99% of creatives have never been able to pay their rent by selling what they make.
It's not even about how good they are - some people produce amazing stuff but it's not something that enough other people want to own (or listen to, or watch, or whatever).
The lucky few whose creative spark happens to coincide with market demand get to do that all day long. For the rest of us, it's a day job to pay the rent (which might mean creating something that the market wants instead of what scratches our creative itch) or a life of poverty and creative freedom.
This is not something that a change in the platforms is going to "fix".
> It's not even about how good they are - some people produce amazing stuff but it's not something that enough other people want to own (or listen to, or watch, or whatever).
This isn't even the problem. It's that to be successful you need to be more than good at your job you need to be great at doing a few other jobs as well. Namely running a business and marketing. And lucky in catching the break the propels you upwards.
This requirement for discoverability, marketability and virality also changes the media significantly. YouTube is rife with ten minute videos, clickbait titles and overenthusiastic yelling. This is entirely on the platforms, their bid for retention to keep people watching one more video and how discovery and recommendations work.
If you look at the wider industry of say TV and film you get a much wider array of successful content, supporting more people with more stability.
I do think there is a version of YouTube that could result in "better" content whilst employing more people.
> This isn't even the problem. It's that to be successful you need to be more than good at your job you need to be great at doing a few other jobs as well. Namely running a business and marketing. And lucky in catching the break the propels you upwards.
This sounds like a great description of art as a profession for roughly the past five to seven centuries. It sounds like really very little has changed, except perhaps more people having a chance to compete.
Could a central coordinator devote greater resources to a more diverse set of content? It is, as you say, absolutely possible. Though there are perhaps a few questions to be asked about why such a central coordinating force would make better choices, and if the artists would rather give up their choices to work on what the coordinator has blessed would agree this is better.
The BBC is widely and justly praised! So long as you like its choices, everything is great. Central coordinators can, as you say, earn widespread praise and acclaim.
What happens if you're an artist that the BBC isn't interested in supporting? What happens when the BBC runs out of budget for the year?
You can't make it because you don't have the budget. Then you start a YouTube channel appealing to the lowest common denominator and die a little more inside each day as you yell "ring that bell" umpteen times whilst pumping out content to avoid losing the favor of the algorithm. But you find success so keep doing it whilst hoping you remain popular and don't get demonetized. You still don't get to make the thing you wanted because you know that sort of content is not successful but eh, it's a living.
Or you pitch your idea elsewhere because people have realized that the strong model of the BBC that allows it to take creative risks can work elsewhere.
Really, what I'm looking for is if you've thought about the failure modes of centralized management of resources and tastemaking. It seems you believe there are no different ones. Is that accurate?
No, why on earth would you take that from a few comments here? It seems rather condescending and presumptuous. And as the great example of YouTube shows pseudo-democratizing those things doesn't actually fix them either.
In that case, please correct me! I would like to know more about your thoughts on the failure modes of centralization vs democratization in the arena of artistic production and resourcing.
I understand if you consider such questions condescending and presumptuous, though.
Given you're presenting a false dichotomy, I've already corrected you and I have no need to take a test(!?) from you I'm going to venture there is no further useful conversation to be had.
> This isn't even the problem. It's that to be successful you need to be more than good at your job you need to be great at doing a few other jobs as well. Namely running a business and marketing. And lucky in catching the break the propels you upwards.
But this is a problem for all fields. If devs want to work independently, need to be good at business and marketing as well.
Absolutely, I'm just describing the effects as it pertains to video and YouTube. Imagine the difference in content if we still allowed for independent content production without requiring the additional skills. YouTube has 2 billion logged in monthly users that's a reach that should make many niches viable. But seemingly not.
Patreon is just another revenue stream and doesn’t strictly tackle the issues I’m talking about directly. Similarly the way smaller channels support themselves with sponsorships, product placement and merchandise. It seems extremely important to have that diversification in light of the way ad revenue can be switched off seemingly without recourse.
I’m more interested in how the discovery platform itself could be reshaped which is the key to truly supporting a wide variety of successful content.
I agree completely, but I wanted to draw a distinction between "the lucky few" who naturally make what people want to buy, and those who treat it as a job (and are excellent at marketing, business, etc).
The idea that to be a successful creator you just need to be good at whatever creative activity it is, is pernicious and wrong.
To be a successful creator you need to be either incredibly lucky, or actually a successful business founder whose business model happens to include creating stuff.
> This requirement for discoverability, marketability and virality also changes the media significantly. YouTube is rife with ten minute videos, clickbait titles and overenthusiastic yelling. This is entirely on the platforms, their bid for retention to keep people watching one more video and how discovery and recommendations work.
Isn't that a sad loss ? so many people trying to get a hold of a vapor cake to grab attention.
I wouldn't even say it's just this. Consistency, high quality (in terms of writing, delivery, production value) and a boatload of other factors matter, too. As does the ethos of "authenticity."
Ben Eater and 3Blue1Brown are I think good examples of this. I doubt "the market" was demanding videos about higher level math with superb visualizations, or especially implementing a 6502 on breadboards, but these guys both made it happen. I doubt they're raking in the megabux, but they seem to be doing pretty well.
> some people produce amazing stuff but it's not something that enough other people want to own (or listen to, or watch, or whatever).
This is very true. When I go to anime conventions, I see MANY people with incredible talents. And sometimes I do want to buy a poster or something. But, there's only so much wall on my small apartment to hang posters...
It's not even about how good they are - some people produce amazing stuff but it's not something that enough other people want to own (or listen to, or watch, or whatever).
The lucky few whose creative spark happens to coincide with market demand get to do that all day long. For the rest of us, it's a day job to pay the rent (which might mean creating something that the market wants instead of what scratches our creative itch) or a life of poverty and creative freedom.
This is not something that a change in the platforms is going to "fix".