|
|
Mon, Feb. 4th, 2008, 09:34 am
Flowtv.com dissemination essay
This is cross-posted at my WordPress blog here. Feel free to comment in either space.[1.1] On January 31, Flowtv.com published an essay I wrote entitled From Irrelevance to On-Demand: Changing Models of Dissemination, which Flow summarizes as, "Innovative Internet distribution models in music and television strike back against Big Media hegemony." It's an analysis of the irrelevance of current modes of distribution of media, and I provide two grand experiments that attempt to use the Internet to bypass these modes, one in music and one in live-action TV: Radiohead's online, pay-what-you-want release of their album In Rainbows, and the production of Web-only TV show Sanctuary. [1.2] No sooner does this essay come out, of course, than it's obsolete: In Rainbows is no longer available for download from the artists, and Sanctuary has parleyed the success of its Webisodes and its viral fan base into a 13-ep deal with SciFi.com, which will involve reshooting the entire show. SciFi.com, in Sanctuary Comes to Sci-Fi, emphasizes the virtual sets. Executive vice president of original programming Mark Stern notes, "This stylistic approach to virtual sets has proven hugely popular on the big screen, and we have been looking for a chance to use it on a television series." 300 and Sin City, which were both filmed with extensive CGI, were precursors that tested the genre and proved it viable. [1.3] Whereas SciFi.com emphasizes the technological advance of green screen shooting, a blog entry entitled Green Means Go at the official Sanctuary site emphasizes the fans: "A big reason why this television deal was secured, was on the strength of our popularity online. Sanctuary, the TV show, would not have happened without the immense popularity of Sanctuary the web series and we have you, the fans, to thank for that." [1.4] At Gateworld.net, in part 1 of a two-part interview, Sanctuary star and producer Amanda Tapping emphasizes that the Web presence will still be important to the project, with content and fan interactivity there not seen on TV. However, the project's big limitation was, unsurprisingly, money: [1.5] I think our intention was to try and launch a completely Internet series, but the model doesn't work yet to monetize it. The business model just doesn't work. It's too easy to pirate everything on the Internet, which we encouraged initially because we thought "At least it gets the word out there." But it's too hard financially to make a completely Internet series work of this scale, with this kind of budget. [1.6] These grand experiments need to be done, of course, in order to test the limits of dissemination and to see how far consumers of content (let's call them fans) will go. The answer, at least for now, seems to be, they won't go so far as to shell out money. As Comscore found, only 38% of In Rainbows downloaders chose to pay, and as Tapping implies, piracy made it hard to make money, even though it had the side benefit of becoming part of the viral fan experience, which in turn led to the TV deal. [1.7] As a fan-consumer, I feel like I pay plenty for content, but what I'm actually paying for is dissemination: I pay high-speed Internet fees, and I pay for cable TV. I don't pay for TiVo, but in that regard, I find that I am unique among my peers. When you add all this up, hundreds of dollars a month are being spent on accessing content that you don't get to keep. It feels like I'm paying enough; I don't want to also have to pay a couple bucks to download something that I can't watch on my TV and that is poor quality. [1.8] More needs to be done with cross-platform infrastructure before fan-consumers will shell out. If I could cancel cable (and you could cancel TiVo) and just stick with high-speed Internet, I ought to have enough money to pay a couple bucks for the few TV shows that I actually want to watch and keep, if I could download them to a magic box that would stream the show to my TV without requiring the intermediary step of burning a disk with the item or converting it to another format. If content were available for free to stream, I'd be more willing to do that if I could beam it upstairs to the TV. Although wireless transmitters are available, they're hardly mainstream, and most are designed for music, not TV. [1.9] I'm watching Big Media's take on all this with interest. When someone (Apple? an open source project?) comes up with a TiVo-like mainstream transmitter, and when someone else comes up with some kind of encoding format that works easily across platforms, Big Media may have to change its ways. Until then, it looks like Sanctuary and In Rainbows showed us a way that isn't going to be the way. Nice try, guys, and don't give up!
