The Long Tail video and article both made a lot of sense. It is only logical that the major corporations stick with the "proven formulas" when it comes to presenting the public with various audio, visual, and print media for consumption. Since physical shelf space is limited, it is difficult for the head of the tail to offer consumers variety -- it is too risky. Therefore, to minimize their loses, corporations only promote what they believe will sell in relation to current trends. However, with the advent of the world wide web, independent creative artists, activists, and average joes can now get just as much exposure as mainstream personalities. There are so many ways for individuals to get their messages out to the masses now, that if you can't present your ideas to the world, it is your own fault for not exploring your options. Now matter what your media goals are, there is an electronic platform available for you to utilize.
Aspiring screenwriters and television producers can now independently produce their projects and upload them to sites like YouTube -- allowing audiences to view their work without them ever inking a major motion picture or television deal. Authors can write as many books as they want, have them available in either digital formats or print-on-demand formats, and enjoy unlimited distribution without the help of companies like Barnes and Noble (I myself have done this, and I find that I prefer this route because I maintain creative freedom, which allows me to do what I want to my manuscripts -- major publishers often change author's manuscripts to the point where the author no longer recognizes their own work). Finally, musicians can produce albums, and have them available for sale on their own personal websites -- there are even many established recording artists that now promote small independent projects on sites like myspace. The possibilities for one to create their own medium are endless now.
I believe that major corporations will respond to the technological advancements by trying to offer a wider variety of media products to consumers. Right now, the corporations do not offer half as much variety as one can get on the internet. For example, if you want an Arabic hip hop album (something I actually searched for one day out of curiosity), you can find it on the 'net. . . I guarantee you will not find it a F.Y.E. To combat this problem, major corporations will make feeble attempts to sign acts or writers that are "refreshingly different," however, it will not work, because after a while, all of the major corporations will follow suit and only sign refreshingly different acts until every artist is the same again. Major corporations are too married to the idea of trends to change. They like what they know will generate revenue for certain.
The only problem that I see personally with the ease of media access is that it seems like it will become increasingly more difficult for the small independent artists to get paid for their creative endeavors. There are many outlets available now for one to get their work out to the public, but there doesn't appear to be equally as many ways to get paid for it. I don't know how satisfying popularity is to an individual, if they cannot make a living doing what makes them popular.
I like how you included the example of screenwriters and producers in your blog post. I agree with you when you say that major publishers (even movie directors) want to always change the author's original manuscript. They don't see the same vision that the writer sees and usually change things for profit. There is much more creativity doing things online. Posting videos on YouTube and social networking sites allow for people to get recognition for their work and having personal creative freedom.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, just like you wrote, there is a downfall to this long tail aspect of marketing. Nobody really gets paid. Others can steal your work as well. This is a great blog post, good job!
First - a couple of stylistic comments: psychologically it is easy to read and understand something when written in concise terms, short paragraphs and accompanied by visual imagery to help convey a message. Please don't mistake this to mean that a good blog shouldn't be creative and look like a watered-down USA Today. On the contrary, good visuals gives you more creative freedom and creates a compelling tool to help the reader understand you. The danger is doing too many visuals and looking like a bad MySpace page. Find a balance - but make sure it all helps the reader.
ReplyDeleteI really like the question you pose at the top of your blog!! But, not a fan of the gratuitous ads and amazon embeds. Gimme what I'm looking for and encourage me to stick around and read your blog.
Otherwise . . . great critical analysis of the Long Tail's impact on independent content producers. You chose to write from a first person opinion perspective and did a nice job.
I especially like your point that, while the Long Tail is providing unprecedented opportunities to content producers, independent artists are faced with the same challenges of how to make a living (an age old problem).
Personally, I believe that artists who get creative with monetizing their work will ultimately fair far better with digital distribution than in the corporate model. More artists will be able to make a living without having to become a huge hit at the head of the tail. They may not get rich, but they will be able to support a family while doing what they love.
Thanks for making me think. That's the goal of these posts.
Please post your real name in your profile so that I can give you a grade :)
ReplyDeleteWho are you?