We need to talk about content.

There's this trend that's growing within the local media industry. Terming anything produced as "content" and I hate it. It's a big red flag.

Let me explain,

So in the west, when the internet became all the rage, media players were increasingly amassing plenty of works for their platforms and acquiring rights to exisiting IP (or creating new ones... whenever they felt bothered) and adding them to their libraries, problem was this sometimes ranged from Star Wars to even random stuff like Friday. In what world would the two be categorized as the same? One is an epic exploration of mankind's thirst for freedom and liberation from a productivity obsessed overlords the other is a space opera with silly puppets. Yet, the media world felt pretty content putting these two in the same category and defining them as content. This might not be problematic, at first glance but I'm going to ask you a very important question, would you call Martin Scorsese a content creator? (if you think so, go on his socials and call him a great content creator and tag me in it, I just want to be there for the boomer drama that will unfold)

The issue is how descriptive the term is for the attitude major studios have for the arts. At the end of the day, they have the platform and they want eye balls. If you think about it like that, anything produced, is just stuff you shove in a pipeline. Who cares about the tears the scripts produced or more worryingly the art and by extension the artist? At the end of the day, if it keeps people glued to their screen, everyone gets paid, right?

WRONG!

Putting aside, the fact that any piece of creative media isn't there to be "consumed" just once. What's worrisome in the immediate sense, is that it reduces the art to a consumable and thereby overworking the creators to produce more. This is not only unfeasible, it also reduces the value of the art. If I wrote a successful comic book series, instead of letting that property mature in the market. Most likely, my publishers would pressure me to produce another one that's just like it. Completely disregarding the effort it takes to create a comic book from scratch. As an example, if we look at the manga industry in Japan, you have animators and illustrators working 19 hour days (sleeping in their office) to meet the demands of the publishers and produce more content. Not pieces of work people treasure.

What's even worst, since content is just content, more often than not, the creators will only get the salaries and no residuals (look up the writers, actors, directors and now animators strike). In this economy, that paycheck is not only necessary it's fair. But, again, since content is just content, the big players tend to enjoy profits in perpetuity without ever having to pay the creators their due. Before the rise of the internet, if I were to get a comic book published, I would be entitled to royalties that extended to each toy that resulted from my IP. Now, since the internet, has taken hold of the world, I am not entitled to any of that.

When you bring that mentality to an already struggling art market like ours, it spells big trouble. Massive trouble. Having been a part of several productions (ranging from independent films to big TV series) I can see those trends. For example, I want you to name one singer that gets royalties from EBS/ETV, go ahead.

I won't hold my breath.

The trouble for our industries is that it will put artist at an even bigger disadvantage. We don't have artist unions (I refuse to call whatever we have as unions, please let me know when's the last time any of those associations did anything that benefited the artists) you're already seeing big companies opting for Mid-Journey generated art for their ads (the offender is a creative agency), you also have plenty of AI generated text masquerading as original work, flooding the social media spaces. Which again confirms a stereotype that if it can be done without the artist, it will be done without the artist. This idea is of course laughable as the whole AI revolution will die down sooner or later, especially in the creative sector (and in the way it's being implemented right now) because at the end of the day, art is more than just content. It's meant to evoke emotion. Content (as the big overlords have defined it) can never do that.

The idea of content (as it's defined today) is so absurd and evidence of a very problematic system of value exchange. Content is something you consume once and forget about. But, what creators provide is much bigger than that. You can't tell me that you'll only see the old commercial bank headquarter once and discard it when it's done, you won't look at the Mona Lisa once and that's it, how many times have you seen Star Wars? How many times have you listened to your favorite song? How many times did you read your favorite books? What did you resort to last time you felt the world was not making sense?

Or in much scarier terms, do you think the younger generation would look at art the same if you continue to market art as content? Imagine what kind of effect it would have on the culture if this persists.

The creative sector in Ethiopia, will probably experience a boom. Yes, even in these drastic times, if I were rich I'd invest in the creative sector. As oversaturated as it seems, there is plenty of room for growth and economic gains but for once, I'd like it when the big studio finance ideas because the ideas are worth investing and not just because of trends. It's how you win the competition. When you work with artists as partners, you will have original works that would most likely resonate with audiences. Because at the end of the day, art is there to make you think, it's not a consumable product.