The Social Dilemma | Official Trailer | Netflix

Distribution is king. Always was and always will be. You want your work on the most available platform, the one with the most eyeballs. And presently that is Netflix.

The purveyance of art used to be based on scarcity. There was only so much, so you could dictate the terms upon which it was consumed. But the internet busted that model and the only creative art form that has adjusted is music. Streaming outlets make everything available, removing the filter from the pipe. If you pay, you can listen. And, if you’re willing to listen to ads, you can listen without paying. So, it becomes a matter of getting known, getting attention, amidst the mass of product. Scarcity is history and everyone is affected. The barrier to entry is very low, but it turns out that people all don’t want to listen to the same thing. The big may be bigger than the small, but they are nowhere near as big as they used to be.

Same situation in television. Every show on television would have been canceled in the old three network world. You’d see ratings in the twenties and thirties. There was a limited number of shows, and there was a huge audience hungry for shows. But then they got choice, assuming they were willing to pay, cable expanded the channel universe and if you wanted to pay even more you could get premium cable channels, like HBO and Showtime. Actually, deals used to be rampant, as was outright stealing, but then the cable systems all went digital, increasing the number of channels, and discounts went by the wayside and stealing was stanched. And the monopoly distributors, the cable systems, were raking in dough. Their only real competitor was satellite, but now satellite is tanking, because that’s not what people want. People want a premium pipe and then they want to layer on their own services, like Netflix and Amazon and… As for the cable providers, they’re about to get a competitor in 5G, but the rollout has been slow and different types of 5G have different speeds and the fastest has the smallest reach and problems penetrating obstacles, but 5G causes Covid anyway, right? Or maybe it’s cancer. Or both. Just hold on, give it some time, the ills of 5G, however false and fatuous, are about to be amplified as the service grows.

That’s what we’re talking about here, the spread of disinformation. The amplification of falsehoods. The lack of facts we can all agree on. That’s what “The Social Dilemma” is ultimately about, and more.

“The Social Dilemma” is the most e-mailed creative project in my inbox this week. Not a record. The problem with records is they’re all niche, none appeal to all, whereas the tech companies have monopolies and we all use their services and we’re interested in their effects, since we’re addicted.

So, if you follow the movie business, and you probably don’t, you’re aware that all the studios are holding back their premium product as a result of the relative failure of the release of “Tenet.” Seems people are not ready to leave their houses and congregate, at least not in suitable numbers. But the movie business signed its death warrant years ago, studios decided to make fewer and fewer films while being sure they all had worldwide appeal and the pictures lost their edge, and edge is what hooks you, what makes something successful. And the truth is edge inherently contains polarization, there will be people who don’t want anything to do with the project, who excoriate it. So, the movie studios have lost their hold on the public consciousness just like the television networks, turns out making everything for all people is a bad business model in a world where there is not scarcity.

Theoretically network television is free, assuming you want to buy an antenna, don’t live in a valley or behind a mountain and are not that far from a transmitter. Which is why we got cable to begin with, to eliminate those problems. But it turns out many can live without network TV. Turns out many people can live without cable TV. Yes, cable. Where they go in search of the lowest common denominator and when they find it they run it into the ground. But streaming has a different model. The goal is to get you to keep paying every month, therefore the appeal of a specific show is irrelevant, as long as the smorgasbord of product keeps you drinking from the trough.

So, on Netflix, you have a plethora of product, little of it completely bland, some downright serious, and everybody in America has an account or access thereto. Netflix’s reach far outstrips that of Disney+ and Apple+ and HBO Max, its only real competitor is Amazon Prime, with its slow software, lousy interface and lack of hit product. Hit product is what drives subscription, it gives you notice, no different from a hit single selling an album. The hit doesn’t have to be compromised, it doesn’t have to fit a formula, it just has to appeal to the spreaders of information, that get a conflagration of word of mouth started.

