From what I read, the news writers are different from the screen writers. However, I also heard that the CBS news writers might strike soon independently for their own reasons.
I read that if the Actor's and Directors Guild's don't seal up their new contracts with the AMTPT soon, they will strike as well, effectively shutting down Hollywood.
Awesome. Will people abandon Hollywood and take to the Internet? Podcasts are still here for you people, and we do it for free.
Awesome. Will people abandon Hollywood and take to the Internet? Podcasts are still here for you people, and we do it for free.
As much as we love you, podcasts don't quite replace TV shows like Heroes, Chuck, South Park, The Daily Show, Colbert, etc.
I read that if the Actor's and Directors Guild's don't seal up their new contracts with the AMTPT soon, they will strike as well, effectively shutting down Hollywood.
I read that if the Actor's and Directors Guild's don't seal up their new contracts with the AMTPT soon, they will strike as well, effectively shutting down Hollywood.
IIRC the DGA struck a deal with Hollywood early.
Really? Do you have a source for this? I had still heard that the directors guild was another threat that could compound this strike. They've still got one of the primary complaints that can be leveled against the studio, that the internet is a no-pay, no-credit zone.
Awesome. Will people abandon Hollywood and take to the Internet? Podcasts are still here for you people, and we do it for free.
As much as we love you, podcasts don't quite replace TV shows like Heroes, Chuck, South Park, The Daily Show, Colbert, etc.
Speak for yourself, South Park is the only show on that list that I watch the new episodes as they come out, and as I live in Canada I've got a half season backlog that are still coming out.
Then it's your tastes. I'm watching several shows that are currently airing and that are being affected by the strike.
And Scott, how many seats in your car does your ego take up? I'm sorry, I like podcasts, but podcasts are not a social activity. There's not a way I can see podcasts and YouTube taking the place of the standard forms of broadcast media. Podcasting does not have the budgets necessary to pull with with a high degree of competence. Most people who provide free video content don't have the kind of budgets that can be needed to properly pull off some forms of story-telling, which is going to limit the range of stories that can be told. Audio will still have the ability to tell these stories, but there are limits to audio fiction and the way these shows are produced. Those that are done on the top tier level have much longer lead times needed, and some don't release an episode each week. The most common form of audio fiction I've seen in Podcasting is the single reader form, with possibly a few sound effects.
You do a news commentary show. You don't have a script, just a schedule. Requirements of fiction demand a much slower production schedule outside of soaps.
These are not limits of what can be done over the Internet, but they are limits of what can be done for "free." If podcasting/RSS syndication of media content is going to start to play a major role then there are several steps that are probably going to have to be taken. Some-body's going to have to start taking advertising money to produce something. It will probably look very much like old radio and TV with the way that advertising appears, but it will appear. One of the primary things right now is that there is probably not a whole lot of certainty about what a good advertising model is for podcast content.
I have to ask Scott, what do you want media to be? Give me a thought-out theory on the way that you think media in this country should be structured. Because all I'm seeing is shallow thoughts: "Advertising Bad" "Free Good." Is there a theory there or just an ideology?
To contrast this, and to bring us back towards the thread topic, the major media companies do have an advertising plan. They seek to create a robust experience that uses the Internet to invest the audience in the property while selling advertising. These ads, banners and commercials, the studios know what costs to charge for this. Web Banner ads is probably a mature market, with a known pricing structure.
The problem is they want this on-line content to appear by magic. They just want the online extras done by cast and crew, with the results declared promotional. And they include whole episodes as "promotion," not just extras. Everybody who contributes to the show in a creative way (Directors, Actors, Writers), get a cut of the show if it airs again on a TV channel, why should the Internet be immune from this method of business?
The future of entertainment, a lot more read/write culture and a lot less read-only culture. People will get a lot more of their enjoyment from creating things rather than simply enjoying that which others have created. And whether you can see YouTube and podcasting replacing the old broadcast media, it has happened in at least this one house.
As for the strike people, I see that the deal they have now is crap. They have a deal where they are supposed to be paid proportionally to the popularity of their work, and their current deal is certainly not doing that properly. However, I have been thinking about this issue, and I wonder. Why are these people being paid in such a manner anyway? Why don't they just have salaries and benefits like everyone else? I know they work on a project-by-project basis. Many technology professionals also work on a contract basis, and they do not need a union or anything.
