A simpler word could have been "broker". A broker-less market is feasible as long as the producer and consumer don't need a platform or middleman to conduct their transaction. A farmer's market is an example, where buyers go to a farm and buy directly from the farmer. But then people wanted to consume stuff that is not produced locally. The supply chain is born.<p>Solution? remove the supply chain and consume local.
It's fun to note that Netflix started producing its own content as a hedge if Hollywood studios start withdrawing their content.<p>Haha.
I'm excited to see some spin on this get incorporated into the next season of The Studio.
Bruh what<p>> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriage–allow anyone who produces video content to show it on Netflix. Pay them based on views.<p>The relationship is inverted; netflix pays IP owners a fortune to get the right to show stuff.
Sorry in advance for a short rant:
This might be to be the most ‘no sh!t Sherlock’ obvious thing I’ve seen Seth write, and there is stiff competition in other posts of his. Am I the only one who sees civilization in decline reading something so obvious? ;) basically: Art (all culture?) traditionally disseminates at the whim of those controlling distribution channels. Always has been the case, always will be. You can choose a partner to disseminate or DIY, which the internet made way easier. Of course. It doesn’t need this new name “carriage”.
Carriage is not a new name, the author plainly states that it's an existing industry term. And I think the closing paragraph where the author posits that Netflix could switch to an open marketplace model is a novel suggestion, if highly unlikely. Not sure where all this negativity comes from.