Mon, Feb. 4th, 2008 08:40 pm (UTC)
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) hand2hand
thank you so much for this follow up. This is the kind of thing I have been watching with great interest, and I somehow missed the earlier article, so this is great. I was wondering what would happen with the Radiohead experiment; 38 percent huh? That's actually higher than I thought it would be! Thanks again. Fascinating. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 12:55 pm (UTC)
khellekson
Yep, 38%, but some people argued that it was more—that some people DL'd it, then went back and paid for it after they gave it a listen and realized that they liked it, so they somehow got counted twice. It's really impossible to say. It really was a nice try, and I hope people continue trying to do it. People seem unwilling to pay for music, which I totally get. The tech-savvy types know how to get their music fix without paying. I personally like CDs because I hate the restrictions on legally DL'd music. I want to own the tune in relatively high quality. I know, so old-fashioned. Thanks for your comment! Mon, Feb. 4th, 2008 11:47 pm (UTC)
admarian
Great article and great follow up. I was involved in the Sanctuary community from beta testing until the late summer, so I was excited to see you discuss the project. While I don't doubt that piracy was a blow to Stage 3's bottom line, I do think some of their problems might be attributable to some of their own mistakes as well. The project had a spectacularly messy launch, download and customer service issues, major questions about different price points for different countries, and a shift in how Stage 3 chose to deal with fans. All of those things worked to drive people away and cut down on the positive word of mouth recommendations. I'm not sure that preventing those losses would have offset the impact of any piracy, but I don't think they're negligible factors in assessing the success/or failure of the subscription model. It's really too bad it didn't work out. I would love to have seen a successful precedent set. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 12:59 pm (UTC)
khellekson
Ooh, exciting, beta tester! I really was intrigued to see how they used the fans. They thought they could do it on their own terms but then discovered, er, no. I found that amusing. I see all the producer-fan interaction as its own kind of learning curve. They're making up this business model as they go, and they also need to learn interaction strategies that won't anger their most ardent audience, and making it seem that the fans are contributing while simultaneously controlling that contribution. I think for S3M, the biggest issue is the use of the technology. That's their big market niche in the industry: they use green screen and put in sets during postproduction. That seems to be the reason SciFi picked it up—that, and a demonstrated industry-savvy team and a well-regarded lead actress with a huge fan base. Thanks for your comment! Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 05:50 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Hello.
I was directed to your entry by the above poster. I've been involved in the Sanctuary fandom since its conception and still am. I am still involved in the fandom, though details are not important, and am also a beta tester for the show.
Your view of the situation is incredibly perceptive, "making it seem that the fans are contributing while simultaneously controlling that contribution". It is fascinating to watch the fandom turning cartwheels and somersaults to "make it work", when their efforts amount to very little in the grand scheme of things.
I do believe S3M were picked up more to do with their well-regarded lead and use of technology than anything else. The concept is hardly that original, and the product at present is fairly mediocre. Though James Graham, the S3M PR guy, states in the blog that the show was picked up largely to do with the working business model, I think Amanda's interview on GW shows quite clearly that it was far from a working model.
From the beginning, Stage Three Media were keen on keeping the fanom involved, or so they said. In my personal opinion, they still have a lot to learn about how fans operate and how to treat them. Their moderators and fan volunteers are pretty much under a gagging order and are not allowed to utter so much as a word against the show.
One of the saddest things about Sanctuary going to Sci-Fi, in my opinion, is where the licensing goes. One of the key parts of Sanctuary was the idea that once you purchased episodes they were yours to do with as you saw fit, as long as it wasn't for profit. In the same way, all images etc were available for fan use. There's a definite shift away from this model now, and images and material is becoming increasingly watermarked. I have a feeling that the move to a network will only increase this "security" and remove a lot of the digital rights that were so intriguing and unique.
Lastly, this is a shift back to fandom again, I think it would be very interesting to look at the shift in the approach towards the fans. You say they are making up the business model as they go, which is completely correct. But if you follow the fandom, you can see a definite shift from a fandom where audience participation is nurtured and encouraged, to a fandom where audience participation is controlled and anything outside their boundaries is actively stopped.