If I get a job at a software company, and the software I help make becomes stupidly successful, like millions sold, I just keep getting paid my salary. I might get a raise if I do a particularly good job. I might own stock in the company. But I don't get paid on say, 10 cents for each copy of the software that sells. I get a salary and benefits even if they never sell a single copy of the software.
I'm not saying writers should be paid this way. I don't know enough about it to say anything other than that I agree their current deal is crap. I am just curious as to why they aren't paid in the same manner as anyone else who works on a contract basis.
I can't see... YouTube taking the place of the standard forms of broadcast media.At the GeekHaus, YouTube effectively is our "broadcast media." It's replaced any and all non-DVD content for us.
More to the point, I forsee a world of pay-per-media. Broadcast for free with ads is just such an outdated idea, and I'm more than willing to pay for DVDs or downloads of quality content. I'm not willing to watch ads for the same content.
It's not "advertising bad, free good." It's "advertising bad, something different good." Pay is certainly an option, and I'm willing to pay for quality entertainment.
More to the point, I forsee a world of pay-per-media. Broadcast for free with ads is just such an outdated idea, and I'm more than willing to pay for DVDs or downloads of quality content. I'mnotwilling to watch ads for the same content.It's not "advertising bad, free good." It's "advertising bad,somethingdifferentgood." Pay is certainly an option, and I'm willing to pay for quality entertainment.
Rym, which costs more: àla carte or table d'hôte? Pay-per-media is going to be more expensive, to such a level many people would not be able to afford the amount of media they currently consume. And don't pull out a moral argument that they shouldn't be consuming that much media. You are asking people to pay more money for less content. And that content is not going to be better. Some of it might be better, but the problem is that it's all a matter of taste, and this is something you know quite well as you consider yourself an elitist: Most people's tastes Suck. The more a show is dependent upon it's popularity for its survival, the more that it will have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money.
Something Different? That's the problem, there are two methods for media distribution right now, advertising supported and premium. Wishing there was a different way to do things won't make it happen. You don't even care: Geeknights is being run completely out of your pockets. Your show is designed to be an exchange: Your money for admiration. But you're not trying to live off that equation. Most people, perhaps even many podcasters, cannot afford that equation.
More to the point, I forsee a world of pay-per-media. Broadcast for free with ads is just such an outdated idea, and I'm more than willing to pay for DVDs or downloads of quality content. I'mnotwilling to watch ads for the same content.
It's not "advertising bad, free good." It's "advertising bad, something different good." Pay is certainly an option, and I'm willing to pay for quality entertainment.
This is where I disagree. Of course, I'm a cheap-ass high school kid who is mostly unwilling to pay for this sort of thing, and I don't mind a few minutes of ads during which I can do something else (play DS, take a pee, etc.) as long as I'm not paying for the product. This is mostly an issue of time vs. money: You have more money than you have time, so you are willing to pay, and I have more time than I have money, so I am willing to spend the time as long as I'm not spending money.
< synopsis >I don't pay the plumber every time I flush my toilet, so why should the writers get paid each time their show airs?
I was going to write a post, butthiscovers most of the reasons.
It does make sense. You make something. Someone else uses that something to make money for themselves. Then they use it over and over to make money for themselves again and again. They don't know how much money it will make them ahead of time. They would be willing to pay you more if it did make more money, but less if it makes less money. So they pay you less up front, but more over time if it does turn out well.
And here lies the fundamental question that I have been asking, with no answer. Any business endeavor, especially an artistic one, has some risk. You spend money for the chance to make more money. Some businesses are not very risky, such as a gas station in a growing town. Other businesses are very risky, such as a multi-million dollar movie. This is reality.
In the current system, it seems to me like the writers are bearing part of that risk. If the thing they write does not do well, they make significantly less money. However, because they take that risk they also get great rewards if the show does well. I think it is obvious that right now their risk reward ratio in their contract is not balanced with reality, hence the strike.
My question, that I can not answer, is who should bear the risk in a business venture, and who should get the reward? Obviously I think the rewards people receive should be proportionate to the risk they take, but not everyone has to take a risk. My job has very little risk involved. How well my company performs is very far removed from my very stable salary. At a public company all the risk, and also all the reward, are owned by the investors. It is their money that is at stake, so they get both ends of the stick. The employees of the public company just get paid hourly or annual wages if they are not laid off.
The question is, in the production of an expensive work of art, like a high-budget movie or TV show, who should bear the risk? Should the artists be bearing the risk as they currently are? Should the producers and investors take all the risk, with everyone else just being employees? Should the primary creators take all the risk, because it was their idea? Should the risk and reward be spread out across everyone involved in different proportions? Should people get to decide on an individual basis how much risk they would like to take on? Who should have their financial well being tied directly to the success of the project, and who should be a safely paid employee? This is the question that I think needs to be answered.
