Barrett Garese: Scarcity, Experience, And A New Seat At An Old Table
Jonathan Nail
· 5 months ago
This is an eye-opener of an article that kicks the brain into motion and the heart beating nervously. But these are good things! Challenging the mind to delve deeper into brainstorming on what will be the new entertainment model, what are the opportunities to be created?! And I think it is important to jump in and not sit off to the side worrying over your ideas. Are they good enough? Do they push the envelope? Ah hell, just jump in with what you got and blaze the trail. BE receptive. BE adaptive.
EricSusch
· 5 months ago
Wow! You have a lot here and this is exactly the kind of discussion We've been having for the last few year over here at Let's Knit2gether. Haven't read your whole post yet but I've so much to say just about the "background" that I decided to post my comments about that first:
I think the history of technology can teach us a lot about the possible directions the media industry could be heading. I'm fascinated by media history especially old time radio and the beginnings of the film industry 100 years ago. What I've learned is that it has always been changing just not as fast as it may be today. And it's easy to forget how it used to be. For example, when I was growing up they didn't kick you out of the theater at the end of a film. You could sit there and watch it over and over. I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back three times in a row when it first came out. When I was very young I remember hanging out in the theater and seeing cartoons etc. between the features. When you got to the point in the rotation that you came in on, it was time to get up and leave. In those days I think the theater was more of a place and the tickets were more about getting into that place than a ticket to see a specific film.
I think the main disruption of DVD's on television was time based. When boxed sets of television series started to become popular, that's a whole lot of content that was being dumped on the marketplace for less and less cost per hour. I look at my shelf and see the complete seven years of The Next Generation. That's a whole lot of brand new live television my wife and I didn't watch (because we re-watched the entire seven years.)
"Creatives have fans, studios have logo recognition." Yep. Creative people like Joss Whedon and Trent Reznor who have their own following are in a very good position today. BTW check out this excellent post by Trent Reznor on the music industry. http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183
For me I think it's important to remember all these disruptive technologies, many of which you mention, have always been changing the media industry. And some of the old disruptions could be happening again. Quick example: Back at the beginning of the record industry some musicians were freaked out because they thought record sales would prevent people from coming to their live concerts, which is how they made their money. Today it seems that musicians are having a difficult time making money on records so some are turning to playing live to make money. What goes around comes around.
EricSusch
· 5 months ago
My incredibly long comments, part 2 Getting From The Present To The Future
I agree that a pragmatic approach to piracy is the only sane one. No one is going to stop it. I've always said that the only way to limit piracy is to make your content readily available and at a reasonable price. Make sure people get it from YOU and not somewhere else.
I agree with you about "convergence" too. Convergence isn't happening. Fragmentation is happening.
Yes, I think the theater experience is about going out to the theater... going on a date or otherwise getting out of the house. I don't think it's about better quality image and/or sound because frankly many people have better image and sound at home now. It's about going out. If it wasn't I think films in theaters would have died out in the 50's with the advent of television.
I disagree with you about 3D. It's just a gimmick to try to get people into theaters. The same thing happened around 1953 when Hollywood was terrified of television. When an industry is in distress they try a lot of crazy things. The reason I don't think 3D will catch on is that, no matter how good the technology becomes, I think it's always going to take the viewer out of the story. 3D is basically about spectacle and it's only really interesting on that level. IMHO
Television has been the "big show" for some time. I think the current disruptions are going to take that away from television the way TV deflated radio. Old mediums don't go away they just shrink to what they are good at. Radio was once the singular mass media in people’s lives but in the 50's - 60's radio really only thrived in cars. Even today "drive time" is prime time. TV is going to end up doing what it does best, delivering live events to a massive number of people. That means live sports, the Oscars, and American Idol type shows. And yes, it's going to get more tabloid just like any dying medium. We're already seeing that with "reality shows."
>>"The lines between what constitutes television and what constitutes online content are continuing to get ever closer. This is very dangerous to the long-term health of online content. I’ve often said that the job of a creator is not just to make good content, but to make good content specific to a certain media."
