Bell System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: On April 30, 1907, Theodore Newton Vail returned as President of AT&T.[2][4] Vail believed in the superiority of one phone system and AT&T adopted the slogan "One Policy, One System, Universal Service."[2][5] This would be the company's philosophy for the next 70 years.[4] ...
In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, in the Communications Act of 1934.
As a result, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves.
It's a stupid argument on both sides. The REAL answer is to allow sharing of the infrastructure (mentioned above) and promote competition (also mentioned above). This would make the argument moot.
I'm curious how much more competition you'd actually get. If a new company has to come along to create its own networks, would there be anyone interested? Seems like creating buzzworthy Internet company attracts more money these days.
I'm not sure how old you are, but it sounds like you don't remember how the phone used to work. You could place a local call and stay on for hours for one monthly fee. Yep, all the usage you wanted for one fee. Reconcile that with your statement.
As I recall, when that system was set up, the telephone was a monopoly and for the monopoly to exist, there were conditions set up, which meant everyone could have access for one low price. The system was also overengineered so that whenever there was too much traffic in one place, it was rerouted to other places so it didn't fall apart. Ma Bell was reliable. Those phones you got from the phone company were also indestructible. Not like the junk you would buy on your own after they quit leasing the phones to you.
The reason I ask what incentive there is for companies to offer true unlimited plans is that Sprint hasn't gotten as big a boost from theirs as other companies get from offering jazzier phones and faster networks. Maybe data caps will become an issue in the future, but right now it seems people go where the phone is and then get locked into a contract for several years. Unlimited data hasn't been a big competitive selling point, so what's the reason carriers would want to offer it so that people use even more data? Are they going to get to charge customers more for unlimited data? In which case, it's just a different version of having customers pay more for what they use.
So I am asking, why should they offer it? If it doesn't bring them new customers and if they aren't getting an agreement from the government where they offer unlimited data in exchange for a monopoly, why would they want to follow Mike's advice to encourage more people to use their data plans more? What's in it for them? Your example of the way it used to be is an example of a system set up as a true monopoly. The phone company was a utility set up to serve the public.
I have been reading all the comments, trying to sort out what I'd like to ask. Here it is.
The caps are adding a punishment to something that people want to do, meaning that they'll do less of it, and therefore value it less.
But why would the carriers want more usage unless they can charge more for it? If they encourage people to download more data, what's in it for the carriers unless they charge more for heavy usage? Why would any carrier want more usage without more money coming in?
In other words, what's the business model for the carriers if people use more data but aren't billed for it? I can't imagine that more usage without more income has much appeal for the carriers.
There are posts here about how folks like to collaborate and aren't allowed to by the money men. Well, yes, if you want a salary for inventing, then you need to enable the person who is paying your salary to benefit from your work. If you are Mother Teresa, on the other hand, you can free-lance and give away the fruits of your labor -- noone is stopping you.
That's what I am advocating for now, too. If you believe sharing patents is the way to go, then start doing it yourself and prove to everyone else that it works and you benefit. Don't bother to wait until DC changes the laws. And if you feel that someone else will then patent what you have put out there and stop you from using your own invention, take out a patent and once you have it, make it available for everyone to freely use.
There seems to be too much focus here on "We can't do what we want because others are stopping us" and not enough on "Here's a workable solution we can implement now."
Here's where the leap comes in and what even many of the Techdirt folks seems to have trouble getting their heads around.
What if it doesn't matter who does what? It all goes into the same creative pot. Collectively it benefits everyone. Whether you create a great idea or don't create an idea at all, you still benefit.
And if there is abundance for most things, there won't be scarcity, so you won't need to tie success to contribution.
But what about the stuff that really is scarce? Well, do you actually want to deprive people of clean air or clean water or enough food or adequate health care because they are too poor? If not, you come up with a system so that the collective wealth covers the basic necessities of everyone. Then whatever people want to do on their own in terms of projects they can do -- but those projects are still available for everyone to share. But what if those projects are tangible items and don't share easily? Then people can make their own copies.
And if one argues that if people aren't forced to work, they won't, Techdirt is always pointing to studies showing that creativity often isn't driven by money. So you don't need to bribe people to work. Now, for the awful jobs, you find ways to reduce or eliminate them as much as possible. And if you can't do that, you either share them, or you pay those who do those awful jobs more than you pay anyone else. Reward those who do what society doesn't want to do.