Rym, which costs more: à la carte or table d'hôte? Pay-per-media is going to be more expensive, to such a level many people would not be able to afford the amount of media they currently consumeI don't care what it costs: I'll pay it. If I have to be a patron of the arts, then so be it. But, I will not waste my time with other people's advertisements. If they can come up with a better model, or if they can keep making money with ads, that's fine, but if they can't, I really don't care.
And don't pull out a moral argument that they shouldn't be consuming that much media. You are asking people to pay more money for less content.Why not? ^_~
The real problem is just that people are very used to a world where they can get a lot of content for free, so long as they see or hear advertisements. If that kind of market disappears, they're in for a rude awakening. I didn't make this system, and I don't care what happens to it.
Everything in the world is a cost/benefit situation. It costs something to do anything. I have to pay something to get something. Right now, a lot of people pay their eyeballs pointed at advertising. If that commodity somehow becomes no longer valuable, people will have to pay something else. That's not me arguing against the ad model; it's simply the situation as it stands. The only arguments I make is that my personal time is worth more to me than free content is.
Most people's tastes Suck.The more a show is dependent upon it's popularity for its survival, the more that it will have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money.Cost/Benefit Argument:
If enough people want something better, and are willing to pay, then better things will be made. If people aren't willing to pay, then those things won't. There's nothing you or I can do about this fact. If the majority of people have different tastes from me, I really couldn't care less: I'll simply pay for that which I desire. If it doesn't exist at a price I'm willing to pay, then I'll go without.
Existing Situation Argument:
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what happens. I really believe that, with the Internet being as powerful as it is, the current model of advertising will eventually fail. I don't know when, but I believe strongly that it will happen. If content begins to include directly-inserted content, and people are willing to put up with that, and advertisers are still willing to pay for it, then great. I just think this isn't a tenable business model in the long run.
Cynical Argument
There is enough existing content in the world now that I could easily live the rest of my life without a single further creative work ever being made. I've listened to maybe .001% of all the recorded music that already exists. I've read even fewer of the works of literature. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of movies and television shows I haven't yet seen.
If the current model fails, and nothing fills the void, I'll watch reruns (they're new to me) the rest of my life.
Something Different?That's the problem, there are two methods for media distribution right now, advertising supported and premium. Wishing there was a different way to do things won't make it happen.Yeap. Something different either will or will not appear once the current system fails. I don't care, and simply pay the premium so long as it remains an option.
You don't even care: Geeknights is being run completely out of your pockets. Your show is designed to be an exchange: Your money for admiration. But you're not trying to live off that equation. Most people, perhaps even many podcasters, cannot afford that equation.And? That's the world. Maybe we need tax-sponsored art works programs. Maybe artists will have to have day jobs forever. I can't say. I don't know.
What I do know is that my drive to create is far greater than my drive to do much else in my life. That's why I commute over an hour each way every day into The City to make the money I need to entertain and enlighten my fellow man. That's why I give up almost every single weeknight of my life just for some podcast with a few thousand listeners. The more money I make, the more I'll strive to do that to a greater degree. I won't stop until I'm dead.
Other people may have different needs and different motivations. That doesn't change the fact that the world is changing. They have to either stop the change, adapt, or find an alternate path.
The real problem is just that people are very used to a world where they can get a lot of content for free, so long as they see or hear advertisements. If that kind of market disappears, they're in for a rude awakening.
Rym, what's going to make this system go away? This system works, advertising is a growing area. What's going to fundamentally change the way media is structured in this country? The current system has withstood long strikes before, and the only way that I could see this system collapsing is if this strike does become SAG, WGA, and DGA and that lasts for long enough that there are no more movies coming out. I'm not sure that the studios are so willing to kill this system before they hand over a share of Internet revenues. This current problem has the ability to kill it, but will it?
And? That's the world. Maybe we need tax-sponsored art works programs. Maybe artists will have to have day jobs forever. I can't say. I don't know.
Rym, I brought that point up earlier, we don't think of media as public goods. There's a degree of change in our thinking that you're hoping for seems to me to be too fundamental for our systems, and I'm not seeing the way the Internet is planting the seeds for this wonderful cultural revolution.
