Nice To See How Content Creators Have More Power Over Middlemen

from the it's-not-about-the-middlemen dept

We've talked a lot about how the role of middlemen is changing quite a bit these days. In the past, it was about them being gatekeepers. If you wanted to be a successful musician you had to sign a deal with one of a tiny number of big record labels. If you wanted to be a filmmaker you had to get a big studio to help you out. If you wanted to be an author, you had to sign a deal with a big publisher. And, since those middlemen acted as the only paths to success, they were able to dictate absolutely ridiculous terms. Just take, for example, the typical record label contract, which wasn't just a "loan" or an "investment," but them basically buying all of your copyrights and you still have to pay all of the money back from your earnings... but you don't get the copyrights back after you do so. These were amazingly one-sided deals that totally put the middlemen in the power position.

What's fascinating (and wonderful) to see today is how the changing marketplace means that the actual content creators are in control. This doesn't mean the death of middlemen -- not by a long shot. There's still a huge role for middlemen to play -- but it's as enablers, not gatekeepers. In a world with enablers, the content creators are still the ones in control. The middlemen become supporting players. This is why I always find it funny when those who support the old system claim that they're the ones "helping" creative types. But that's clearly not the case. What they're helping are the gatekeeper middlemen, who have done everything possible to pressure content creators into bad deals because they had no other choice. These days, thanks to the wider choices enabled by the internet, content creators are able to restack the pyramid and put themselves in control, with middlemen actually helping, rather than capturing all of the value.

We already wrote about Conan O'Brien's embrace of social media in Fortune's article about Conan 2.0, but there was another part of the article that I wanted to highlight in this post. And that's the fact that the deal O'Brien signed with TBS is quite different than the traditional TV deal, in that it's not TBS's show that O'Brien appears on, but it's O'Brien's show... with TBS as a distribution partner. But O'Brien and his company really have all the control -- including over the digital side of things. Even the video clips from his show don't come from TBS or use a TBS video player. They're all Team Coco.

O'Brien is in control of all the on-air creative and, just as important, all the digital use of his content. He and his production company Conaco own the show.... It's the opposite of O'Brien's setup at NBC, says Ross, a partner in the company. "Conaco owns the show, and TBS is a participant. At Tonight, NBC owned the show, and we were participants." And ownership makes all the difference for O'Brien and his team.

Team Coco, not TBS, chooses which clips to use, edits them, and posts them. Preview clips from each night's taping go up an hour before the show's East Coast broadcast; within an hour after the show's West Coast broadcast more than a half-dozen clips from that night's show are posted on its site and Facebook, and linked to via Twitter; and the full show is viewable online the next day at 11 a.m. Eastern time. Last year at The Tonight Show Bleyaert had tried to get pre-show clips posted, but even that seemingly simple idea was difficult to execute because NBC.com ran the show's site, and putting up such clips wasn't part of its normal workflow process. "After the experience that we had at NBC, we wanted to be in control," says O'Brien's agent, Rosen. "We wanted the freedom to exploit our content."

This reminds me of another story from a few years back about a band that announced a label had signed with them, rather than them signing with a label. It's happening slowly, but the power positions are shifting and the fact that the gatekeeper role is less and less important, and the enabler role is more and more important, also means that the content creators themselves have more power. They no longer need to sign soul-crushing, abusively one-sided deals. Instead, they can sign deals that put them in control, where the middlemen are truly middlemen helping the content creator, rather than owning the content creator.

We're really not there yet, for most content creators however. The old types of deals are still being signed. But I think we're starting to see signs of that changing. It'll take more time, but the good news is that the content creators are getting more leverage, just as the old middlemen are starting to lose their leverage. And the end result should be a lot better in the long run. The middlemen still have their role in the middle, rather than at the top of the pyramid.