Therefore, the biggest thing in visual entertainment last week was “Away,” Netflix’s space oddity featuring Hilary Swank. People had access, and word of mouth spread. And despite low RottenTomatoes ratings, the series rose to number one on Netflix, proving that some shows are review-proof, and that being featured on the Netflix homepage is like the endcaps in the record stores of yore, they promote and sell product.

So, this week’s story is “The Social Dilemma.” It will have much more impact than Bob Woodward’s book, much more impact than any music released on Friday, because it’s on the biggest platform and it appeals to all people and you can view it on demand. Yes, unless your product is available on demand, you’re toast.

So, is “The Social Dilemma” a 10? A triumph? Actually, no, it’s imperfect. But that does not mean it’s not must-see TV. As a matter of fact, it’s the one show everybody needs to see, which is why my inbox is filling up, why word of mouth is spreading, because the film speaks to all of us, our hopes and dreams and our fear and despondence.

The social networks. They’re the enemy. Right? But we all use them incessantly. We just need to get Zuckerberg to get in line, just like people think we need to get Daniel Ek in line, and everything will be hunky-dory.

You see the anti-streaming people live in a bubble. Where their false beliefs are amplified. And if you pierce that bubble, even with truth, you’re excoriated. Same deal in politics. Social media has caused polarization, that’s the game the algorithms play, to keep you addicted they serve you more of what you’re already interested in. Which is why you can see people on TV spouting inanities like Antifa is responsible for the wildfires, never mind QAnon.

So what we’ve got in “The Social Dilemma” is a bunch of talking heads, all with experience in the social media world, many at the true heart of it, having worked for Facebook and Google and Twitter and…telling us about the evils of the product. But if you think you know it all, you’ll still learn more. Like the algorithms are out of control, that even Zuckerberg does not have power over them. Yes, we’ve been hearing about AI forever, and if you read the papers you believe that its implementation is on the horizon. But that is wrong, it’s already here. The computer, via machine learning, decides what you see. The programmers input some information, and then the final decisions are made by computers crunching the data.

Not that the programmers do not have power.

The platforms’ goal is to keep you addicted, spending time on the services.

Now there’s a fictitious scenario playing alongside the talking heads, of a family and how it is intertwined with social media. And one of the interesting things is nobody knows how much they’re actually using these services. They think it’s an hour a day when it’s two and a half. And the turning point was around 2010, when everybody got a smartphone and the social media services were up and running and childhood suicide rates went up.

I’m not anti-screen time. I know, that puts me in the minority, but the fact that we can all connect via our devices eliminates a ton of loneliness, imagine if we had no internet today? Whew, how would you cope in the Covid era. But the truth is, the nature of growing up is many feel insecure and inferior and bullies are rampant and when you’re publicly shamed, when someone reaches out and zings you, maybe even someone you don’t even know, it hurts. So, you end up putting forth a false image, which evidences happiness 24/7, which has no connection with the real you, assuming you haven’t offed yourself already.

So, these platforms are not in control of the content. You provide the content. And based on what sticks, they feed you more of it. And everybody, I mean EVERYBODY gets a different feed, even different Google results, and you wonder why our country has devolved into tribalism.

And it’s only gonna get worse. And when you watch “The Social Dilemma” you’ll realize how much at fault these platforms are. The issue is not only foreign interference, that’s just the cherry on top. Meanwhile, as Roger McNamee says in the movie, the Russians are using Facebook properly, what it’s designed for, they’re not breaking any rules.

Think about that.

So, we’ve got Pizzagate and the aforementioned QAnon, laughable on the surface. But in your feed someone you respect amplifies them and suddenly you’re in a group of people that all feel the same way and you become a believer.

Let me tell you a story. I had to go to the eye doctor, I lost a contact lens. And the doctor told me about a couple of patients that he had seen that morning. One patient lived in a $22 million dollar house and was ranting and raving that Covid is a hoax. Furthermore, her husband is a physician. But even worse was the cardiologist, who lives nearby, who came in saying she hadn’t been able to sleep for seven days. She’d watched the Republican convention and she was so upset…if Biden is elected they’re gonna come and take her house! Yes, if the Democrats win she’s not gonna have a place to live. The eye doctor had a great comeback, he said he hadn’t discussed it with his wife, but he was sure she’d agree…that if the cardiologist’s house was taken, she could have theirs. And the cardiologist didn’t laugh, she said REALLY?

