Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Craig, how does that detract in any way from what I've said about the existence of markets and gatekeepers? I didn't even say that gatekeepers cannot have good product, did I? I simply said that they struggle with the fringes, and that was more particularly aimed at music than at TV - hence the reference to Britney and her target audience.
-
Paul, you really think that the marketing teams went to the FBF and decided to create a market for works related to the vampire myth? In the words of some famous billboards: Yeah, Right!
Good marketing and product can stimulate demand, certainly, but if nobody really has a desire for your product it doesn't matter how good your marketing is. Getting people exposed to a quality product, which they then recognise as being of utility to them, is not the same as creating a new market. The market for books is not new. The market for fantasy books is not new either. The market for books based on the vampire myth is, clearly, not a new market, because the readers were very likely already reading fantasy books. Rather, there is a new interest in supplying an under-serviced market.
-
Matthew, this entire comment reads as though market=gatekeeper.
In which case I was insufficiently clear. Sorry for the confusion. I do not, and did not intend to convey that I do, equate the market with the gatekeeper. I deliberately chose the term gatekeeper to try and make it apparent that the market is something that exists beyond "the gate".
Markets exist whether or not there is a product. Products exist whether or not there is a market. When a product exists and there is a market for that product, you have lots of happy, smiley faces. In the absence of one or t'other, well, either the market goes unsatisfied or the product withers and dies on the vine. The gatekeepers have, traditionally, sought to ensure that neither side exists in the absence of the other, except that they do a really, really poor job of dealing with anything that's on the outer edges. They cope nicely with mainstream 14-year old girls and Britney Spears, but if you get too far away from that ideal they struggle.
-
*sigh*
You pitch to the gatekeeper. If the gatekeeper thinks the market will buy it, they'll sign you. If they don't, they won't. None of you have countered that point.
In the case of NZoA, which was the entity I had in mind with the TV pitch, if they fund your idea but it turns out to be a flop they won't keep funding it. The market speaks, and they listen. But they may decide not to fund your idea, based on what they think the market wants, and in that case the market never gets a chance to speak. Gatekeepers are not the market, and I did try to make it clear that I don't consider them to be such. They are a holder of money, hence the use of the term gatekeeper. They keep the gate between the creator and the market, they are not the market. Islander supported this notion perfectly by giving examples of situations where access to the market nearly didn't happen because the gatekeepers didn't think there was a product worth funding. In both cases the market disagreed, vocally.Keir, copyright is not the state creating a market. It is the state creating a monopoly on reproduction of a work. All the copyright in the world cannot create a market for things that nobody wants. Copyright has only existed as a concept since the 1700s, but I don't think anyone suggests that nobody made money from creative works before that time.
There is no risk that our musicians and writers will contract someone in Mumbai or Beijing to generate that which currently comes from our shores.
Yes, LA, that well known part of Auckland.
huh? I can't see Islander getting some lackey in LA to write her books. If you didn't understand my point, it was that actual creators in NZ aren't going to have someone overseas do their creating for them. Authors aren't going to contract their creative thought processes to someone in an office in Bangkok. You can't do with creativity as you can with manufacturing or design. If you do that, it's no longer your creative work.
-
We already do that with numerous cultural activities - half the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, NZ on Air? Funding for ballet and orchestras and radio stations and TV stations.
How many authors get state funds when they're not directly commissioned by the state? How many musicians? The state is not in the business of propping up failing bands and writers.
Even within the confines of MCH, culture lives and dies by the market. If your pitch for a TV show turns out to be a dud, the market says that you die. NZoA will not continue to fund something that the market does not want. The handful of state-sponsored touring performance groups are, as much as anything, representatives of New Zealand to the world. The state funds them because there is a perceived value to the state in having them exist.For all your fear of having culture "live or die by the market", that's already what happens. Why do you think it's only a small number of artists that get air time on radio? How many authors do you think get published out of all the ones that submit manuscripts? The market is already making decisions about culture, and the fact that there are scarce dollars being funnelled into a small number of gatekeepers (the labels, studios and publishers) means that we are exposed only to that which that object of your horror, the market, says are worthy. The internet democratises this distribution, yet you seem to find the notion terrifying. If you're successful under the existing model, of course you don't want it to change. But if you're one of the multitudes deemed unworthy, you may actually achieve some degree of success in the new world.
-
I'm sensing that this discussion is actually turning into a pro/anti free market one. The choice between downloading or enforced purchase is very close to the choice between allowing or denying offshoring of manufacturing. Either you allow the market to speak, or you don't, there is no real middle ground that can be taken without being seen as dishonest by one side or the other.