Hmmm... This next bit deserves a lot of thought. I think you are missing something fundamental that is happening. What I think is really going on in this "digital revolution" of which online media is a part, is a separation of content from production and delivery technology. Digital media is ethereal, free (in a freedom sense, not a monetary sense.) So what then is a "TV show" or a "DVD" or a "record album?" I think it's dangerous to continue to define content by its technology. Certainly as a producer you have to design the experience for how your content is going to be viewed but the creative process needs to go from content to technology not the reverse. For example, I wouldn't start a project by saying "I'm going to make a TV show, what should it be about." Ideally your creative process should start with "I like knitting, where should this content go?"
I don’t think “online” is a medium like Film or Television. I think it’s actually an “anti-medium” if you will. It’s where content can be anything you want in any way you want. There are no boundaries. Right now most everyone I know thinks of online video as video on websites because that’s what the internet is right? It’s a whole bunch of websites. I think this is only a brief moment, however. Online video will be free and go everywhere including our iPod or phone, the TV in our living room, the theatre down the street, and other places we can’t even imagine. In the future people won’t say, “I want to watch a TV show.” They’ll say, “I want Joss Whedon to tell me a story.”
Anyway that’s the way I see it. Would very much like to hear your thoughts on the above.
>>“There are great shows out there now, but too many are being created as if they were a smaller and more inexpensive version of a television show. “
I agree 100 percent with this! I’m sick of mildly funny trying to be edgy short form sitcoms! The internet is unbound! Let’s try something new!
EricSusch
· 5 months ago
My comments part 3 (AKA more drivel from me) Conclusions
1 – I agree. The film/theater experience has resisted many changes over the years. It’s not going away. I’m curious why you think it’s the end of the era for blockbuster movies.
2 – Yep, TV is going to go through a lot of changes. I think there will be another “Lost” very soon but it won’t be on “live TV” as we know it but you’ll be able to download and/or stream it and watch it on your TV in a similar way.
3 – I see no reason why a “view” on TV is any different from anything else. It’s the people watching that matter, who they are and how many. The status quo will resist to save their revenue stream in the short term but views are views.
4 – Yep.
5 – It’s going to be one hellava fight. I think ultimately anyone who tries to control digital bits on a massive scale is doomed though. It’s a web. There’s always a way around. At least I hope.
6 – Very interesting…
7 – Maybe. We might need more than one “hit” for most people to pay attention though.
8 – I think people’s habits about expecting things for free are going to change. It may happen slowly but back in the Napster days everyone said no one would pay for downloaded music and now we have iTunes. I think paid video content will ultimately find its place.
Overall, excellent, excellent post! Probably the best post on the future of video and media I’ve read in years. There’s a lot to think about here.
joshpaul
· 5 months ago
You obviously put a lot of time and thought into your post.
Considering you're in LA, I'd like a chance to sit and talk with you.
LMK.
jmazz
· 5 months ago
This is fun stuff and a nicely summarized analysis of the state of the state. Congrats. However, there is a big variable that I believe is not being included here; advertising. Besides film which largely stands on it's own, most content on tv is produced with the immediate goal of attracting eyeballs in order to charge brands for forced exposure to their messaging. The repackaging of said content to dvd or download is a secondary (although extremely significant/important) revenue stream. I think much like the role advertising played in the formation of tv formats in the 50's - it will play a large part in the formation of digital revenue/distribution models.
This is an exciting time no doubt!
Secondly, I hope you are right about a digital mainstream hit but the further we get into this fragmented landscape the more my skepticism about that assumption grows. Interactive media is such a powerful filter and as such people are becoming more myopic by the day. i.e. you are a sports fan so when you check email in the morning you are going to watch/read about sports and not what happened on Lost. I hope there is something that makes such innovative use of the medium that it breaks through the clutter - that would be truly exciting to see!
Love the google dark horse theory too!