We could sit down and teach these people the facts, but they won’t believe them. It’s not only Trump who has eroded credibility, but even more these social networks, where falsehoods are spread as I type this, and they grow, and the truth is those in power don’t even have the ability to stop this!

So, social networks are much more of a problem than you’ve been led to believe. They are contributing to the division of our country. Even more than Trump and Fox News. It’s online, on these services, that the stories are amplified and twisted and spread to millions, who never hear another side. And, those in charge don’t have the power to stop this, and they don’t even want to, because it would mess with their business model of slicing the data ever more thinly to sell it to advertisers.

And the social networks just don’t sit back passively, they actively poke you to stay engaged, to not sign off, because then they can learn more about you and sell you more ads. Yes, they’ve built a profile on your wants and desires that far exceeds your worst nightmare, and they’re selling this data. And when Apple said they were going to give iOS users the option to opt out, to not be tracked by Facebook, et al, Mark Zuckerberg had a fit! It was all over the business press, to the point that Apple is delaying this feature. Yes, the social networks’ business model is selling your data, and if they don’t have it, they’re done.

Once again, you probably believe you know all this, all the ills of social media. Trust me, you don’t. “The Social Dilemma” will only build in the number of viewers and its impact. And don’t expect the government to address the problem, it is always multiple steps behind and those in office don’t understand the ins-and-outs, never mind being paid by their donors to overlook problems.

This goes far beyond this year’s election, this speaks to democracy!

But it gets even worse. One of the talking heads, Tristan Harris, worked at Google and was so upset at this hoodwinking of the company’s users that he spent hours after work writing a manifesto. And when he finally gave it to friends at the company it spread like wildfire, making it all the way to Larry Page’s desk. And what happened? NOTHING! That’s what people don’t understand about modern society. You think if you’re on TV your act will break, you’ll get a big leg up. No, NOTHING does that anymore, NOTHING! First and foremost you don’t reach enough eyeballs, and those who are aware are inundated with a tsunami of product every day, every hour! So, you can drop your album and it can be done in a day, over, never to gain any legs. Which is why Daniel Ek says to release a steady stream of product, to give you a better chance of gaining an audience and keeping listeners engaged and what do music makers say? I DON’T MAKE MUSIC THAT WAY! I MAKE ALBUMS! They’re pissing in the wind. The paradigm has shifted, and it’s got little to do with Daniel Ek, he’s just speaking the truth. But, of course, you can’t hear it, because you’re in your silo, your friends on Facebook and Instagram are putting logs on the fire, amping you up, yes, we must defend the album, streaming is the devil, we can stop the wheels of progress, to the point where you don’t even want to hear an explanation of what is going on.

But “The Social Dilemma” gives you an explanation of what is going on with social media. Watch it.

“1% of artists account for 90% of streams says Alpha Data”

It’s a racket I tell you. Streaming has ruined the music business. I’m sitting here busting my ass recording and releasing and I’m not making any money. The system is broken. I’ve been screwed. Spotify is the devil.

But the devil is in the details. That 1%? It represents 16,000 artists!

SIXTEEN THOUSAND ARTISTS?

Last I checked, people could only listen to one track at one time. And sure, they’ve made more people since the seventies, but not that many.

In the seventies there was a glut of product, it was the talk of the business, how there were now FIVE THOUSAND ALBUMS A YEAR! Up from 2500-3000. How was anybody supposed to get noticed?

In other words, sixteen thousand artists making money every year sounds pretty good. The cycle in the seventies was one album per year…there weren’t even 16,000 artists making music every year, at least not recorded and distributed to record outlets.

As for the rest of the acts…

The top 160,000 artists got 99.4% of the streams.

TERRIBLE! Only 160,000 artists a year are making money via streaming. We’ve got to get the government involved, this is a travesty!