I'm sorry for wittering on. I should really think of something a little more coherent, but it's hard to say much without putting both myself and others in a very difficult position. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 06:38 pm (UTC)
khellekson
you can see a definite shift from a fandom where audience participation is nurtured and encouraged, to a fandom where audience participation is controlled and anything outside their boundaries is actively stopped.I really am curious about this. I know there are legal reasons why fans' stories and pitches aren't considered that has to do with ownership of the idea, to avoid being sued. And fans are at their best reacting to something hideous, like, say, Carson Beckett's character dying on Stargate Atlantis and creating a huge fan uprising. Surely there must be some happy medium. Nobody seems to have found it yet. The licensing and their move to SciFi does, as you point out, remove all the things that were GREAT and cutting-edge about the use of technology. SciFi will doubtless want the images copyrighted and trademarked like all their other properties. Still, the Sanctuary folks do say that fan feedback and interaction was important to their model. I'm just waiting to see that in more concrete terms—something other than hosting a few spaces for fans to congregate. In short, they're talking the talk, and I want to see them walk the walk. I think with any fan interaction that is quasi-official with the producers puts fans in an awkward position. You betray EVERYBODY: fellow fans when you don't speak out or can't share certain things that fans would find important; and the producers, who are trusting you to keep quiet while they sort through everything. Hats off to all you beta testers! The important thing here is that you really care about the show. That's crucial. So of course you'll feel disappointed and maybe even personally betrayed when the fabulous things you've been doing aren't accepted or acknowledged. But you should also feel proud that you're doing something so important for the entire industry by being part of this experiment. I am hoping Sanctuary won't end up like every other sci-fi show (I'm afraid it will now that SciFi picked it up) when it had such auspicious, intriguing beginnings, but I'm also glad that everybody came together to give it a try. Tue, Feb. 5th, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)
In terms of controlled, etc, there is a certain number of "high end" fandom positions (somewhat like a fandom hierarchy). The top dog, if she thinks you are in danger of rocking the boat, will elevate you to a position that she thinks you would enjoy. She will then use that to pressure you into silence, saying that anyone with any "official" status should be representing the company in a positive light. It's a very dubious statement, saying "official" as we've not been employed or anything of the like. You find that the cliquey nature of the Sanctuary fandom at present means that these people in the higher positions can very easily sideline those they don't think are contributing to the community. Very hard to put into words, I'm afraid, but there it is.
In terms of beta-testing, one of the places that Sanctuary fell flat and lost money was the fact that they did not use us efficiently. Webisodes should have been thoroughly beta-tested before the series went live. When it did go live and it didn't work, there were hellish issues that turned a lot of people off. Between this, download servers that couldn't deal with European clients, and a PR "Guru" with the tactfulness of a bull in a china shop, I think Sanctuary has done more to damage itself than piracy ever could.
Using fan pitches and story ideas is something that Sanctuary have said that they'd like to incorporate. So much so that they introduced a "story pitch arena" where you could put forward your ideas. However, no real goalpoasts were set other than a loose "we might use your story in the show", then the goalposts were suddenly changed when the Story Pitch Arena closed abruptly and a set of "winners" were announced to attend a "Writers' Workshop".
Although initially intrigued by the idea of the Story Pitch Arena, the dubious technicalities and the wording of the legal disclaimers when participating, make me think that rather than being n exercise in fan participation, the exercise was a glorified version of "pin the tail on the donkey".
We knew through interviews and press releases that the next 60 hours worth of shows had been planned and the team was already writing, which indicates to me that they already knew what would happen after the cliffhanger. So why invite fan pitches? It looks good from a publicity angle. Let the fans submit their ideas, choose the "best" (meaning the one closest to the story you've already written) and then give them credit. The legal disclaimers in the submission rules cover your backside for any details that differ from submission.