In NZ's case, we're so far down the free market path that it's complete hypocrisy for politicians to seek to protect cultural producers when they've not protected manufacturers and workers from their operations being sent off China or Mexico. Cultural production cannot be sent offshore, as it is tied intimately to the society from which its inspiration is drawn. There is no risk that our musicians and writers will contract someone in Mumbai or Beijing to generate that which currently comes from our shores. -
People don't necessarily want technology to always be making the decisions about important things like music and literature.
No, it should be the consumers who make those decisions. Or are you arguing that the state should legislate to create a market for things? It's not technology that's making these choices, it's the people who use them. Putting the downloading genie back in its bottle isn't going to happen, so society needs to be discussing how to live with the new tech instead of discussing how to hobble it and protect the old models.
There is drowning out coming from the "adapt or die" side as well as the "downloaders are killing music". Neither necessarily impress.
Clearly the "adapt or die" crowd aren't doing a very good job. If we were, ACTA would be a non-existent issue. The strident tones are an attempt to break through the "it doesn't affect me" mentality displayed by a lot of people. ACTA is being negotiated in secret, contains provisions that the people of NZ have made very, very clear that they do not want to have enacted into our statute books, and consequently is representative only of the views and positions of the "downloaders are killing music" lobby. The "adapt or die" lobby are at least trying to be a voice for the other side of the debate, and that is important when you have secret negotiations on matters of national law.
-
for people who want the product but don't want to pay for it.
In the words of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. That the industries affected claim it does not make it so. I'll see you the claimed "piracy decreases purchases" and raise you some authors who disagree. Already pointed to the relationship between downloading music and attending concerts (forgive me for not being at all upset that the music labels are losing out on that relationship). Exposure==sales, it's that simple. To quote from the first link, "obscurity is a bigger risk that piracy."
With movies, well, there's some argument both ways. A lot of people will go and view a movie even if they've downloaded it, but only if it's a good movie. If it's shit they don't see the point in spending $15, which is fair enough in my book. If you want people to pay, produce a quality product rather than relying on hype and ignorance. Don't blame SMS and instant messaging for the fact that your product is awful and people don't want to go and see it, come up with better products.For as long as people want to buy real books and real CDs, there will be a place for the producers of both. But don't expect society to enforce your historical dominance just because it's your very existence at stake. Find ways to be of utility in the new age, or please die quietly. Yes blacksmiths got paid when they became mechanics, but that only works as a counter argument if you're saying that nobody gets paid anything in the new age. That's bullshit, and you know it.
-
People want to have a say in how technology impacts upon our world, they're just tools after all.
People are trying to have a say, but being drowned out by commercial interests. There is plenty of evidence that downloaders spend more on attending concerts than non-downloaders, especially outside mainstream music. That's a signal that exposure equates to income for the artists (you know, the people who supposedly matter the most in all of this), and it's one that makes perfect sense to anyone who's willing to actually think about it. But, because that money doesn't end up in the hands of the labels, the moguls cry about how "piracy is destroying music." Bollocks. It's changing the nature of the relationship between the artist and the fan, and in the process it's making the labels irrelevant.
I've already said that movies are different to music, because the costs of production are significantly higher, but that doesn't mean there's no way for the industry to survive in an age of downloads. People will pay for quality and convenience, provided the price is reasonable. The assumption that people download because they don't want to pay is not supported by evidence, unless you take the pronouncements of the media cartels as factual.
Thinking about the value of creators and editors and publishers and their contribution to society is just so damn hard, who needs that shit.
How does saying that trying to force society to accept a continuation of an existing business model is unjust equate to dismissing the value of "creators and editors and publishers"? Creators have a role in any model, as by definition without the creators there's nothing to distribute. Editors, where they are necessary, will continue to be necessary in any given model. It doesn't matter if you're distributing an e-document for 25c or selling a dead-tree novel for $25, editing is of no lesser importance. Publishers are the ones who are struggling, because their stranglehold on distribution of the written word is under threat. Now you can get your work to the world for the cost of an account at DreamHost or GoDaddy. But people will buy paper books, regardless. Plenty of authors have seen sales of their back catalogues increase when they've released e copies of their new works. Yet again, people will pay for a real product, even if there's a downloadable one available, because real products have tangibility.
-
Gio, supposedly we live in a free market economy. The US is also, supposedly, a free market economy. The market is speaking, but the media industry would rather take the time-honoured approach of shooting the messenger.
Just as I wish that Rodney or someone would tell Infratil to suck it up and accept that the market has spoken, I want our elected overlords to tell RIANZ et al that the market is speaking and it would behove the media players to stop their bleating and listen.