Risk and Reward in Media Business

In economics we talk a good deal about the interplay between risk and investment. It could be investment in an emerging market, in human capital (education) or in the government via putting money in the bank; however, the one common thread about all investments is that the reward must outweigh the risk for most people to even consider taking the plunge. Roberts, in his article about the creative/ commercial clash, is giving us a glimpse of how a real world industry deals with this dichotomy of risk and reward, and unfortunately, I think he is right about economics stifling creativity—but things are changing…

Roberts finds that there is a difficult and confusing interaction of decision making processes on both sides of the media industry because of the way that economics influence media content such that the three party system is upheld and networks continue to make a profit. He talks about it briefly but I think Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory about the culture industry, while somewhat over the top or insidious, remains salient in this situation. The synopsis is brief but still helps our understanding. A capitalist system causes our media products inculcate the masses into a false consciousness of new, innovational culture by feeding us the same themes and idea in our media disguised under slightly different “veils” time and time again. Why? So the masses continue to consume the same ideas and subsequent media products and give the producers the ability reduce that risk vs. reward issue I brought up earlier.

While dark and gloomy I do not think the culture industry encapsulates the whole story here; however, it does help to explain why we have 5 Fast and the Furious movies, which in and of itself is fairly gloomy thing. As the article points out sequels already have a built in model for success in that there is substantially less risk involved with its production because it already has a fan following. Therefore, advertisers know who it is geared toward, the film or show will still get people to watch and the network/studios will likely make a profit and uphold the three party system. This situation can also likely explain why so many of the biggest movies out there today are based off of books—there’s usually a large following and room for sequels! (Harry Potter had seven books!!!! Look at the numbers!)

But then there’s Always Sunny. What makes this show different? Cheap to produce also creates less risk if it is a flop. As the article states the producers at FX accepted the potential for reward because the show really didn’t hurt them to produce since the actors, writers, directors and producers all shared only 1M$. So to return to our original question…do economics stifle creativity? I don’t think we are living in the culture industry entirely but I do find the relationship between economics profits and creativity uncanny in that big budget movies are meant to reach a large audience and low budget products are usually a bit different and push the envelope more. Media companies nonetheless want the risk to be outweighed by the reward.

The Battle for Content: Creative and Commercial Interests

It's not surprising to read news articles pointing out that there is very little innovation within film creation. The currently released movies are nearly always sequels, stories based on popular books or comics, or series.  In reading the articles written by Harris and Kung and Schuker, movies are only produced if they are safe.  "Franchise" movies are also a very popular way for companies to make money.

A person only needs to look at The Walt Disney Corporation to see this trend.  Every movie that appears in theaters is accompanied by toys, apparel, and even new attractions and characters at Disney parks.   It's a system that feeds into itself over and over again; a family goes to see Disney's "Tangled" in theaters, they then travel to Walt Disney World so that they can meet Repunzel, and while they are there, they purchase Repunzel dresses and tiaras--and when they return home, the kids continue to watch the story and re-live it through their experiences with the real Repunzel.

But these franchises are not the enemy.  They do not limit creativity--rather, they are commercially driven to create a story that is relatable and marketable in many different venues.  This also may be a cause for the recent "comic book craze" driving movie creation.  For Roberts, there are many complicated issues that drive the content of film.  He argues that these factors are not mutually exclusive to either the creative or the commercial forces in the industry.  I believe that he is right in staking this claim.  As he states, there are many different decisions that are involved in the production of media.  Therefore, it is difficult to pin down who is the victor in this battle for content.  And, the truth is, the victor probably changes through each individual production.

So maybe "Tangled" isn't a new story.  It is, after all, based on a classic fairytale.  However, many parents felt that there was a need for a more independent and modern Disney Princess--and Repunzel certainly fits that bill.  The fact that someone will typically wait two hours to see her at any Disney park speaks to her success.  Perhaps, as Roberts argues, we have to work with a different definition of innovation.  If we attempted that, we may discover that there is more innovation than we have anticipated, and that commercial and creative drives can work hand in hand in the production of film.

