The first installment of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the film based on the last book in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, premiered early this morning at 12:01 in thousands of theatres across the world. Voted the second most anticipated film of 2010 according to an audience poll by Box Office Mojo, the film had a lot of pressure riding on it, and unlike the supposed #1 most anticipated film of the year “Iron Man 2”, “Hallows” is looking like it isn’t set up to disappoint.
Many film buffs argue that series like this, whose sequels have sequels, are destroying Hollywood and eliminating the challenge of thought in classically quality films. To a large extent, Hollywood filmmakers do appeal to the lowest common denominator in audiences in order to gross as much as humanly possible, and often times these universally loved films include abstract fantasy—enter the beloved wizard, Harry Potter. But many argue that the “Harry Potter” films go beyond a moneymaking enterprise to something deeper. Harry Potter books have certainly established themselves as classics, and if anything, the film series is in compliment to them. Sure, Warner Brothers could single-handedly remain afloat on the sheer revenue from the film saga, but many esteemed and educated film critics aren’t so quick to reduce them to simply a blockbuster enterprise.
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is receiving fairly glowing reviews for a 7th installment in a film series. Even die-hard fans are applauding the film for its accuracy to the book, and they aren’t the easiest crowd to please. While some worried that the splitting the film into 2 parts is done sheerly to drag out the finale and make more money, reviews have been surprisingly good. Film critic A.O. Scott says, “’Deathly Hallows: Part 1’ finds notes of anxious suspense and grave emotion to send its fans, into the last round.”
Now my question regarding the Potter films is whether they maintain a sense of thought-provoking challenge into their 7th installment, for whether they’re just generic entertainment. True, quirky independent films are much more likely to take chances and explore complex topics, but can an abstract movie about witches and wizards do the same? Often placed in the same category, the “Twilight” films are pure garbage if you ask me. But there is something about the Potter series that, cinematically, appeals to me. By no means are these films artistic risks, but I do like that they serve as acceptions to the general rule that blockbuster movies are dumbed-down nonsense. Surely it doesn’t take a scholar or a heart surgeon to understand the films, but they do something more than most moneymaking film series do.
Of course, a film based on one of the bestselling books of the decade is far from an artistic risk. This does nothing to disprove the notion that mainstream entertainment is all too safe and simple. But I do like the fact that a movie can make it to its 7th installment without losing the motivation to be great. All things considered, 95% of big-budget films are reincarnations of themselves. But these Harry Potter movies – like their literary counterparts – are one thing we’re luck to have.
While the new “Google TV” is making a big push for holiday sales, many doubt its potential for success. And while Google is usually smart and innovative in its technological endeavors, I must admit, I agree that their attempt at TV is flawed. As The New York Times’ David Pouge asserts, many technological big-wigs seem confident that the combination of TV and Web is the next big money-maker, but the masses are not cooperating with this theory. Pouge identifies our issue with web-based TV as a resistance to its innate requirement of active participation; i.e. the fact that you have to search around and actively browse the web to create your “playlists” and can no longer revel in the simplicity of aimless channel surfing up and down.
Besides being an active medium for a pastime that most people enjoy for its mindlessness, Google TV also lacks solid innovation, leaving even the most hardcore tech junkies with much to be desired. Google TV is little more than a hard-drive hooked up to a big-screen monitor. Sure, they refine the interfaces and aggregate content in their own way, but it’s little more than a revamped Netflix or iTunes on-demand. People- mostly the younger generations- consume content online because it is convenient and usually at no cost to the user. Google and others’ attempt at web-based TV is trying to monetize a practice that is enjoyed mainly because it is free. If TV and movies were free on an actual cable TV, people wouldn’t be using their personal computers.
I think what Google is underestimating is the intelligence of their users. My Mom and step-Dad disconnected their cable services years ago and have been using a laptop connected to a plasma-screen TV for their home entertainment ever since. This is essentially that—with added fees and a shinier remote control. Moreover, the interface is reportedly very confusing and frustrating, even for the savviest of nerds. Google of all people should get that people like things streamlined and user-friendly, yet their TV solution seems extremely hectic and over-stimulating. The tech-savvy people who would even attempt to try this are smart enough to know that they can get the same content (and much more) online themselves for cheaper, and I think Google should know better.
