I remember when I was a kid I waited anxiously for the new Metallica Album to come out. To discover great Posters meant to travel 120km to the next big town and go to a special store. An impressive photo had been in my mind for a week. Books on special subjects had been rare and had to be ordered at the local bookstore.

Today I see every day amazing pictures/clips/texts/anycontent flowing though my FB wall, on 500px etc. and even so I am highly impressed by e.g. a amazing picture the next second it is out of my mind and forgotten history. Simply too much. Every time I head out to discover new music on Spotify I get overwhelmed by new amazing and sometimes unique music, but I rarely remember the artist after listening to it, I do not even want to download it - let alone that I would want to buy urgently the Album like I did in the 80s/90s. Simply too much.

We seem to live nowadays in a world which allows us to create content so easily that it outpasses far our possibilities of consumption.

Obviously, this statement seems to be true too for the Stock market. Too much content nobody can digest.

What do you think? Is it too much? Can we sustain making a living as content creators only as image/clip factories and by getting big companies. Can we survive by creating unique, relevant and creative content? Is there a limiting factor which forces to seize the ever growing growth in the content market?

Yes, if you choose too.

As a consumer you have a choice. As a producer you face harsh conditions. What do you think from the producers POV?

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on June 29, 2016, 09:12

Yes, if you choose too.

As a consumer you have a choice. As a producer you face harsh conditions. What do you think from the producers POV?

I am assuming you mean a producer of content. Still the same view. Embrace technology for it's benefits, and work it. But don't let technology embrace you to the point you become counter productive, if that makes sense. For me personally technology is a tool, it's not a toy, pastime, or hobby etc. The way I see it, I use my computer and technology to make a living (uploading) and that is more than enough time on the computer for me. When I am done, I go out and play and live life. So in a way, we all need technology whether we like it or not, but to use it wisely whether your are a consumer or producer is a choice.

I dont know where the breaking point is. Is SS and IS using Big Data Solutions to service customers? If they are not, there will be a point future they will have to.

For people who consume content, no, this is the gold rush of content. I've always had an instant gratification type of personality so having access to what I want when I want it is amazing. When I was a kid we had the old giant Zenith cabinet TV with probably ten channels via roof antenna. I had to watch what was on. It's funny to see the "remember when you had 10 TV channels" Memes but it sucked back then. I remember being yelled at for constantly skipping channels trying to find something worth watching. For music I made cassette tapes through a microphone recording from live radio which I then had to carry around a big boom box to play the tiny cassette. Again fun to reminisce but it sucked. I just layed in my hammock watching a live baseball game on my phone. Never would have dreamed that would ever be possible when I was a kid. Incredible.

For the producers of content it's a different story. It's easier to produce and distribute content but seems to be more difficult to make big money. The elite few photographers, musicians, etc used to make huge money. Now that's spread over a lot more people and more people are making a little money. I think it was the Who's Roger Daltry who recently said something like there's no point for him to make a new album.  They used to get a big money record contract. Now he would need to pay money out of his pocket to create an album without knowing if it would be profitable. Maybe he's doing things the old school way. Seems to be a lot of new music so somebody has got to be making money. I think the days of content producers getting filthy rich are about over. Movies may be the exception but that's because of theatres. How much longer will it be before todays theaters go the way of the drive-in move theater? I'd rather watch a movie on an Ipad then go to a theater and pay $20 per person and $10 for a 25 cent bag of popcorn. Drop $100 to bring the family and then have people talking, yelling, kicking my seat, and being distracted be a sea of people looking at their bright phones. It's only a matter of time before theaters mostly disappear and when they do so will the multi-million dollar payouts that go to the actors. Imagine the day when actors are complaining about making .25 subscription commissions.

For future content producers to make it, they will need to be social business go-getters who know how to work every angle available.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 29, 2016, 16:47

It's funny to see the "remember when you had 10 TV channels" Memes but it sucked back then.

I wish I had ten.  NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and the local independent.

We had 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26, 32, 44, 60, and 66 from what I remember. Now you can get an HD antenna and get over 50 channels depending on where you're at.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 29, 2016, 16:47

It's funny to see the "remember when you had 10 TV channels" Memes but it sucked back then.

I wish I had ten.  NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and the local independent.

I had 3, BBC1, BBC2 and ITV.  Channel 4 started in the 80's and that made a big difference.  There seemed to be more to watch then than there is now though.  I probably still watch the 2 BBC channels more than all the others combined.  Most of the sport was on free channels, now it costs over �500 a year to watch all the sport I want, on top of the BBC license fee and boxing is pay per view.  Seems like the worst sport to be pay per view because it can last one punch but people still pay for it.

I remember 2 channel TV here in the UK well. It was one channel (BBC) until 1955 when commercial TV started, but I can't remember that far back. Somewhere in the shed here I have a plywood box that was made to contain an adaptor that my dad built to allow ITV to be received on an existing set when it came along.
Radio was pretty limited as well. If you discount the short wave broadcasts from other countries, and various faint or "noisy" other stations on MW and LW, the BBC had all the stations. "The home service" and "the light programme" or the "third programme".


We didn't even have a telephone at home!


But today I think there is too much content. Multi channels of TV, mostly not worth watching. Radio with adverts and DJs drivelling on.


The consumer is spoilt for choice, but a lot of the content out there is both poor quality and difficult to find.


Can't understand why the microstock agencies who had carefully curated stock as far as quality went, have gone down the quantity over quality route,   
 

 

I watch 95% BBC1 / BBC2 with about 1% BBC4*. I can't stand adverts**. In fact, I can't get my head around e.g. Sky at all. You have to pay money and you still get adverts? Are people INSANE?
* and 1% Dave, until the adverts come on.
** and even on the Beeb, too much time repeatedly promoting their 'favourite' upcoming progs.

I watch 95% BBC1 / BBC2 with about 1% BBC4*. I can't stand adverts**. In fact, I can't get my head around e.g. Sky at all. You have to pay money and you still get adverts? Are people INSANE?
* and 1% Dave, until the adverts come on.
** and even on the Beeb, too much time repeatedly promoting their 'favourite' upcoming progs.

I didn't mind adverts so much, at least you had some apparent randomness to what you saw, but this (Insert annoying advert type voice over) "Complete rubbish, brought to you by You'll never buy it" at the start  of every program, and at the commercial breaks is so * annoying