3 ms·

I take issue with: b) Funding content via ad sales holds our public arts hostage to a boom/bust bubble economy. Furthermore, there is an incentive for web publ

I take issue with: b) Funding content via ad sales holds our public arts hostage to a boom/bust bubble economy. Furthermore, there is an incentive for web publishers to prioritize paid ads over editorial content, and to censor editorial content that threatens advertizing revenue First, while public arts sounds good, it means entertainment. In a bust, you're likely to wind down your entertainment expenses, in a boom you wind them up. Restaurants are not ad-funded, but still very sensible to the business cycle. Second, whether ads or not, editors have an incentive to do whatever nets them the most money. For movie producers, it's make a movie that the most people will want to go and see. For authors, it's writing a book that people will want to read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a euphemistic endorsement of TV Licensing-style financing. However, that runs contrary to point d) Nobody can be trusted.

sounds 15y ago
I agree. Other commenters take issue with c), that the majority are consumers. If the art we consume is to be excellent, it will be _rare_. Not just from the supply and demand curve, but with the internet's ease of distribution comes a global "bazaar" of artistic creations that pushes up the threshold of excellence. Artists then face an essentially limitless supply of "good enough" competitors, even though only a small percentage of internet users are actually content producers. (The rest of us, in my opinion, are those "consumers.") Advertising works when scarcity does not - Advertising can be shown for all the mediocre works that aren't going to make much money any other way. For the truly great stuff (AAA Games, Hit music, Movies, and so on) the price of admission will generate a lot of revenue. But for the mediocre stuff, the business model has to adjust. Personally, I think the real challenge lies in the "below mediocre" art. The market mostly ignores things like flash games, small bands, fanfiction, etc. To me there's a missed opportunity to cultivate the "startup artists" as a sort of Y Combinator.

sounds 15y ago

I agree. Other commenters take issue with c), that the majority are consumers. If the art we consume is to be excellent, it will be _rare_. Not just from the supply and demand curve, but with the internet's ease of distribution comes a global "bazaar" of artistic creations that pushes up the threshold of excellence. Artists then face an essentially limitless supply of "good enough" competitors, even though only a small percentage of internet users are actually content producers. (The rest of us, in my opinion, are those "consumers.") Advertising works when scarcity does not - Advertising can be shown for all the mediocre works that aren't going to make much money any other way. For the truly great stuff (AAA Games, Hit music, Movies, and so on) the price of admission will generate a lot of revenue. But for the mediocre stuff, the business model has to adjust. Personally, I think the real challenge lies in the "below mediocre" art. The market mostly ignores things like flash games, small bands, fanfiction, etc. To me there's a missed opportunity to cultivate the "startup artists" as a sort of Y Combinator.