8 ms·

I think you’re fundamentally misinterpreting the value of creativity here. While audience data is valuable for marketing existing shows, it currently has almost

I think you’re fundamentally misinterpreting the value of creativity here. While audience data is valuable for marketing existing shows, it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Just take a look at YouTube creators. Some guy in Australia who ignores data and makes things with mud and plants produces content more popular than almost anything else. Sure, Google owns the platform, but they remain reliant on the creative, anti-data processes of others.

joshuamorton 8y ago
>While audience data is valuable for marketing existing shows, it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Netflix's success story entirely contradicts this. Netflix's whole strategy with their originals is to create lowish cost things that appeal to market segments that they know exist but currently don't have shows anywhere (one of their big bets here is international/non english audiences).
- arthurofbabylon 8y ago
  Your point only highlights my own. The Netflix strategy is to try new things out, largely sans data, and then turn the dial up on things that perform well.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    No, it's exactly the opposite. They, with data, identify niche markets that don't currently have programming, and create programming to fill those voids.
    - arthurofbabylon 8y ago
      Man. If they “don’t currently have programming,” then there is a straight up lack of data. I get what you’re saying, but I think you miss the point, which is that currently - contrary to superficial thought - data offers little creative power. Identifying underserved domains through data or a lack thereof is not the same as “using data to create art.”
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        It's possible to infer what people would watch from what they currently watch. That's exactly what every recommender system ever does. Netflix says "hey, this thing would be highly rated by some users if it existed, but it doesn't". Then they go and make it. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make this into, or what you're talking about when you say data. But it seems like you're on such a completely different wavelength from either me or anyone else in this conversation that your arguments just don't make sense. You're having a totally different discussion where the words you use mean different things. I think it's because you're trying to defend the human creativity of the artists and creators who make the media, but that's wholly irrelevant to the discussion. The creatives can all be creative, data is used to choose which creatives to promote or use. On youtube, this is "the algorithm" that promotes different people. For netflix, the data is used to choose which projects to fund. The funded ones are created, the unfunded ones aren't. Or maybe its "we need a screenplay that includes these 3 themes". Either way, data is guiding the creativity. But all of that is irrelevant. No one ever claimed anything about “using data to create art.” The claim, you objected to was that companies like Google and Facebook have an advantage over Disney because they can use data to create content people will like. There's nothing necessarily creative about that, but its still an advantage over a traditional company like Disney. Your objection was that >it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Which is demonstrably wrong. Netflix does use data to pick themes, topics, and demographics to target with new material. I don't work there, so I don't know exactly how it works, but it doesn't particularly matter. Data does have value when choosing what new shows to create. This could be entirely independent of art or creativity. As an aside, >Some guy in Australia who ignores data I'm not clear why you think he ignores data. The Primitive Technology guy is a computer scientist by trade, his channel appears to do many things that are what conventional good channels do (varying Youtube SEO things), and his content is a strong fit for the current youtube algorithm. He's likely "data driven" in the same way that many top 250-1000 youtube channels are: he does some things to increase subscribers, has a patreon, etc.
        arthurofbabylon 8y ago
        Again, your argument continues to validate one of the essential points I make: that these data sets are most useful for identifying existing media that “works” and then scaling/marketing it. Here is where I think we disagree: I don’t believe that Netflix’s ability (or Google’s, for that matter) to predict new markets is substantively improved by their data set. I understand that that might be a radical perspective among data-driven decision-makers, but I stand by it. Yes, the data set is extremely useful for scaling/marketing an asset (as we have both highlighted), but frankly datasets don’t yet know what the next hot thing will be, and there is a lack of statistical evidence to suggest otherwise (ie Netflix has produced, what, 1-10k shows? That doesn’t necessarily provide much statistical reliability, even if they have a high rate of success, which they don’t). Furthermore, Netflix picking themes, topics, etc as you suggest to drive successful production runs contrary to their most successful strategy so far, which is to cast a wide net by producing highly diverse content at low costs then scaling what works. While they use data to deduce which shows are successful, the production of those shows occurred with little to no data-driven direction beyond the obvious understanding that a wide net catches more fish. When a company has a combination of access to scale and quality data, they quickly outpace and overwhelm their competitors. Netflix hasn’t quite accomplished this, suggesting that their dataset isn’t as magical as you imply. Lastly, their dataset isn’t as private as you might believe, either. To view it as a golden egg that will exclusively produce quality content just for them is naive.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> Some guy in Australia who ignores data and makes things with mud and plants produces content more popular than almost anything else. As a great screenwriter once said: In Hollywood, nobody knows anything. But in Hollywood, they're used to that reality. Disney really does know how to actually create media content that billions want to consume. They know how to play this game. Tech companies are trying to learn too, and they've noticed something, as the article points out: it costs a shit ton of cash. Because nobody knows anything.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  As a side note the book "Creativity Inc" is excellent. Recommended.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Yes. There are outliers. Every creative outfit lays __non__ golden eggs. So how do you mitigate that risk? Data / analysis. That can be used as part of the creative process. It can be used to understand the market. It can be used to identify and target your target markets. Let's not be naive. The truth is there is little true originality. One creative effort stands on the shoulders of those that came before it. Just because you use data does __not__ belittle the need for creativity. W

joshuamorton 8y ago

>While audience data is valuable for marketing existing shows, it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Netflix's success story entirely contradicts this. Netflix's whole strategy with their originals is to create lowish cost things that appeal to market segments that they know exist but currently don't have shows anywhere (one of their big bets here is international/non english audiences).

