This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Will Broadcasters and Big Production Houses Go The Way Of Print Media? Why Traditional Media Still Doesn’t Get It Regarding Google, and Why Not Getting It May Marginalize Them
In media, particularly video, distribution costs have been literally
flattened by the web, production costs have been dramatically reduced by
digital HD technology and do-it-yourself CGI, and marketing made
democratic via viral and social networking channels; the barriers to
entry that allowed the big media houses to rake in fat margin profits no
longer exist. Its just a matter of time before the world at large
figures this out. It would behoove those in positions of power and
influence in these shops to come to this realization and truly embrace
the magic of distributed computing in lieu of trying to force the genie
back into the bottle, replete with all of its accompanying magic.
With this being said, there has been much talk regarding the MSM blocking access to their content though Google TV, Google’s new initiative to merge the Web and TV content through a unified, seamless interface…
ABC, CBS and NBC Stupidly Block Google TV | The New York Observer
The Wall Street Journal is reporting
that the Big Three TV networks have decided not to allow their
programs, which already stream online, to be available through Google
TV, which puts the web onto consumers’ televisions.
According to the The Journal’s Sam Schechner and Amir Efrati,
“The move marks an escalation in ongoing disputes between Google and
some media companies, which are skeptical that Google can provide a
business model that would compensate them for potentially cannibalizing
existing broadcast businesses.”
Fox joins broadcasters in blocking Google TV link – Crain’s New …
AP) – News Corp.’s Fox has joined
broadcasters ABC, CBS and NBC in blocking access to full episodes of
shows when searched from Google TV’s Web browser. That’s according to a
person at Fox familiar with the matter.
Comedy Central, MTV now blocking Google TV | Crave – CNET
“The Daily Show” and “The Colbert
Report” were some of the few high-quality TV shows that allowed
streaming. The last we checked, “Conan” is still available, but there’s no guarantee TBS won’t begin blocking Google TV too.
Report” were some of the few high-quality TV shows that allowed
streaming. The last we checked, “Conan” is still available, but there’s no guarantee TBS won’t begin blocking Google TV too.
Practically all of these entities offer some form of streaming
content, usually without charge, over the Internet now. The Google TV
product is simply a highly integrated web browser over TV interface.
What the media companies are doing is akin to blocking their media
content from Internet Explorer, Firefox or Safari. Sounds absurd,
doesn’t it?
content, usually without charge, over the Internet now. The Google TV
product is simply a highly integrated web browser over TV interface.
What the media companies are doing is akin to blocking their media
content from Internet Explorer, Firefox or Safari. Sounds absurd,
doesn’t it?
Well, what the big media companies are truly afraid of is Google’s
monetization of their content. Google will, in time, end up selling adds
either directly over their content or adjacent to said content, thus
generating a revenue stream from another’s efforts. This is what they
are trying to avoid, which was the fate of the print media companies who
were cannibalized by Google through it is successful efforts of
corralling news through its portal and search engines. It is the
semantics that are key though. Print was cannibalized by Google, but it
was commoditized by the print MSM’s failure to grasp and take advantage
of paradigm shift that was the Internet. These entities clung to the
high friction old school business model that relied on high barriers to
entry and high distribution costs to generate profits. As web technology
reduced these these barriers and costs, the print and radio model was
laid bare. The print/radio MSM clung to these antiquated business models
as long as they could, and even when they did succumb to change by
force, they still tried to fit a physical print business model into an
online, digital hole. It just didn’t work, and it will not work for the
video media companies either.
monetization of their content. Google will, in time, end up selling adds
either directly over their content or adjacent to said content, thus
generating a revenue stream from another’s efforts. This is what they
are trying to avoid, which was the fate of the print media companies who
were cannibalized by Google through it is successful efforts of
corralling news through its portal and search engines. It is the
semantics that are key though. Print was cannibalized by Google, but it
was commoditized by the print MSM’s failure to grasp and take advantage
of paradigm shift that was the Internet. These entities clung to the
high friction old school business model that relied on high barriers to
entry and high distribution costs to generate profits. As web technology
reduced these these barriers and costs, the print and radio model was
laid bare. The print/radio MSM clung to these antiquated business models
as long as they could, and even when they did succumb to change by
force, they still tried to fit a physical print business model into an
online, digital hole. It just didn’t work, and it will not work for the
video media companies either.