Filed Under: conan o'brien, content creators, gatekeepers, middlemen

The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman

from the handling-money dept

We've talked in the past about the idea of musicians doing "house concerts" or in-home shows (all the way back to 2003), highlighting how folks like Jill Sobule successfully offered up the opportunity for fans to pay $5,000 to have her perform at their home. She had a handful of fans take her up on this offer and said they went great. When Amanda Palmer released her latest album a few weeks back, she included a similar offer. $5,000 for an in-home concert during her Australian tour. Very quickly (and, it appeared, mostly via Twitter), one superfan took up a collection to see if they could raise the $5,000 to have Amanda come play at a barbecue at her place. And, it worked. Amanda has now written a really great blog post describing the overall experience, which apparently went amazingly well:

it was a fantastic fucking night. i feel so incredibly lucky to always work on the assumption that my audience will be made up of people that are interesting, people i want to actually talk to.
i borrowed a piano from a girl who came to the gig (and she wound up playing after me, while i signed and chatted to folks), took requests, drank beers, told stories, listened, hugged. kim came along and played some of her songs, and we sang together, and we....felt right at home. i was given some incredible gifts. i feel like collapsing sometimes under all the awesome that comes into my life. thank you to all you who were there. that was special.

But what's most interesting is that Amanda goes on to discuss how she was worried about doing this -- especially for the first time. Her main concern was that it would be awkward to show up and play for money -- even though she does that all the time when playing concerts. But there's something different -- something more intimate -- about playing in someone's home, and the idea that they paid for you to be there is definitely a different feeling. Amanda narrows it down to a key point: it sometimes feels awkward to deal with money directly. Money is often a taboo subject, where people like to skirt around actual dollars. I see this all the time in business meetings, when discussing various deals. Everyone always like to dance around the key issue -- the money -- for as long as possible, and always seems to hope it's the "other guy" who brings it up or (even better!) some third party steps in and handles the transactional part.

In fact, that's part of the reason why middlemen exist in so many areas. Asking for money is difficult, and asking for and handling the money is a function that many people just feel more comfortable handing off to a third party. Yet, after all of this, when the deal does go through, and you realize that it's a direct connection between two people who are happy about how each came out of the transaction, people begin to realize it shouldn't be awkward at all. Amanda makes this point as well:

there's something really fucking satisfying about the money not going to everybody inbetween...the promotors, the ticketmasters...and not having those inbetween people involved AT YOUR GIG. there's something that kills the vibe about playing in a venue and knowing that everybody who works there doesn't give a shit about you, your music, or your fans.

Of course, this is the crux of what a market economy is supposed to actually be about: transactions where all parties are better off post transaction, and happier for it. That may sound crass and businesslike, but if everyone's better off, isn't that a good thing?

That's not to say that all middlemen should be done away with. Not at all. There are plenty of great and important roles for middlemen in specific scenarios. Middlemen can do all sorts of useful and compelling things to enable content creators to go on and do much more in the world. But, some middlemen are really just there to make it so that the "awkwardness" of money exchanges goes away, and those middlemen might not be that useful in the long run. One of the key things we've seen over the past few years is that people love to support artists they like directly. In fact, they seem more willing to spend if they think or know that the money actually has a half decent chance of ending up in the artist's wallet. As Amanda notes, more people are starting to realize this, and learn to get over the awkwardness of asking for money, and the awkwardness of removing a middleman who isn't really adding value, but simply obscuring the transaction.

Filed Under: amanda palmer, awkwardness, business models, house concerts, middlemen, money

EU Commissioner Warns Copyright Middlemen To Get With The Times

from the about-time dept

TorrentFreak points us to a recent speech given by Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, in which she gives a warning to "copyright middlemen," that they need to adapt to the changing times:

Borders are now crossed more easily than ever before in history. It is a great opportunity for artists and creators of all kinds, as art has no limits but those of our minds. Art enriches itself by eliminating artificial barriers between people such as borders between countries.

