...and the Grateful Dead have in common? (Besides using Bears in their logos.)
Answer: They both built their brands by "giving away" content.
The Chicago Cubs began broadcasting games on radio in the 1920s and, following World War II, allowed WGN to broadcast all home games (and some away games) on local television. While other owners were aghast at this practice, the Cubs built a loyal following despite mediocre play.
(It took time, however, as attendance at Wrigley Field was often so light that -- as late as the mid-1970s -- the upper deck was closed on weekdays. Today, as any Chicagoan will tell you, you can't get near the place -- at any time -- while Sox tickets often go begging.)
(It took time, however, as attendance at Wrigley Field was often so light that -- as late as the mid-1970s -- the upper deck was closed on weekdays. Today, as any Chicagoan will tell you, you can't get near the place -- at any time -- while Sox tickets often go begging.)
The Grateful Dead, while not the greatest rock band of the last half century (sorry, Dead Heads), may arguably have the most ardent following. Why? Among other factors (mostly psychedelic), the Dead -- unlike most bands -- encouraged the taping of its concerts (and sharing) by fans.
Why do I bring all this up? Because of a piece in the op-ed section of the Times today, "Would the Bard Have Survived the Web?"
The gist of it is that the theaters that emerged in sixteenth century England gave rise to such playwrights as Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, and, of course, William Shakespeare. It was these "paywalls" that allowed individuals to write professionally. Money quote:
As with much else, literary talent often remains undeveloped unless markets reward it.
(Don't even get me started on a pulp fiction writer like Scott Turow -- one of the authors of the piece -- comparing himself to William Shakespeare. I think the Yiddish term for that is chutzpah.)
The rest of it, as I'm sure you've guessed by now, is about the evils of the Internet:
Piracy is a lucrative, innovative, global enterprise. Clusters of overseas servers can undermine much of the commercial basis for creative work around the world, offering users the speedy, secret transmission of stolen goods.
While that's hard to argue with, I suspect what really bothers the authors of this piece is the idea of free content on the Web:
A rich culture demands contributions from authors and artists who devote thousands of hours to a work and a lifetime to their craft.
Not only do these writers want to get paid for their work (with which I can sympathize), but they also give the impression that amateurs should be discouraged from publishing as well. (See: Post, The Huffington.) And I find this a little offensive. It reminds me of the Church in the Middle Ages: "We're educated, we'll do the thinking, you just follow our lead." I'm sorry, but in the Age of the Internet, anyone can publish -- for free or otherwise -- and anyone can choose to read or ignore it. And the marketplace will sort it all out.
Just ask the Chicago Cubs or the Grateful Dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment