A good read from one of my favorite marketing-oriented writers.
Heartfelt criticism of your idea or your art is usually right (except when it isn’t…)
When people criticize a new approach, new product or new service, it’s from within the context of their existing assumptions. I’ve been dramatically wrong about technology trends, taking a little time to “get” the benefits of pay-at-pump in gas stations, or even ATMs, because my assumptions about what I wanted were wrong.
The useful element of this sort of criticism isn’t that the fact that people in the status quo don’t like your idea. Of course they don’t. The interesting question is:what about the world as it is would have to change for your idea to be important?
I believe that the secret formula for monetizing media is based on Techdirt’s CwF+RtB=profit. Connecting with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy. Iron Maiden have known this for years as they had to connect with their fans instead of relying on radio promotion to get the word out.
Now that the traditional revenue channels are drying up because they don’t serve the market well, that fan connection seems to be working for Iron Maiden, where there latest CD is selling very well on CD and has limited unauthorized download.
Then again, when you consider the advice from the band’s manager on why they’re successful…
“Invest in the long term. Apply an image. Give the fans what they want. Tour and keep touring. Play the festival circuit. Embrace new technology. Be innovative. Be honest. Be original. Write good songs.”
…you realize that maybe the product from the MPAA studios and RIAA labels just isn’t that great any more.
Why Waiting Until A New Business Model Is Proven Doesn’t Work http://bit.ly/bcybin
Technology changes business models. That’s a given. The problem is, the business models that are being disrupted are often very big businesses, with good profits and the company doesn’t want to disrupt those nice, regular, current revenue streams in order to accommodate a new one. The new revenue is (at least during these phases of disruption) very much below what they are now. No doubt you recall NBC CEO Jeff Zucker’s fear that that the Web will turn “analog dollars†into “digital pennies”.
The examples quoted include Netflix (who innovated and disrupted because they had no stores to protect) and Blockbuster (who had stores to protect; and Kodak who saw digital coming, new it was important but failed to act in time leading to massive layoff and factory closures.
The problem with waiting until you see a clear path forward to the sorts of profits that will be available in a disrupted industry, it’s almost always way too late for the disrupted to catch up. This is why disruption does not come from the major players in an industry, but rather from the small innovator who has no legacy to protect.
There are a few reasons for this:
Companies always misjudge the speed of trends, especially the rate of change. Things like digital revolutions start out slowly, and the quality seems bad. So companies in legacy businesses figure they have a long time to make the change. But the rate of change increases rapidly, especially once it “tips” and reaches a critical threshold. At that point, if you’re not fully invested in the new business, you’re, way, way, way behind.
It’s difficult to really understand the new technology/market unless you’re playing deeply in the space. This is the same thing we noted with people who claim that patents are necessary because once a good idea comes along others will just copy it. In many cases, that’s not possible. That’s because the truly innovative ideas require some real hands-on experience. Watching others do it is not the same thing.
It’s very difficult, culturally, to build up businesses that cannibalize your existing cash cows. The skill sets may be different, and people begin to recognize that these “new” people may be working on projects that replace the “old” people. That leads to a lot of resentment and makes it really difficult to actually hire the good new people — since they recognize they’re going to face those kinds of institutional restrictions. For them, it’s just easier to go to a “native” company that has bet entirely on the new offering.
How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them? http://bit.ly/bUNPOi
I think we’re ready to stop believing them now. From Jack Valenti’s infamous comparison of Betamax/VHS to the Boston Strangler to today’s complaining about unauthorized distribution, the content production industries have fought every technological change. And every time that technological change has opened new markets for them. Instead of VHS/Betamax and DVD being the death of the MPAA studios it’s been the salvation.
It may, in fact, be the case that the sky is falling. But, if you claim that the sky is falling whenever a new technology threatens an existing business model, the rest of the world can be forgiven for not believing you when you claim that this time around it’s going to be different than all of the other times. Now, let’s be clear, each one of these technologies changed the business model of the industry. They caused certain revenue streams to decline. But they also opened up new ones.
If you look very closely at the restoration credits box at the bottom, you can see my credit as "Post Production Restoration Consultant".
Â
Was at the Cinerama Dome to view the restored print of Windjammer and it occurred to me that there’s a lot of commonality between Cinerama (the three camera/three projector widescreen of the late 50’s and early 60’s) and 3D.
But first, a little back story. I have been consulting on the restoration of Windjammer as a technical consultant: making sure that the maximum amount of quality we could get from the print was available for the restoration.
I also advised on tools for the job. The Foundry’s Furnace Core featured prominently as did Adobe After Effects and Final Cut Pro. I also helped set workflow and kept everything running smoothly.
Unfortunately the complete negatives for the three panels of Windjammer are not complete. In fact the only place the entire movie is available was in a badly faded composite 35mm Anamorphic print.
You can see the trailer, remastering process and how we telecined (Oh look, it’s me in the telecine bay) online, but today was the only time it’s likely to be shown in a Cinerama Theater.
David Strohmaier and Greg Kimble did a great job on the restoration – all on Macs with Final Cut Pro and After Effects.
Now this wasn’t a full reconstruction so we worked in HD – 1080p24 – but used the full height during telecine and correction so we didn’t waste any signal area with black. For the DVD, due in early 2011, the aspect ratio is corrected and a “smile box” (TM) treatment to simulate the surround nature of Cinerama.
Because we were working in HD, I was pleasantly impressed by how great it looked at Cinerama size on the Arclight Theater’s Dome Cinema in Hollywood. (Trivia point: the Dome was built for Cinerama it never showed Cinerama until this decade.)