If 160,000 artists are making money via streams, that’s a MIRACLE! As for the other 99.4% putting music on the site, the vast majority, each one is a person with a voice and social media access and they can’t stop bitching, obfuscating the reality.

Furthermore, the RIAA just released their mid-year statistics:

MID-YEAR 2020 RIAA REVENUE STATISTICS

Despite the pandemic, despite the devastation of business in America, recorded music revenues WENT UP! By 5.6%. And, AND, streaming now represents 85% of the market as opposed to 80% a year earlier. In other words, STREAMING IS SAVING THE MUSIC BUSINESS!

But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

As for the vaunted vinyl revival? Of the $5.7 billion in sales at the retail level, $376 million was attributable to vinyl. Sure, there was a negative impact from the pandemic, but do you get the relative proportions? Sell that vinyl as a souvenir, it’s a de minimis part of overall revenue, especially when you consider streaming is all net and vinyl has fixed costs in shipping and manufacturing, never mind discounts at retail.

In other words, the future’s so bright you’ve gotta wear shades. More people are making more money from recorded music than ever before and revenues are going up. LET’S PARTY!

But it’s all doom and gloom in the press. Artists are starving. Daniel Ek ruined the business, and by telling the truth, that some acts are making beaucoup bucks on streaming, and that that number is growing, he ended up excoriated by everybody not rich or rich in the past to the point where I doubt he’ll be making any pronouncements in the future.

I know, I know, it doesn’t FEEL right!

But feel has got nothing to do with facts. Hell, look at politics.

So, you can make music and distribute it cheaply as a result of new tools. You can record on your laptop and distribute via streaming services at almost no cost, whereas in the past recording was expensive and without a deep pocket, i.e. a record company, you were shut out. BUT WHY IS THERE AN EXPECTATION YOU SHOULD MAKE A LIVING!

This drives me crazy. All the ink about starving artists. They never factor in demand. If you start a restaurant and no one comes it’s not the public’s fault, IT’S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT! You tweak, you do everything you can to stay in business but chances are you fail. Kind of like the record store owners of yore. The internet ruined their businesses. They were so good at it, recommending records, people loved their shops, but the future came and they ended up on the wrong side, in the past. I thought art was about piercing the barriers of the future, not holding people back.

So, the big get bigger, as the pie increases, as more people subscribe, as revenues go up. And, the business is no longer hit dependent, people want full access to all music all the time, they just don’t subscribe and sign off when there’s a hot new album.

However, mindshare of hit artists is decreasing. The landscape is broadening. This is a story that is not told because the media and the business itself are focused on a hit mentality. There is no longer just a top forty. Turns out there are a ton of music niches and successful acts in each one of them. Everybody lauded as a star? The Spotify Top 50? The ridiculous, manipulated “Billboard” chart? They’re reaching a smaller percentage of the public than ever before. You can ignore Cardi B no problem. You may have never heard the Weeknd. As for “Billboard”‘s supposed song of the summer, DaBaby’s “Rockstar,” most people have never even heard it, never mind like or dislike it. You won’t get that sense if you pay attention to media, then again, media is an insulated self-hyping universe.

So, there’s money to be made. By a greater number of artists in a greater number of genres, especially when you factor in touring.

But somehow there’s a problem.

NO WAY!

Chris Difford, of Squeeze. We address the formation of the band and its various iterations, but first and foremost we focus on Chris and his life, both personal and musical, his viewpoints, his choices (and his tenure with Bryan Ferry!) You’ll feel like you’re truly getting to know Chris, and even if you’re not a Squeeze fan you’ll enjoy hearing what Chris has to say.

iheart

apple

spotify

stitcher

This is what happens when you’ve got your head so far up your ass all you can see is your navel.

Let’s start from the beginning… The Oscars are irrelevant to everybody but those in the fading film industry itself, other than those who come out once a year to complain about this or that.

There, I said it.

How did this happen?