And I'm also not sure that there are a great many creators who would work to create art to have to reach that point. That has seemed to me to be one of the great motivators for the creation of art, the ability to make a living doing something you love. There will be people who create without expectation of recompense, but I don't think that system creates they kind of encouragement to hone talent.
As much as I may personally agree with you in a distaste of advertising, I'm not sure that anything is going to happen to it that would cause it to decrease or go away. Do you have any actual figures or data to support your viewpoint, or just wishes and fairy dust? Even Youtube is going to have ads, Google's already working on it. Many of the free flash games on the Internet are being supported by advertising systems like MochiAds. You're hoping that advertising fails and that all creators accept working at a crappy job because there is no way for them to make a living doing what they love. Why and How?
There is one thing that is going to bring the advertising world to a screeching halt, that is AdBlock. Right now, people like Google are using a strategy of ignoring AdBlock. If they don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. Also, by not recognizing its existence, they reduce the risk of it becoming stupidly popular overnight. However, it will eventually happen. There will be a time when a critical mass of people on the web are blocking all advertisements. More people use AdBlock every day, not fewer. The number will only grow.
Also, remember that all advertising money comes from advertisers. Selling ads on the web is all about lying to advertisers in one way or another. You're selling an insubstantial "product" that can't be guaranteed in any way if you even delivered it or not. Actual results vary wildly, and are expected to vary wildly. The biggest advertisers in the world, soft drink and car companies, you don't see them buying too many ad campaigns on your favorite websites, do you? Well, I wouldn't know since I don't see the ads, but I never remember seeing Coca-Cola on the web in the pre-adblock era. These people already realize that current web advertising models are largely a sham. Either the scam will be fixed, or the rug will be pulled out from under everybody.
Things might run their current course for a very long time, but this situation can not continue forever. During our lives the bottom will drop out. When will hit happen, and which way it will go, depends entirely on what people do. My bet is that people will turn on AdBlock and won't look back.
Scott, either you are completely ignoring my point, or AdBlock is a much better program then it once was. Can AdBlock remove the prelim commercials that companies use to sell advertising? Can they remove Mochi Ads? These ads are integrated into the media, and they way that the media is viewed. That kind of advertising, which is very like what we see in TV, is probably only going to increase in it's prevalence.
Scott, you haven't had any ads on your internets in a while, so I'll give you ignorance. Car companies do advertise online, they just target their website buys. Neither Coke nor Toyota is dumb enough to enter into the rotation with the punch-the-monkey ads, but they go to the websites that the people they are trying to sell to go and advertise there. The "sham," which did cause the bottom of the Ad price market to drop on the Internet, was the one advertising program for all sites.
This is what happens when you try to integrate ads into your content. Remember, this is how the Internet works. You transfer content to someone's computer. That computer is not a TV that only has one function. Once it has data, it can do anything with it. As long as you are delivering content to a digital computer, it will be technologically possible for someone to program that computer to filter out data they do and do not want.
Comments
As much as we love you, podcasts don't quite replace TV shows like Heroes, Chuck, South Park, The Daily Show, Colbert, etc.
And Scott, how many seats in your car does your ego take up? I'm sorry, I like podcasts, but podcasts are not a social activity. There's not a way I can see podcasts and YouTube taking the place of the standard forms of broadcast media. Podcasting does not have the budgets necessary to pull with with a high degree of competence. Most people who provide free video content don't have the kind of budgets that can be needed to properly pull off some forms of story-telling, which is going to limit the range of stories that can be told. Audio will still have the ability to tell these stories, but there are limits to audio fiction and the way these shows are produced. Those that are done on the top tier level have much longer lead times needed, and some don't release an episode each week. The most common form of audio fiction I've seen in Podcasting is the single reader form, with possibly a few sound effects.
You do a news commentary show. You don't have a script, just a schedule. Requirements of fiction demand a much slower production schedule outside of soaps.
These are not limits of what can be done over the Internet, but they are limits of what can be done for "free." If podcasting/RSS syndication of media content is going to start to play a major role then there are several steps that are probably going to have to be taken. Some-body's going to have to start taking advertising money to produce something. It will probably look very much like old radio and TV with the way that advertising appears, but it will appear. One of the primary things right now is that there is probably not a whole lot of certainty about what a good advertising model is for podcast content.
I have to ask Scott, what do you want media to be? Give me a thought-out theory on the way that you think media in this country should be structured. Because all I'm seeing is shallow thoughts: "Advertising Bad" "Free Good." Is there a theory there or just an ideology?