It's not enough to just talk about eliminating IP laws. To really carry it through, you need to think on a grander scale than that.
you can't possibly compare the weekend warrior creating music or a film in their spare time for fun to a professional doing it for a living. Especially on the latter. I would NOT want wonderful productions like frozen planet being attempted by amateurs! Please leave that to the professionals who actually have the time, funding and patience to sit in Antarctica for months on end getting footage of penguins...LOL.
Here's why I see a need for a major economic remake.
1. If the middle class continues to disappear, then they may not have the money to support those expensive arts projects. Therefore, we won't be able to support a group of professional artists anyway if their potential customers are broke.
2. If we had an economic system that provided everyone with a decent living with a minimal amount of time spent on jobs they hate, then they could be free to go to Antarctica to film those penguins. If their bills were paid, it wouldn't whether what they produced was salable. They'd just do it because they wanted to do it. Maybe the result would be great. Maybe not. But as long as they didn't have to recover the cost of those projects and pay their living expenses, they would be free to create as they wished.
And I look forward to seeing how "real jobs" can manage to make what seems like menial, boring work more enjoyable.
You automate as much as possible, and as productivity increases, you reduce work weeks. It's not a new concept. Right now we have some people working more hours than they want and others working less than they want. We've currently got a system where there are some very high paying jobs (e.g., people on Wall Street making hundreds of thousands of dollars moving numbers around) and others making very little money serving hamburgers and working in nursing homes.
I think automation will continue and even many of the high tech workers making good money will be replaced in the future. The goal isn't really to create "work" for people, but to provide at least a basic standard of living. If that can be done while reducing shitty jobs and overtime, let's go for it. An economy geared to making a few people very wealthy while lots of other people are just getting by could use some fine-tuning.
I don't think we'll completely eliminate boring tasks, but perhaps those boring tasks can be better spread around so the burden doesn't fall on one subset of people to do them. Whenever possible, have a machine do the boring task. It doesn't complain.
Yes, I know Apple is particularly controlling and probably won't go along. But other big companies could. To what extent has Google shared and made freely available all the patents it owns? I don't know. This is not an area I follow closely.
I'm just pointing out that if people buy the logic of this study, freeing up patents should be an easy sell. We know, of course, IP lawyers aren't inclined to go along, but what about the CEOs of the world's biggest tech companies? Do they believe this study and will they act on it?
You're going to have to be satisfied with the data we have on mere industries without copyright or patent, and on companies and people in other industries that don't take their enforcement very seriously.
If you are making your case, why aren't companies like Apple embracing it? I'm not raising questions about the study. What I am saying is that the companies in a position to change the IP world don't seem to be moving in that direction very fast.
My cynical feeling is that companies are anti-IP when it works for them, and pro-IP when that works for them. And it isn't just the usual suspects. I think as companies become more established, they tend to promote whatever keeps them in power no matter what industry they are in. But if you can make a case that they will become even MORE powerful without IP, then they might listen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
I am not saying that nobody would invent them ever (that is stupid), rather that the speed at which these developments come is often based on the ability for someone to work at them, which generally requires money to pay for the things they need and to pay for their time to do it.
In order to have an IP-free system, I think we'll have to adjust more than just the laws. Which I'm all for. Remake the entire world economy, which is why I keep pointing people to new ways of thinking, like the P2P Foundation.
If it is better for every company when patents are shared, then more companies should be doing this, particularly the very biggest ones like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. I understand taking out patents for defensive reasons, but once you have the patent, if you believe the more sharing the better, why aren't we seeing more companies doing this? How much of corporate investment is still tied to patent ownership? Let's talk about the very big picture.
I can see why companies that are being impeded by patents don't want them. If you are being sued over patents, patents are bad for you.
But now let's see companies that are benefiting from patents let them go. I don't think the war has been won until the big tech companies take the initiative. Let them take unilateral action on this without waiting for Washington. As long as you have a system where you won't be sued, then whatever you do to assure others that you won't sue them would seem to advance this cause.
I hear you. You don't need to go so heavily into debt to go to college, and I recommend that people don't.
As for public transportation, yes, that too. It's not everywhere. What I am hoping is that as car ownership becomes less of an image thing, there will be more openness to funding/supporting alternatives. This won't happen overnight.
