7 ms·

I think the problem with streaming is that there is just too much of it. There is only so much content -- ahem, TV -- that people can watch in a given day. Espe

by mlsu 3y ago

I think the problem with streaming is that there is just too much of it. There is only so much content -- ahem, TV -- that people can watch in a given day. Especially because content includes stuff like TikTok. How many minutes of TV were produced last year? How many minutes were produced in 1990? Those legacy salaries are not possible, because if each American TV minute is worth $0.01, they're now splitting that $0.01 across 1,000 different shows, not a couple dozen. If I'm a young person who wants to perform on screen for a living, I know where I'm going: TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. There, I can control my own creative output, make my own brand deals, and own my own face.

kennywinker 3y ago
This would make sense if the companies in question weren’t making billions and funneling those profits to the execs, and investors, over the people who actually did the work. Expanding or contracting the industry is one thing. That’s not what’s happening here. This is a shift in how the money is distributed due to a tech “disruption”. Workers deserve to be paid well for the content they make happen.
OO000oo 3y ago
> If I'm a young person who wants to perform on screen for a living, I know where I'm going: TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. An extremely sad state of affairs by any historical measure of a successful society. Hollywood marks the absolute apex of American art. As this era of unquestionable greatness and human accomplishment draws to a close, we are nothing if not pathetic if we cannot at least acknowledge what it was. We should be nothing less than ashamed for letting it slip through our fingers, but here we are just making little quips about its outdatedness.
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  "And the Oscar for the best 5-second hot girl gyrating and thinking she is dancing video goes to..."
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If I'm a young person who wants to perform on screen for a living, I know where I'm going: TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. There, I can control my own creative output, make my own brand deals, and own my own face You also lose control of your distribution and are completely commoditised. Hence why the median full-time content creator makes $20,000/year, and I don’t think that includes production costs [1]. [1] https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/the-future-of-the-creator-economy-report-2023/ https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/the-future-of-the-creator...
- OO000oo 3y ago
  And the content is garbage. Even if one would disagree, we are comparing with the American cinematic canon, by most measures the greatest body of artistic accomplishment humanity has ever produced. I cannot believe people even have the nerve to question the comparable value.
  - edanm 3y ago
    I mean, if you're looking at averages here, then of course the average content produced for YouTube is worse than the average Hollywood-produced movie. But at the top end, I don't think there's a direct comparison - stuff gets made for YouTube that wouldn't get made as a movie and doesn't make sense as a movie, but it's no less valuable IMO. There is a lot less of it, and that industry has existed for less time. Just look 3Blue1Brown's educational math videos, or Veritasium's science videos, or any of the other countless videos on various topics. Better at what they're trying to achieve than almost anything comparable that has existed before, IMO. Even for things with more direct comparisons - take cooking YouTube vs cooking shows on TV. I believe cooking YouTube is much better in most ways.
    - OO000oo 3y ago
      None of your examples are even artistic expressions; they're informative content. The comparable counterparts would be television shows or documentaries, not Hollywood narrative films. Tiktok has a lot of artistic expression, but simply nowhere near the level of greatness found in the American cinematic canon, which contains by most measures the greatest artistic accomplishments of mankind.
gogopuppygogo 3y ago
Bingo. Except TikTok, Insta, and YouTube are all the intermediary still. They let you build a following but a creative still needs to find a way to own direct communication with their audience. Let us not forget that in our current trajectory, Robots and Real Estate are going to be owned by one class of people who extract value from society while everyone else struggles to feed themselves. Don’t rely on any of the big platforms long term.
fragmede 3y ago
twitch.tv is another site I'd use.
labster 3y ago
Like most simple answers, this is wrong. If content isn’t profitable, the networks don’t have to pay for it, which has always been the case. What is different are the mini-rooms and the excuse of streaming to stop paying residuals. If they can’t make money without paying a living wage, then they shouldn’t make money. Period. Business models like Uber, postdoc/adjunct professorships, and Hollywood are exploitative by their nature, replacing business models that used to pay better wages for the same service.
- mlsu 3y ago
  In both the cases you mentioned -- college professors and cab drivers -- supply (of labor) massively expanded, and wages fell accordingly. Of course, the execs are greedy, and of course they win. The execs always win. You can look to Spotify for what happens on residuals, when an individual can choose to listen to any of 100,000,000 different songs. The only winners are those who control their own image and distribution. Like Taylor Swift, who makes 10 million each show and has full control over her recorded music.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Residuals go into the deep, deep pockets of people holding all the music: The Big Four. What happens here is anyone's guess.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. Everything is fine whilst we are awash with loose speculative money, but when the tide goes out there isn’t enough real demand to keep the lights on.
  - gruez 3y ago
    > As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. You assume wrong. The members of AMPTP mentioned on wikipedia[1] are all publicly traded companies, hardly "PE" (ie. not public) or VC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and_Television_Producers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and...
_trampeltier 3y ago
I grow up in the 80s and 90s. That time there had been a small set of really famous actors. Today there is an endless stream of new actors. In the end, it almost does not matter what person plays in movies today .. how many Spider Man did we have in the last 20 years. Also movies like the newest Indiana Jones. I think there is no true background from outdoor. I guess not in a single scene. At least it feels, like they did the whole movie with animated backgrounds.
- Kye 3y ago
  It's more often a composite of real stuff and VFX. Almost every scene in Game of Thrones was a real location with effects and edits to make it suit the scene.
stcroixx 3y ago
Can’t those platforms de monetize or hide your content or even ban you according to whatever criteria suits them? It’s great until it’s not. Shaky foundation.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Well, so can Hollywood. The completed but unreleased Batgirl movie was simply deleted.

by mlsu 3y ago

kennywinker 3y ago

This would make sense if the companies in question weren’t making billions and funneling those profits to the execs, and investors, over the people who actually did the work. Expanding or contracting the industry is one thing. That’s not what’s happening here. This is a shift in how the money is distributed due to a tech “disruption”. Workers deserve to be paid well for the content they make happen.