AinsleyofAttack
· 5 months ago
Take the helm, pirate captain. Sick post. Entertainment needs more thinkers like you...to dismantle and ultimately reassemble it.
Mac_H
· 5 months ago
"Creatives have fans, studios have logo recognition .. I’ve never gone to see a movie because it was from Warner Brothers or Paramount ..."
I wonder if kid's entertainment is an exception to this. In the old days, parents would be fine with their kids watching a film if it was Disney, because the brand-name had a certain level of 'safety' in it. That is certainly a form of 'brand loyalty'.
Even recently, I had no interest in seeing the film 'Up' until I heard that it was made by Pixar. If it had been a Warner Bros film I wouldn't have even considered going.
In the past, much of Warner Bros value was in something that you didn't mention - IP in recurring characters. Viewers were looking forward to watching the 'Bugs Bunny' cartoon rather than thinking they were watching the 'Subsidiary of Time Warner Corporation' show. The IP they have in the characters is independent of the distribution media.
Of course, the studios have to create new characters all the time - Mikey Mouse is now long forgotten, but for the medium term the studios still have a lot of valuable IP.
It is interesting that Pixar have chosen to not specialise the 'sequel'/'running characters' market when Disney made their fortune from it.
Mac
jim adler
· 5 months ago
Terrific article.
I completely agree that on-line content, in its current incarnation of knock-off TV or film, will not last as such and we're all waiting to see what it is that will emerge as distinct to the medium.
I would disagree on thing.
w/ re: 2. - While the majority of television will become cheap reality or super cheap scripted, I believe that the networks will still produce "tentpole" programs, much the way film divisions have moved to a model that makes big bets on summer movies. Where old TV can differentiate itself from on-line knockoffs and still pursue big advertising dollars is by exploiting big production values, top talent, and branded creators (e.g. Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams). I think TV will become stratified with a handful of tentpole programs surrounded by cheaply made fare. Like the current film environment, it's the middle that gets squeezed.
Justin Kownacki
· 5 months ago
Thanks for the thought-provoking essay. I started taking notes midway through, and I realized my response was too large to be unobtrusive in your comments section, so I blogged it here -- http://bit.ly/GqxbR
(Short version: As disruptive as the rise of web video has been to existing distribution models, it's the changes being forced upon the creative and business models that will really tell the tale of the next 10+ years.)
riteus
· 5 months ago
Good points, but here are my thoughts/counterpoints:
Film - Theaters will disappear over time. As more competition for content picks up, profitability and margins will decrease. More distribution channels will continually focus towards online/bandwidth distribution. The cost of owning, maintaining, operating physical retail locations will drive theaters out of the marketplace. If studios can bypass theaters and go straight to home video for (less than) the price of a ticket, studios would have bypassed the "middleman" (a.k.a. theaters) and reap more profit. I think this will happen sooner than we think. The "human" element is just not enough to compensate for the cost of two tickets ($20) + overpriced refreshments (near a $30~$40 experience).
Business Model - For too long the industries have relied heavily on residual income. Create a piece of content once and it will be valuable/worth money forever. Again, reliance on "scarcity" of content for so long has stymied their progress and innovation. With so much content flooding distribution channels these days (too many films, online video, cheaper ways to produce) and more (free/cheap) options for distribution, content in general will become less valuable as we go. It places more onus on studios/producers to consistently create new, fresh content. I think in the future we will only pay for the newest content as opposed to paying for "old" content, which will be released for free. Because we're eliminating residual income, studios/producers will need to work and be more creative with smaller budgets and not rely on incoming money/royalties for years after the fact. These budget restraints will redefine the entertainment industry. There will be more actors and fewer superstar celebrities making obscene contract/performance demands. Many of the pro-forma rules, laws, and standard practices regarding entertainment will be re-written.