My main point, which you got, is not to bitch about people who are looking to incorporate more creativity into their lives. Rather, let's find more ways to make work more enjoyable/meaningful. That means re-examining priorities across the economy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
I did a bit of reading on RBMA. I could just reply to you directly, but I thought I would post here.
First, I notice that on the site there is this:
"The Red Bull Music Academy is not a sponsored event, but a long-term music initiative, committed to fostering creative exchange amongst those who have made and continue to make a difference in the world of sound."
Although it may not be a sponsorship by Red Bull's definition, it is still a branding opportunity for Red Bull.
I was mentally comparing sports and creative sponsorships. For sports, the sponsor generally backs either
1. The athlete.
2. The event (e.g., X Games, Olympics).
3. A process (this isn't as common, but it is possible that a company might sponsor sports-related workshops or camps).
4. A stunt.
For creative endeavors, the sponsor can back
1. The artist.
2. The output (e.g., a song, a painting).
3. An event (e.g. festival, contest).
4. A process (e.g., the Red Bull Academy).
When I was first making this list, I didn't have a sports equivalent to an artist creation (a stand-alone thing or concept), but then I remembered there are athletes who try to break records and get sponsors for those particular acts.
The disadvantage of sponsoring individuals (be they athletes or artists) is that you have to deal with their personalities and whatever ups and downs they have. If you sponsor an event, the participants come and go, but the event can continue from year to year. So an athlete or artist that wants corporate sponsorship has to show the company that dealing with him/her is a better/easier relationship than giving money to a hopefully well-run event.
In terms of individual outputs, an output in the arts is better than a stunt in sports because there's a longer life to a song or a painting than there is to having an athlete flying off a mountain or jumping over lots of cars. But for an extreme sport sponsor, a stunt might have a lot of value, particularly now that a spectacular success or a spectacular failure can go viral on YouYube. (There's little/no value in paying for a very bad song, but paying for a guy to slam into a mountain could be more than worth the sponsorship in terms of publicity. (Death/injury in extreme sports is not necessarily a negative for an extreme sports sponsor.)
Anyway, getting back to RBMA. I looked for, but didn't see any criticism of the program. So it looks like it is serving Red Bull branding quite well.
However, I'll add that from my own observations, whenever there is a festival, sponsorship, workshop, etc., that picks some applicants and not others, there's some grumbling somewhere. Typical complaints include: The selections are too narrow. The judges are promoting a certain style. The event/judges are too incestuous. And so on.
But my usual response to those is this: If you are unhappy with the event or see an under-served niche, create your own. That's how we get lots of different film festivals, or music festivals, or arts non-profits. If someone else isn't doing what you want, do it yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Yet here we have Yahoo and Facebook battling over all of these completely ridiculous and unneeded patents and android paying all these patent royalties to companies that contribute absolutely nothing to the android.
Are Yahoo and Facebook sharing their patents? According to this paper it would be in their best interests to do so. I don't follow these issues closely enough to know which, if any, big companies take out patents and then make them available to all, but it seems to me to be an easy enough thing to do if people believe sharing patents is a good idea. No need to reinvent the patent system right now. Just convince these companies to take the initiative and allow anyone who wants to use their patents to do so.
You guys are arguing back and forth amongst yourselves, but why not just talk directly to the big companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.? Getting them to buy in would set the example.
Get a job and use your spare time for what you love. I couldn't make it and had to get a "real job," so you should have to as well! BAH HUMBUG!
That's what I think is the problem with much of the world economy these days. Too many people doing work they don't like to make stuff we don't need. It's a treadmill that doesn't serve us well and isn't likely sustainable.
To create more balance means rearranging a lot of pieces so that everyone has more free time, people aren't tied to their jobs because of health insurance, we downsize so that we aren't tied to bills we're working to pay, and so on.
A big problem for current and perhaps future generations is a massive college debt that forces people to take jobs they may not like to pay off those bills.
An economy that allows a proper balance of family time, necessary work time, and creative time would be ideal and is doable, but means changing the status quo. And there is recognition of it among at least some groups. The Tiny House movement is an exercise in right-sizing one's living space. People choosing not to buy cars and instead walking, biking, using public transportation, and renting cars as needed is another step. Another movement is urban gardening, which turns empty lots into sources of local food.