OO000oo 3y ago

> If I'm a young person who wants to perform on screen for a living, I know where I'm going: TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. An extremely sad state of affairs by any historical measure of a successful society. Hollywood marks the absolute apex of American art. As this era of unquestionable greatness and human accomplishment draws to a close, we are nothing if not pathetic if we cannot at least acknowledge what it was. We should be nothing less than ashamed for letting it slip through our fingers, but here we are just making little quips about its outdatedness.

renegade-otter 3y ago
"And the Oscar for the best 5-second hot girl gyrating and thinking she is dancing video goes to..."

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> If I'm a young person who wants to perform on screen for a living, I know where I'm going: TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. There, I can control my own creative output, make my own brand deals, and own my own face You also lose control of your distribution and are completely commoditised. Hence why the median full-time content creator makes $20,000/year, and I don’t think that includes production costs [1]. [1] https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/the-future-of-the-creator-economy-report-2023/ https://www.epidemicsound.com/blog/the-future-of-the-creator...

OO000oo 3y ago
And the content is garbage. Even if one would disagree, we are comparing with the American cinematic canon, by most measures the greatest body of artistic accomplishment humanity has ever produced. I cannot believe people even have the nerve to question the comparable value.
- edanm 3y ago
  I mean, if you're looking at averages here, then of course the average content produced for YouTube is worse than the average Hollywood-produced movie. But at the top end, I don't think there's a direct comparison - stuff gets made for YouTube that wouldn't get made as a movie and doesn't make sense as a movie, but it's no less valuable IMO. There is a lot less of it, and that industry has existed for less time. Just look 3Blue1Brown's educational math videos, or Veritasium's science videos, or any of the other countless videos on various topics. Better at what they're trying to achieve than almost anything comparable that has existed before, IMO. Even for things with more direct comparisons - take cooking YouTube vs cooking shows on TV. I believe cooking YouTube is much better in most ways.
  - OO000oo 3y ago
    None of your examples are even artistic expressions; they're informative content. The comparable counterparts would be television shows or documentaries, not Hollywood narrative films. Tiktok has a lot of artistic expression, but simply nowhere near the level of greatness found in the American cinematic canon, which contains by most measures the greatest artistic accomplishments of mankind.

gogopuppygogo 3y ago

Bingo. Except TikTok, Insta, and YouTube are all the intermediary still. They let you build a following but a creative still needs to find a way to own direct communication with their audience. Let us not forget that in our current trajectory, Robots and Real Estate are going to be owned by one class of people who extract value from society while everyone else struggles to feed themselves. Don’t rely on any of the big platforms long term.

fragmede 3y ago

twitch.tv is another site I'd use.

labster 3y ago

Like most simple answers, this is wrong. If content isn’t profitable, the networks don’t have to pay for it, which has always been the case. What is different are the mini-rooms and the excuse of streaming to stop paying residuals. If they can’t make money without paying a living wage, then they shouldn’t make money. Period. Business models like Uber, postdoc/adjunct professorships, and Hollywood are exploitative by their nature, replacing business models that used to pay better wages for the same service.

mlsu 3y ago
In both the cases you mentioned -- college professors and cab drivers -- supply (of labor) massively expanded, and wages fell accordingly. Of course, the execs are greedy, and of course they win. The execs always win. You can look to Spotify for what happens on residuals, when an individual can choose to listen to any of 100,000,000 different songs. The only winners are those who control their own image and distribution. Like Taylor Swift, who makes 10 million each show and has full control over her recorded music.
- troupo 3y ago
  Residuals go into the deep, deep pockets of people holding all the music: The Big Four. What happens here is anyone's guess.
benjaminwootton 3y ago
As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. Everything is fine whilst we are awash with loose speculative money, but when the tide goes out there isn’t enough real demand to keep the lights on.
- gruez 3y ago
  > As with many other industries, I assume that VC, PE and Financial Engineering have also played havoc with these markets. You assume wrong. The members of AMPTP mentioned on wikipedia[1] are all publicly traded companies, hardly "PE" (ie. not public) or VC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and_Television_Producers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Motion_Picture_and...

_trampeltier 3y ago

I grow up in the 80s and 90s. That time there had been a small set of really famous actors. Today there is an endless stream of new actors. In the end, it almost does not matter what person plays in movies today .. how many Spider Man did we have in the last 20 years. Also movies like the newest Indiana Jones. I think there is no true background from outdoor. I guess not in a single scene. At least it feels, like they did the whole movie with animated backgrounds.

Kye 3y ago
It's more often a composite of real stuff and VFX. Almost every scene in Game of Thrones was a real location with effects and edits to make it suit the scene.

stcroixx 3y ago

Can’t those platforms de monetize or hide your content or even ban you according to whatever criteria suits them? It’s great until it’s not. Shaky foundation.

pjc50 3y ago
Well, so can Hollywood. The completed but unreleased Batgirl movie was simply deleted.