Call me cynical, but I don't see how the legalities of fan submissions can be changed overnight. Wed, Feb. 6th, 2008 02:37 am (UTC)
admarian
Hats off to all you beta testers! The important thing here is that you really care about the show. That's crucial. So of course you'll feel disappointed and maybe even personally betrayed when the fabulous things you've been doing aren't accepted or acknowledged. But you should also feel proud that you're doing something so important for the entire industry by being part of this experiment. Actually, I was hesitant to even admit I was a beta for this project when I commented the first time! It's rather embarrassing to tell people. As Anonymous mentioned, we were sorely under utilized. I've beta'd before and usually felt that I had contributed something to the process, even if all of my suggestions weren't taken. When the final product was out, I was happy to admit I'd been part of testing when I encountered other users. With Sanctuary they never had us test anything, so admitting to being on the beta team meant explaining that all those errors on the website and with the downloads were not because we betas were slackers, but because we'd never laid eyes on the site that had just launched. For the major update when they did bring beta's in before launching, they went live before actually addressing all the errors that had been pointed out. Regular users were complaining of the same things betas had logged and reported days earlier. And since the site date had not been announced, it's not something that would have drawn negative attention for them to push back until things were corrected. Sanctuary gives a fan plenty of reasons to feel betrayed, but most of them have to do with the "fabulous things" we never got to do more than any lack of acknowledgment for what we did accomplish. The beta failures--and several of their other issues--were not always the growing pains of a newly developing business model, but poor planning generally. The sort of things you might forgive in a dorm-room start up by a couple of college students, but in professionals? I remain interested in the outcome because I'm wondering what type of precedent this will set for other projects. My biggest fear is that it might stand as a giant stop sign preventing future projects from attempting a similar model--projects that might have been better planned and executed and avoided some of the stupid mistakes that happened here. In some ways, given the turn the project has taken, my involvement feels less like something to be proud off in terms of development of future industry than something that may contribute to setting it back half a decade for all the wrong reasons. Sat, May. 31st, 2008 12:34 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
My issue, as one of the 'invited to pitch' people was the total disorganization. I, and many/some of the others, never got an official 'you're invited' e-mail, we found out via word of mouth. So you get there and it's a 'yeah, write it out and so and so will be with you and help you'. No guidelines beyond that. And the 'so and so' person never showed up. There was no 'this is what we want' guidance. Were they looking for original episode ideas? Or a resolution to the cliff hanger?
We still don't know.
We were just given a deadline and then nothing. The deadline came and went and nothing. No comments from anyone.
Then James said 'oh, this won't be shot with the actors, it's an animation, it said so in your e-mail'. He was of course referring to the invitation e-mail that few if any of us got. And when we said 'we never got the e-mail' his response was a flip 'well, you're here now'.
It was interesting, it was fun. But, at the end, you feel like a damn fool for getting your hopes up only to be summarily ignored and dismissed for being an inconvenience and a 'mess' to be dealt with.
From the POV of a fan, you can understand the legal issues they're now bound to, but the near total lack of 'Sorry folks, this is what we have to do now' type of comment does nothing but make people feel used and abused.
You know that they're learning, and you know that - by and large - they mean well. However, now that Sci-fi has their hands in things, you know it'll soon be 'fan in your place, just give us money and go away'.
And about the only 'justice' that will come is when those in the fandom positions of power realize that they've been played the biggest fools of all.
Wed, Jun. 4th, 2008 03:59 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
Yes in relation to that so-called "writer's workshop" - I really think ultimately that it's fairly poor behavior to invite a group of people into a "workshop" and tell them that the show's writers are going to work with them, that you want them to write something and then you'll produce it and then, after they've written it, abandon the whole project without a word of any kind whatsoever.
