the “Downtown and Gown” lecture series at ASU’s Downtown Center.

In human history, literacy is recent. Before the printing press very few read - it was an elite skill akin to the ability to drive the complex machineries that produced video and television throughout most of last century. Pre-Gutenberg there weren’t the available books to teach more than a small number of people. Manuscripts were a scarce resource, few needed them so the limited resource was restricted by the high cost of entry. Just like television and video production throughout the last 75 or so years.

What has literacy achieved? Well, most people read and write at some times in their personal or work lives. But there is no one way of “using literacy”. Very few people are employed because of their writing ability (and fewer employed for their reading ability) alone. Of those that are the professional uses are incredibly varied: from the successful Novelist to the Textbook writer, to those that write ad copy, to business reports, to magazine articles, to notes about the call-you-missed. It’s all writing but few are professional writers.

But even if your writing ability isn’t key to your job, everyone needs to fill in a timesheet/work order/sick leave application and needs to be able to read warning labels.

You don’t have to make your living from reading or writing to be literate. You don’t have to be a full time professional “video person” to produce video occasionally. The parallels are very strong between the two forms of literacy.

That’s why I don’t think everyone will be producing content for the 7,684* video sharing websites out there, just like I don’t see the average literate American producing novels, short stories or other written entertainment or educational material for their associates. Some do, most don’t.

Oh, and there’s the evolving 1% rule.

It’s an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will “interact” with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it. The Guardian, July 2000

Either way you want to consider it, it’s highly unlikely that this near-universal infatuation with a new-found literacy will lead to more producers than consumers.

*In February 2007, that’s a pretty extreme exaggeration. However, there’s a chance this blog will stay online long enough for it to be true if the current rate of YouTube cloners all keep trying for a googlicious deal.

On the Digital Production BuZZ show of February 15th the BuZZ in Depth segment (50 minutes into the show or use the chapter mark) was on Competing with Free where I drew heavily from a Techdirt article Saying you can’t compete with free, is saying you can’t compete, Period.

The Techdirt article and discussion on the show revolved around the thought that the price of everything ends up competing at the marginal cost of producing the good. The way to add value, and therefore make profits even when the marginal cost is zero with digital distribution, is to differentiate with branding, convenience or service.

Then today an email list discussion that’s been ongoing about the need/no need for DRM. Naturally opinion is somewhat divided. However one of the examples chosen to highlight the “need for DRM” cited a proposed book in the UK written by chef and personality Jamie Oliver. A draft of the book got leaked by pdf and appeared on the Internet. The entire projected run of 200,000 books was cancelled because bookstore owners cancelled pre-orders because they thought they could not compete with free.

And yet, Cory Doctorow, who is an opponent of DRM, practices what he preaches.

“I’ve been giving away my books ever since my first novel came out, and boy has it ever made me a bunch of money.”

In the Forbes Magazine article he tells of his first novel Down and Out in the Magic Kindom published by Tor Books in January 2003. Since then the book has had six printings - a serious commercial success in a publishing world where few books make it to a single reprint. During this same period more than 700,000 copies were downloaded from his website, free.

Don’t fall into the trap of saying that those 700,000 “freeloaders” would have been potential sales. That would be to fall into the same trap as the IRAA and MPAA! This author is smart enough to realize that an eBook download is not a lost sale.

Most people who download the book don’t end up buying it, but they wouldn’t have bought it in any event, so I haven’t lost any sales, I’ve just won an audience. A tiny minority of downloaders treat the free e-book as a substitute for the printed book - those are the lost sales. But a much larger minority treat the e-book as an enticement to buy the printed book. They’re gained sales. As long as gained sales outnumber lost sales, I’m ahead of the game. After all, distributing nearly a million copies of my book has cost me nothing.

It’s not just books. By the time they released their album Barenaked Ladies Are Me in Q3, 2006 they’d been offering the album as unprotected MP3 files at 196 Kbits/sec. BNL offer the album for $9.99 as an MP3 and $12.99 for lossless quality. And yet, in the week following the official album release, BNL grossed $970,000 from “intellectual property” sales. Selling direct, the artists are getting a much better deal, about $5 an album and much better than the 4.5 cents/download that artists like Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers reportedly get from each download of their material under their contract with the record company. Nearly a million dollars in gross revenue and yet the same material was available free. (It should be noted that BNL get income other than from digital download sales that would fall into the “Intellectual property” category.)

Also consider the example of The Shins, who had never been higher on the Billboard 200 than 86 prior to the last week of January this year. That week Wincing the Night Away” sold 118,000 copies, a career best for The Shins. What makes this remarkable is that the album had been widely available on file-sharing networks since October, three months earlier!

An independent study by economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Stumpf concluded…

there is likely no effect of downloading on US store sales.

Clearly you can compete with “free” when the product is differentiated again. The UK booksellers clearly do not believe in the value of their product - the book - and their shopping experience - the bookstore. Had they not blinked Jamie Oliver might have had his best-selling book ever: the opposite to what happened because of a lack of insight.

Edit: Apparently the book did get published and is called Cook with Jamie and it sells in Australia for Au$49.95 (about US$39.25) and is differentiated from the PDF by being in a splash-proof vinyl cover, fabric tape marker and great visual and physical appeal. I’d love to know how it has sold compared with the original prediction.