I was just thinking, though -- even though these theaters are going to charge more to see a movie, they're still going to charge the same amount for every movie. Why is that? Why is it that you can buy premium vodka, designer clothes, etc., but there's no such thing as "designer" or "luxury" movies? Why does it cost the same amount of money to see Drillbit Taylor as it does to see Paranoid Park?
There always has been, and still is, a considerable cost difference between media formats made for elites (like ballet) and formats made for the common folk (network TV). But what about different styles and qualities of content in the same format? In some mass media, there is already a "premium" price for high-quality content. Most obviously, there's a price difference between cable and network TV; an even better example is the extra you pay for what are actually called the "premium" TV channels, such as HBO. Higher-tone magazines like Harper's always cost more than tabloids like US, and the same is true for newspapers. On the internet, until recently, you often had to pay for content on legitimate, recognized sites. Increasingly paid content is disappearing -- except, of course, for pornography: the Queen of Media.
But in a few other media -- namely, movies, books, and music -- there is no quality-based price differentiation. For instance, why not charge higher (instead of lower, which is the norm) admission for art-house movies than for blockbusters? Or more for movies starring A-list actors than with B-list actors? Also, why not charge more -- at least a little more -- for books of literature than for chick lit books? For singles by popular bands than for unpopular ones?
Introducing "luxury"-based stratification into consumption costs for movies, books, and CDs would also be much fairer to and nurturing of artists with new, edgy ideas. If ticket prices for indie movies were higher than for other movies, for example, indie filmmakers could remain "indie" while still being able to support themselves. And people who wanted to have "good" taste in movies would likely be willing to pay a premium for arty films, just like many people already do for fair-trade coffee or cage-free eggs. Paying slightly more "for a good cause" might actually raise demand by giving media consumers an ego boost.
I'm just going to guess that when you pay a uniform price for movies, books, and songs, the quality costs of indie movies/groups and books of literature are already built into the price, and people paying for chick lit and blockbusters are actually being overcharged, rather than indie filmgoers and literature-readers being undercharged. Anyone in film/publishing/record industries care to tell me if this is right?
If I am right, then these media are actually set up to nurture emerging talent. What does that say about the fact that two of them -- the publishing and record industries -- are supposedly in deep trouble? And what about the fact that increasingly content on the internet, the most cutting-edge form of media, is free? I guess it looks like the new model of media shifts most of the price of developing talent off of the media companies and onto the public. Non-contributing viewers/readers get "free" or at least underpriced media, but for contributors, the "price" of media viewer/readership is "built into" their labor in creating content.
So, I guess I'm paying Blogger right now. You're welcome!
1 comment:
Your closing line is true. You are indeed "paying" Blogger with your free effort, just like the many unpaid interns who toil free for film producers, art galleries, publishers, etc. in the hope of gaining a toehold in these famously exclusive occupational paradises. I had the notion of organizing a union for these earnest, unpaid young people, but the problem is the fundamental supply-and-demand principle which you seem to ignore throughout this post. The interns and bloggers could go on strike, but would anybody care? Other fodder would instantly fill their places.
Art-house movies can't be priced higher than blockbusters simply because so few people go to them. Great literature can't be priced higher because it's already choking the shelves of every used-book store.
The other, related problem is that it's impossible to tell in advance what quality a creative product will turn out to be. You're right that this forces those in power to nurture emerging talent: the flip side of the interns donating their lives in the hope of being one of the elect to get such a chance.
I'm sure you don't imagine that anyone would take a gamble on new talent if they ever figured out how to tell for sure, in advance, who the big new moneymaking author, film director, painter, or musician would be.
So I see no "quality" solution for you bloggers to escape paying for the privilege of making your efforts. Even more pitiful are those who leave comments.
Post a Comment