Just as artists have always travelled, to join sponsors, avoid wars or learn from masters far from home, now digital technology helps them to cross borders and break down barriers. Their work can be available to all. In a sense, the internet is the realisation of the Renaissance dream of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: all knowledge in one place.

Yet, it does not mean there are no more obstacles to sharing cultural and artistic works on the net. All revolutions reveal, in a new and less favourable light, the privileges of the gatekeepers of the "Ancien Regime". It is no different in the case of the internet revolution, which is unveiling the unsustainable position of certain content gatekeepers and intermediaries. No historically entrenched position guarantees the survival of any cultural intermediary. Like it or not, content gatekeepers risk being sidelined if they do not adapt to the needs of both creators and consumers of cultural goods.

Of course, the real issue is that middlemen who are used to being gatekeepers need to get away from the gatekeeper mindset, and realize that it's time to be enablers instead of gatekeepers -- but that's difficult to do.

There's also the admission that copyright "should not be an end in itself," which it too often appears to be for some in the industry:

Take for instance copyright. For 200 years, it has proved a powerful way to remunerate our artists and to build our creative industries. But copyright is not an end in itself. Copyright exists to ensure that artists will continue to create. Yet we see more and more often that it is not respected. In some sectors, the levels of piracy demand that we ask ourselves what are we doing wrong. We must ensure that copyright serves as a building block, not a stumbling block.

Look at the situation of those trying to digitise cultural works. Europeana, the online portal of libraries, museums and archives in Europe, is one key example. What a digital wonder this is: a single access point for cultural treasures that would otherwise be difficult to access, hidden or even forgotten.

Will this 12 million-strong collection of books, pictures, maps, music pieces and videos stall because copyright gets in the way? I hope not.

Of course, what Kroes is really pitching is the ongoing campaign to harmonize European copyright laws into a single copyright law across the EU, that will also include a single licensing setup. This effort has been under way for a while, and hasn't gone all that well, in part, because the various countries that make up the EU know that there are vast differences in each market, and they're not convinced a single copyright regime actually does make sense. So, while the language Kroes uses sounds good, it's probably more about complaints concerning regional differences, rather than a recognition that overall copyright law is broken.

Filed Under: copyright, gatekeepers, middlemen, neelie kroes

Copyright Serves Middlemen, Not Content Creators

from the as-it's-always-been dept

The original copyright law, the Statute of Anne, went into effect 300 years ago. And its purpose was not to protect content creators at all, but to protect the middlemen -- the printers. Little has changed since then, but you wouldn't know it to hear those middlemen talking about how much they're speaking up for the interests of content creators. As our recent posts on both RIAA accounting and Hollywood accounting have shown, these "industries," that claim to represent content creators' interests, work pretty damn hard to screw content creators out of receiving money.

The good news, however, is that more and more people are realizing this. Copyright is not about protecting creators' rights, but giving middlemen more power, and a recent panel discussion involving music industry insiders and lawyers suggests that at least some are coming to terms with this:

The "biggest flaw in music is not copyright, it's business practice," said attorney and lecturer Ben Challis. Business practices that shift rights from the author or song writer to companies are the reason that artists do not get paid, he added. A fair regime would protect artists as well as the corporate side, he added.

Copyright has "shown itself for what it truly is," said Kienda Hoji, an entertainment lawyer and senior lecturer at the University of Westminster. It is a system that benefits those who want to make money, not the creators who deserve to, he said.

Of course, that's been true for... well... about 300 years now. Isn't it about time something was done about it?

Filed Under: content creators, copyright, middlemen

The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies

from the ditch-the-monopolies dept

I love middlemen. Yes I do! Most indie filmmakers I talk to complain about distributors and "middlemen," but they're missing the real problem. Middlemen -- publishers, distributors, resellers -- can do excellent work. The problem is not middlemen; it's monopolies.

