Breaking our creative legs

The story is so deliciously absurd that I could have made it up myself. But I didn't -- it's all-too-true and reveals the tragically farcical truth about the Web 2.0 economy.

The cult Internet video show Break a Leg is one of new media's big hits with over 2 million views on YouTube, 500,000 views on Blip.tv, 100,000 views on Metacafe plus many more thousands on their own website. It's an "Office" style 30 minute ironic comedy written and produced by the brothers Baranovksy -- Yuri and Vlad, a couple of twenty-something San Francisco based Web dudes. Cool, eh? To the Web 2.0 crowd, of course, Break a Leg is way more than cool -- it's totally awesome since it represents the end of mainstream media, the long tail economy blah blah blah. So, any dude with half a brain would presume that Yuri and Vlad must be laughing all the way to the digital bank, especially since Yuri told the Wall Street Journal last year that each 30 minute episode cost only $400 to make (meaning that they must have paid their actors and crew close to zero for their work).

Wipe that smile off your face -- rather than an ironic comedy, Break a Leg is actually a absurd tragedy for those poor dudeskis Yuri and Vlad who recently confessed that in the two years of making nine episodes of their high definition show, they've only received $2,500 in revenue. $2,500 :)  -- $1,600 from YouTube partner program, $100 from Metacafe (which hasn't been paid) and $100 from Blip.tv. Awesome, eh? Even I can do the economics here -- 9 x $400 = $3,600. That means that, in spite of their over 3 million viewers, Yuri and Vlad have made a loss of $1,100 (or really $1,600 because of the outstanding Metacafe debt) from their two years of creative work.

So if the brothers Baranovksy, their crew and their actors aren't being rewarded for their creative labor, who is actually economically profiting from Break a Leg? The answer, of course, is YouTube, Metacafe and Blip.tv which are all both selling advertising against this content and also using all these page-views to add to their own market valuations. Multiply this Break a Leg story several thousand times and you get to understand why Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube. This is the nasty little truth at the heart of the Web 2.0 economy. Nobody is winning except a tiny group of full-brained technology dudes who are laughing all the way to their Silicon Valley banks.

And my advice to Yuri and Vlad? Go back to your cultural roots, boyskis. Hitchcock showed us that San Francisco comedies are, in fact, quite tragic. Creative guys like you are the Underground Men of our glorious new Internet economy. For your next show, perhaps you should remix Dostoievski. Do Crime and Punishment 2.0. Then, at least, your message will conform to the new medium.

Comments

[Yuri]

You think War and Peace translates to the Internet? We'll do our best. I think people are ready for a ten hour movie!

The WSJ amount is what we literally spend on each episode, i.e. props, food, transportation. This doesn't account for one important thing, and that's TIME. We don't pay ourselves, our actors or our crew, so, it all becomes a lot more when you consider that. We also do a lot of guerilla shooting as far as locations, so, that helps, as far as not having to spend money renting places.

However, like I said in my blog (http://www.breakaleg.tv/blog) -- Break a Leg was never intended to be a cash cow. What I was saying in my article is that, to all the people are SURE that the Internet is going to replace TV -- it just isn't happening. The shows that break the video blog mold can't support themselves without network backing. Can it be the AHL to TVs NHL? Sure. And that's what its becoming now.

Thanks for the article, Andrew! Very much appreciated.

[Justin Morrison]

Hi Andrew,
Just wanted to say thanks for bringing our "tragic" comedy to people's attention. It's funny that you wrote about us, seeing that about 2 months ago, myself, Yuri and Dashiell (editor and crewman) were on a trip in New York when we saw a girl reading your book in the subway. Mainly the part about the internet is killing today's culture is what caught our attention. We just hoped that we weren't part of your theory.
Thanks,
Justin Morrison
-Cinematographer and actor for "Break a Leg"

[andrew]

hi Justin and Yuri -- thanks for your posts. Best of luck monetizing your talent

[darek]

Wow, way to ruin a good party. I know this sounds stupid and idealistic: Sure they aren't making money, but when you die is that what you want to be remembered for? How is youtube making money any different than big music labels ripping artists off?

[Gaurang Khetan]

Web 2.0 can be used as a playground for content. It will distribute your content to people. Once people like your content (as evident by the millions of page views), then you know you can make something interesting to people.

You can then follow other models to make money (make another series for telivision, get into existing teams that make other TV series/movie), etc. Media executives will trust you more now since they can see your popularity in Web 2.0

[Linda Margaret]

I find it difficult to believe that this is due to the structure of the Internet. Plenty of people make money from putting media on the Internet because they leverage the exposure to refine/improve their distribution system. Making money initially from an idea or a comedy show is never easy. Without You Tube or these other outlets,the brothers may never have acheived a show or an audience; what they have to do now is come up with a creative way to leverage it for cash if this is their ultimate goal (which, according to their comment, it isn't). Either way, they have control over this, not some studio that didn't have the time/money/concern to create the show.