Jon Silver

YouTube, multichannel networks and the accelerated evolution of the new screen ecology:

In attempting to break with a ‘fall from grace’ narrative that may structure analysis of the rapid professionalization and monetization of previously amateur online video content on the main global platform, YouTube, this article outlines histories of key institutions in the new screen ecology as outcomes of the increased interpenetration of very different, often clashing industry cultures. Google/YouTube, Apple’s iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo! and Facebook (‘NoCal’) are largely Internet ‘pure-play’ companies, whilst Hollywood’s incumbents (‘SoCal’) practice time-honoured mass media and premium content strategies. The ‘history of the present’ of the new screen ecology is the history of the clash of these cultures. The less than 10-year history of Google’s YouTube can be written as a history of Google seeking to come to terms with the conditions of possibility for entertainment, content and talent development from its base as an IT company dedicated to scale, automation, permanent beta, rapid prototyping and iteration. These efforts reflect both continuities and contestations with traditional media models, particularly business models. As emerging intermediaries in the middle of the convergent space between NoCal and SoCal, multichannel networks’ (MCNs’) placement sees them needing to innovate on both the NoCal and SoCal side. On the former side, MCNs are attempting to provide value-added services superior to basic YouTube analytics, with programmatics and pioneering attempts at management of scale and volume. On the latter side, they are managing a quite different class of entry- to mid-level talent, who bring successful audience development and clear ideas about the roots of their success with them. The new screen ecology is a space of unimagined scale and scope of flourishing online creativity and culture, which is at the same time turbulent and precarious for creators and MCNs alike.

Rates of Change: Online Distribution as Disruptive Technology in the Film Industry

Much debate in media and communication studies is based on exaggerated opposition between the digital sublime and the digital abject: overly enthusiastic optimism versus determined pessimism over the potential of new technologies. This inhibits the disciplines claims to provide rigorous insight into industry and social change – which is, after all, continuous. Instead of having to decide one way or the other, we need to ask how we study the process of change. This article examines the impact of online distribution in the film industry, particularly addressing the question of rates of change. Are there genuinely new players disrupting the established oligopoly, and if so with what effect? Is there evidence of disruption to, and innovation in, business models? Has cultural change been forced on the incumbents? Outside mainstream Hollywood, where are the new opportunities and the new players? What is the situation in Australia?

Digital dawn: A revolution in movie distribution?

How will the digital technology revolution impact the movie business? Hollywood developed a highly successful industrial system that has functioned well for almost a century in the sense that it enabled the Major film studios to largely control and dominate the industry. However, the new digital technology may now be propelling Hollywood toward the biggest technological transition since the creation of the studio system almost a century ago. For example, Major Hollywood studios are already beginning to provide video-on-demand (VOD) digital distribution of movies over the Internet. This article examines what is happening, and why. It sets out the background and the incipient changes already occurring. It makes an argument regarding the fundamental strategic dynamics, that acetate film was the key to the control of the Hollywood system, and speculates about how a shift away from acetate film to digital video may transform that system. The focus is on the impact on how the Major studios release and market their movies, and how new market and marketing opportunities for the low-budget independent filmmaking sector may arise.

The relationship between entertainment producers and higher education providers

Cameron, Verhoeven and Court have noted that many screen producers do not see their tertiary education as being beneficial to their careers. We hypothesise that universities traditionally have not trained students in producing skills because of the division of labour between arts and business faculties, and because their focus on art rather than entertainment has downplayed the importance of producing. This article presents a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) whole-of-program evaluation of a new cross-faculty Bachelor of Entertainment Industries degree at QUT, devoted to providing students with graduate attributes for producing, including creative skills (understanding story, the aesthetics of entertainment, etc.), business skills (business models, finance, marketing, etc.) and legal skills (contracts, copyright, etc.). Stakeholder evaluations suggest that entertainment producers are highly supportive of this new course.

Australian feature films and distribution: Industry or cottage industry?

ABSTRACT Feature films remain critical flagships to any national film industry. Australian feature films can be highly commercial endeavours that also perform symbolic functions by embodying the national imaginary in big screen based sound and imagery. They conduct a dialogue with domestic audiences as well as showcase key aspects of Australia in the global film festival circuit. As the pre-eminent filmmaking form, feature films also serve as important launchpads for the careers of many Australian writers, directors, actors and technical crew. In the wake of over a decade of diminished share of local box office obtained by Australian feature films, Australian feature films and distribution: industry or cottage industry?, examines issues in the production sector affecting the performance of Australian feature films and some responses by the central funding and support screen agency, Screen Australia.

Does It Matter? The Content Question, and Conclusions

To what extent does having these new corporations increasingly control the flow of digital entertainment content change matters? The chapter documents and analyses the range of new content being commissioned for the new platforms. The book concludes by arguing that powerful players have entered the market, some of whom massively outrank in size and growth the companies which run film and television today. Like all large-scale corporations, they are likely to use market power to seek to limit competition and most will attempt to corral users inside walled gardens. But, through them, distribution of licit screen content has never before been so varied and accessible.

The Players, Part One: YouTube/Google

Through their sheer size and global reach, YouTube and its owner Google have unquestionably emerged as the front-runner in online distribution and as a emerging TV-like network. This chapter provides an overview of the four main areas of professionally produced, or pro-am, content YouTube now operates in: YouTube’s 100 channels original programming initiative, YouTube Live, YouTube Partners program and YouTube Movies. We conclude that the scope and scale of YouTube mean that its viewership is potentially global and reaches a broader demographic and cultural mix than any other major screen network does. Its comprehensive range of genres is underpinned by a capacity to commission original content and develop a diverse slate.

Lessons from History, the Future of Television?

This chapter considers historical comparisons to the current period of digital disruption, discussing two periods in the history of Hollywood where powerful incumbent market leaders have been seriously challenged by new competitors. The first was from 1917 to 1927 during the “Theater Wars” when Hollywood’s dominant studio-distributor was challenged by the emergence of vertically integrated studio-distributor-exhibitors. The second was from 1948 to 1958 when commercial television began to diffuse widely into American homes, fragmenting regular movie-going audiences. We argue that these comparisons hold strategic lessons for the present by focusing on the advantages that companies have that control the platforms that deliver content to audiences. As an introduction to the following chapters, this chapter introduces criteria for what makes a TV network.

Online Distribution Globally

This chapter concerns itself with the degree to which we can consider developments in online distribution outside the US “hothouse” to be significant within a “middle range” theoretical framework and a “middle way” cultural politics. The chapter surveys significant attempts to service “world cinema” and independent tastes. While a number of non-US online distribution initiatives act as vehicles for the further platforming of mainstream Hollywood entertainment product, there has been an overall broadening and diversification of the range of production opportunity and of content available to both national and global viewers. A feature of the chapter is a detailed case study of China’s online screen distribution dynamics.

The Players, Part Two: Rivals in Online Distribution

Six companies are profiled: Amazon, one of the largest Internet companies with a production and distribution ecosystem of great scale and potential; Apple, whose customer-centric, marketing-oriented approach has provided it with the scale and resources to engage its massive user base should it so choose; and Facebook, which, as it encounters increasing competition in the social network space may need to differentiate itself from rivals in order to retain its stickiness as a destination for existing users and to continue to attract new users. In addition, Yahoo! adheres to a typical Hollywood strategy of signing big name talent and developing programming built around that talent; Netflix is the recognised market leader in streaming movie and TV rentals and has recently committed to commissioning content; and Hulu is the incumbent TV networks’ major play in the online video space.