Clearly obtaining entertainment media online is a huge trend that’s here to stay, but I think it’s a little foolish for Apple or Google to think they can capitalize on it in clever new ways. There is no invention necessary; the Internet in and of itself is this “web TV” that they’re trying so hard to create. Wirelessly connected laptops offer the same content as the cable TV, but with the added convenience of portability and, often, financial freedom. The people that would most benefit from a TV operating system like Google’s are those older generations who want cheap on-demand entertainment that is much more easily accessibly and navigated than the vast worldwide web, but Google’s TV design clearly illustrates that they overlooked said demographic.
The grander scheme of things, this expensive trend among the big tech. companies does little to effectively combat piracy. 3D TV is also a little ridiculous, but at least it attempts to add something to the game. Google TV and the like simply take an existing consumption trend and make it look and sound fancy. I think this will prove to be little more than a fad that falls short, and illegal file-sharing and entertainment viewing will continue to prevail as the leading web-based TV use.
Number one on the Billboard charts right now stands Dwayne Michael Carter, Jr. (aka Lil Wayne) at 5 feet 6 inches. His opponent, 5 foot 11 Taylor Swift, drops her “Speak Now” album on Monday and many predict it to dethrone the incarcerated rapper’s reining “I Am Not A Human Being” record (released on his 28th birthday—a month ago today). The two couldn’t be more different aside from their shared superstardom, but both dominate the radio waves and iPod memory space of America. Chris Anderson describes the current media market as a “Long Tail” of targeted niches and scattered cultural communities, but don’t let this long tail fool you; the gangster rock stars and American sweethearts are doing just fine.
Both of these contending artists have developed a massive fanbase by working hard and providing a quality product. Somehow standing their ground, these artists are finding ways to maintain mass appeal in the YouTube landscape that is contemporary music. Lil Wayne’s 2008 record “The Carter 3” leaked over a million illegal downloads before it’s official release even dropped, and he still managed to sell another million in the album’s first week in stores. Taylor Swift was the highest grossing artist in America last year and she kept it classy through all the Kanye West drama that ensued from a dramatic VMA ceremony.
I talk a lot about the economy of entertainment and the pressures of piracy on creative wellbeing, but these two superstars haven’t lost their faith just yet. Don’t get me wrong, they have little to fear as far as finances go, but I think they reason they are so successful is because they put all of themselves into their music and they don’t fear the unknown. Both musicians care so much about their fans and their work that they don’t have time to doubt themselves. Both take creative chances and express themselves through their art, and fans can definitely feel it. It seems as if confidence in your work is the key to success, and the less you care about cash the better off you’ll wind up.
Now, obviously not everyone can be as lucky as Lil Wanye or Taylor Swift, and there are plenty of artists out there who try just as hard as they do and go completely unappreciated. But there are also artists out there who take cookie-cutter lyrics from their record label, sing them to autotune, get drunk at awards shows and make it into the tabloids, but will never succeed the way a superstar does. Americans may have split into niches with the internet, but we haven’t lost our appreciation for a true, hard-working artist and we know one when we see it.
Financial success shouldn’t be what drives an artist. It’s a rational necessity in some aspects to live comfortably, but even the billionaire billboard moguls know better than to give up on their art because of an economic downfall or a pirate-laden cycberspace. They work hard and deserve what they have, but the important thing about these two is that their motivation doesn’t come from economic success. Piracy puts its damper on entertainment, no doubt; but it also separates the driven artists from the fame-hungry frauds.
On a personal note, I love Lil Wayne and hope his success continues with “I Am Not A Human Being” and his upcoming release of “The Carter 4.” He deserves it. Free Weezy!
So “Jackass-3D” has been out for less than a week now and has already broken the record for highest-grossing opening weekend for a fall quarter film. We all know that James Cameron’s 3D smash “Avatar” remains at #1 for the highest grossing film of all time, and this new installment of the “Jackass” series seems to be riding that 3D wave more than anything. Now, that’s not to say that the movie isn’t great (I don’t know—I haven’t seen it) but I doubt the documentary-style, cultish flick would have done so well had it been a conventional 2D theatrical release.
