Moving to the Lab and marinating in the creative atmosphere in and out of World has already opened up some channels in my brain that have been deliberately dammed up while I chose to develop my analytic and data analysis skill sets and make my way in the world of the balance sheet and cash flow statement. But I feel a flood of ideas and insights flowing now, a flash flood after a few years of drought. Green shoots are coming up and I couldn’t be more excited to see the spring again inside my mind and heart.
I was recently interviewing a candidate for the Lab and we discussed the future of Second Life and some of its potential. Flashback: 1999. I wrote a business school application essay to Cornell to answer the question, “What will be the impact of technology on your chosen field?” My field at the time was the entertainment industry. I thought I’d mention some of the ideas here not only because I think they have come to pass, but also because I think they are relevant to my current profession in ecommerce.
Here’s the logic:
1. Throughout history, artists and creative people have generally been paid poorly and have not been recognized by society, especially when alive. Not only was that because their work at its best threatened the status quo; it is also because artists were totally dependent on distributors and promoters (galleries, theatres, studio executives, the record industry, the Catholic Church) to sell their product.
2. In the last century, as leisure time increased, and offered higher rewards to artists in the form of monetary compensation, global fame, influence, and of course the ability to attract an equally powerful and attractive mate, there are more people entering creative fields. However the demand did not scale as fast as the supply due to control by those gatekeepers listed above. Thus, the competition is fierce in music, acting, and writing, which meant in the past, supply was high and prices/wages are low, except for those at the highest levels. It took a Madonna, U2, or Stephen King to become mass market and command their price.
3. The internet has altered that power dynamic forever. There are hundreds of cable channels, infinite internet opportunities, online bookstores, blogs, twitter feeds, movie theatres, etc. Which means distribution is essentially free, which means…
4. Of course, that content proliferates.
5. Lacking editorial or control of distribution, mediocre content will be lost in the new global cacophony. If you’re not good, you won’t have an audience.
6. Bad content will rarely see the light of day. Expect shorter shelf lives of tv shows, albums and software tools that don’t find an audience fast. (Thankfully 30 Rock somehow survived that–and remember that Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip didn’t)
7. Instead of just those mass market artists(which may not have been the most talented but rather the most marketable) making good money, now those who create good content for audiences large AND small should and will eventually name their price in the marketplace. You don’t have to be big to make good money, you just have to be GOOD. Think “Mad Men.” Think “Will it Blend?” Think “Dooce.”
8. Instead of having perpetually low wage costs for creative talent, companies like Disney should expect to see wages rise exponentially for their creative stars.
9. If you’re an artist, you better know if you’re good, and if you are, start demanding you be paid—don’t give it away for free.
10. Companies who employ these high value creatives should also plan to build knowledge management and retention/motivation systems to retain these people.
11. Thus the workplace should change: less structure for those people, more latitude for individual expression, ongoing training, less command and control and more rewards for creativity.
It turns out that without even having stepped foot in a technology company in 1999, what I wrote ended up applying directly to the top engineering talent in software development, for exactly the same reasons. With the proliferation of start ups and technology companies, no longer were the only buyers of engineering limited to the government, the military, and IBM. Thus wages rose and will continue to rise for the top knowledge workers. This is why companies like Microsoft are pushing so hard for H1-B visas. They are trying to keep supply costs low by hiring foreign labor that is willing to work for less than American labor.
Is that right? Does my logic make sense? What am I missing? Let me know in the comments.
Very interesting post. I once believed in #6, but the continued success of American Idol has me questioning that belief.
thanks Amy, you are the very first commenter on my blog!
You raise a good counter point in your AI example. I was trying to think about how to balance “popular” with “good” in this model. Not sure if I succeeded.
Pingback: Topics about Microsoft » If Van Gogh were alive now and aware of his global fame, would he…
You’re notion of these “gatekeepers” is utterly extreme. Those very gatekeepers are the ones who *supported* artists. To describe the Catholic Church and the record industry as somehow both on par, and both evil suppressers and exploiters of artistic independence, is outrageous, given their role in history in sustaining the artists.
How did Notre Dame get built? How did the Beatles become worldwide stars?
This skewed version of history you concoct on the Internet is meant to serve only the interests of Silicon Valley, which wants to “liberate” everybody’s content so that the cost of their technology will be born instead of the cost of content.
In fact, artists still depend on those “gatekeepers” to sell content.
Er, look at the way in which everyone is dependent on Linden Lab and their Gold Service Providers to sell content to the top buyers?!
Talk about gate-keepers!
Plenty of mediocre content has plenty of audiences. And you know something? That’s *ok* because we don’t need your elitist class of overpriced geeks and technology marketers to serve as arbiters of taste. People are free, and they chose tacky content you don’t like. Deal with it.
The problem with your theory that now these artists who have dispensed with their evil gatekeepers and the Man keeping them down, and suppressed all those people producing tacky content that get in the way, is that the very same forces that demanded “liberation” are now demanding that artists not be paid anymore for their content.
So all that’s left is the Sitearm Madonna plan of signing up with a wealthy company that controls your soul and pays you for work-for-hire and seizes your IP.
THAT’s an improvement over the Catholic Church where you could sign your paintings and have portrait businesses on the side?! You have to be kidding.
It’s good you’re telling people not to “give it away for free” — but there is an entire industry, that your employer has made common cause with, starting with ‘thought leaders’ like Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, and Chris Anderson, the first two very much associated with Linden Lab, who insist on the contrary that you give it away and…make custom content for wealthy patrons. Aren’t we back to that loathed Catholic Church again then?!
Programmers wages have declined, and not only because of the pressure of third world engineers — it’s because more and more, people can run their own technology themselves.
Van Gogh cut off his ear because he was mentally ill and possibly suffering from Meniere’s disease.
Thanks for your comments, Prokofy. As mentioned in the “about me” section of this blog, I cannot discuss or debate any issues pertaining to Linden Lab Policy or decisions here. Please use the normal channels, including my personal email, for those issues. Persistence in this area will lead to my simply deleting and/or moderating people’s posts, and I hope not to have it come to that.
I would be happy, however, to discuss the issues raised in the post that are outside the scope of Linden Lab, and I’ll get back to you on that because you raised some issues that I find interesting and challenging, and I like that.
To start though: Hrosvitha not withstanding, the Church for many years banned any art at all that wasn’t religious in nature. That is the basis for my assertion.
By the way, there is also some speculation that Van Gough was self poisoned by the heavy metals in paint pigments at the time, due to the common art habit of the time of licking the paint brush to moisten it.
watch network tv lately?
talent is minor, dance shows and reality tv rampant, why?
they can still sell ads… profit centers of easy old ways..
from god to money thats the change over 400 years…
control by those who get bankers to build their machines over men.
the rest of your paper/ideas sound kinda college.
” the Church for many years banned any art at all that wasn’t religious in nature. ”
Sure about that? Got a link to any edict, bull or encyclical which states that?
I would point to these highlights of the Met collection of Medieval Art. Most, but not every, piece is religious in nature. There are non- religious pieces. I’m thinking particularly of the Courtiers In A Rose Garden tapestry.
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/collection_database/listview.aspx?page=1&sort=5&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1&dd1=17&dd2=38
Wasn’t it more a case of the Church not being interested in paying for anything but religious art to be used for the catechesis of a mostly illiterate population?
Well even your question was ahead of its time, the beeb did a Doctor Who episode last Saturday that asked this very question regarding Van Gogh, I want post a spoiler though.