Internet Freedom: can privacy be ensured?

On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog. Or at least, that’s how it used to be. With the rise of social networks like Facebook and Google+ the age of internet anonymity is quickly becoming extinct. People are voluntarily sharing personal information through these websites more and more each day. Although it seems relatively harmless, sharing one’s likes and dislikes in exchange for user-targeted ads, it’s just the start of a new era in online communication.

What if the government issued a centralized ID login system for the internet much like the required driver’s license to drive a car? This would allow them to keep tabs on all of your internet activity, ensuring that dogs wont be able to pass as humans. We run the risk of sacrificing our personal freedom & right to privacy in favor of corporate advertisements. Cookies, Flash cookies, and zombie cookies collect user information and sell it to others; similarly, search engine logs help to improve searches and also target their (eg. Google) advertising results. Some companies/sites allow users to opt out of being tracked; however, if you don't know who they are, that's not going to happen. Further, many sites don't function properly unless the user accepts cookies, some opt-outs don't work as promised, and others are only temporary.

What if we crafted a constitution of internet rights, similar to our actual constitution, ensuring our rights to privacy online? In the book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did author Lori Andrews proposes such a constitution. This “Social Network Constitution,” comprised of just ten articles, ensures the user’s “right to connect” meaning that “no government shall abridge the right to connect, nor shall a government monitor exchanges over the Internet or code them as to sources or content.” It also ensures that “each individual shall have control over his or her image from a social network, including over the image created by data aggregation.” Although it seems a bit extreme as of now with bills like SOPA surfacing our right to the internet is threaten and must be ensured.

Copyright Conspiracy? Perhaps...

Danger Mouse’s project, The Grey Album, created quite a stir within the media industry because of our eschewed understanding and enforcement of copyright laws. The issues mainly revolved around the conflict of whether or not the album should have been protected under artistic expression or removed for stealing another group’s copyrighted material. I am going to take a stand from the start arguing that the album should be protected for many reasons, however, none more salient than the very nature of the postmodern landscape which we all inhabit.

Scholars for years have been discussing the implications of living in a postmodern society dominated by the image in which all we have to base ourselves and the world around us on are the images or experiences already in circulation. Fredrick Jameson’s nomenclature of the “pastiche” on creative materials follows the logic of the collage wherein nothing is entirely original because what we create is inherently borrowed from or influenced by some other source and consequently expanded upon; therefore, the only way to truly create something “new” is by way of pastiche. If this is truly the case in our society (I believe it is), then copyright laws, as they are exercised in today’s music industry, act to suppress the only form of creativity left in the world. (Click here for a brief explanation of Jameson’s pastiche)

I realize this claim is a bit extreme and I understand how copyright laws help to ensure an artist’s property rights, however, the way the record labels in the Danger Mouse case reacted do not reflect the artist’s best interest but their own. Even though the DJ took Jay Z and The Beatle’s music the project should not have been suppressed but rather used economically to gain revenues and consequently used as remuneration for all the artists that have contributed. In that case we could foster creativity while still maintaining copyright law/intellectual property for the right reason.

Let me give an example of why copyright law is becoming too harshly enforced. This is a link to the video of the “Four Chord Song” in which many of the popular songs from different eras used the exact same chord progression! Following the logic of the music industry and copyright law, Elton John’s “Can You Feel The Love Tonight” stole from Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” and should be removed all public forums—what a loss for The Lion King. In conclusion all I know is that the music industry doesn’t feel the love tonight, and that I have stopped believing in copyright laws. 

ps. Speaking of The Lion King, remember Hamlet? I think there are some similarities there too... See what I mean. Mickey Mouse is a criminal too. Nothing is entirely original! It's all a conspiracy! AHHHHHHHH!!!