Obviously piracy has taken its hit on the entertainment industry, but no one’s giving up without a fight. The music industry is cranking out live shows and festivals in order to rake in the cash that it’s losing to LimeWire and the like; clearly the movie industry won’t be losing its mojo any time soon either. Some say 3D may just be a fad, but for now, this “fad” is continuing to break records left and right. Moreover, 3D movies are breaking the records of their own 2D counterparts that existed before the age of file-sharing. Toy Story 3D, for example, has grossed more than 13 times the amount that the first installment did, which was fairly innovative itself back in 1995 (before the Internet was ubiquitous and CERTAINLY before web-based piracy was an issue).
Even if 3D is a fad, isn’t that what the entertainment industry is all about? Color TV used to make people shit their pants. Now we watch it on our iPhones without blinking an eye. This isn’t to say that the sneaky pirates won’t find a way to share it for free some day, but for now, it’s making a hell of a lot of money. If something is broken, fix it, right? Well the traditional movie model is breaking, and 3D movies are trying it mend it. Whether they have potential for financial longevity or not, they’re working as a pretty awesome bandage for the moment.
Piracy frustrates a lot of people who care about entertainment. It frustrates me to no end on some days, but nothing short of an Internet shutdown or a time-machine are going to eradicate it from cyberspace, so industry changes like 3D movies and increased tour dates are just what the doctor ordered. When the CD gave way to the iPod, sites like iTunes were created to reap the benefits of MP3 popularity. The entertainment industry should be no stranger to these technological shifts, and while piracy is a daunting one, they need to bounce back and fight hard. To win a battle you must play to your opponent’s weakness, and broke college kids in their dorm rooms don’t have 3D laptops, nor do software hackers in China. It is technology that put entertainment through this mess in the first place, but perhaps it is also technology that will get them out of it.
I have found my social bookmarking soulmate. Their name on citeulike.com is Millco and we are perfect for one another. While I have just started learning about social bookmarking, Millco seems to be a seasoned veteran. They cite many scholarly articles on the topics that fascinate me: piracy, experience, consumption and production, creative industries, technology, psychology, and aesthetics and design. Millco doesn’t do much tagging, but I can’t blame them for that, because I’m lazy about tagging as well. When they do tag, however, they use words like “music”, “experience”, “piracy”, “p2p”, etc.—things that are extremely applicable to my research interests.
Millco doesn’t add many comments, but they are very thorough in their research and bookmarking. They mark articles that are frequently bookmarked by many other users and usually show interest in scholarly, academic articles. They have bookmarked about 100 pages since they joined the site in May of last year, and just about every one of the articles in their library sounds like something I would take interest in. Even if an article doesn’t relate to my research directly, it somehow relates to my other interests (academic or personal). They bookmark often; generally more than a few times a week.
While Millco doesn’t use tags very often, the article titles speak for themselves. I’m glad I can now see all of Millco’s library, because I would love to further my research on piracy and file sharing using some of their resources for my own reading. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a person studying communications like myself, because their academic interests are so incredibly in line with my own.
New media technology holds massive potential for world betterment, but it also poses many cultural and societal threats to the creative industries. The illegal sharing of creative content commonly referred to as “piracy” is one of such threats, and researchers in the field nearly unanimously agree that piracy impedes the music industry financially. Much scholarly research has been done in the last decade to analyze the scope and effects of piracy, but most of the contemporary research lacks a solid, stable solution to the ever-increasing issue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey young adults first-hand and assess the potential effectiveness for live music revenue to counter the negative financial effects of piracy. Findings revealed, in fact, that neither illegal music downloads or live music expenditures were significant among the sample, but that knowledge of intellectual property law was astoundingly low. Implications of this research are that increased education on file sharing laws would financially improve the music industry more effectively than live music promotion would, thus more industry effort should be put into public education on the issue.