In terms of people not being guaranteed a job, yes that is our reality and even if you have a job today, that doesn't mean it won't disappear tomorrow. So I don't think there is as much difference between people working for a living and artists trying to make it as some might suggest. We're in the middle of an economic transition and there's likely a lot of disruption still ahead of us.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
For some, part of being creative is to work within a set of challenges. So a film maker who shoots a commercial or a songwriter who writes a piece of music for commercial purposes can be considered creative within those parameters.
Can a creation developed for commercial purposes have integrity? It depends. There's a long history of craft and design being tied to utilitarian purposes. And as a result, among some circles, craft and design aren't really "art." Similarly, a jingle writer might not be considered a real songwriter. But I wouldn't go so far. If I like the creation, it doesn't matter to me why it was created.
My articles on the gift economy were the last I wrote because I needed to focus on some other things first (I'll be blogging again eventually). But I was trying to add some clarity to the economics of arts, and then move on to the economy as a whole. I've gotten to the point where I don't think we can "fix" the economics of art without looking at a much bigger picture.
My background is marketing and economics so I've always been open to talking about business topics. But on the other hand, I'm a bit frustrated that most economists talk about tweaking a bit here and there and then we'll be back to where we were as if that is a good thing. I'd rather see us view the whole economy today in a major transition comparable to how much changed when we hit the Industrial Age.
My sense is that if we can find a way to generate a decent income for everyone, the arts and artists will be adequately taken care of in the process. On the other hand, if the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few, and even if they become major arts patrons, it may not be enough.
I will do some browsing around about Red Bull and music.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
I haven't researched the RBMA in depth yet. As far as companies go, Red Bull is excellent at knowing what to pair its brand with. But now that you mention it, I will poke around a bit specifically with Red Bull's music sponsorships. Certainly from their standpoint, it's important that Red Bull, the brand, remains more important than any specific sponsorships it might do.
I have always liked the attitude of sponsorships and extreme sports. All the athletes and the events know everything they do is about sponsorship. So there's no apology. If you win a race, you make sure your sponsor's logo is shown on camera. If you are a 10-year-old skateboarder, landing a sponsorship is proof of your legitimacy. And I think another reason extreme sports and their sponsors tend to fit so well is that, at least in the beginning, they came from the same culture. The earliest sponsors were the companies supplying the equipment and clothing to the athletes.
Then when you have a consumer product tying itself to an athlete to such an extent that the company builds the athlete a private halfpipe to train for the Olympics (as Red Bull did for Shaun White) there's an authenticity there, too. (Their partnership ended in 2011. Shaun White ends sponsorship with Red Bull - ESPN)
In terms of creative efforts, it can run the gamut of good and bad. Sometimes the most blatantly commercial still work well, like the Absolut ads over the years. In fact, when the creative and the sponsor get it right, it's perfect because it's a statement on art, on popular culture, on advertising, and on popular culture.
Something that hasn't been raised yet is that unless she's planning to pay her lawyers for the time no matter what the outcome, then they have to decide whether to pursue the case on the basis of a percentage of a win. If they don't think it has a chance, I can't see them bothering with it.
Maybe music lawyers don't say, "I know we're working for you, but you don't have a chance," but I would assume there is some discussion upfront about the costs of any lawsuit.
So, although some of you don't think she has a case, the more important point seems to be whether her lawyers think she has a case and if she/they want to pursue it.
Something like this is easy enough to do. It doesn't require changing IP laws. Patent holders just free up what they have.
So if this better for companies, and if the new power block is Big Tech, will Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others start doing this? Seems like this would be a faster approach then trying to lobby DC.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: How do they charge more?
In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, in the Communications Act of 1934.
As a result, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
I'm curious how much more competition you'd actually get. If a new company has to come along to create its own networks, would there be anyone interested? Seems like creating buzzworthy Internet company attracts more money these days.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: How do they charge more?
As I recall, when that system was set up, the telephone was a monopoly and for the monopoly to exist, there were conditions set up, which meant everyone could have access for one low price. The system was also overengineered so that whenever there was too much traffic in one place, it was rerouted to other places so it didn't fall apart. Ma Bell was reliable. Those phones you got from the phone company were also indestructible. Not like the junk you would buy on your own after they quit leasing the phones to you.
