Barrett Garese

2000 Words On “Derivative Bullshit,” “WebTV,” and “Online Content”

The Past

So apparently I pissed of half of the known internet today. I looked it right in the eyes and told it yes, its ass did look fat in those jeans. In other words I gave my honest opinion without regard to feelings, sentiment, or repercussion.

In return, I got called a number of colorful names by people whose feelings I’d hurt. Some were semi-sarcastic, some were very spirited, and all were probably partially truthful. Many people agreed with me though.

Now the video in question was recorded back in May but was reposted to twitter this morning. A half hour later, it was the spark for a firestorm of discussion, commentary, argumentation, and the occasional brief moment of agreement.

The Present

Now I stand by what I say, as I’m (generally) smart enough to never say something on camera without being okay with the idea of it living in perpetuity on the internet. As was oft said during the Napster days, pulling something off the internet is like pulling pee out of a pool.

To reiterate: I think that the vast majority of online content creators are simply content with making shorter, cheaper versions of already established media – short TV, short film, short stories. The problem here is that being shorter and cheaper to make isn’t a reason for an audience to watch, and it’s impossible for an audience not to compare your property to the already-established medium you based it off of.

To wit, I often joke that Mission Impossible 3 was by far the best episode of Alias I’d ever seen, but within that joke is the truth that it felt like a TV show on a big screen. No matter how good that TV show experience was, I ended up feeling ripped off for missing out on the actual theatrical experience I’d paid for. The content didn’t match the medium, and therefore the content felt wrong.

Now does that mean that there aren’t any good video series out in the online marketplace? Of course that’s not what it means. There are a ton of projects that are inarguably quality pieces of entertainment. Their creators have put a lot of time, energy, sweat equity, real equity, and talent into their creation. But there are very few that feel like they didn’t start out as, or are a byproduct of their creators’ ambitions towards television or film.

I’ve said it maybe a hundred times, but I’ll repeat it again here: the content must be developed for the medium in which it will be consumed. There are a number of reasons why that rings true:

Each individual medium has its unique advantages and disadvantages.
The best projects in each medium will take advantage of these A&Ds and their creators will craft something that feels like it could not be experienced (or at least will be vastly inferior) in any other medium.
The craft of any artistic endeavor relies on a certain mastery of the medium in which the endeavor will exist.

Think about it: the best films aren’t the same on TV. The Godfather in a theater is a vastly superior experience to The Godfather on DVD at 3pm on a Sunday. It was created with that medium in mind, and takes full advantage. People will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars doing their best to emulate the theatrical experience at home because it adds so much to the art created for that medium. LOST is what it is because it could spend hours upon hours exploring the characters; diving into their pasts and futures with an all-encompassing amount of depth which would have been lost (no pun intended) in a theatrical experience.

So here’s the big 64 million dollar question: What elements make online entertainment unique amongst media, and what should be done to take advantage of those elements?

What specific elements of either the series itself, or the medium in which it exists makes that entertainment experience so well-crafted and so at home online, that to translate it to TV or film would make it inferior? I posit that unless there are answers to these questions, it’s not online content, it’s just online distribution.

Which leads me to the sidebar topic: Online distribution.

Sidebar

Let’s talk about that concept a little further, because I think our terminology is actually a really good indicator of our priority. As it stands right now, there are a number of terms for content that’s posted online: WebTV, Webseries, online entertainment, porn, etc. These terms showcase an interesting dichotomy that we’re already seeing in the nascent online content community. Here’s the kicker though:

There are two types of online content being created right now: content that is truly “Online Content,” and content that should be classified as “Online Distribution.” Online content is that which is completely unique to the internet, and would not exist were it not for the web. Online distribution is content in which the internet serves as a distribution replacement for another medium.

Most of what we in the webseries community consider online content is actually the latter. As I said in the video, the fact remains that for the vast majority of webseries, there is almost zero differentiation between that piece of content, and a TV series. This is the very definition of “WebTV.” We’ve gotten so caught up in the idea that the legacy of online content will be “zero barriers to entry” that we’ve somehow forgotten about innovation within that medium. “Zero barriers to entry” only applies when there’s something to enter into – ergo, an already existing medium.