arthurofbabylon 8y ago
Your point only highlights my own. The Netflix strategy is to try new things out, largely sans data, and then turn the dial up on things that perform well.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  No, it's exactly the opposite. They, with data, identify niche markets that don't currently have programming, and create programming to fill those voids.
  - arthurofbabylon 8y ago
    Man. If they “don’t currently have programming,” then there is a straight up lack of data. I get what you’re saying, but I think you miss the point, which is that currently - contrary to superficial thought - data offers little creative power. Identifying underserved domains through data or a lack thereof is not the same as “using data to create art.”
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      It's possible to infer what people would watch from what they currently watch. That's exactly what every recommender system ever does. Netflix says "hey, this thing would be highly rated by some users if it existed, but it doesn't". Then they go and make it. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make this into, or what you're talking about when you say data. But it seems like you're on such a completely different wavelength from either me or anyone else in this conversation that your arguments just don't make sense. You're having a totally different discussion where the words you use mean different things. I think it's because you're trying to defend the human creativity of the artists and creators who make the media, but that's wholly irrelevant to the discussion. The creatives can all be creative, data is used to choose which creatives to promote or use. On youtube, this is "the algorithm" that promotes different people. For netflix, the data is used to choose which projects to fund. The funded ones are created, the unfunded ones aren't. Or maybe its "we need a screenplay that includes these 3 themes". Either way, data is guiding the creativity. But all of that is irrelevant. No one ever claimed anything about “using data to create art.” The claim, you objected to was that companies like Google and Facebook have an advantage over Disney because they can use data to create content people will like. There's nothing necessarily creative about that, but its still an advantage over a traditional company like Disney. Your objection was that >it currently has almost no value for creating new shows. Which is demonstrably wrong. Netflix does use data to pick themes, topics, and demographics to target with new material. I don't work there, so I don't know exactly how it works, but it doesn't particularly matter. Data does have value when choosing what new shows to create. This could be entirely independent of art or creativity. As an aside, >Some guy in Australia who ignores data I'm not clear why you think he ignores data. The Primitive Technology guy is a computer scientist by trade, his channel appears to do many things that are what conventional good channels do (varying Youtube SEO things), and his content is a strong fit for the current youtube algorithm. He's likely "data driven" in the same way that many top 250-1000 youtube channels are: he does some things to increase subscribers, has a patreon, etc.
      - arthurofbabylon 8y ago
        Again, your argument continues to validate one of the essential points I make: that these data sets are most useful for identifying existing media that “works” and then scaling/marketing it. Here is where I think we disagree: I don’t believe that Netflix’s ability (or Google’s, for that matter) to predict new markets is substantively improved by their data set. I understand that that might be a radical perspective among data-driven decision-makers, but I stand by it. Yes, the data set is extremely useful for scaling/marketing an asset (as we have both highlighted), but frankly datasets don’t yet know what the next hot thing will be, and there is a lack of statistical evidence to suggest otherwise (ie Netflix has produced, what, 1-10k shows? That doesn’t necessarily provide much statistical reliability, even if they have a high rate of success, which they don’t). Furthermore, Netflix picking themes, topics, etc as you suggest to drive successful production runs contrary to their most successful strategy so far, which is to cast a wide net by producing highly diverse content at low costs then scaling what works. While they use data to deduce which shows are successful, the production of those shows occurred with little to no data-driven direction beyond the obvious understanding that a wide net catches more fish. When a company has a combination of access to scale and quality data, they quickly outpace and overwhelm their competitors. Netflix hasn’t quite accomplished this, suggesting that their dataset isn’t as magical as you imply. Lastly, their dataset isn’t as private as you might believe, either. To view it as a golden egg that will exclusively produce quality content just for them is naive.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> Some guy in Australia who ignores data and makes things with mud and plants produces content more popular than almost anything else. As a great screenwriter once said: In Hollywood, nobody knows anything. But in Hollywood, they're used to that reality. Disney really does know how to actually create media content that billions want to consume. They know how to play this game. Tech companies are trying to learn too, and they've noticed something, as the article points out: it costs a shit ton of cash. Because nobody knows anything.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
As a side note the book "Creativity Inc" is excellent. Recommended.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Yes. There are outliers. Every creative outfit lays __non__ golden eggs. So how do you mitigate that risk? Data / analysis. That can be used as part of the creative process. It can be used to understand the market. It can be used to identify and target your target markets. Let's not be naive. The truth is there is little true originality. One creative effort stands on the shoulders of those that came before it. Just because you use data does __not__ belittle the need for creativity. W