They subsequently shut down their website after some people ordered webisodes but before those people had received the webisodes. And again, no word whatsoever as to what has happened to those people's money. Fair enough they're in the middle of production, but I don't really think that's a good enough excuse for this. As an example in bad handling of fans, the Sanctuary team is probably leaving a more indelible impression than they did with an internet distribution model. Wed, Jun. 4th, 2008 12:10 pm (UTC)
khellekson
I kind of wondered what they would do once they signed the deal with SciFi. Now I guess I know. You'd think that common courtesy would have them e-mailing you, or at the very least posting a kind note about all your work. I was disappointed to see that this Grand Experiment failed so miserably. It seemed it was just a pretext to get a TV deal using this greenscreen model of creating sets—or maybe it just seems like that because that's how it shook out. I also have a feeling that the number of disgruntled fans will be nothing compared with the number of new fans that will come to the show via SciFi, totally unaware of the team's previous experience with fans. But this time, everybody will know what to expect: more of the same. Sat, Jun. 7th, 2008 06:16 pm (UTC)
skydiver119
scifi having them remove the webisodes is a distinct possibility. That stuff is now going to be part of the new show and you don't quite want it out there. now, i had an account and had someone that downloaded it for me (one thing their model took for granted is that the whole world has high speed...i didn't then, thus was pretty much excluded from the whole thing without a friend to download for me) I have copies of the episodes on my hard drive. And if they're no longer in my library...kinda disappointing, but honestly, i don't even trust stuff out on the network at work - i keep copies locally - so i sure an heck wouldn't trust someone somewhere in the world to keep the files safe for me indefinitely. So I can't muster much sympathy for those that were using their library as a backup. It's akin to trusting that a fanfic archive will remain up forever and getting frustrated when the site is taken down. You want access to stuff, keep a copy local and don't trust anyone but yourself. However, if they have sold webisodes that people never got, that's wrong and those folks deserve a refund. As to scifi's input...i have very mixed feelings. I kinda know the folks behind the production (being a long time fan of stargate and knowing their work there) and while i have faith in them, they're also working or a network that thinks wrestling is scifi, that pimps boobs, butts and bombs as necessary ingredients to a show and has done more to ruin the general reputation of scifi than build it up with such stellar examples as the scifi saturday movies. While i trust the sanctuary folks to do their best, i also acknowledge that scifi is paying the bills now. And i don't trust scifi any further than i can throw them. What bit S3M in the butt and killed the project is, if people can get it for free, they will. And they don't care about the people making something. For every person that paid for webbys, there had to be 10 others that pirated it and didn't pay. Everything will have a few of those. But when the 'cheapskates' out number the customers, nothing can last for long. the openness that S3M had is gone and we'll be subject to skiffy's ham fisted efforts at control. About the biggest 'failure' i see for S3M is their lack of proper PR handling of situations. People in the fanfic workshop wouldn't be as ticked off if they'd just be told something honestly and not be jerked around. Fans who have alledgedly bought webbys they didn't get need an answer. If skiffy has laid down the law, just tell fans that. Say, these are the rules we're playing by now, and give us some info. fandom exists on an exchange of info, and heavy handed tactics really do nothing more than to make adversaries Fri, Jun. 6th, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): webisode availability
Just a brief comment on the webisodes paid for and not available, I am hoping that will be a temporary situation - perhaps the website is being reworked. Also, how long does it take to download a webisode? 8 months? A year? Webisodes have been available for download for many months, why you would purchase them and not download them this many months out is a mystery.
That being said, if you had the understanding webisodes would be available indefinitely in your library, you may have felt no urgent need to download a copy and the official site should have sent off an email warning about the site shutting down. Something to the effect that if you had not yet downloaded the webisodes, you had a month until they were no longer available.
Do you think scifi now "owns" some of that content? Maybe that is why it was removed? Sat, Jun. 7th, 2008 02:26 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Webisodes
I gather from what I read that the complaint about the webisodes has more to do with a few people who purchased them recently, as in paid the money to PayPal, and then never actually received the webisodes in their library for download at all.
It should have been very forseeable that people would be buying webisodes at that time because of all the attention that was generated from the sale to Sci-Fi. It would have been prudent perhaps to ensure that webisodes could not be bought if they could not be provided. I imagine that that in itself is an oversite, however the disappointing factor is probably more the fact that it has actually happened and no steps have been taken to inform those people of whether they are going to get the webisodes or get their money back. That's something that should have been addressed within a couple of weeks - it sounds like it's been more like a couple of months so far. Sun, Jun. 8th, 2008 02:42 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Webisodes
Totally agree, I forgot about the recent purchasers. |
happy