The reason I ask what incentive there is for companies to offer true unlimited plans is that Sprint hasn't gotten as big a boost from theirs as other companies get from offering jazzier phones and faster networks. Maybe data caps will become an issue in the future, but right now it seems people go where the phone is and then get locked into a contract for several years. Unlimited data hasn't been a big competitive selling point, so what's the reason carriers would want to offer it so that people use even more data? Are they going to get to charge customers more for unlimited data? In which case, it's just a different version of having customers pay more for what they use.
So I am asking, why should they offer it? If it doesn't bring them new customers and if they aren't getting an agreement from the government where they offer unlimited data in exchange for a monopoly, why would they want to follow Mike's advice to encourage more people to use their data plans more? What's in it for them? Your example of the way it used to be is an example of a system set up as a true monopoly. The phone company was a utility set up to serve the public.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
How do they charge more?
The caps are adding a punishment to something that people want to do, meaning that they'll do less of it, and therefore value it less.
But why would the carriers want more usage unless they can charge more for it? If they encourage people to download more data, what's in it for the carriers unless they charge more for heavy usage? Why would any carrier want more usage without more money coming in?
In other words, what's the business model for the carriers if people use more data but aren't billed for it? I can't imagine that more usage without more income has much appeal for the carriers.
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Re: In defense of patents
That's what I am advocating for now, too. If you believe sharing patents is the way to go, then start doing it yourself and prove to everyone else that it works and you benefit. Don't bother to wait until DC changes the laws. And if you feel that someone else will then patent what you have put out there and stop you from using your own invention, take out a patent and once you have it, make it available for everyone to freely use.
There seems to be too much focus here on "We can't do what we want because others are stopping us" and not enough on "Here's a workable solution we can implement now."
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: A bigger revolution
What if it doesn't matter who does what? It all goes into the same creative pot. Collectively it benefits everyone. Whether you create a great idea or don't create an idea at all, you still benefit.
And if there is abundance for most things, there won't be scarcity, so you won't need to tie success to contribution.
But what about the stuff that really is scarce? Well, do you actually want to deprive people of clean air or clean water or enough food or adequate health care because they are too poor? If not, you come up with a system so that the collective wealth covers the basic necessities of everyone. Then whatever people want to do on their own in terms of projects they can do -- but those projects are still available for everyone to share. But what if those projects are tangible items and don't share easily? Then people can make their own copies.
And if one argues that if people aren't forced to work, they won't, Techdirt is always pointing to studies showing that creativity often isn't driven by money. So you don't need to bribe people to work. Now, for the awful jobs, you find ways to reduce or eliminate them as much as possible. And if you can't do that, you either share them, or you pay those who do those awful jobs more than you pay anyone else. Reward those who do what society doesn't want to do.
It's not enough to just talk about eliminating IP laws. To really carry it through, you need to think on a grander scale than that.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's why I see a need for a major economic remake.
1. If the middle class continues to disappear, then they may not have the money to support those expensive arts projects. Therefore, we won't be able to support a group of professional artists anyway if their potential customers are broke.
2. If we had an economic system that provided everyone with a decent living with a minimal amount of time spent on jobs they hate, then they could be free to go to Antarctica to film those penguins. If their bills were paid, it wouldn't whether what they produced was salable. They'd just do it because they wanted to do it. Maybe the result would be great. Maybe not. But as long as they didn't have to recover the cost of those projects and pay their living expenses, they would be free to create as they wished.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You automate as much as possible, and as productivity increases, you reduce work weeks. It's not a new concept. Right now we have some people working more hours than they want and others working less than they want. We've currently got a system where there are some very high paying jobs (e.g., people on Wall Street making hundreds of thousands of dollars moving numbers around) and others making very little money serving hamburgers and working in nursing homes.
I think automation will continue and even many of the high tech workers making good money will be replaced in the future. The goal isn't really to create "work" for people, but to provide at least a basic standard of living. If that can be done while reducing shitty jobs and overtime, let's go for it. An economy geared to making a few people very wealthy while lots of other people are just getting by could use some fine-tuning.
I don't think we'll completely eliminate boring tasks, but perhaps those boring tasks can be better spread around so the burden doesn't fall on one subset of people to do them. Whenever possible, have a machine do the boring task. It doesn't complain.
