<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;luck&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:08:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patton Oswalt Explains That There Are No More Gatekeepers In Entertainment</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've argued that the role of middlemen in the entertainment industry has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-middlemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml">changing</a> drastically.  Most were built up on the basis of being gatekeepers: choosing who would get to go out and perform to the world, and using that gatekeeper status to (1) put themselves (the middlemen) in the center of everything and (2) demand nearly all ownership and profits from the results.  But the new world is one in which gatekeepers are obsolete.  The natural limits of things like broadcast television or movies are fluttering away thanks to the internet and all the technology that allows anyone to be a creator.  That doesn't mean that middlemen aren't necessary any more.  They absolutely are.  But their roles are as <i>enablers, not gatekeepers</i>.  They have to put the content creators back in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110210/15534113046/nice-to-see-how-content-creators-have-more-power-over-middlemen.shtml">center</a> and accept that they don't have full control, and they don't get to keep 85 cents of every dollar earned.
<br /><br />
Famed comedian Patton Oswalt took to the stage at the "Just for Laughs Comedy Conference" in Montreal recently and <a href="http://thecomicscomic.com/2012/07/27/patton-oswalts-letters-to-both-sides-his-keynote-address-at-montreals-just-for-laughs-2012/#.UBQY0Apz6og.twitter" target="_blank">made this point brilliantly</a> in the form of two "letters."  (Thanks to <a href="https://twitter.com/picklemonger/statuses/229259631141191680" target="_blank">Pickle Monger</a> for calling this to our attention.)  The first letter was to fellow comedians -- more or less telling them to take control over their own career.  They had to stop looking for the gatekeeper to come along and pick them, and take charge.  Here's just a snippet, but the whole thing is worth reading:
<blockquote><i>
[Following a brief description of his very successful career] But if you listened very carefully, you would have heard two words over and over again: &#8220;lucky&#8221; and &#8220;given.&#8221; Those are two very very dangerous words for a comedian. Those two words can put you to sleep, especially once you get a taste of both being &#8220;lucky&#8221; and being &#8220;given.&#8221; The days about luck and being given are about to end. They&#8217;re about to go away.
<br /><br />
Not totally. There are always comedians who will work hard and get noticed by agents and managers and record labels. There will always be an element of that. And they deserve their success. And there&#8217;s always going to be people who benefit from that.
<br /><br />
What I mean is: Not being lucky and not being given are no longer going to define your career as a comedian and as an artist.
</i></blockquote>
The second letter addresses the gatekeepers quite directly.  Again, a snippet, though you should read the whole thing:
<blockquote><i>
You guys need to stop thinking like gatekeepers. You need to do it for the sake of your own survival.
<br /><br />
Because all of us comedians after watching Louis CK revolutionize sitcoms and comedy recordings and live tours. And listening to "WTF With Marc Maron" and "Comedy Bang! Bang!" and watching the growth of the UCB Theatre on two coasts and seeing careers being made on Twitter and Youtube.
<br /><br />
Our careers don&#8217;t hinge on somebody in a plush office deciding to aim a little luck in our direction. There are no gates. They&#8217;re gone. The model for success as a comedian in the '70s and '80s? That was middle school.
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to talk about how they can stop being gatekeepers and start actually helping (first by being "fans") but then goes on to point out why the gatekeeper role is gone in a very simple fashion:
<blockquote><i>
We can just walk away.
<br /><br />
You know why we can do that now? Because of these. (Oswalt holds up an iPhone)
<br /><br />
In my hand right now I&#8217;m holding more filmmaking technology than Orson Welles had when he filmed Citizen Kane.
<br /><br />
I&#8217;m holding almost the same amount of cinematography, post-editing, sound editing, and broadcast capabilities as you have at your tv network.
<br /><br />
In a couple of years it&#8217;s going to be fucking equal. I see what&#8217;s fucking coming. This isn&#8217;t a threat, this is an offer. 
</i></blockquote>
It's an offer so few gatekeepers have been willing to take up.