Let’s give some examples to compare: could Lonelygirl exist on television? Could iJustine or the Vlogbrothers? Could this music video be played on MTV? All of these take elements unique to the medium and make it so that the experience of the content is singular to the medium in which it lives. To be very pointed: Regardless of how you feel about it as an entertainment medium, which feels more native to the internet: vlogging or webseries?*

Online distribution is the exact opposite. Now, I completely understand why it exists:

It’s a fuck of a lot harder to make something where nothing has existed before.
It’s process of creation is fully understood, both in the mechanics and the execution levels.
No one has grown up wanting to make online content, but people have grown up with dreams of making TV or film.
The internet is seen – rightly or wrongly – as a introductory medium to the worlds of TV and film, and people have a desire to “graduate” from one to the other.
We’ve gotten very seduced by the idea of “no barriers to entry” as a reason for existing.

So we really do have two worlds coexisting here under the same moniker: that which is unique to the internet and that which is replacing your tube for youtube.

Now let be very clear here, lest I leave myself open to misinterpretation: there’s nothing inherently wrong with online distribution. I’m not going to tell anyone their priorities or dreams are invalid, but what I will say is that maybe there should be a further separation between that which is truly “online content” and what which is traditional content with “online distribution.” Further clarity: online content and online distribution can (and should, and in many cases do) coexist, however while online distribution can exist without online content, online content cannot exist without online distribution.

Worth noting additionally is that all of this becomes a completely moot point if a merger of webseries and TV happens (as many predict) because then we’re all working in an entertainment world where transmedia becomes the norm - but that’s a whole other post for a whole other day. In the meantime we’ll work with what we’ve got.

The Future

So here’s the takeaway: Do I believe that most of online content can be categorized as derivative of other media? Yes. Absolutely. I think making a TV show and distributing it online is still essentially just making a TV show. If its only differentiators are cost of creation and distribution, then it’s not truly living up to the potential of “online content.” The legacy of online content isn’t just the idea that there are no barriers to entry, it’s that there are no barriers to creativity either. I think that there needs to be more exploration of the ideas and elements that make online content unique, not more exploration of “how do we get this closer to a TV level of cost and quality.”

Online content, in whatever name it’s described, has a lot of growing to do. There’s nothing wrong with this, every medium goes through the same thing - but let’s at least acknowledge our shortcomings so that we can change. If all we ever make is short TV, unless TV and the internet become one and the same, all we’ll ever be is second-rate; the junior varsity squad; the also-rans. The other option is to innovate. Begin to tell stories and entertain in ways that couldn’t exist anywhere else. Start paying more attention to very smart people like the youtube community, the HTML5 pioneers, and ARG creators. Start with the overall experience in mind.

Now this is going to be very controversial, but I’m going to just put it out there and then explain where it comes from: We’re going to start having to think of the medium first, and the story second.

Here’s why: No one ever has to begin a pitch by explaining what a movie theater is, how it’s utilized, and what the business model is. No one ever begins a television pitch with “We’ve got this box that allows transmission of audio/visual signals…” But if you’re doing something online, something that truly takes advantage of the specific advantageous elements of online content, you’re going to have to approach it with that mindset. There may be a little more initial explanation (and development) because the internet (let alone the mobile landscape) is mind-blowingly complex. You cannot simply graft interactive elements onto a tv series, put it in a new box, and call it a day. Let’s not simply reiterate that which has been common for 50 years now, and claim that a new layer of paint makes it different. The internet can be so much more than just a repository or a replacement for that which already exists.

Think of the massive amount of creativity we can unleash. Think beyond online marketing masked as interactivity. Think what a medium made up of a mass of interconnected computers, phones, users, audio, video, information and communication can bring to a story. Think of what social storytelling and crowdsourcing can bring to content. Think beyond the frame of a video player and into the frame of the whole damn world. Find rules of other media just to break them and demonstrate to your users and viewers a whole new thought-process behind content creation. We have the largest communications and entertainment medium in the history of humanity to play with, and no one to tell us “No, you can’t do that.” Think about that world beyond distribution, find those elements, and exploit the hell out of them.

Because that’s where innovation will come from. From risk takers. From standing on the shoulders of seemingly unrelated giants. From staring at a blank artistic canvas and daring to let ourselves dream beyond everything we’ve ever thought we knew. This is our sandbox. This is the world we call our artistic and professional “home.” Let’s get this car out of first gear and see what she can really do.

And then…well, one thing’s for certain: no one will ever be able to call your work “derivative.”

But in the end, all of this is just the opinion of one douchebag on the internet, so take it for what it’s worth.

*Credit for this revelation comes via Steve Woolf of Blip.tv and Epic Fu who dropped that little knowledge bomb on me.