What will end up happening is that these actions will encourage a
new crop of new media savvy content producers that create slick, media
appropriate content with an appropriate business model that is bound to
be far superior to that being used by the MSM to monetize this new
medium.
new crop of new media savvy content producers that create slick, media
appropriate content with an appropriate business model that is bound to
be far superior to that being used by the MSM to monetize this new
medium.
With YouTube claiming more than than 143 million viewers in July of
2010, this Google property has immense potential. It had 219 million
impressions, which are one third of that of Hulu (the MSM’s new media
collaboration), but with tremendous room for growth due to the fact that
most of the YouTube content does not contain ads and is of the short
clip, amateur type while all Hulu content is long form and designed for
ads. This is changing, and with this change lies the potential for
Google to actually sidestep the major networks with user generated
content that costs Google nothing while generating very material revenue
which they will gladly split with the content creator. This revenue
also has the potential to be very, very sticky as well. Google’s YouTube
alone has more than a quarter billion links to its
content from 2.3 million unique domains, I would guess many multiples of
that of all of the major networks combined.
2010, this Google property has immense potential. It had 219 million
impressions, which are one third of that of Hulu (the MSM’s new media
collaboration), but with tremendous room for growth due to the fact that
most of the YouTube content does not contain ads and is of the short
clip, amateur type while all Hulu content is long form and designed for
ads. This is changing, and with this change lies the potential for
Google to actually sidestep the major networks with user generated
content that costs Google nothing while generating very material revenue
which they will gladly split with the content creator. This revenue
also has the potential to be very, very sticky as well. Google’s YouTube
alone has more than a quarter billion links to its
content from 2.3 million unique domains, I would guess many multiples of
that of all of the major networks combined.
So, what are the chances of this comeuppance happening? Well, as
content producer myself, I would love to take the extremely original,
very difficult to replicate BoomBustBlog content and have it
professionally produced to compete with the Fox Business Network. Take a look at my pungent analytical content and track record
and compare it to any other finance and business outlet currently in
video distribution. Imagine being able to watch TV and determine that
Bear Stearn, Lehman or GGP were going to collapse 4 months to a year in
advance, with ample evidence of such. How about knowing the housing
market was going to crash back in 2006? Or knowing that the Case Shiller
index quoted by all of the other media outlets on a regular basis
misled most to believe the housing market was improving when it wasn’t,
with ample proof? Highly detailed advanced notice of the European
sovereign debt crisis? What would be the advertising value of such a
high end audience? Anyone interested in pursuing such a venture should contact me, I would definitely be interested.
content producer myself, I would love to take the extremely original,
very difficult to replicate BoomBustBlog content and have it
professionally produced to compete with the Fox Business Network. Take a look at my pungent analytical content and track record
and compare it to any other finance and business outlet currently in
video distribution. Imagine being able to watch TV and determine that
Bear Stearn, Lehman or GGP were going to collapse 4 months to a year in
advance, with ample evidence of such. How about knowing the housing
market was going to crash back in 2006? Or knowing that the Case Shiller
index quoted by all of the other media outlets on a regular basis
misled most to believe the housing market was improving when it wasn’t,
with ample proof? Highly detailed advanced notice of the European
sovereign debt crisis? What would be the advertising value of such a
high end audience? Anyone interested in pursuing such a venture should contact me, I would definitely be interested.
I assume most get the message in terms of a paradigm shift in media
production, distribution and consumption, and if you don’t the content
below should assuredly drive the point home.
production, distribution and consumption, and if you don’t the content
below should assuredly drive the point home.
The “Search for Gollum” is an online-only “Indy” movie
serving as a “prequel” to the Lord of the Ring Series enjoys over 10
million viewers and counting over the past year, and was made on a
budget of merely $5,000. Referencing the FAQs from the filmmakers’ site: Was the budget really only £3000?
Yes – as the crew were all unpaid
volunteers (fans like us), the only production costs were for
equipment, costumes, props….etc. And we used digital HDV cameras to
keep the budget minimal. It was funded by the filmmakers themselves.
volunteers (fans like us), the only production costs were for
equipment, costumes, props….etc. And we used digital HDV cameras to
keep the budget minimal. It was funded by the filmmakers themselves.
|
|
THE HUNT FOR GOLLUM was released to global press acclaim and became the most viral film ever released to the Internet with over 7 million views. The award winning 40 minute ‘Lord of the Rings’ prequel was made as a tribute to the writing of J.R.R. Tolkien and films of Peter Jackson.