Here is another comment I left in response to a post about anti-piracy law and Google's role in the debate:
I don't see how this law would benefit Google at all. They make money off advertising, period. They shouldn't have to be the copyright police and not accept money from sites who are infringing copyright laws. If those sites are blacklisted, Google loses revenue from those advertisers. They're a pretty morally sound company, but I doubt Google feels too badly about who they're advertising. They need money to do what they do, and they take it form whoever will pay for it. Retail stores don't NOT sell pants to sex offenders or drug addicts, right? I'm sure Google will survive even if many of their sponsors are "blacklisted," but to claim that it will benefit them is a stretch. If anything it will set them back. It's not like Google should get in trouble for advertising infringing sites, that adds extra police work for them when they have enough on their plate as it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for playing for the content you consume and reviving intellectual property rights, but Google is a middle man who doesn't owe anything to content creators. To say that Google "encourages" and "sustains" online piracy is a little much. They might bot be combating it, but it's not their fault that piracy-based sites get traffic. The blame is all on the sites themselves, and it's not fair to bring Google into the debate when they are just the messenger. Google is going to advertise the sites that are the most popular--that's what they do. If pirating sites can afford to pay for ad spots on Google, that's not Google's fault. I agree that this claim is a bit of a stretch, and I doubt anyone at Google felt that they were "between a rock and a hard place" when it came to ad revenue from piracy sites.
I think that a lot creative content producers have definitely surrendered to the paycheck. There are shows on the air that are flopping like a fish out of water but won’t quit until they’ve milked it for all its worth. They don’t care at all about stopping while they’re ahead and preserving their reputation in history because there’s never any insurance that their next project will get noticed. Not that there ever was, but now more than ever, the chances of getting lost in the clutter are immensely high. I think niche markets and content in the “long tail” are nice and all, but combined with today’s challenges of piracy and file-sharing, the creative industries are flat-out suffering in the hands of new media (economically at least). Those who genuinely make art for fun are loving it; after all, a drumming cat can get more than 1,000,000 views on YouTube faster than a talented band can these days. Those who seek sheer exposure are certainly advantaged, but their work is typically of a lower standard than those who do it professionally. And we can all understand how professional content creators are vulnerable in the long tail.
The content that is succeeding most are experience-based arts like live concerts or 3D movies. Some industry players are adjusting quickly and skipping the sitting-and-sulking phase, which I think is as commendable as it is bold. Surely some advantageous attempts at industry change will fail, but there needs to be a shift in order to revive spirits, and taking a stab at it is the first step. The long tail is in full swing, and it’s a game-changer than can either be detrimental or extremely beneficial–it just depends on how willing artists are to adjust and take risks. Those who aren’t will fizzle out, and those who are have the potential to completely reinvent a culture-shaping American industry.
In an upcoming research paper, I hope to pick away at the following question(s):
How widespread is music piracy, and how aware are guilty participants about the severity of their actions? Do they even know what constitutes as piracy?
How successful can subscription file sharing services be? And how much would people be willing to pay?
Lastly, and most importantly to my predictions, where does live music fit into all of this? Have live shows made enough revenue to make up for lost CD purchases to piracy?
Let me know what you all think! And keep a look out for my online survey to help me conduct my research. Thanks!
I am currently in the midst of some very shallow research on file sharing and Internet piracy. As I am considering writing a full-out research paper on the topic, I took a dive into my school’s electronic library database (don’t worry—it’s legal!) and sunk my teeth into a scholarly article on the issue and some recently proposed solutions. Were I to use the article for my paper, I would need to cite the source and annotate the citation with a brief summary and review. So with that in mind, here are my thoughts on the article… let me know what you think!
“The Record Business Blues” from the American Bar Association Journal’s June 2010 issue outlines the effects of Internet piracy on the music industry and a general outline of proposed solutions. The author explains how the recording industry is currently trying to pick their battles on piracy and is working to drum up a more broadly effective, rational solution to the issue rather than suing guilty individuals one-by-one. As outlined in the article, one popular approach proposes that the recording industry work in partnership with Internet service providers (ISP’s) to crack down on piracy and punish the guilty by a three-strike graduated response policy. Others argue that a monthly licensing fee for a legal file sharing service would more effectively put revenue back in the industry, so long as profits are distributed fairly. Author Steven Seidenberg believes that if properly managed, the Internet as a platform holds great potential for music distribution and the entertainment industry (although, he does not specify his own solution to the issue). Because the information is very up-to-date and comes from a reliable source, I think this article would be a very helpful reference for a research paper on the economic effects of piracy on entertainment. That said, I would probably need to buttress this article with further research on each mentioned proposal and find more detailed assessments of each tactics’ logistics.