To contrast this, and to bring us back towards the thread topic, the major media companies do have an advertising plan. They seek to create a robust experience that uses the Internet to invest the audience in the property while selling advertising. These ads, banners and commercials, the studios know what costs to charge for this. Web Banner ads is probably a mature market, with a known pricing structure.
The problem is they want this on-line content to appear by magic. They just want the online extras done by cast and crew, with the results declared promotional. And they include whole episodes as "promotion," not just extras. Everybody who contributes to the show in a creative way (Directors, Actors, Writers), get a cut of the show if it airs again on a TV channel, why should the Internet be immune from this method of business?
As for the strike people, I see that the deal they have now is crap. They have a deal where they are supposed to be paid proportionally to the popularity of their work, and their current deal is certainly not doing that properly. However, I have been thinking about this issue, and I wonder. Why are these people being paid in such a manner anyway? Why don't they just have salaries and benefits like everyone else? I know they work on a project-by-project basis. Many technology professionals also work on a contract basis, and they do not need a union or anything.
If I get a job at a software company, and the software I help make becomes stupidly successful, like millions sold, I just keep getting paid my salary. I might get a raise if I do a particularly good job. I might own stock in the company. But I don't get paid on say, 10 cents for each copy of the software that sells. I get a salary and benefits even if they never sell a single copy of the software.
I'm not saying writers should be paid this way. I don't know enough about it to say anything other than that I agree their current deal is crap. I am just curious as to why they aren't paid in the same manner as anyone else who works on a contract basis.
More to the point, I forsee a world of pay-per-media. Broadcast for free with ads is just such an outdated idea, and I'm more than willing to pay for DVDs or downloads of quality content. I'm not willing to watch ads for the same content.
It's not "advertising bad, free good." It's "advertising bad, something different good." Pay is certainly an option, and I'm willing to pay for quality entertainment.
Something Different? That's the problem, there are two methods for media distribution right now, advertising supported and premium. Wishing there was a different way to do things won't make it happen. You don't even care: Geeknights is being run completely out of your pockets. Your show is designed to be an exchange: Your money for admiration. But you're not trying to live off that equation. Most people, perhaps even many podcasters, cannot afford that equation.
It's not "advertising bad, free good." It's "advertising bad, something different good." Pay is certainly an option, and I'm willing to pay for quality entertainment.
This is where I disagree. Of course, I'm a cheap-ass high school kid who is mostly unwilling to pay for this sort of thing, and I don't mind a few minutes of ads during which I can do something else (play DS, take a pee, etc.) as long as I'm not paying for the product. This is mostly an issue of time vs. money: You have more money than you have time, so you are willing to pay, and I have more time than I have money, so I am willing to spend the time as long as I'm not spending money.
And here lies the fundamental question that I have been asking, with no answer. Any business endeavor, especially an artistic one, has some risk. You spend money for the chance to make more money. Some businesses are not very risky, such as a gas station in a growing town. Other businesses are very risky, such as a multi-million dollar movie. This is reality.
In the current system, it seems to me like the writers are bearing part of that risk. If the thing they write does not do well, they make significantly less money. However, because they take that risk they also get great rewards if the show does well. I think it is obvious that right now their risk reward ratio in their contract is not balanced with reality, hence the strike.
My question, that I can not answer, is who should bear the risk in a business venture, and who should get the reward? Obviously I think the rewards people receive should be proportionate to the risk they take, but not everyone has to take a risk. My job has very little risk involved. How well my company performs is very far removed from my very stable salary. At a public company all the risk, and also all the reward, are owned by the investors. It is their money that is at stake, so they get both ends of the stick. The employees of the public company just get paid hourly or annual wages if they are not laid off.
The question is, in the production of an expensive work of art, like a high-budget movie or TV show, who should bear the risk? Should the artists be bearing the risk as they currently are? Should the producers and investors take all the risk, with everyone else just being employees? Should the primary creators take all the risk, because it was their idea? Should the risk and reward be spread out across everyone involved in different proportions? Should people get to decide on an individual basis how much risk they would like to take on? Who should have their financial well being tied directly to the success of the project, and who should be a safely paid employee? This is the question that I think needs to be answered.
And don't pull out a moral argument that they shouldn't be consuming that much media. You are asking people to pay more money for less content.Why not? ^_~
The real problem is just that people are very used to a world where they can get a lot of content for free, so long as they see or hear advertisements. If that kind of market disappears, they're in for a rude awakening. I didn't make this system, and I don't care what happens to it.