Another point of interest was that the whole show ran off an AJA KiPro as it did in Bradford earlier in the year, and Europe last month. Each Act of the 140+ minute show was contained on one drive pack. Can’t recommend the KiPro highly enough.
So, there we were enjoying the story (and restoration work) and it occurred to me that there were strong similarities in cinematic style between “made for 3D” 3D and Cinerama.
Â
Before restoration, this shot was desaturated, shifted to red and blown out. (From the screening Sep 05, 2010.)
Â
Cinerama seams together three projectors into a very wide screen view that was the precursor of modern widescreen. The very wide lens angles favor the big, panoramic shots and shots that are held rather than rapid cutting. Within this frame the viewer’s eyes are free to wander across multiple areas of interest within the frame.
Similarly, my experience of “made for 3D” 3D movies is that it is most successful when shots are held a little bit longer because each time a 3D movie makes a cut, it takes the audience out of the action for a moment while we re-orient ourselves in space. (Unfortunately there’s nothing analogous to that in the Human Visual System, unlike traditional 2D cutting, which mimics the Human Visual System – eyes and brain together .)
Both Cinerama and 3D work best (in my humble opinion) when the action is allowed to unfold within the frame, rather than the more fluid camera of less grand 2D formats or 3D.
Since 3D had its last heyday around the same time as Cinerama, maybe everything old is new again? Digital Cinerama anyone? (How will we sync three KiPros?)
And one little vanity shot since today was the first (and likely last) time I’ve had my credit up on the big screen in a real cinema:
Â
My first, and likely last, big screen projected credit.
Is Flash on Android “Shockingly Bad†or “Shockingly Great?†http://bit.ly/cXleXP Better results surface with more testing.
Michael Panzer, a reader from Germany, for instance, posted a video of his experience with Flash video on his Galaxy S. Unlike Kevin’s experience, movie trailers from Metacafe — including the HD trailer of Alpha and Omega — loaded just fine, despite a few stutters along the way, as did the trailer for the latest Resident Evil film, also in HD. However, Panzer didn’t record his attempt to watch videos on ABC.com or Fox.com, which were the sites that gave Kevin the most trouble.
It may be certain sites that cause it more problems than others.
Episode 7 of The Terence and Philip Show is now available for comment and discussion. http://bit.ly/9DIcN1
In this week’s show, Terence and Philip discuss the politics of Industry Award Shows. Why should we care? Is there an alternative or does there even need to be one? If not awards, how do we judge skills, with a divergence down memory lane to the “Gunsmoke” footage and similar exercises. How do we judge the work of an editor? And only one reference to the “NLE from Apple”
Not your usual CEO approach to piracy but one that is consistent with his conclusion:
Milton believes that entertainment companies should look beyond piracy, and explore alternatives business models as the battle against piracy is one that can’t be won.
“I think it’s a lost battle,†Milton said, adding: “I look at my own kids, because that’s the best way to know where the market is going. It doesn’t matter if I tell them that it is illegal to download. As soon as they close the door to their room, they download.â€
“They are not afraid of someone who’s tracking their IP-address. They just don’t care, Milton said. “It’s a new world and we have to accept it.â€
So instead of following the RIAA and MPAA down useless fan-tagonistic approaches he suggests:
In the video Milton says that his company will focus more on selling the ‘private lifestyle’ which includes luxurious vacations with an adult theme, and toys and tools that may come in handy while reenacting pirated videos.
With slow progress on human cloning and the 3D-printer, Milton’s bet on selling the sex ‘experience’ rather than videos seems to be a safe one for now.
Rather Than A Record Label, How About A Musical Affinity Group? http://bit.ly/bKibhF
If the Record Labels have a future maybe it needs to be a different future?
I was reminded of this a bit, two years ago, when Topspin’s CEO, Ian Rogers, penned an open letter to Guy Hands, the head of (struggling) EMI, suggesting that rather than think of itself as a “record label” focused on promotion and distribution (two things that are easier and cheaper than ever before), it could instead focus on being the smart filter for music listeners today, struggling to find the music they love amidst so much musical abundance in the world. The suggestion was to take some of the key, iconic, bands under the EMI roof, and put them under affinity-based “mini-labels” with other less well known bands, that would appeal to people who liked the more well known band. It seemed like a great idea, which, of course, EMI has not done.
Then again, isn’t Apple’s new Ping in iTunes heading in that direction, but with a more social component that doesn’t really require the record labels?
Does Steven Levitan Also Want A Cut Every Time You Buy A TV? http://bit.ly/cpJzpK
Ahead of a Hulu IPO Steven Levitan – a well respected and talented writer/producer – claimed that he and other content creators should get a cut of Hulu’s IPO. Funny I didn’t realize he got a cut of ABC’s profits when he provides them with content. Oh right, he doesn’t, but he’s effectively looking for the same thing.
What I found interesting though is this part of the article:
The more he argues, the deeper a hole Levitan seems to dig in his reasoning. He complains that if we don’t figure out a way to make his shows profitable, the only thing left to watch will be “sneezing pandas.” This is a version of the movie industry’s “$200 million myth.” It’s the “well, it costs me $x to make this, so if we can’t make that back, no one else could possibly make quality content for less.” It’s incredibly elitist and wrong. Not only is there good content made for less money out there (beyond the sneezing pandas), but if there’s really demand for his shows (and there appears to be), then there are smart business models you can pursue that don’t involve pissing off your fans or demanding an equity pay out from a company you didn’t actually invest in.
