*scraps similar but far less well-written email*
*Applause*
Cheers,
Rich.
On 6/12/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 01:51, Andy wrote:
> What is a scarce resource? Anything with a finite supply.
...
> You talk of compensating the creators. You seem to be under the
> impression that we live in a meritocracy and that people are payed
> money based on their worth.
I'm picking this out because you've picked one part correctly, but
misunderstood this second part.
There's an interesting point that I read a while back "intelligence is the
scarcest resource". And if you think about it, in many respects from a human
perspective this is true. So we divide up problems to fit our brain size and
capabilities. "That'll take X man-weeks, Y man-years".
In this case it's NOT about meritocracy. It's about paying for that scarce
resource in the first place in lots of places based on a gambling economy or
a futures market. (spreading lots of relatively small sized bets across a
collection of things and hoping winning back big enough pays for all of them)
Now flip this to creativity. How *large* are the following problems - how many
people are needed (normally) ?
* Someone busking with a guitar
* A band busking
* A band putting on a show on stage
* A band putting on a show on stage being recorded
* A band putting on a show on stage being broadcast on TV
The numbers of people escalate with each stage, and that's just music.
OK let's try another:
* Someone telling a story
* A collection of friends going role playing
* A collection of people putting on a setless and no-particular costume &
no-lighting play in the park
* A collection of people putting on a play in a theatre
.. with a set
.. with a lighting
.. with costumes
* Being recorded.
* Being made as a TV show
.. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and only one set/camera
.. with no incidental music, or SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera
.. with incidental music, but no SFX/post prod and multiple sets/camera
.. with incidental music, post prod but no SFX and multiple sets/camera
(X) .. with incidental music, post prod & SFX and multiple sets/camera
* Being made as a film
...
Again, the numbers escalate quite quickly.
We rapidly start dividing problems into people sized chunks quickly. These
things take time and people need to be paid to do these things _if_ we want
them to happen in a reasonable timescale.
Why? Suppose the item (X) is something you really like and requires (say) 100
people doing a variety of roles (if you bear in mind an SFX house and post
prod house as well as all the usual things, this is probably either a good or
low estimate - looking at the Doctor Who page on credits on IMDB).
So that's a 100 people working full time. Or in the spare time. Now they have
to make a living and it doesn't matter for this argument whether it's good or
bad, but they do need an income. Either from being paid to do it full time or
in their spare time. Note: Good or bad. This isn't a merit based argument.
If you can find a mechanism to pay people for their time (as we have today),
then they can allocate their scarce resource (ie intelligence/creativity)
into working on creating a TV show worth watching full time.
*That* is what paying for content about - *that* is where economics comes in.
I've said *nothing* here about the type of TV show it is, whether its any
good, or anything - nothing about its merits. The scarce resource you are
paying for is their intelligence or creativity (whether that's good or bad).
The alternative is you don't pay for that scarce resource of intelligence or
creativity. Yes, there will always be some people who are willing and able to
do these things on their own time, so you may get something, but it will take
longer.
Optimistically lets say that these people put in 8 hours a week of their own
time on a production rather than 40 hours. (that's rather high even for
amateur dramatics, 6 is the most realistic upper limit for anyone other than
a few people)
Translate this to a TV show and it means a new show which is currently
annually - that would then get made every 5 years at best (assuming you can
get 100 people to co-ordinate their time efficiently over a 5 year period and
to stay friends to solidly put in that effort for free for that long and have
no-one disappear).
You then have the issue that with a TV show you have other resources you need
to use & pay for. Convincing costumes are either incredibily hard to make or
expensive to buy. Sets take time effort and resources. etc. (With theatre you
have the advantage of distance)
These are all scarce resources involved in the production of a TV show.
Currently the economic model that finds a way to pay for this scarce resource
is essentially predicated on copying & distribution essentially being a hard
thing to do. (Lever one scarce resource to pay for the others) DRM rightly or
wrongly tries to create an artificial scarce resource in order to achieve the
same thing.
However saying "the people who make these shows need to be paid is an
assumption of meritocracy" is false. If you want stuff made, then you need
the resources involved to be paid for. If you want those resources paid for
in full upfront then the economic model changes dramatically.
Much of the current world of production is, as I understand it, essentially
gambling. You pay for lots of things to be made (place bets), and hope that
one of them becomes good (ie you pick a winner and reap back profits on that
winner to pay for all the losses). That model again is predicated on income
coming in *after* production, not before.
If as time goes on, essentially the odds of recouping your costs across
all your bets (productions) is lower and lower, due to less income (due
to copying & distribution no longer being as scarce a resource as it was)
then in the end the risk of production becomes to high so production
ceases.
How many shows with rave reviews, well written and intelligent but
massively downloaded (as a percentage of the people watching the show)
have to be cancelled before people accept that there's a problem ? (and
start thinking about solutions to that, preferably before demanding the
destruction of the current business models)
At the end of the day, that's the reason why people are hunting round for
new scarce resources (eg DRM), where business models can exist to support the
creation of stories we all like to see. Some of these are valid and acceptable
to an audience, and some aren't. It's not about meritocracy, it's about
opportunity to create stuff we all like. And that's *always* a gamble.
*ahem* sorry, seem to have gotten away with that there.
Michael
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
--
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073
Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