Everything in the world is a cost/benefit situation. It costs something to do anything. I have to pay something to get something. Right now, a lot of people pay their eyeballs pointed at advertising. If that commodity somehow becomes no longer valuable, people will have to pay something else. That's not me arguing against the ad model; it's simply the situation as it stands. The only arguments I make is that my personal time is worth more to me than free content is.
Most people's tastes Suck.The more a show is dependent upon it's popularity for its survival, the more that it will have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money.Cost/Benefit Argument:
If enough people want something better, and are willing to pay, then better things will be made. If people aren't willing to pay, then those things won't. There's nothing you or I can do about this fact. If the majority of people have different tastes from me, I really couldn't care less: I'll simply pay for that which I desire. If it doesn't exist at a price I'm willing to pay, then I'll go without.
Existing Situation Argument:
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what happens. I really believe that, with the Internet being as powerful as it is, the current model of advertising will eventually fail. I don't know when, but I believe strongly that it will happen. If content begins to include directly-inserted content, and people are willing to put up with that, and advertisers are still willing to pay for it, then great. I just think this isn't a tenable business model in the long run.
Cynical Argument
There is enough existing content in the world now that I could easily live the rest of my life without a single further creative work ever being made. I've listened to maybe .001% of all the recorded music that already exists. I've read even fewer of the works of literature. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of movies and television shows I haven't yet seen.
If the current model fails, and nothing fills the void, I'll watch reruns (they're new to me) the rest of my life.
Something Different?That's the problem, there are two methods for media distribution right now, advertising supported and premium. Wishing there was a different way to do things won't make it happen.Yeap. Something different either will or will not appear once the current system fails. I don't care, and simply pay the premium so long as it remains an option.
You don't even care: Geeknights is being run completely out of your pockets. Your show is designed to be an exchange: Your money for admiration. But you're not trying to live off that equation. Most people, perhaps even many podcasters, cannot afford that equation.And? That's the world. Maybe we need tax-sponsored art works programs. Maybe artists will have to have day jobs forever. I can't say. I don't know.
What I do know is that my drive to create is far greater than my drive to do much else in my life. That's why I commute over an hour each way every day into The City to make the money I need to entertain and enlighten my fellow man. That's why I give up almost every single weeknight of my life just for some podcast with a few thousand listeners. The more money I make, the more I'll strive to do that to a greater degree. I won't stop until I'm dead.
Other people may have different needs and different motivations. That doesn't change the fact that the world is changing. They have to either stop the change, adapt, or find an alternate path.
And I'm also not sure that there are a great many creators who would work to create art to have to reach that point. That has seemed to me to be one of the great motivators for the creation of art, the ability to make a living doing something you love. There will be people who create without expectation of recompense, but I don't think that system creates they kind of encouragement to hone talent.
As much as I may personally agree with you in a distaste of advertising, I'm not sure that anything is going to happen to it that would cause it to decrease or go away. Do you have any actual figures or data to support your viewpoint, or just wishes and fairy dust? Even Youtube is going to have ads, Google's already working on it. Many of the free flash games on the Internet are being supported by advertising systems like MochiAds. You're hoping that advertising fails and that all creators accept working at a crappy job because there is no way for them to make a living doing what they love. Why and How?
Also, remember that all advertising money comes from advertisers. Selling ads on the web is all about lying to advertisers in one way or another. You're selling an insubstantial "product" that can't be guaranteed in any way if you even delivered it or not. Actual results vary wildly, and are expected to vary wildly. The biggest advertisers in the world, soft drink and car companies, you don't see them buying too many ad campaigns on your favorite websites, do you? Well, I wouldn't know since I don't see the ads, but I never remember seeing Coca-Cola on the web in the pre-adblock era. These people already realize that current web advertising models are largely a sham. Either the scam will be fixed, or the rug will be pulled out from under everybody.
Things might run their current course for a very long time, but this situation can not continue forever. During our lives the bottom will drop out. When will hit happen, and which way it will go, depends entirely on what people do. My bet is that people will turn on AdBlock and won't look back.
Scott, you haven't had any ads on your internets in a while, so I'll give you ignorance. Car companies do advertise online, they just target their website buys. Neither Coke nor Toyota is dumb enough to enter into the rotation with the punch-the-monkey ads, but they go to the websites that the people they are trying to sell to go and advertise there. The "sham," which did cause the bottom of the Ad price market to drop on the Internet, was the one advertising program for all sites.