“simply amazing… every bit deserving of the overwhelming positive response it has received”- Scifiscoop.com “ every aspect from the cinematography to the creature makeup to the weaponry to the acting – is all absolutely spot on“ – Twitchfilm.net
|
The actual full length movie, The Hunt For Gollum – LOTR Prequel
The website: http://thehuntforgollum.com/
Any one who does not see the threat to the mainstream movie houses
who spend $100s of millions of dollars on movie productions to have
them filter through the high friction theater circuit and after market
DVD circuit, giving up a piece of profit each step of the way obviously
does not grasp the destructively creative potential of this new medium,
and YouTube in particular. The $5,000 production above is light years
ahead of the vast majority of stuff that I have seen on TV with
production costs that are literally 1,000s of times greater.
It doesn’t end there either. Google’s advertising technology, at
least when it comes to things web-related, runs circles around all of
the networks and movie houses, even if we were to combine their efforts.
In addition, Google is rapidly expanding its capabilities. Not only is
Google quite capable of monetizing said content, it is capable of
rapidly transforming the entire business model in such a fashion that
the old school simple will not be able to compete. We know it can happen
and we know how fast it can happen. Ask the print media and news
organizations, or you can query the smart phone industry as to whether
they have heard of Android…
Risks…
According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Google executives
are pushing hard to convince content owners to share data about their
video websites to make it easier for Google to search and display their
shows in blended TV-Web listings as richer data sets will help improve
the search function. However, as indicated above, talks with TV networks
including ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC have not been fruitful due to concern
from networks that their content will be commoditized and unilaterally
monetized, hence lost amid a range of web content, including pirated
clips. This is a catch 22 situation, though, since any network or any
fledgling content providers that do share rich data with Google will
receive significantly more traffic from Google users – both on and off
the Google TV platform. This will pretty much coerce competing networks
to join or risk being potentially marginalized through being left out of
search traffic.
The network providers are actually risking creating a “Facebook for
TV, leveraged through YouTube”to be used against them by playing
hardball with their content. Think of it in terms of the value of a
website that does not get picked up in Google searches as compared to
the value of a site that constantly gets listed in the first three lines
of every Google search that contains the appropriate key words –
keywords potentially used by Google’s 600 million users! Trust me, this
is not lost on the big three technology players in this space! Remember,
in the beginning of the summer I reminded my followers that There Is Another Paradigm Shift Coming in Technology and Media: Apple, Microsoft and Google Know its Winner Takes All.
Let’s peruse a few pages from our 63 page (subscriber only) 
Google Final Report wherein I go into detail Google’s efforts to enable the monetization of free video with high quality production and content
such as the Gollum piece above, the success of which would be the bane
of network TV and conventional movies studios world over:
I strongly urge all paying subscribers to read and reread the longest forensic analysis that I have ever released (@63 pages): Google Final Report, as well as the An Analysis and Valuation of Google’s Android and AdMob. The Google Q3 2010 review
is also available for all paying subscribers. Professional subscribers
are strongly urged to play with all of the market and valuation models
that we have to offer (click here to subscribe):
-
Google Valuation Model (pro and institutional).- Smartphone Market Model – Blog Download Version – all paying subscribers
- Mobile Operating System Market Share Model – all paying subscribers – This model is key to showing the trends across operating systems, and not just handset manufacturers.
- advertisements -
Google is the new Halliburton. No one, not even content creators, should be selling rights to them absent a huge, huge premium.
C'mon, you couldn't hold their NSA roots against them, right?
I mean, after all this time . . .
The evolution of movie-making is obviously taking this track. Good luck on getting a White Knight production partner, Reggie.
You clearly bring very serious value to the table that would make for a potent collaboration indeed for the right entrepeneural people with the right skill sets.
Well done, Reggie. The Hollywood monopoly deserves its fate.
Something we all have to be acutely aware of is government intervention. When I visited China, it was impossible to access certain web addresses. Hope it never happens here.
You missed two that became somewhat successful due to the web and more specifically filesharing.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071804/
Inkhttp://www.p2pon.com/2010/02/07/ink-the-proof-that-bittorrent-can-help-m...
“Ink”: The Proof that BitTorrent Can Help Movie MakersResponsible for boosting the popularity and, implicitly, the earnings of independent movie “Ink”(a film P2PON has recommended when it first hit the p2p networks), online piracy is once again into the spotlight; this time, however, for the completely different reasons.
The creators behind the film production admitted in an interview that the unexpected success achieved by the initially unpresuming project is primarily owed to the intensive download activity registered on BitTorrent networks, which propelled the title into the top 20 movies on iMDb, despite all expectations.