Works Cited:
S. Seidenberg, “The Record Business Blues,” ABA Journal 96, no. 6 (June 2010): 55.
So, who says the entertainment industry is indeed threatened by our current tech landscape and economy? In the Great Depression movie sales skyrocketed; people sought out an escape from their economic woes. Wouldn’t it make sense for history to repeat itself? Well, the issue isn’t that people aren’t consuming entertainment. In fact, entertainment is everywhere. The problem is that people aren’t paying for what they consume. Sites that host pirated versions of films are increasingly popular, and more and more their traffic is replacing would-be paying theatre goers. All too often I ask a friend if they want to go see a movie and they will have already seen it on Megavideo.
There’s no doubt that sites like these are illegal. So is personal use of them. And you’d think with the creepy data-mining and visitation aggregating they can do these days they’d be able to track down the guilty and prosecute, right? So WTF is going on? Well, earlier this summer the Feds cracked down on 9 popular piracy sites, which certainly made a big dent in things (not big enough, but it’s a start). Between those 9 sites, they reportedly drew in 6.7 million visitors a month. But unfortunately, not ALL guilty sites have been busted, and users of the ones that were have likely already gone elsewhere to get their fix.
Some technological Utopists argue that exposure is all that matters. After all, in a perfect world, isn’t the important thing that people appreciate your art? The thing about Hollywood, however, is that their art isn’t cheap (and that’s an understatement). Films require talent, actors, directors, producers, writers, etc., and at no petty price to ANYone.
In a study conducted in 2006, piracy set U.S. entertainment industries back at least $20.5 billion per year and cost about 140,000 American jobs. Just image what the numbers are today. It’s hard to understand the consequences now, but piracy is really, really detrimental to entertainment. If it were 1995 and you were trying to watch Toy Story, would you waltz on into a Best Buy and snatch a copy off the shelf without paying? Probably not. But in 2010, millions of Woody fans caught the 3d installment of Pixar’s classic franchise on piracy sites. How is it any different?
I must admit that I totally do it myself. Mostly with TV shows, but I’ve caught a few flicks online for sure. Not to sound like a busted pot-smoking 16-year-old, but it’s hard not to when “everybody’s doing it”. Are they really gonna put all bajillion of us in jail? No. Should they? Probably not. But if they don’t find a way to universally and effectively punish piracy, it’s only going to get worse.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to push us back in time. Many entertainment conglomerates embrace new media, letting archived TV episodes live on their homepage for free viewing or submitting content rights to free (and LEGAL) services like Hulu. That said, there has to be a better solution to piracy. Some people really rely on their revenue from box office or DVD sales to run production, and you can’t assume that your $10 or so won’t make a difference. Because collectively, it makes a HUGE difference. I’m not saying I’m prepared to propose a solution, but I can sure tell that we need one—and quick.
Hello there, and welcome to my blog! If you're looking for celebrity gossip or movie trailers, you may want to continue on your journey now, because you won't find them here. The issues facing entertainment today are much deeper than Brad Pitt's ugly beard or whether Lindsay Lohan can carry out her next movie role with a SCRAM bracelet on her ankle, and our entertainment industry is a treasure we should protect. Now, hear me out; some people look at entertainment as a luxury, right? Well damn, wouldn't that be swell? But, entertainment doesn't just mirror our society; in many ways, entertainment shapes society, and so much of world culture is created through entertainment media precedent, it's frightening. Children and young adults are the most vulnerable due to their natural impressionability, and if the entertainment they consume is bullshit, the consequences can be very serious. With our current new media entertainment, what will the next generation of Tweeting, Megavideo-watching, Limewire-abusing techies grow up to be? Questions like these are often very much unanswerable, but a little theoretical exploration never hurt anyone, and I sincerely believe that the direction of entertainment is a hugely important social issue with the ability to truly shape society--for better OR worse. Thus, with the hope of uncovering some of the major underlying issues with the current American entertainment industry, I have begun this blog.
I, like many others, understand that the changing state of entertainment cannot be summed up easily, and that it’s future is very much up in the air. That said, the purpose of this blog will be to pick away at some of the layering effects of current technology, culture, and financial matters on the industry and its artistic direction. I'm hoping to explore all aspects of the field and provide some valuable insight for myself and readers as to how suffering areas of the industry may be fixed for the future.
