Fred Wilson: Some Thoughts On The Louis CK "Experiment"(avc.com)

44 pointsby cwan15 lat temu15 comments

Fred Wilson: Some Thoughts On The Louis CK "Experiment"

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/12/some-thoughts-on-the-louis-ck-experiment.html

15 comments

Either everything I've ever learned about business is wrong or he is misusing the term business model.

I was always taught a business model is essentially a corporate version of a scientific hypothesis. Meaning it has to be defined and tested in a way that can be repeated by others

(successful business models can fail if the people using them don't execute them properly but that's the equivalent of a scientist not reproducing the environment of an experiment properly)

In the case of Louis C.K. his celebrity filled a very important aspect of the business model which is "the method by which customers are enticed to pay for the goods being delivered". Mr. Wilson tries to gloss over that by saying...

"over time, if their work is good, their audience will grow and the investments they can make and the profits they can make will increase."

But that's not proven by what Louis C.K. did and in fact there's tons of proof on the internet that shows it isn't the case (it isn't hard to find undiscovered talent on the internet). Moreover the situation will only get worse over time. As more people try what Louis C.K. did it will add more noise to the already noisy internet making the true talent that much harder to find.

Companies like record labels originally existed because society needed middle men. People who would pay A&R reps to go to clubs every night and find talent. Then the label would deliver that talent to the masses. If you really want to make the Louis C.K. model into a business model everyone can use the question that needs to be answered is....

"how do you use technology to find the talent and then connect it to people who want to consume it?"

And Louis C.K.'s experiment does nothing to answer that.

dgreensp15 lat temu

One step at a time. If we can all agree on the apparently controversial/notable fact that selling your content to fans for money is a viable business for a famous person, we are finally making steps towards a better world for artists and consumers.

jpdoctor15 lat temu

I love the fact that Louis CK disintermediated like a star.

However, there is a reason it worked: The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars to cause his name recognition. (Most likely, they profited handsomely too.) But now he has taken that name recognition and cut them out of the deal.

So it is very predictable what happens next: Future studio contracts will return to the days where the studios own all of your output for a period of time in return for promoting you.

kalleboo15 lat temu

I see the kickstartr model as something very similar to this, and it has worked well for people without any Hollywood backing or outside advertising.

James Rolfe (the angry video game nerd) has raised over $180,000 for his movie http://www.indiegogo.com/Angry-Video-Game-Nerd-The-Movie

Jason Scott raised over $100,000 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot...

Even though these projects will probably only break even, these are no small sums of money that people who have never been on broadcast TV are raising.

naner15 lat temu

The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars to cause his name recognition.

What does this mean specifically? He has a few standup specials, has been on the talk shows, and he has a TV show but the guy hasn't really been in any huge titles: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0127373/

viscanti15 lat temu

He was pretty smart about his TV deal. He took less money to have more creative control and to have more flexibility. I don't think his "success" changes anything for the TV industry.

dasil00315 lat temu

This doesn't make sense unless all the top talent rolls over like they did 70 years ago because they didn't know any better. Why do you think studios stopped owning talent decades ago? Because talent wised up. The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent, but that's what they'll get if they don't negotiate fairly. In short, they don't have the leverage.

jpdoctor15 lat temu

> The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent

Combine:

1. There is always a pipeline of new talent,

2. Businesses do not invest without a return.

So either the studios are going to lock in a return, or the studios are going to go away and the entertainment industry is going to fragment into a million pieces.

As much as I'd like to see the second case, my guess is that there are enough starving actors that they will sign up for long-term owned-output contracts.

dasil00315 lat temu

And they got their return. Are you trying to say they spent more than they made off Louis CK? This is a weak argument for how they're going to turn back the clock.

md151515 lat temu

I think this business model is similar to that of the self-publishing model.

The two main parties in any published work are 1) the author and 2) the reader. The publisher, agent, distributor (book store) etc. are all intermediaries that have increased the cost of books for the reader AND decreased the money earned for the author (therefore restricting many authors' artistic contributions). With websites like creativespace.com authors can now publish self-publish with many fewer middle-men - therefore making the price lower and the net gain to the author higher.

The same applies for Louis CK's experiment. I assume his industry is pirated more than the print publications so that is the real trick. Either way, great experiment.

rmason15 lat temu

I think the most interesting part of the post was in the comments when Fred highlighted an up and coming star using the web for distribution.

Freddie Wong is starting an episodic series. He raised the production money on KickStarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/freddiew/video-game-high...

Can you imagine how more interesting the web will get when the next Lucille Ball can go direct to the fans? All that is needed is a way to easily consume media from the web on the big screen.

Forget 500 channels, how about 5 billion channels!

georgemcbay15 lat temu

The important shift isn't really 500 channels->5 billion channels, but rather an entertainment system based around scheduling vs one that is on-demand.

500 channels didn't do shit for me, there's still "nothing on" most of the time. The DVR, on the other hand, did quite a lot for me.

A move to full-on over-the-net device neutral VOD does even more, and it is obviously coming whether existing stakeholders want it or not.

mkramlich15 lat temu

> an you imagine how more interesting the web will get when the next Lucille Ball can go direct to the fans?

agreed. and already happening. I've discovered several hilarious talented women on YouTube, total amateurs, yet more entertaining than most generic Hollywood mass produced actresses. And these women can all now control their message and work and charge fans directly for premium content, get advertising revenue, etc. The next Lucy's and Oprah's may already exist now and they've started their little empires on YouTube.

3lit3H4ck3r15 lat temu

>The next Lucy's and Oprah's may already exist now and they've started their little empires on YouTube.

Just imagine all of the talent that (prior to the web,youtube blogs,fill in the blank web based distribution model of your choice here) gave up because someone in media never thought they would "sell".

Truly is a great time to be alive, both for the artist and the folks that love good content.

Viva Le Web!

piggity15 lat temu

I demand that the existing media conglomerate distribution model be left in place so that I may be told what is worth "consuming" and who I should look up to as a star.