Convergence will eventually take place. New released films will be distributed digitally -- they're already experimenting with this quite a bit via PPV and On Demand, which will drive theaters out of business. (On a side note: I believe 3D and IMAX are just gimmicks that are not cost effective or necessarily better than watching from a 56" HDTV at home. If anything, it makes me nauseous and enjoy the movie less). Similarly, TV does not have better staying power than online. Eventually, studios/producers will start making TV-budget content just for online and that will spell the death of TV as we know it. In place of traditional TVs, we will have new "TVs" that are designed to be connected to media centers/PCs.
In general, the entertainment industry has been over-bloated and too fat for too long. The original creators of the media business model created a cash cow system that let the "rich get richer." It was not until cable TV came along and now the internet that they really challenged the status quo. The entertainment industry in our near future will be shifting quite dramatically. I agree that because of cheaper/free distribution and the obsolescence of scarcity both through a flood of new content and piracy, we are in for some interesting times. I hope to be at the forefront of this evolution, pioneering the change.
Barrett, Great read.
DogmaStudios
· 5 months ago
That is a great article and thesis - one that our company is attempting to prove valid.
MikeLeins
· 5 months ago
This is a great article. Wish I could find more blogs like this about the state of Television and Film. Good work and interesting insights!
Rich
· 5 months ago
Although I think you raise interesting and informed points, I would tend to disagree with your view on the film experience, at least with respect to non-tent pole films. As a consumer of films I place a premium on convenience. I get the opportunity to see a film at the theater about once or twice a year. Usually, I have to share those opportunities with my kids. So this years' choices were Up and Harry Potter.
The Up experience was a bust from beginning to end. The 3d upcharge ran the movie bill for a family of 4 north of $40. Before the film started we were subjected to an anoying onslaught of dozens of ads for everything from other films (they are running a Toy Story ad and the film isn't scheduled to be released for another year) to soda to cars. I was exhausted by the time the film started and then was pretty disappointed with the 3d experience. Not at all worth the $8. Once again, the industry shot itself in the foot by being too greedy and not deliverying the goods. Oh yeah, the film made my youngest child depressed for a week because one of the main characters dies in the first half hour. Nice work! When it comes to G Force, I will buy the DVD and skip the theater experience. With the price of blu ray players coming down the viewing experience will soon be comparable to the 3d at the theater.
Harry Potter was much more positive. Good story. Beautiful to watch. I don't think it would have been as good watching it at home.
As for me, I prefer to watch indie films most of which don't even play where I live so I end up buying the DVD or watching them on Hulu in the rare instance when they show something I am interested in seeing. The experience isn't perfect but it's better than the alternatives--not seeing them at all. I don't think my experience is all that unique.
The point is that the film experience, other than the rare Harry Potter-type experience, is not so sacrosanct that it can't be substituted for the convenience and cost-savings of a home view.
safadel
· 5 months ago
Good Stuff! Thank you.
ebruhwiler
· 3 months ago
I attended another panel discussion tonight (so many this summer), and again online distribution and social media was discussed. But no one knows what the answer is, and this kind of puts us all evenly on the same playing field. Kind of.
Your article/blog is the most insightful and thorough analysis of the current state of affairs of media distribution that I have read. I actually feel like I am starting to get a handle on how to utilize the web. I would like to add how I summed up what I learned at the panel discussion tonight.
The basic conclusion: create a social experience much like a "club", where people come to see varying content (e.g. band or DJ) as an excuse to be in a social scene, and buy "booze" (maybe content-related products, or are exposed to ads). It is an effective social scene that uses content as a facilitator/excuse for the socializing (socializing is the main value to the user, not the content, but the content still has to be compelling). If you succeed at that, then you succeed - no matter what the content is.
All Comments
I think the history of technology can teach us a lot about the possible directions the media industry could be heading. I'm fascinated by media history especially old time radio and the beginnings of the film industry 100 years ago. What I've learned is that it has always been changing just not as fast as it may be today. And it's easy to forget how it used to be. For example, when I was growing up they didn't kick you out of the theater at the end of a film. You could sit there and watch it over and over. I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back three times in a row when it first came out. When I was very young I remember hanging out in the theater and seeing cartoons etc. between the features. When you got to the point in the rotation that you came in on, it was time to get up and leave. In those days I think the theater was more of a place and the tickets were more about getting into that place than a ticket to see a specific film.