I have many questions that I hope to answer (or at least deeply consider) throughout the course of my blog. I have graced the surface of many of these questions in my university Communications classes, but I hope with this blog that I can get some fervent discourse between myself, audiences, fellow students, and other media content on a range of highly important and complex topics. The overarching question I hope to answer is this: with America in an economic recession and web 2.0 technology making peer-to-peer sharing easier than ever, how has the entertainment industry responded to these industry-threatening changes? Have piracy and the state of the American economy had negative consequences on the quality of entertainment content? Or are the major industry players rising to meet challenges and inspiring audiences when they most need it?
Torrent-format films are now just a click away from the comfort of, well, anywhere with web access. And who would ever pay $13 to sit in a cold theater to see a movie when you can watch it at home for free—especially in such dire economic times? Have technologies like 3D movies or cost-per-click, web-based advertising done enough financial catch-up to negate the challenges that threaten the business of entertainment (i.e. piracy and peer-to-peer sharing)? And if not, then from where comes the motivation for artists and producers to create avant-garde, fresh entertainment? Without financial reward, I fear that brilliantly creative minds will begin taking their talent out of entertainment and transferring to more stably lucrative fields. What a shame it would be if Quentin Tarantino packed up his screenwriting career and left Hollywood for a more steady pay-check in freelance textbook writing? Hell, he'd eventually lose that job to a Kindle and an out-sourced company in India somehow. But, all scare-tactics aside, these are very real concerns of mine, and I hope to enlighten my readers as much as I possibly can. I'm no expert, but hey, I have the world at my fingertips (and in my Google search-bar).
As I said, I have just barely graced the surface of these issues, so it is highly possible that these fears of mine may never transpire into legitimate turmoil. That said I'm rightfully worried about the survival of one of the greatest and most influential entertainment industries in the world, so I hope that here I will be able to chip away at some of the questions I have and invite others to contribute. After all, while new media has posed its challenges to entertainment, it is an amazing tool for collaboration and education. So please, feel free to share anything you may think is relevant or interesting!
A Source of Reference...
Mark Cuban, writer of “Blog Maverick,” is an American business entrepreneur and the owner of many valuable entities (the Dallas Mavericks and the HDNet cable television channel to name a few--he's kind of a big deal). Blog Maverick is generally about business tips and current business affairs, but many of his posts are entertainment-centric. Having his own personal stake in the entertainment business—namely in television and sports—Mark Cuban clearly has strong opinions and insight into the economy of entertainment. He's on Technorati’s top 100 list for both business and finance, so clearly Blog Maverick is very well read (at Technorati rank 629 overall). Cuban’s posts are somewhat sporadic, but it’s rare that he go much more than a week without posting.
A couple of Mark’s posts that I found especially interesting were one back in May about Netflix’s role in the entertainment business and another from March called “Don’t Waste the Internet on TV-Protect the Future of the Internet” . If you look into those articles or browse Blog Maverick, you’ll quickly get a sense of Cuban’s blogging voice and stance on American business. Like myself and many others, Cuban seems to hold a divided position on new media. While he is optimistic about its possibilities for greatness, he is also wary of the potential danger it could pose if not well managed. In “…Protect the Future of the Internet,” Cuban warns readers of the finite source of bandwidth and advises that we save some of said bandwidth for future endeavors that will be far more beneficial than any entertainment platform or social networking application; as he puts it, “deal with it today or struggle with it in the future.” Things like healthcare databases or simulation technology- things we now have a hard time even imagining- are very real possibilities in the future of the web that will require lots of bandwidth. Cuban’s fear is that if we use it all up now on things like “re-runs of Gilligan’s Island,” we will run into a traffic jam of sorts and not be able to backtrack.
In relation to my own blog, Cuban’s is more broadly focused on general business and finance. That said, entertainment and new-media are major aspects of the overall American business market, so many of his posts will be helpful and informative for my own blog on the economic and artistic direction of entertainment. A lot of Blog Maverick’s popularity may be due to its content and breadth, but Cuban's personal popularity as a public figure can't hurt the cause either. Being an influential part of television, entertainment, AND business, his posts are all very professional and informed. Cuban is also extremely timely in his writing, often breaking the freshest news in entertainment business, so I will most certainly keep up with Blog Maverick as a reference for my own blog.