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just pointing out that if people buy the logic of this study, freeing up patents should be an easy sell. We know, of course, IP lawyers aren't inclined to go along, but what about the CEOs of the world's biggest tech companies? Do they believe this study and will they act on it?
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are making your case, why aren't companies like Apple embracing it? I'm not raising questions about the study. What I am saying is that the companies in a position to change the IP world don't seem to be moving in that direction very fast.
My cynical feeling is that companies are anti-IP when it works for them, and pro-IP when that works for them. And it isn't just the usual suspects. I think as companies become more established, they tend to promote whatever keeps them in power no matter what industry they are in. But if you can make a case that they will become even MORE powerful without IP, then they might listen.
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
In order to have an IP-free system, I think we'll have to adjust more than just the laws. Which I'm all for. Remake the entire world economy, which is why I keep pointing people to new ways of thinking, like the P2P Foundation.
If it is better for every company when patents are shared, then more companies should be doing this, particularly the very biggest ones like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. I understand taking out patents for defensive reasons, but once you have the patent, if you believe the more sharing the better, why aren't we seeing more companies doing this? How much of corporate investment is still tied to patent ownership? Let's talk about the very big picture.
I can see why companies that are being impeded by patents don't want them. If you are being sued over patents, patents are bad for you.
But now let's see companies that are benefiting from patents let them go. I don't think the war has been won until the big tech companies take the initiative. Let them take unilateral action on this without waiting for Washington. As long as you have a system where you won't be sued, then whatever you do to assure others that you won't sue them would seem to advance this cause.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for public transportation, yes, that too. It's not everywhere. What I am hoping is that as car ownership becomes less of an image thing, there will be more openness to funding/supporting alternatives. This won't happen overnight.
My main point, which you got, is not to bitch about people who are looking to incorporate more creativity into their lives. Rather, let's find more ways to make work more enjoyable/meaningful. That means re-examining priorities across the economy.
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
First, I notice that on the site there is this:
"The Red Bull Music Academy is not a sponsored event, but a long-term music initiative, committed to fostering creative exchange amongst those who have made and continue to make a difference in the world of sound."
Although it may not be a sponsorship by Red Bull's definition, it is still a branding opportunity for Red Bull.
I was mentally comparing sports and creative sponsorships. For sports, the sponsor generally backs either
1. The athlete.
2. The event (e.g., X Games, Olympics).
3. A process (this isn't as common, but it is possible that a company might sponsor sports-related workshops or camps).
4. A stunt.
For creative endeavors, the sponsor can back
1. The artist.
2. The output (e.g., a song, a painting).
3. An event (e.g. festival, contest).
4. A process (e.g., the Red Bull Academy).
When I was first making this list, I didn't have a sports equivalent to an artist creation (a stand-alone thing or concept), but then I remembered there are athletes who try to break records and get sponsors for those particular acts.
The disadvantage of sponsoring individuals (be they athletes or artists) is that you have to deal with their personalities and whatever ups and downs they have. If you sponsor an event, the participants come and go, but the event can continue from year to year. So an athlete or artist that wants corporate sponsorship has to show the company that dealing with him/her is a better/easier relationship than giving money to a hopefully well-run event.
In terms of individual outputs, an output in the arts is better than a stunt in sports because there's a longer life to a song or a painting than there is to having an athlete flying off a mountain or jumping over lots of cars. But for an extreme sport sponsor, a stunt might have a lot of value, particularly now that a spectacular success or a spectacular failure can go viral on YouYube. (There's little/no value in paying for a very bad song, but paying for a guy to slam into a mountain could be more than worth the sponsorship in terms of publicity. (Death/injury in extreme sports is not necessarily a negative for an extreme sports sponsor.)
Anyway, getting back to RBMA. I looked for, but didn't see any criticism of the program. So it looks like it is serving Red Bull branding quite well.
However, I'll add that from my own observations, whenever there is a festival, sponsorship, workshop, etc., that picks some applicants and not others, there's some grumbling somewhere. Typical complaints include: The selections are too narrow. The judges are promoting a certain style. The event/judges are too incestuous. And so on.
But my usual response to those is this: If you are unhappy with the event or see an under-served niche, create your own. That's how we get lots of different film festivals, or music festivals, or arts non-profits. If someone else isn't doing what you want, do it yourself.