Well, films devolved from art to business. Oh, they were always a business, but along the way studios and directors occasionally created art and therefore gained respectability. But TV threw a monkey wrench in the whole process so the industry went for event pictures. But then it found in the sixties that by tackling stories too outré, too sexy, too deep, too dangerous for TV, people would be drawn to the theatre. Sure, there was still lowbrow stuff purveyed, but it was films like “Bonnie & Clyde” and “The Graduate” and “The Godfather,” never mind classic comedies like “Annie Hall,” that drove people to the theatre, but even more had America, the world, talking about them.

Those days are through.

Let me catalog the reasons…

Pure greed. Once “Jaws” and then “Star Wars” demonstrated how much money could be made, studios no longer wanted to hit singles, however profitable, they wanted home runs.

Marketing. In an era where it’s hard to reach anybody, studios spend upwards of a hundred million dollars trying to reach a potential audience, and they only want to do this if the film has mass appeal, and therefore they don’t want to make any “small” pictures.

As a matter of fact, studios cut down production. You can shoot a movie in hi-def on your iPhone, but good luck getting a green light at a studio. So, you post your effort on YouTube, or you make movies and series for streaming services, like Netflix.

Yes, TV has finally killed the traditional movie experience.

But Bob, people still want to go to the theatre! Yes, for a night out, the experience is more important than the film. And the experience, especially in this age of smartphones, can be so distracting as to convince people not to attend. At home, it’s quiet. If you want to talk to your spouse, no one complains. And with the standard now a 65″ screen, in 4k, home viewing satisfies, never mind that it’s on demand, i.e. the picture starts and stops whenever you want it to.

So, Oscar ratings continue to drop. On this one night, they appeal to cineastes, but the industry is supported by lowbrows, and they’re not interested in the pictures nominated. Furthermore, the number of cineastes is decreasing, just like the number of symphony fans, they’re aging out. It’s a circle jerk I tell you. If you win a big award the studio can advertise such, but an Oscar is barely more meaningful than a Grammy, which no longer gives you a sales bounce, which is employed by most musicians as a line on their resumé, to hopefully increase live bookings. Once again, the audience does not care, and the victors rarely comport with the Spotify Top 50, which is what the majority of people are listening to. Then again, the Grammy voters, just like the Oscar voters, have contempt for this popular stuff.

So, the goal is to save the Oscars. Which are out of touch with the film industry itself. And the way to do this is…

Include television.

Like the studios in the sixties and seventies, Netflix and its compatriots give creators free rein, with cash. The only downside is you don’t get points, but you get to make your project, which is even more important. No studio wanted to pony up for “The Irishman.” And Netflix and its brethren need product. We don’t need any movies. The middle man, the theatre owner might, but the public does not. Most people are no longer addicted to the ritual of going to the theatre, but they are addicted to the ritual of consuming deep streaming series.

The film studios have lost their power. Except when they make television. Quick, name a studio head. YOU CAN’T! Unless you’re in the industry. But everyone has heard of Ted Sarandos, think about that.

Is there a problem of diversity in films… OF COURSE! But films no longer drive the culture, TV does. It started when there were a million cable outlets, and then HBO started making its own shows, once again to satiate the audience, to keep people subscribed, but no one in Hollywood changed, certainly no one at the Oscars.

What did they do? COMPLAIN! It’s no different from the record labels at the turn of the century. But the film business always felt itself superior to the record business, even though it was Warner records that built the cable system, that threw off more cash than the studio. The Oscars could have seen the movie, it was hiding in plain sight, but it refused!

Disruption happens. Adjust, or you’re history.

Instead, we got filmmakers complaining about small screens, viewing experiences, as people started watching visual product on their smartphones, yes. Because they wanted the product so bad they couldn’t forgo it. This was the silver lining in Napster/file trading…AT LEAST PEOPLE WANTED THE PRODUCT! It’s just a matter of how you give it to them and how you charge.

But no, a movie must be something exhibited in a theatre. And, since fewer people are going, we’ll raise the price, to more than a streaming television subscription. Yes, Spotify gives you all the music for ten bucks a month, a bargain for the heavy consumer of physical product, but it brought new customers in for more cash than they ever spent and revenues went up, think about that.

