pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do we live in a world of too much content?  (Read 3385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tror

« on: June 29, 2016, 09:04 »
+6
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?


Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2016, 09:12 »
+4
Yes, if you choose too. I don't do smart phones, or the other social media stuff. A lot of people I know don't understand how I can be so anti social and out of touch. Truth be told, I spent most of my life without it and lived free, traveled tons, and met people. I still do that, but the getting to meet people is more challenging in my travels as everybody has their face planted into a device to be social or keep up with where they are not. Oh the irony of it.

Tror

« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2016, 09:24 »
+1
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?

« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2016, 09:40 »
+1
I prefer it how it is now.  When I was a kid, I had to listen to new music on the radio and that was filtered by the people that made the play lists.  Much more fun being able to find music I like on youtube or spotify that I would never of been able to listen to in those days.  I like instagram, now I can follow photographers that do the quirky stuff I like.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2016, 09:44 »
+1
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.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 09:47 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2016, 09:59 »
+6
Yes, I think 'too much content' sums it up.  The web/internet opened a firehose of content but effective filters haven't evolved yet.    Crowdsourcing sounded pretty seductive  as a business model, now we've seen where that leads: 50 million images with no quality control and an unsearchable mash-up of keywords.

The Google News site is a fountain of rubbish, mindlessly churning out pages of tragedy, celebrity idiocy, click-bait political commentary, sports trivia, and occasionally sand grains of important and significant news. 

A co-worker of mine nailed it years ago: "We live in the Age of Information - which hopefully will be followed by the Age of Correct Information".
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 12:20 by stockastic »

Harish Marnad

  • Spare time Digital Artist, Online Coach
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2016, 10:46 »
0
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.

« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2016, 11:58 »
+1
I prefer it how it is now.  When I was a kid, I had to listen to new music on the radio and that was filtered by the people that made the play lists.  Much more fun being able to find music I like on youtube or spotify that I would never of been able to listen to in those days.  I like instagram, now I can follow photographers that do the quirky stuff I like.

yes, i agree with you. although with the www at the beginning, musician Pat Metheny called it, "options anxiety"... we get too much to choose we end up in a blur of what is really good or bad.
a good example is the proliferation of gurus in everything ...from health ..to yoga ..
to even , how to l@id (LOL, there is a guy who claims his technique works because "believe me,
i am married to a rich chinese CEO"... or  guru who claims his technique was horned from being a loser once in his early days"

OTOH, as sharp says, you now don't get the brainwashing that the media controls. eg. i used to wonder why every country from india to japan to thailand to africa ,etc.. where people do not have the same background and culture, yet the Top 100 songs seem to be identical.
eg. how come GNR , ACDC, etc.. are always in the Top 3, even where in some countries , the general pop cannot even afford to buy a CD as it cost as much as what they earn picking coffee for a week.

with youtube, etc... we now have young geniuses, amazing 8 year old singing, playing the blues, etc
that makes Lady Gaga , Justin Beiber, etc look like absolute wastrels, and you wonder how it is still
that way with the media.

the media is losing, but there will always be the mindless majority being weaned on TV ads and radio and the media. why? because , as my young apprentice once told me, "it's easier to be a sheep that to be a sheep dog, even if you know we may be all being led to  running over the cliff...
most human minds do not want to bother to use their own grey matter. the movies,etc tell us it's more cool to be the idiotic clueless".

but at least, these days, we do have a choice with the social media too, because except for certain countries with blackout of certain issues on internet, we all have the freedom to find out what is really going on with our fellow neighbours over the pond or in countries where we never even knew
existed.

a simple eg. here is the EC Brexit or whatnot, we can find out more from our own peers , and not just rely on the Bib or general media.

at least this time, we can wade through the swamp and see what rises to the top is always not the cream.
 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2016, 16:47 »
+3
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.

« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2016, 19:59 »
0
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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2016, 20:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2016, 21:56 »
+1
There has always been this much content. Whether it was music or photos or something else. Sure technology has made it easier to make better quality photos, instead of film and digital music not a cassette tape, vectors not paints, or many other creations, but it's always been highly creative and artists everywhere.

What has changed is being able to share it with everybody in the world, easier. Local artists of 20 years ago, could be discovered or anonymous. Now it's on the web for the planet to see and decide. Also goes to the point that media, critics or marketing told us what we could see or want in the past. Now we can decide for ourselves.

Too much? No. Just that the curtain hiding what we missed has been raised. Doors have opened. Freedom

« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2016, 02:57 »
+2
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.

« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2016, 03:02 »
+3
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.

Spoilt! In the UK we had 2 channels - BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and ITV (Independent Television). Imagine the excitement when a third channel BBC2 launched and then (much later) Channel 4.

« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2016, 06:47 »
+1
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,   
 

 

« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2016, 07:05 »
0
I have no reception and I cut the cable.  Life is good. 

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2016, 07:07 »
+1
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.


« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2016, 07:11 »
0
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.

If you have Sky or Virgin cable TV ( I'm talking UK here) you get a PVR box thrown in so you can record the shows you like and skip through the ads. I have Virgin broadband and get a cheap TV deal as we have poor reception of terrestrial TV.

« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2016, 07:37 »
0
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

« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2016, 15:09 »
0

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.

i think it is still possible. which is why musicians like Loreena McKenna, Imogen Heap, U2, follow the old style promotion of The Grateful Dead who were selling out concerts without ever needing the help of their record company. They kept producing new music and made money from merchandizing during their free concerts where fans are even encouraged to bring their own tape-recorders to record the concerts. And The Dead had equipment on stage that were just amazing for even a fans to record with a simple casette, web cam or dvd recorder.

imagine this is even easier to do with today's standard of cameras with 1080 p movie.
i recorded many concerts with my camera and the sound and image quality is amazing.
only needs to have more batteries and more mem cards.

I would say it is possible for musicians and authors, but not so possible for photographers.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3328 Views
Last post April 16, 2009, 16:04
by Dreamframer
62 Replies
13786 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 15:53
by Sean Locke Photography
Live Help?

Started by vonkara iStockPhoto.com

22 Replies
5182 Views
Last post March 19, 2010, 23:20
by FD
3 Replies
3375 Views
Last post January 26, 2012, 04:04
by sharpshot
6 Replies
1935 Views
Last post May 25, 2016, 09:46
by MircoV

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results