Hacker News Reader

Comment by varispeed | Hacker News Reader

Given that time = money and that the job of money people is extract most value from shortest amount of time and that they seem to do it quite well, won't it mean that people actually get art worth their time? I think that you are upset that mediocre artists no longer could easily shove their art down people's throats? Today it is extremely easy to self-publish. If artist believes their art really should reach other people they have means to do it easier than ever. But the fact someone wants to put money behind it is a generally good indicator whether art is good or not.

View on HN

> won't it mean that people actually get art worth their time?

It optimizes for local maxima, rather than taking the risks associated with finding larger global maxima.

Or, in other words: It creates lots and lots and lots of pretty-good stuff of particular types with broad appeal, rather than allowing diversification into some stuff that appeals very strongly to group A, some other stuff that appeals very strongly to group B, etc.

It makes the publishing/Netflix executives richer, but our culture poorer.

Analysis I have seen of the effect of streaming on programming choices has been the direct opposite of this:

1. Unlike network television, space isn't limited, so you can make a good show which will only appeal to 20% of the audience.

2. The amount people watch doesn't affect revenue, just whether they renew or not. So it's now better to make one show that someone will really love, than seven shows that they will be vaguely into, but see as interchangeable with seven others on a different platform.

If anything, I think Netflix originals are overoptimised for creating cult hits along niche audiences.

I don't know how it plays out in practice, but I agree that it seems as if having the must-have subscription impact of a House of Cards or Game of Thrones when they first came out would trump having a dozen meh middle-of-the-pack mainstream network procedurals or sitcoms.

There is nothing easy or cheap about creating a TV show. Self-publishing is basically impossible for a high quality show.

It's not impossible. The problem is a lack of incentives.

Amazon offers 70% royalties to indie authors.

YouTube offers peanuts to indie film makers. Netflix offers nothing.

Film-making is more expensive than novel writing, and there is a higher barrier to entry. Few indie film-makers are going to stick with it, unpaid, for multiple years. If they can receive funding, then that whole paradigm will change.

Patreon made a few steps in that direction, but I think crowd-funding has limits.

If Google/YouTube were to do what Amazon did, and offer a huge royalty share of profits...? That would turn everything around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com