<br /><br />
I think it's great that Oswalt is saying this stuff.  For the last few years, as Louis CK has revolutionized various parts of the comedy industry (as we've detailed here), it's been interesting to see how other comics have reacted.  I keep hearing about how comedians want a "Louis CK deal," -- which is a deal like the one that Louis got for his show on FX (where he basically has full control over every aspect of the product).  The problem, of course, is that no one else wants to give out such a deal -- and even if other comedians got it, many wouldn't know what to do with it.  Because of that, I've heard some suggest that there isn't much to learn from Louis, since his situation is one of a kind.
<br /><br />
I think Oswalt is much more on the right track, though.  Of course, the answer isn't just in "getting the Louis CK deal" or even just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120320/17374818176/more-comedians-following-louis-cks-path-they-dont-need-to-copy-it-exactly.shtml">copying exactly</a> how he released his last comedy special.  It's in recognizing the larger point of Oswalt's keynote: that the old rules and old gatekeepers are meaningless.  You can forge your own path, and whereas you used to <i>have</i> to work within the confines of the system, nowadays you have lots of options.  Every opportunity is there.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-said</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120730/04581519877</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:39:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Understanding The Decline And Fall Of The Major Record Labels</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529417288.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529417288.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a fascinating, and well sourced, editorial over at Hypebot by Kyle Bylin, suggesting <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/12/music-as-commerce-understanding-a-mindset.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A typepad%2FDqMf %28hypebot%29" target="_blank">why the major record labels have had so much trouble adapting to these changing times</a>.  Bylin argues, convincingly, that a big part of the problem was that as the record labels got bigger and bigger, they focused solely on the "music as commerce" side of things, ignoring the role of "music as culture."  Obviously, music as commerce is an important part of the music business, but if you ignore the cultural importance of music (except, of course, when lobbying the government for more protections) you miss what's actually happening in the marketplace: how people are connecting with the music, and what they're doing (and want to do) with the music.  Here's a snippet:
<blockquote><i>
As the record industry moved through this stage there was a decline in learning orientation -- in learning what fans actually wanted -- both in terms of how they consumed music and what they were willing to pay for.  So to, they began to discount the role that luck played in their success, to assume that the mass-marketing successes that occurred near the end the CD boom, which sold 3-4 million copies, applied to the natural laws of the universe, rather than that of a relatively short-lived phenomenon.  This addiction to blockbuster artists is what characterizes the second stage of decline, which Collin's deemed <b>The Undisciplined Pursuit of More</b>.  Here, the record industry started out on an unsustainable quest, and, because of their huge successes, they were pressured to grow.

<br /><br />
Having reached the peak of the CD boom in 1999, the record industry had become a nearly $15-billion-a-year juggernaut, but under the pressure for more growth they collapsed, and, in the process, a vicious cycle of expectations had been set that strained the artists, the fans, the culture, and their systems to the point of breaking.  Since record industry was unable to deliver new music with "consistent tactical excellence," they began to fray at the edges.  Disruptive technologies were released, an epidemic of file-sharing proceeded, and, at this critical juncture, vested interests of music executives struggled and competed to achieve repetitive consumption through obsolescence.  But these executives were too late, as the record industry, by externalizing the blame for their decline in sales, had already started to show symptoms of stage three, <b>Denial of Risk and Peril</b>. 
<br /><br />
Music executives began discounting negative data, amplifying positive data, and putting a positive spin on ambiguous data.  In stage three, Collin's argues that those in power start to blame external factors for setbacks -- "or otherwise explain away the data" -- rather than accepting responsibility and confronting "the frightening reality that their enterprise may be in serious trouble."  Right away, the Internet and file-sharing became easy scapegoats for the decline in sales that the record industry faced.
</i></blockquote>
There's nothing all that surprising in the essay, but it's nicely written and explained.  Well worth reading the whole thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529417288.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529417288.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529417288.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>perhaps-it-was-inevitable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091210/0529417288</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>