As I drove my daughter to school this morning, I heard a brief business news story describing how several Hollywood talent agencies have signed arrangements with several prominent internet content firms. The implication is that the latter firms are looking to the former to scout, find and sign video-related talent for subsequent video content creation and distribution.
I must say, this surprises me. If anything, I would have expected the rise of online video content firms, such as Google, its new division, YouTube, or even Yahoo, to work directly with individual content providers. Agency firms seems, at least to me, decidedly "old media."
Further, why would an individual want to surrender at least 10% of their future revenues to someone, when people can easily find the large, online content distributors? I did some rough math as I drove around this morning, and found it hard to see why a promising video producer would have to spend more than $5,000 to acquire the necessary hardware and websites with which to launch their own online production firm and site. I think we're talking about a laptop or desktop PC, digital camera, some editing software, and a website. That's it.
Once in business, they can submit their content directly to YouTube, Yahoo, Google, et al, free of charge. Where does a talent scout/agent add value to this process?
Unless, of course, one or more of these online companies loses their collective intelligence, and decides to limit their intake of new content to people or firms who approach them through an agency.
But, isn't the point of the evolving digital online media era that consumers can vote directly, via their 'views,' on new content? That there is no need for some agent or media exec, in the mold of the old-time recording artist talent scouts, to "find" the next big artist? Now, the artist will find the market, directly, and the distributors are providing the pipes and stage, earning ad revenues for their trouble.
Am I missing something here? I would have thought talent agencies were, if anything, headed for smaller roles, confined to "old media," at best. In fact, it begs an interesting question.
Suppose two friends shoot a digital video, upload it onto YouTube, and it becomes popular. Steven Spielberg sees the clip, and wants to work with the pair. Do they need to become SAG union members, or can Spielberg simply film and distribute a digital film without ever involving the old media production empire?
I haven't read much about this topic, but I did discuss it earlier this year with a set designer who works at one of the broadcast networks. While a union employee, she struck me as having a strange mix of management perspective and education on her craft, combined with a somewhat antiquated view of her internal workplace, due to her union membership. On the side, however, she was busy developing and burnishing her cyber-set design skills.
Which leads me to believe that, in time, the value of the internet in allowing for direct, one-to-one contact between people involved in almost any enterprise, will eventually limit, then shrink, the role of talent agencies and artistic-related craft unions. When access becomes a function of people directly displaying their wares online, so that distributors can find and enter into business arrangements with them, what will be the added value, to anyone, of old media talent agencies and craft unions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment