This week's readings discussed the generative nature of certain internet applications and how certain non-generative network platforms and service providers (like AOL and AT&T) suffered from lack of third party innovation. Drawing on the Zittrain chapter, and The Long Tail article by Chris Anderson, I will briefly discuss Netflix and where it falls on my own "generativity scale," especially in comparison to YouTube.
ZITTRAIN
Zittrain's chapters on the feature of generative systems, clearly outlines five factors to consider when evaluating the essence of being generative:
1. Leverage, or as I would call it, what makes this application useful?
2. Adaptability, or how easily the system can be built on or modified to broaden its range.
3. Ease of Mastery. Do you need a degree in Computer Science to make it adaptable or cultivate that leverage?
4. Accessibility. Can I get on it? Can I afford it? How easy is it to gain access?
5. Transferability. How easily can update in technology be transferred?
(Pages 73-74)
As Zittrain points out, all of these factors reinforce each other, and generative tools will breed generative systems. The internet, of course, provides one of the most generative systems of all times, and the development of generative tools and platforms have lead the growth of, the monetization of, and the rise in popularity of what Chris Anderson would call, the long tail.
THE LONG TAIL
The Long Tail refers to the millions of niche and independent content producers that have flourished, or, at least, had more exposure in a digital age. It's not The Dark Knight or even The Artist. It's that independent film that played in Brooklyn last week. Or to use the example from the article, it's the Hindi Language film Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India. Such Long Tail films do not have millions of movie theaters and physical spaces (not to mention million dollar ad campaigns) to gain popularity and following but they do have the internet.
Anderson goes on to talk about Rhapsody and Amazon.com as taking advantage of those niche films, books and other kinds of content to let that long tail grow and flourish. The Long Tail is not about 'hit-driven' economics but the distribution of not so widely popular content.
One of the examples championed by Anderson in his 2006 article is Netflix. Especially when compared to blockbuster, Netflix is the poster child for streaming and dvd distribution of independent, foreign and niche films, that your neighborhood blockbuster would never have. Anderson states that a fifth of Netflix rentals are outside the top 3,000 movie titles. Whereas, those three thousand titles would be all that Blockbuster carries.
NETFLIX
These two articles got me thinking about generativity, the digital age and Netflix. So first let's put Netflix up to Zittrain's Five Factor Test. Is Netflix a generative tool on the generative system of the internet?
1. Leverage. Yes. Everyone loves movies, even niche movies!
2. Adaptability, Depending on how those negotiations with movie studios go? It could go well!
3. Ease of Mastery. Yes. It's relatively easy to search and stream or sign up for Netflix.
4. Accessibility. On the internet so it's easy to get. But the recent rise in price is making it harder to afford, especially for this college student.
5. Transferability. Well whatever the Netflix gods put up to stream or rent can be accessed by any internet connected computer with enough broadband.
But is Netflix generative? It's certainly part of the Long Tail which thrives in a generative system. But I can't edit the content. I can't upload my independent documentary about the Hunter College Bathroom stalls for streaming.
In comparing the Netflix business model with that of YouTube's, I find YouTube much more sustainable. Both are investing in exclusive content, although one (netflix) actually licenses studio work. YouTube (Google) holds contests for suscribers to develop their own content. Netflix is producing an original series? What's really more generative? It will be interesting to see what the digital entertainment landscape looks like in 10 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment