[ad_1]
“ Lack of transparency can stifle growth, collaboration and innovation. ”
Over the past few months, the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes have sparked a public discourse about the urgent need for improved and fairer agreements in the film and TV industry. These agreements are a much needed adaptation to the immense transformation witnessed in the past decade, primarily fueled by the rapid rise and dominance of SVOD (streaming video on-demand) platforms including Netflix
NFLX,
Amazon Prime Video
AMZN,
Hulu, Disney+
DIS,
(HBO) Max, Apple TV+
AAPL,
Paramount+ and others.
As with any industry, the emergence of new technological advances brings both opportunities and challenges. One significant challenge that artists and talent face in the era of SVOD content is the lack of easily accessible data regarding viewership of specific titles on these streaming platforms.
This lack of transparency, or data asymmetry, can stifle growth, collaboration and innovation. It highlights the need for a singular, trusted and objective source of information that can be accessed by all parties.
Looking back at the history of the entertainment industry, digital innovation has transformed both the music industry and the TV and film industry in similar ways. But the response has differed, with music often in the vanguard due to the more simplistic, audio-only format of music content (excluding music videos and other visuals).
“Streaming, digital and physical sales, airplay and other music data is used daily across the music business.”
We’ve seen music tackle a multitude of physical formats through the years, with vinyl giving way to cassette tapes and ultimately the golden age of the CD where the music industry saw its revenues peak in 1999. When iTunes and then Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music and other streamers disrupted the ways listeners consumed music over the last two decades, record labels, distributors and artists had to evolve their release strategies. Fortunately, music charts all over the world, including the Billboard Charts in the United States, adapted in real time, making use of available streaming data to provide an objective look at the landscape.
Now, streaming, digital and physical sales, airplay and other music data is used daily across the music business, from A&R to marketing departments, from live event promoters to independent artists, in order to make informed creative business decisions. This summer, for example, Taylor Swift is promoting a song from an album released four years ago as a radio single, with it just now reaching its peak on the charts. This campaign was made possible by streaming data that showed an uptick in the song’s consumption since Swift’s tour kicked off in the spring. That is a win for Swift, her tour promoter, her fans, her label, her co-writers and everyone in between.
“ Is an AI-generated song worth as much as a Taylor Swift song? ”
Of course, it can’t be ignored that music has its own issues surrounding valuation in the age of streaming. Is an AI-generated song worth as much as a Taylor Swift song? Should Bad Bunny receive the same royalty as “Rain Sounds on a Tin Roof”? Should an indie artist have to grapple with owning their masters or selling the ownership rights to access the power and influence of a label?
Those questions are being answered from different points of view across the music ecosystem right now. In this case, streaming platforms have no stake in the production of the content, but there are informed answers because of pervasive and comprehensive access to data.
Actors and writers need the same kind of information to have the same control and insight into the audience demands for the content they’ve created. Taylor Swift would not be able to market her music with such precision and to her fans’ demand without access to the essential listenership information. Filmmakers and TV creators unfortunately are not in her position.
Streaming services need that same information from their competitors if they want to have negotiation leverage with the creatives, whether they be established award winners or up-and-coming talent. This is not just about empowering one side, but about ensuring there is a level playing field for every participant from the largest studios and streamers to the up-and-coming actors and writers with dreams of making it big.
It is also important to reflect on the ways data has transformed film and TV in the past. Filmmakers were once able to solely rely on box-office numbers. Networks relied primarily on ratings to strategize on their programming decisions when revenue came primarily from ad buyers and not subscribers. Talent reps used both to negotiate fair contracts. That entire business model is fading away as streamers continue to collect more and more data, but view this as a competitive advantage and choose not to disclose their viewership data.
An opaque marketplace doesn’t make much sense when technological advances make transparency possible, and everyone knows it. If there is data that affects the work of many, while only informing a select few, a healthy ecosystem cannot be sustained. In this case, skewed information leads not only to disempowered artists but also to distribution and production companies building business models that are set up using varying, and in extreme cases contradictory, forecasts for the industry’s future. Accessible data for everyone can level the playing field.
Rob Jonas is CEO of entertainment data and insights company Luminate. The company, formerly operating as SoundScan, Nielsen Music and P-MRC Data, has fueled the Billboard Charts since 1991, provides global entertainment research-based audience insights and maintains a premier offering of verified film and TV industry metadata, from talent to executives.
Plus: Strict limits on AI would harm Hollywood actors and writers
[ad_2]
Source link