I think the main disruption of DVD's on television was time based. When boxed sets of television series started to become popular, that's a whole lot of content that was being dumped on the marketplace for less and less cost per hour. I look at my shelf and see the complete seven years of The Next Generation. That's a whole lot of brand new live television my wife and I didn't watch (because we re-watched the entire seven years.)
"Creatives have fans, studios have logo recognition." Yep. Creative people like Joss Whedon and Trent Reznor who have their own following are in a very good position today. BTW check out this excellent post by Trent Reznor on the music industry. http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183
For me I think it's important to remember all these disruptive technologies, many of which you mention, have always been changing the media industry. And some of the old disruptions could be happening again. Quick example: Back at the beginning of the record industry some musicians were freaked out because they thought record sales would prevent people from coming to their live concerts, which is how they made their money. Today it seems that musicians are having a difficult time making money on records so some are turning to playing live to make money. What goes around comes around.
Getting From The Present To The Future
I agree that a pragmatic approach to piracy is the only sane one. No one is going to stop it. I've always said that the only way to limit piracy is to make your content readily available and at a reasonable price. Make sure people get it from YOU and not somewhere else.
I agree with you about "convergence" too. Convergence isn't happening. Fragmentation is happening.
Yes, I think the theater experience is about going out to the theater... going on a date or otherwise getting out of the house. I don't think it's about better quality image and/or sound because frankly many people have better image and sound at home now. It's about going out. If it wasn't I think films in theaters would have died out in the 50's with the advent of television.
I disagree with you about 3D. It's just a gimmick to try to get people into theaters. The same thing happened around 1953 when Hollywood was terrified of television. When an industry is in distress they try a lot of crazy things. The reason I don't think 3D will catch on is that, no matter how good the technology becomes, I think it's always going to take the viewer out of the story. 3D is basically about spectacle and it's only really interesting on that level. IMHO
Television has been the "big show" for some time. I think the current disruptions are going to take that away from television the way TV deflated radio. Old mediums don't go away they just shrink to what they are good at. Radio was once the singular mass media in people’s lives but in the 50's - 60's radio really only thrived in cars. Even today "drive time" is prime time. TV is going to end up doing what it does best, delivering live events to a massive number of people. That means live sports, the Oscars, and American Idol type shows. And yes, it's going to get more tabloid just like any dying medium. We're already seeing that with "reality shows."
>>"The lines between what constitutes television and what constitutes online content are continuing to get ever closer. This is very dangerous to the long-term health of online content. I’ve often said that the job of a creator is not just to make good content, but to make good content specific to a certain media."
Hmmm... This next bit deserves a lot of thought. I think you are missing something fundamental that is happening. What I think is really going on in this "digital revolution" of which online media is a part, is a separation of content from production and delivery technology. Digital media is ethereal, free (in a freedom sense, not a monetary sense.) So what then is a "TV show" or a "DVD" or a "record album?" I think it's dangerous to continue to define content by its technology. Certainly as a producer you have to design the experience for how your content is going to be viewed but the creative process needs to go from content to technology not the reverse. For example, I wouldn't start a project by saying "I'm going to make a TV show, what should it be about." Ideally your creative process should start with "I like knitting, where should this content go?"
I don’t think “online” is a medium like Film or Television. I think it’s actually an “anti-medium” if you will. It’s where content can be anything you want in any way you want. There are no boundaries. Right now most everyone I know thinks of online video as video on websites because that’s what the internet is right? It’s a whole bunch of websites. I think this is only a brief moment, however. Online video will be free and go everywhere including our iPod or phone, the TV in our living room, the theatre down the street, and other places we can’t even imagine. In the future people won’t say, “I want to watch a TV show.” They’ll say, “I want Joss Whedon to tell me a story.”