Invited by the press to comment on the recently achieved success, Jamin and Kiowa Winans, the creators of Ink, didn’t hesitate to praise the BitTorrent download community for increasing the film’s exposure, as well as DVD and Blu-ray sales. Later statements from the two revealed the same initial enthusiasm regarding their new conquered “pirate fans”.
When asked to translate the hundreds of thousands of downloads into effective sales, Kiowa said it was difficult to quantify the financial gain generated by the activity on BitTorrent trackers, but admitted that DVD and Blu-ray sales have definitely gone up.
The unexpected financial success enjoyed by the production also came from other sources. Thanks to its popularity on BitTorrent, members of the downloading community supported the idea that fans should donate money via the film’s official website. Kiowa complemented on the generosity of German fans, who she claimed to have been twice as benevolent as fans from the US.
Asked if she considered the film to be a victim to piracy, Kiowa responded: “I think to say victim is to characterize piracy as an all-together awful thing. The piracy of Ink is unquestionably responsible for its popularity around the world. Sure our trailers have been out for over a year and have had plenty of views outside the US, but we think that 70% of the illegal downloads are coming from outside of the US and we do get a good number of international buyers at our online store every day.”
Kiowa suggested that the movie industry needed to change and adopt an effective strategy to ensure the deserved revenue for filmmakers, and satisfy film enthusiasts’ needs in terms of availability and affordability at the same time. As for online piracy,
Kiowa explained that it would be best to focus on exploiting the phenomenon for producing positive effects, pointing out once again to the success of the film Ink, owed to the thousands of downloaders on BitTorrent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
The Man from Earthhttp://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1
INTERNET PIRACY IS GOOD FOR FILMS
FOR "MAN FROM EARTH", AT ANY RATECan internet piracy result in more and better movies? "Of course, not!" is probably our stock reaction. By illegally downloading and sharing films, pirates steal the revenue that would otherwise reward and encourage film-makers--or so we are told by lawyers, economists, and lobbyists for Hollywood studios.
But we may have plenty to learn yet about the possible impact of file-sharing and other online distribution methods on the quantity and quality of films we watch. The story of Jerome Bixby's "The Man from Earth", a small-budget science fiction movie released on DVD in November, shows how piracy can help salvage, not sink, high-quality cinema.
Shot on digital video with a budget of less than $200,000, the film features a bookish debate among academics who get together for a farewell party for John Oldman, a college professor, who, for no obvious reason, wants to quit his tenure-track job and hit the road. As the party unfolds, Oldman makes a surprising emotional confessession: he is 14,000 years old, doesn't really age, and has 10 doctorates--making him both the oldest and the smartest man on Earth.
What follows is an intense intellectual drilling by his colleagues--professors of anthropology, biology, archeology, psychology, and Christian literature--who try hard to spot inconsistencies in Oldman's account of the world, based on what they know from their own disciplines.
Their passionate debate is heavy on both science and humanities and makes "The Man from Earth" a very appealing movie to smart--yes, nerdy--audiences. Even if you don't learn anything new (which is unlikely), there is a good chance you will be asking yourself a lot of questions afterwards. It's nerdy enough to get the sci-fi geeks to watch it, while its interdisciplinarity makes it accessible to general public as well.
But what is truly unique about the film is not just the controversial story of John Oldman. It's the fact that the film producers have embraced internet piracy and thanked illegal downloaders for helping to spread the buzz about the movie.
In early November Releaselog, a popular blog that regularly posts links to movies, music, and software (most of which is copyrighted), ran a review (with accompanying download links) of "The Man from Earth". The review generated a flood of comments. The movie obviously struck a chord with the geeky and anti-establishment community at Releaselog and prompted many (illegal) downloads.
Most crews would have wanted to sue every downloader. Eric Wilkinson, the producer of "The Man from Earth" turned out to be much more new-media-savvy. He thanked the Releaselog community for piracy and said they were helping sales.
According to Wilkinson, in two weeks that passed after Releaselog wrote about the movie, it rose from the 11,235th to the 5th most popular movie among visitors to IMDB, a popular online movie database featuring user-generated reviews and rankings (the movie was the #1 independent film and #1 science fiction film on IMDB). Most of the traffic to the film's web-site came from Releaselog. The pirates were definitely to thank for the publicity that ensued.