While I may not be able to converse directly with Blog Maverick or Mark Cuban, I am glad I found his blog for reference. His audience is much wider than mine will be, and the breadth of his knowledge is astounding. I think this blog will serve as a great tool for me on the business side of my research, especially when it comes to changing technology and the finances of web-based media.
Voice Bytes
Shelly Palmer is a blogger of digital media and its most current effects on consumer society and business. His website is called “MEDIABYTES” and his blog breaks technological news and discusses the effects of technology updates on the general pubic. He posts quite frequently, and while he seems quite passionate about his subject matter, his voice and tone are fairly blunt. This is not to say that his posts aren’t extremely interesting, but his tone is very informative and simple. One might think that this writing style would get boring, especially when discussing dorky things like web databases and copyright infringement, but his writing style and voice actually make for very effective blogging.
Shelly does one thing really well, and that is write in a style that simultaneously describes difficult concepts in layman’s terms AND speaks in detail for more comprehensive, educated audiences. He will alternate between complex ideas and much simpler explanations of what those ideas mean in a general sense. He will outline a very intricate concept with academic jargon, and then bluntly summarize it in a simple sentence like it’s no big deal. For example:
The NAB reached out to the RIAA and both organizations went to Congress and proposed the inclusion of, let’s say it again: Government mandated FM chips in mobile phones. It’s brilliant! And, it has created a really good fake fight.
Palmer does this almost mechanically, and I find it a really well balanced way to keep his readers alert and providing sound evidence for his opinions while satisfying audiences who may be visiting his blog with some previous knowledge on the subject matter.
By using informal punctuation and alternating between complex and extremely simple sentences, Shelly manages to make complex subject matter seem more approachable and less formal. He also uses humor and personal opinion, but in a way that doesn’t contrast his serious and academic subject matter too extremely. In reading many of his blog posts, it almost appears as if the more Palmer wants to drive home a point, the fewer words he uses. It sounds strange, but it truly is effective. Examples of this include sentences like, “We’re not all doomed. Wow, that was close,” and “Now imagine this on a global scale. Game over.”
Most of Palmer’s post titles are fairly straightforward, much like his actual posts are. They usually summarize the post well, but leave just enough room for intrigue that you want to read the post. They don’t tell you everything, but they aren’t so ambiguous that you don’t care at all. Two of the posts that I found most relevant to my own interests are titled “Government Mandated FM Chips In Mobile Phones: A Fake Fight,” and “Why Can’t I Pay You?” If you were to read the articles, you would likely agree that these titles are appropriate and simple.
In comparison to many of the other bloggers I have read on the topic of technology, Palmer’s post are refreshingly organized and to the point. His voice is one that is informative and fairly plain, but really refreshing at times. He’s like the movie character that seems really tough and quiet, but gives you the chills when he does something sweet or shows emotion. His personal opinions and humor are scattered, but when they show through in his writing, they really tell you something about both himself, and his topic(s) of interest.
Shelly Palmer is a blogger of digital media and its most current effects on consumer society and business. His website is called “MEDIABYTES” and his blog breaks technological news and discusses the effects of technology updates on the general pubic. He posts quite frequently, and while he seems quite passionate about his subject matter, his voice and tone are fairly blunt. This is not to say that his posts aren’t extremely interesting, but his tone is very informative and simple. One might think that this writing style would get boring, especially when discussing dorky things like web databases and copyright infringement, but his writing style and voice actually make for very effective blogging.
Shelly does one thing really well, and that is write in a style that simultaneously describes difficult concepts in layman’s terms AND speaks in detail for more comprehensive, educated audiences. He will alternate between complex ideas and much simpler explanations of what those ideas mean in a general sense. He will outline a very intricate concept with academic jargon, and then bluntly summarize it in a simple sentence like it’s no big deal. For example:
The NAB reached out to the RIAA and both organizations went to Congress and proposed the inclusion of, let’s say it again: Government mandated FM chips in mobile phones. It’s brilliant! And, it has created a really good fake fight.