So many middlemen insist on monopolies, we've forgotten we don't need to grant them. They say that without a monopoly (aka "exclusive rights") they have no incentive to promote and distribute. Actually a monopoly gives a middleman no incentive, because no one is competing with them. Take away the monopoly, and the middleman has to compete with other potential middlemen (including the artist). Then they have an incentive to work. Rather than monopoly, they succeed on the basis of expertise (theatrical distributors already know how to track, ship, and manage prints), innovation (finding better ways to meet customers' existing desires and identifying new ones), and quality.

I'm very happy with the middlemen I work with. FilmKaravan, who distributes Sita Sings the Blues on DVD, promoted and placed DVDs in outlets and markets I was too lazy to reach. (They out-competed me, which is great!) GKids, who distributes the film theatrically East of the Mississippi, manages the prints professionally, finds great new venues for it, and promotes it cleverly without overspending. These middlemen do their jobs very well, and I'm grateful for the services and value they add to the film. They have my non-exclusive Endorsement.

I'm only unhappy with one middleman, an overseas distributor who uses their monopoly to block access to the film rather than facilitate it. For example, a professional conference held by their country's national television company, and attended by important players in the film industry there, sought a one-time conference screening of Sita, but the distributor refused to lend the local print. Lending it would have helped the film tremendously, but the distributor was focused on immediate money instead of on the long-term good of the film. Because I had foolishly granted this distributor an "exclusive endorsement" in their territory, there was no one else in a position to lend a print. (What distributor would take up a film knowing that the filmmakers' imprimatur had already been granted to a competitor?)

My endorsement wasn't a mistake. I want that distributor to make money, and lots of it! But endorsing exclusively was a mistake: although not as bad as copyright, it's still a kind of monopoly, and monopolies invite abuse. That is their nature. I now know that to get good work from a middleman, I can't grant them a monopoly. They need to feel that if they let an opportunity slip by, another middleman may jump at it. Business competition improves business performance; some say it's an essential incentive.

Middlemen will only have monopolies if artists keep granting them. They're not going to give them up on their own. It falls on us artists to simply refuse to grant these monopolies in the first place. A copyleft license sends a clear, simple, and non-negotiable message to middlemen that they need to innovate and compete to profit from the work. Only we artists can supply the incentives they need to do their jobs well; and we can only do that by refusing monopolies.

A middleman without a monopoly is a great help to art and artists. Rather than abusing monopolies, they provide valuable services. The better they are at providing services, the more successful they become. Competition keeps middlemen on their toes, and eliminates the lazy and incompetent. Monopoly does the opposite.

In sum, the problem isn't middlemen, it's monopolies. Yay for middlemen! I love middlemen!

Filed Under: film, middlemen, monopolies

The Web Is Improving Consumer Software By Cutting Out Middlemen

from the keep-it-simple-stupid dept

David Pogue quotes an interesting reader email about why high-tech consumer products are so often bloated and poorly designed. It points out that when large companies design a product, they tend to be overly focused on adding lots of complex features in order to put "more check marks in more boxes" on comparison charts and impress reviewers. That raises the price of the product and can often confuse novice users. But in the old days when software was sold in a box at Best Buy, it was hard to avoid this fate because the overhead of producing, distributing, and marketing the software required charging a high price and sucking up to reviewers. The web has eliminated a lot of overhead and allowed an entrepreneur to put his product directly in the hands of users without going through a lot of middlemen. That shifts the marketplace in favor of small, lightweight, easy-to-use software.

Software that would never have been judged serious enough to put in a box and sell at Best Buy can now carve out a niche in the market by appealing directly to customers. And that's a good thing because comparison charts are often a lousy way to judge software. For example, the original Google search engine would have stacked up poorly in comparison charts against larger rivals like Yahoo! that were rapidly transforming themselves into "portals." But Google was a lot better at the one feature that really mattered: search quality. They had trouble convincing the titans of the web to buy their search technology, but luckily they could just put it on the web and let the customer try it. As more and more software migrates to the web, it's likely to result in more responsive and higher-quality software.

Filed Under: middlemen, software