This was enough to make the file-sharing community fall in love with Wilkinson and the film (later on, the director of the movie also wrote a big thank-you note on Releaselog), propelling it even further up the IMDB charts and securing shelf-life in WalMart. That was just the right time for Wilkinson to provide directions on how to send him money via PayPal for copies shared online; sure thing, many people did.
For marketing, this is a sea change, akin to Radiohead's giveaway album. Instead of courting movie critics and studio bosses, directors and producers can reach out directly to the blogging public, stirring up attention there as best they can. To prove his authenticity, Wilkinson went as far as to post a picture of himself next to his monitor with the blog screen open: some commenters first took him for a PayPal-abusing scammer.
Why did the crew behind "The Man from Earth" decide to pursue this route? Because the traditional distribution model for small-budget indie movies seems broken. Even if such movies do secure funding to release a DVD in their country of origin, they rarely if ever break out internationally.
If you are in Norway or UK it may be impossible to find a movie like "The Man from Earth" in your local DVD store for the next few years--even if you are willing to pay a premium. (As Wilkinson pointed out, at the time of his blog comment, all international rights to "The Man from Earth" were still available, meaning that the chance of seeing it legally outside the US was still minuscule). All those whose movie tastes are to the far-right end of the long tail have little alternative to piracy or abstinence.
The emergence of online payments makes a different model possible. If only a limited few can ever go and out buy a DVD of a movie they have shared online, anyone can now contribute money. What would be the pricing point? It could be the Radiohead route: pay what you think it's worth. It could be "match the rental or a cinema ticket" model: pay what you would normally pay for renting it a DVD store or watching it in a cinema theater.
In stark contrast to the traditional restrictive model of film distribution, the new model seeks as many ways of content distribution as possible: peer-to-peer file-sharing is the tip of the iceberg. More advanced users would know about Usenet, various online file storage services like Rapidshare, and plain solutions such as FTP servers. If this sounds a bit too geeky, you are probably are still a few years (and a few laws) away from downloading the entire Woody Allen collection (available at more than a few file-sharing sites at the time of writing).
This explains why producers like Wilkinson place such a premimum value on online buzz: it can push a movie to the top of user-generated charts and listings, giving producers a chance to tap online fans for cash.
In this "networked moviesphere", the movie experience never really ends, even after the movie is over. You can (some would say "should") go vote for the movie on sites like IMDB, post a review on Amazon, wire a donation via PayPal, add the director to your list of virtual friends on MySpaces and Facebooks of this world, post to Digg, and blog it to death on LiveJournal. And that's not to mention editing Wikipedia pages. When combined, all these activities create a publicity machine that marginalises mainstream critics.
In the case of "The Man from Earth", 2,000 people who downloaded it encouraged 20,000 more to go and check it out in cinemas and WalMarts by giving it a top IMDB rating. By losing money on 2,000 viewers, the film made money on 20,000 more.
Some in the movie business are already asking the obvious question: should big studios offer screener-like copies to the file-sharing community, to preview and blog about film before it goes into distribution? My answer: there are screener copies of all major Hollywood movies available on the Internet anyway, so the studios may as well do that proactively.
"When I make my next picture, I just may upload the movie on the net myself!", said Wilkinson in another blog comment. However, as of now, despite the producer and the director's support, any downloads of "The Man from Earth" are still illegal: it still bears that "All Rights Reserved" mark. (There is always an option of releasing it under Creative Commons, Larry Lessig's child that is celebrating its fifth anniversary this month, but CC still hasn't enjoyed the universal adoption it deserves, particularly among film studios.)
All legal issues aside, it must become a question soon, even for established producers, whether they can capture buzz-momentum to "crowd-fund" their next movie. Why bother with a traditional model if your fans can contribute money and just wait for the next release?
Some experiments with this model are already under way. "A Swarm of Angels", which describes itself as "open source film-making venture that aims to create a £1 million movie with the help of 50,000 participants around the globe", promises its "swarm of subscribers" input into the entire movie-making process in exchange for a subscription of £25.
This seems like a promising model, as long as the fans don't have absolute control over what comes out: there have been quite a few terrible examples of fan-directed movies that are completely impossible to watch. "Snakes On a Plane", which took a Wiki-like approach to the plot, is one failed and overhyped blockbuster. There could be many more. Sometimes, it pays to be a dictator--at least, artistically.
As for the big studios, expect them to hold out the longest against a more decentralised and buzz-focused approach to movie distribution. Their model is in danger, in all sorts of ways. A comment on a blog thread about "The Man from Earth" puts it best: "Only bad movies have to fear piracy". And, given how many bad movies studios continue to produce, they have plenty to fear.