Anyway that’s the way I see it. Would very much like to hear your thoughts on the above.
>>“There are great shows out there now, but too many are being created as if they were a smaller and more inexpensive version of a television show. “
I agree 100 percent with this! I’m sick of mildly funny trying to be edgy short form sitcoms! The internet is unbound! Let’s try something new!
Conclusions
1 – I agree. The film/theater experience has resisted many changes over the years. It’s not going away. I’m curious why you think it’s the end of the era for blockbuster movies.
2 – Yep, TV is going to go through a lot of changes. I think there will be another “Lost” very soon but it won’t be on “live TV” as we know it but you’ll be able to download and/or stream it and watch it on your TV in a similar way.
3 – I see no reason why a “view” on TV is any different from anything else. It’s the people watching that matter, who they are and how many. The status quo will resist to save their revenue stream in the short term but views are views.
4 – Yep.
5 – It’s going to be one hellava fight. I think ultimately anyone who tries to control digital bits on a massive scale is doomed though. It’s a web. There’s always a way around. At least I hope.
6 – Very interesting…
7 – Maybe. We might need more than one “hit” for most people to pay attention though.
8 – I think people’s habits about expecting things for free are going to change. It may happen slowly but back in the Napster days everyone said no one would pay for downloaded music and now we have iTunes. I think paid video content will ultimately find its place.
Overall, excellent, excellent post! Probably the best post on the future of video and media I’ve read in years. There’s a lot to think about here.
Considering you're in LA, I'd like a chance to sit and talk with you.
LMK.
This is an exciting time no doubt!
Secondly, I hope you are right about a digital mainstream hit but the further we get into this fragmented landscape the more my skepticism about that assumption grows. Interactive media is such a powerful filter and as such people are becoming more myopic by the day. i.e. you are a sports fan so when you check email in the morning you are going to watch/read about sports and not what happened on Lost. I hope there is something that makes such innovative use of the medium that it breaks through the clutter - that would be truly exciting to see!
Love the google dark horse theory too!
I wonder if kid's entertainment is an exception to this. In the old days, parents would be fine with their kids watching a film if it was Disney, because the brand-name had a certain level of 'safety' in it. That is certainly a form of 'brand loyalty'.
Even recently, I had no interest in seeing the film 'Up' until I heard that it was made by Pixar. If it had been a Warner Bros film I wouldn't have even considered going.
In the past, much of Warner Bros value was in something that you didn't mention - IP in recurring characters. Viewers were looking forward to watching the 'Bugs Bunny' cartoon rather than thinking they were watching the 'Subsidiary of Time Warner Corporation' show. The IP they have in the characters is independent of the distribution media.
Of course, the studios have to create new characters all the time - Mikey Mouse is now long forgotten, but for the medium term the studios still have a lot of valuable IP.
It is interesting that Pixar have chosen to not specialise the 'sequel'/'running characters' market when Disney made their fortune from it.
Mac
I completely agree that on-line content, in its current incarnation of knock-off TV or film, will not last as such and we're all waiting to see what it is that will emerge as distinct to the medium.
I would disagree on thing.
w/ re: 2. - While the majority of television will become cheap reality or super cheap scripted, I believe that the networks will still produce "tentpole" programs, much the way film divisions have moved to a model that makes big bets on summer movies. Where old TV can differentiate itself from on-line knockoffs and still pursue big advertising dollars is by exploiting big production values, top talent, and branded creators (e.g. Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams). I think TV will become stratified with a handful of tentpole programs surrounded by cheaply made fare. Like the current film environment, it's the middle that gets squeezed.
(Short version: As disruptive as the rise of web video has been to existing distribution models, it's the changes being forced upon the creative and business models that will really tell the tale of the next 10+ years.)
