Surprise: Hollywood Favors Short-Term Fads to Long-Term Strategy
from the in-the-long-term,-the-MPAA-is-dead... dept
It's no secret that the entertainment industry has some execs who are positively proud of the fact that they'll sacrifice long-term strategy for short-term gains, but you'd hope that there was someone, somewhere with a powerful position in the industry who would point out why that's not a particularly intelligent strategy. Take, for example, the MPAA's position on net neutrality. Last summer, the MPAA sent a letter to the FCC opposing net neutrality on the grounds that it would hinder its anti-piracy efforts. It would appear that the MPAA is getting more vocal about this, as MPAA boss Dan Glickman repeated the charges yet again that net neutrality would harm its business.Of course, the only way that's actually true is if the MPAA views the internet as mostly being about piracy, rather than a future distribution channel. Because, as Jon Healy points out in the link above, in a non-neutral internet, where ISPs get to charge extra to heavy bandwidth users, the movie studios are suddenly going to find that it's a lot more expensive to distribute movies (extremely high bandwidth items) online, since that will be exactly what the tollbooths are set up for. So, in coming out against net neutrality, the MPAA is basically saying that it wants distribution costs online to be higher. Perhaps it's no surprise. The industry really doesn't want to embrace the online world, as is quite evident from its repeated half-assed efforts at creating online movie download services. Perhaps Glickman and the studio bosses really believe that they can go back to a world where only the studios control the distribution mechanisms, even if they're a lot more expensive, cumbersome and inefficient. It does seem odd, though, that any business would prefer that its distribution systems be more expensive and less useful -- but that just goes to show you the level of strategic thinking that sometimes goes on in Hollywood.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dan glickman, long-term, mpaa, net neutrality, short-term, strategy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The entertainment cartel is dying
Isn't that a shame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse is, there only needs to be 1 major player taking the dip...the rest will crumble.
So yeah, I agree with Hellsvilla. I just hope it will be over before to much blood is spilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short-term thinking...
You can't really blame people for doing what their employer wants them to do. Executives are hired by the board, the board is answerable to the shareholders, and most of the shareholders are idiots that want the stock price to jump every quarter. So the executives are just doing their job and looking toward short term profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short-term thinking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]