Palmer does this almost mechanically, and I find it a really well balanced way to keep his readers alert and providing sound evidence for his opinions while satisfying audiences who may be visiting his blog with some previous knowledge on the subject matter.
By using informal punctuation and alternating between complex and extremely simple sentences, Shelly manages to make complex subject matter seem more approachable and less formal. He also uses humor and personal opinion, but in a way that doesn’t contrast his serious and academic subject matter too extremely. In reading many of his blog posts, it almost appears as if the more Palmer wants to drive home a point, the fewer words he uses. It sounds strange, but it truly is effective. Examples of this include sentences like, “We’re not all doomed. Wow, that was close,” and “Now imagine this on a global scale. Game over.”
Most of Palmer’s post titles are fairly straightforward, much like his actual posts are. They usually summarize the post well, but leave just enough room for intrigue that you want to read the post. They don’t tell you everything, but they aren’t so ambiguous that you don’t care at all. Two of the posts that I found most relevant to my own interests are titled “Government Mandated FM Chips In Mobile Phones: A Fake Fight,” and “Why Can’t I Pay You?” If you were to read the articles, you would likely agree that these titles are appropriate and simple.
In comparison to many of the other bloggers I have read on the topic of technology, Palmer’s post are refreshingly organized and to the point. His voice is one that is informative and fairly plain, but really refreshing at times. He’s like the movie character that seems really tough and quiet, but gives you the chills when he does something sweet or shows emotion. His personal opinions and humor are scattered, but when they show through in his writing, they really tell you something about both himself, and his topic(s) of interest.
Mark Cuban, writer of “Blog Maverick,” is an American business entrepreneur and the owner of many valuable entities (the Dallas Mavericks and the HDNet cable television channel to name a few--he's kind of a big deal). Blog Maverick is generally about business tips and current business affairs, but many of his posts are entertainment-centric. Having his own personal stake in the entertainment business—namely in television and sports—Mark Cuban clearly has strong opinions and insight into the economy of entertainment. He's on Technorati’s top 100 list for both business and finance, so clearly Blog Maverick is very well read (at Technorati rank 629 overall). Cuban’s posts are somewhat sporadic, but it’s rare that he go much more than a week without posting.
Hello there, and welcome to my blog! If you're looking for celebrity gossip or movie trailers, you may want to continue on your journey now, because you won't find them here. The issues facing entertainment today are much deeper than Brad Pitt's ugly beard or whether Lindsay Lohan can carry out her next movie role with a SCRAM bracelet on her ankle, and our entertainment industry is a treasure we should protect. Now, hear me out; some people look at entertainment as a luxury, right? Well damn, wouldn't that be swell? But, entertainment doesn't just mirror our society; in many ways, entertainment shapes society, and so much of world culture is created through entertainment media precedent, it's frightening. Children and young adults are the most vulnerable due to their natural impressionability, and if the entertainment they consume is bullshit, the consequences can be very serious. With our current new media entertainment, what will the next generation of Tweeting, Megavideo-watching, Limewire-abusing techies grow up to be? Questions like these are often very much unanswerable, but a little theoretical exploration never hurt anyone, and I sincerely believe that the direction of entertainment is a hugely important social issue with the ability to truly shape society--for better OR worse. Thus, with the hope of uncovering some of the major underlying issues with the current American entertainment industry, I have begun this blog. I, like many others, understand that the changing state of entertainment cannot be summed up easily, and that it’s future is very much up in the air. That said, the purpose of this blog will be to pick away at some of the layering effects of current technology, culture, and financial matters on the industry and its artistic direction. I'm hoping to explore all aspects of the field and provide some valuable insight for myself and readers as to how suffering areas of the industry may be fixed for the future.
I have many questions that I hope to answer (or at least deeply consider) throughout the course of my blog. I have graced the surface of many of these questions in my university Communications classes, but I hope with this blog that I can get some fervent discourse between myself, audiences, fellow students, and other media content on a range of highly important and complex topics. The overarching question I hope to answer is this: with America in an economic recession and web 2.0 technology making peer-to-peer sharing easier than ever, how has the entertainment industry responded to these industry-threatening changes? Have piracy and the state of the American economy had negative consequences on the quality of entertainment content? Or are the major industry players rising to meet challenges and inspiring audiences when they most need it?