Film - Theaters will disappear over time. As more competition for content picks up, profitability and margins will decrease. More distribution channels will continually focus towards online/bandwidth distribution. The cost of owning, maintaining, operating physical retail locations will drive theaters out of the marketplace. If studios can bypass theaters and go straight to home video for (less than) the price of a ticket, studios would have bypassed the "middleman" (a.k.a. theaters) and reap more profit. I think this will happen sooner than we think. The "human" element is just not enough to compensate for the cost of two tickets ($20) + overpriced refreshments (near a $30~$40 experience).
Business Model - For too long the industries have relied heavily on residual income. Create a piece of content once and it will be valuable/worth money forever. Again, reliance on "scarcity" of content for so long has stymied their progress and innovation. With so much content flooding distribution channels these days (too many films, online video, cheaper ways to produce) and more (free/cheap) options for distribution, content in general will become less valuable as we go. It places more onus on studios/producers to consistently create new, fresh content. I think in the future we will only pay for the newest content as opposed to paying for "old" content, which will be released for free. Because we're eliminating residual income, studios/producers will need to work and be more creative with smaller budgets and not rely on incoming money/royalties for years after the fact. These budget restraints will redefine the entertainment industry. There will be more actors and fewer superstar celebrities making obscene contract/performance demands. Many of the pro-forma rules, laws, and standard practices regarding entertainment will be re-written.
Convergence will eventually take place. New released films will be distributed digitally -- they're already experimenting with this quite a bit via PPV and On Demand, which will drive theaters out of business. (On a side note: I believe 3D and IMAX are just gimmicks that are not cost effective or necessarily better than watching from a 56" HDTV at home. If anything, it makes me nauseous and enjoy the movie less). Similarly, TV does not have better staying power than online. Eventually, studios/producers will start making TV-budget content just for online and that will spell the death of TV as we know it. In place of traditional TVs, we will have new "TVs" that are designed to be connected to media centers/PCs.
In general, the entertainment industry has been over-bloated and too fat for too long. The original creators of the media business model created a cash cow system that let the "rich get richer." It was not until cable TV came along and now the internet that they really challenged the status quo. The entertainment industry in our near future will be shifting quite dramatically. I agree that because of cheaper/free distribution and the obsolescence of scarcity both through a flood of new content and piracy, we are in for some interesting times. I hope to be at the forefront of this evolution, pioneering the change.
Barrett, Great read.
The Up experience was a bust from beginning to end. The 3d upcharge ran the movie bill for a family of 4 north of $40. Before the film started we were subjected to an anoying onslaught of dozens of ads for everything from other films (they are running a Toy Story ad and the film isn't scheduled to be released for another year) to soda to cars. I was exhausted by the time the film started and then was pretty disappointed with the 3d experience. Not at all worth the $8. Once again, the industry shot itself in the foot by being too greedy and not deliverying the goods. Oh yeah, the film made my youngest child depressed for a week because one of the main characters dies in the first half hour. Nice work! When it comes to G Force, I will buy the DVD and skip the theater experience. With the price of blu ray players coming down the viewing experience will soon be comparable to the 3d at the theater.
Harry Potter was much more positive. Good story. Beautiful to watch. I don't think it would have been as good watching it at home.
As for me, I prefer to watch indie films most of which don't even play where I live so I end up buying the DVD or watching them on Hulu in the rare instance when they show something I am interested in seeing. The experience isn't perfect but it's better than the alternatives--not seeing them at all. I don't think my experience is all that unique.
The point is that the film experience, other than the rare Harry Potter-type experience, is not so sacrosanct that it can't be substituted for the convenience and cost-savings of a home view.
Your article/blog is the most insightful and thorough analysis of the current state of affairs of media distribution that I have read. I actually feel like I am starting to get a handle on how to utilize the web. I would like to add how I summed up what I learned at the panel discussion tonight.
The basic conclusion: create a social experience much like a "club", where people come to see varying content (e.g. band or DJ) as an excuse to be in a social scene, and buy "booze" (maybe content-related products, or are exposed to ads). It is an effective social scene that uses content as a facilitator/excuse for the socializing (socializing is the main value to the user, not the content, but the content still has to be compelling). If you succeed at that, then you succeed - no matter what the content is.