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Are Yahoo and Facebook sharing their patents? According to this paper it would be in their best interests to do so. I don't follow these issues closely enough to know which, if any, big companies take out patents and then make them available to all, but it seems to me to be an easy enough thing to do if people believe sharing patents is a good idea. No need to reinvent the patent system right now. Just convince these companies to take the initiative and allow anyone who wants to use their patents to do so.
You guys are arguing back and forth amongst yourselves, but why not just talk directly to the big companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.? Getting them to buy in would set the example.
On the post: A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I think is the problem with much of the world economy these days. Too many people doing work they don't like to make stuff we don't need. It's a treadmill that doesn't serve us well and isn't likely sustainable.
To create more balance means rearranging a lot of pieces so that everyone has more free time, people aren't tied to their jobs because of health insurance, we downsize so that we aren't tied to bills we're working to pay, and so on.
A big problem for current and perhaps future generations is a massive college debt that forces people to take jobs they may not like to pay off those bills.
An economy that allows a proper balance of family time, necessary work time, and creative time would be ideal and is doable, but means changing the status quo. And there is recognition of it among at least some groups. The Tiny House movement is an exercise in right-sizing one's living space. People choosing not to buy cars and instead walking, biking, using public transportation, and renting cars as needed is another step. Another movement is urban gardening, which turns empty lots into sources of local food.
In terms of people not being guaranteed a job, yes that is our reality and even if you have a job today, that doesn't mean it won't disappear tomorrow. So I don't think there is as much difference between people working for a living and artists trying to make it as some might suggest. We're in the middle of an economic transition and there's likely a lot of disruption still ahead of us.
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
Can a creation developed for commercial purposes have integrity? It depends. There's a long history of craft and design being tied to utilitarian purposes. And as a result, among some circles, craft and design aren't really "art." Similarly, a jingle writer might not be considered a real songwriter. But I wouldn't go so far. If I like the creation, it doesn't matter to me why it was created.
My articles on the gift economy were the last I wrote because I needed to focus on some other things first (I'll be blogging again eventually). But I was trying to add some clarity to the economics of arts, and then move on to the economy as a whole. I've gotten to the point where I don't think we can "fix" the economics of art without looking at a much bigger picture.
My background is marketing and economics so I've always been open to talking about business topics. But on the other hand, I'm a bit frustrated that most economists talk about tweaking a bit here and there and then we'll be back to where we were as if that is a good thing. I'd rather see us view the whole economy today in a major transition comparable to how much changed when we hit the Industrial Age.
My sense is that if we can find a way to generate a decent income for everyone, the arts and artists will be adequately taken care of in the process. On the other hand, if the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few, and even if they become major arts patrons, it may not be enough.
I will do some browsing around about Red Bull and music.
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
I have always liked the attitude of sponsorships and extreme sports. All the athletes and the events know everything they do is about sponsorship. So there's no apology. If you win a race, you make sure your sponsor's logo is shown on camera. If you are a 10-year-old skateboarder, landing a sponsorship is proof of your legitimacy. And I think another reason extreme sports and their sponsors tend to fit so well is that, at least in the beginning, they came from the same culture. The earliest sponsors were the companies supplying the equipment and clothing to the athletes.
Then when you have a consumer product tying itself to an athlete to such an extent that the company builds the athlete a private halfpipe to train for the Olympics (as Red Bull did for Shaun White) there's an authenticity there, too. (Their partnership ended in 2011. Shaun White ends sponsorship with Red Bull - ESPN)
In terms of creative efforts, it can run the gamut of good and bad. Sometimes the most blatantly commercial still work well, like the Absolut ads over the years. In fact, when the creative and the sponsor get it right, it's perfect because it's a statement on art, on popular culture, on advertising, and on popular culture.
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Re: Re: Re: Does it lead to measurable results?
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Do her lawyers think it is winnable?
Maybe music lawyers don't say, "I know we're working for you, but you don't have a chance," but I would assume there is some discussion upfront about the costs of any lawsuit.
So, although some of you don't think she has a case, the more important point seems to be whether her lawyers think she has a case and if she/they want to pursue it.
On the post: Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
Will big tech take the lead?
So if this better for companies, and if the new power block is Big Tech, will Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others start doing this? Seems like this would be a faster approach then trying to lobby DC.
Next >>