So, if the Oscars have new inclusionary rules…

Most creators will shrug their shoulders and ignore them. BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT NOMINATED FOR OSCARS ANYWAY!

As for the studios, they’ll game the rules, they won’t play by them, after all they’ve got so much money involved. Furthermore, if the Academy was smart, and it’s not, it would have a credit system, so creators/polluters could buy from those not polluting to make their pictures. Yes, if you want to make a picture with white men, you can buy credits from a picture that features a rainbow of color.

And is the Oscar organization the correct one to right this wrong? Of course not! It should be the MPAA, a trade organization, not an awards-giving organization. But the Academy and its Oscars have been criticized so much that the appearance of looking woke is more important than the credibility and gravitas of its underlying product, the awards.

Not that we cannot change names, not that we can’t right the wrongs of the past. I point you to this podcast wherein the president of Squaw Valley explains why the ski area needed to change its name:

“Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows President & COO Ron Cohen – The Resort Name ‘Belongs In The History Books'”

By time you’re done listening, you’ll agree.

But explain to me why the Oscars need to change… No, explain to me why the studios and the films they make must change! Yes, there is racism and sexism, but once you start messing with creativity, you throw the baby out with the bathwater, it’s akin to censorship, there are too many exceptions to the new rules of the Academy.

Below the line, behind the scenes changes…I’m all for them, build the skills and grow the presence of those who’ve been discriminated against previously. But in a challenged industry do you start messing with what people make? Of course not! For example, once again let’s look at the music industry. The aforementioned Warner was so afraid of its partner Interscope, which featured hip-hop stars like Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg, that they got rid of it, all to turn down the heat from outside agitators. End result? Interscope went to Universal, creating a linchpin of the now dominant company and Warner faded, never to regain the market share it once had. And yes, hip-hop now dominates the culture.

Recapping… The goals of the Academy are good ones, but the organization is not the right one to establish serious roadblocks in the creative process. And, if the Academy wants to survive, make the Oscars important and meaningful once again, it must include TV, not only films, but series. After all, when you sit down in front of the flat screen you don’t say you only want to watch one or the other, then again, I prefer series, because they go deeper.

The Academy is out of touch with the public. Get that, an organization that believes, falsely, it is the epicenter, the driver of popular culture, is clueless as to the wants of its desired audience, and therefore on the way to irrelevance. And the solution is not to narrow the pipeline of product that qualifies, but to broaden it!

Then again, old farts cannot fathom true change. Once again, a movie must be in a theatre and be ninety minutes to two and a half hours long, actually the shorter the better, because exhibitors want to turn the house. But the medium affects the message. The invention of the LP begat the concept album, “Sgt. Pepper,” and in the on demand streaming era you can release as much product as frequently as you desire. The streaming giants know this, but it’s anathema to the Academy/film studios.

Best to evaluate inclusion and diversity in streaming TV. Where so much product is created you can have more impact. Go where the future is, not the past. Exxon gets dropped from the Dow and the Academy is still concerned with the pollution of internal combustion engines when the entire industry is moving to electric, just ask Volkswagen, the world’s largest auto manufacturer, it’s all-in. VW got rightly pilloried for the diesel emissions scandal, but it pivoted to do the right thing in the future. It’s always about the future, not the past, and the future is not feature films in theatres, sorry. If anything, it’s a dying art form.

So, Academy, you messed up. Maybe you should kick out members who are offenders, past and or present. To get in the organization you must adhere to certain rules, qualify. But to try and run herd over an industry that is not beholden to you is like the Baseball Hall of Fame trying to legislate rule changes in the MLB. Believe me, Rob Manfred does not go to Cooperstown to address the game’s ills. He doesn’t debate how to shorten the game, whether to have automatic walks and the designated hitter in the National League, with the board of that august institution. And yes, you can make it in the MLB and not be in the Hall of Fame, like Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

But welcome to America, where appearance is more important than reality, where bending to special interest groups is more important than addressing the real problem, where we paint over transgressions and no real change transpires.

Like in a movie.