I'm amiss in my thanks, GF. I've been spinning well off this article today, with your comment an equal contribution to same for me. Thanks.
"who spend $100’s of millions of dollars"
For hell's sake .. THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN PLURALS. It's simply $100s of millions. It's just a plural. There is no apostrophe.
It is utterly astonishing that anyone who makes a living from gabbing in English, does not know, THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN PLURALS. So, so stupid. Behold an idiot.
it's just not possible that someone who writes for a living does not know there is no apostrophe in plurals. What a foolish way to present yourself.
There are the conventions of Strunk and White and then there are the conventions of actual usage. That apostrophe is, imo, an improvement that should be recognized by the formal rules. It functions as a bridge between numerical and alphabetical characters that seems right and necessary.
Pedantic grammar nazi's have their rightful place in maintaining the optimal functioning and use of written language, but in this instance the effort is misguided, imo, fwiw, know whut i mean?
Actually Mr. Ass, it is simply a typo that happens when one puts out a lot of free information quickly at 3 am that was not edited. I put content over editing for free submissions to blogs. If it really bothers you and you really feel I am a stupid idiot, I recommend you go to thestreet.com, where they have plenty of copy editing, and simply avoid this stupid idiot's posts when you see them. You are obviously too intelligent to glean anything from a missive that would mistakenly include an apostrophe in plurals anyway. Why waste your time?
I wouldn't worry about it. Fat Ass has, in his second paragraph, both a misplaced comma and a fragmented sentence.
Not to mention Fat Ass' last two paragraphs only have two sentences.
Some of this (the ranting about cheap movies) is simply wrong:
There have ALWAYS BEEN very low budget movies that were nevertheless good, superbly creative, movies and moreover big commercial successes. (Any film buff anorak will rattle off the examples for you one after the other.)
It's just the nature of filmmaking.
Technology is not "changing this" ... and people will always respond to, admire, and pay for the next big thing in amazing, expensive production (whether Gone with the Wind, or Pixar's latest, or Avatar). Even if those techniques are easy and cheap to do ten years later.
The fact that last decade's amazing production values are now passe, and easy/cheap to achieve, is NOT a new thing "due to technology".
So, you have to be careful in getting carried away when pulling examples out the air here. Yes, news on TV is fucked and thank God for the interweb. No, the era of "big budget" movies (opera, video games, multiculti parkland 3D interactive events, whatever) is certainly not over.
Have you been to an actual movie theater lately? Prior to this year, I have never found myself alone in a theater (no smirks, please). This year it has happened twice, both times with "big budget" films. In every prior case of disruptive technology (i.e., a fundamental change in cost of production or the value of output), there comes a "tipping point" when customers of the old technology suddenly shift in such volume that the revenue can no longer support even the distribution costs. At that point, it is "lights out". That is what is happening right now in the film business. I believe Reggie is absolutely correct here.
It's not simply wrong, you are missing the point. I didn't say there haven't always been good low budget movies or what was cool then is not passe now. What I did says was that there hasn't always been a cost effective way of competing with the big houses in terms of distribution, and low cost production tech has never come as close as matching the big guys in capability either. The low cost distribution is what will make the difference, and is what didn't exist in the past. Technology has changed this. Just look at Wikileaks, the number one topic on everyone's reading list, with an annual budget that's probably less than the average ZH reader's net worth.
Despite the fact that there will probably always be admirers of big budget flicks doesn't negate the fact that they will be facing competition that they never had before. The small timer with distribution potential of their own, aided by tech and powerhouses such as Google. I thought I made this point clearr.
The problem is the business model. While some things will be done for love, the vast majority of people creating content want to get, um... Paid.
Even though distribution costs have been drastically lowered, there's still the issue of monetizing. Current business model requires content to be free. Unless Google figures out a way to pay the content producers enough money to stay in business, nothing will change.
Good, let the traditional media limit access to their crap. More people are turning to the internet for truth each day and this will only encourage others. The propaganda outlets are helping awaken others at their expense. Gotta love it!
On the topic of 'Propaganda Outlets', has anyone noticed the *lack* of cables released by WikiLeaks of a certain country or countries that could be considered as anything from enlightening to incriminating for it as it has been for 'Western Democracy' Governments?
My theory goes that certain groups/companies/states/individuals are wikileaking with a Kansas City Shuffle motive (in addition to other motives).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlc9pPeS2Q0
More to the point: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/11/israel-wikileaks-t...