There is a debate about ad blocking on the Internet every so often, and the release of iOS 9 with its support for content blockers has reignited it.
I am sympathetic to both sides. I don't block ads, but I do block both Flash and ad trackers. I block Flash because it slows down browsers, and I block the tracking because I don't think it's appropriate for any single entity to know by default what I do when interacting with completely separate entities. It's fine for Google to know what I do on YouTube since it owns YouTube. It's not fine for it to know what I do with every site I visit that runs Google Analytics.
That said, I also make a small amount of money from writing on the Internet, and that money ultimately comes from advertisers. I don't get paid anything close to a living wage for how much time I spend on it, but I'm blessed to be in a position where that doesn't have to matter if I don't want it to. Many people are not.
Right now, proponents of ad blocking list all the abuses of online ad technologies and say, "adapt or die". They might also point to focused (and non-abusive) ad networks like the Deck or point out that advertisers barely know anything about the effectiveness of their spots on TV or spreads in magazines. Those media can't track ad targets like online advertising can, and it was fine. Maybe just take that attitude online.
Those arguments are fine for a certain set of people who have audiences that skew affluent, but it's bad for everyone else in the short to medium term. If you tell advertisers that they will have less targeting, they'll pay lower rates. They already pay next to nothing, so it'd be a financial bloodbath.
It's tough for publishers. The hard fact of the matter is that the supply of content creators far outstrips demand. Internet technology makes publishing content of all kinds easier than it's ever been. A laptop is far cheaper than a printing press. A webcam is far cheaper than a TV studio. The upshot of that fact is that more people want to make a living by writing or making videos or whatever on the Internet than the market can possibly support. Take away the easy avenue of super intrusive ads and some publishers will go away because every other option is really hard.
I know this. I've been writing consistently, year-round on the Internet since mid-2007. By now, I think I've gotten pretty good at it, but "pretty good" isn't good enough to justify me doing it full time. The market has spoken by now. It says I'm not special enough to warrant a full-time gig. I am far from alone.
This is where it gets tough on the publishing side. A lot of new people appear on the Internet every year trying to make it by creating content. Sturgeon's Law says that most of them won't.
But everyone produces a lot of crap when they first start. Everyone who writes a lot says they look back on their early work and cringe because it's so awful compared to where they are in the present. A ruthless world where only the largest publications make it and it's mostly impossible to make any money without being a part of one of them means that only the people who can afford to write a lot for no money to prove themselves to those publications will make it. Only people who are decently well off will be able to break into the business, and that's not an appealing future. I realize it's kind of like that now in a lot of ways, but it has room to get worse.
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it's micropayments, although I'm not bullish on them. Maybe it's some kind of scheme to essentially pay people to read sites and look at ads, although I'm not bullish on that either. If I did know, I'd be going and doing that instead of writing this essay. The long term good news for Internet content creators is that the future will have no TV or radio or magazines and only data flowing on the Internet. The ad dollars that go to old media now will go to online media in the future because they'll have to. That'll mean more ad money to go around. Its just that no one knows when that future will arrive, and many creators won't survive financially until then.
I hope there is something between the near privacy-less Internet we have today and the dystopian future without journalism. If it's out there to be found, iOS 9 and content blockers are giving the people searching for it a new sense of urgency.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Universal’s Harry Potter Areas Put the Rest to Shame
I finally had a chance to go to Universal Orlando for the first time since the Harry Potter areas opened. It highlighted a real problem that the Islands of Adventure park has.
So you know, I grew up in Orlando and even worked at Universal Studios for two summers and a Christmas break during college. I've been to all the Orlando theme parks more times than I can count. I know more about this stuff than a person probably should.
The Harry Potter areas in both Islands and Studios are the most impressively themed areas of a theme park I've ever seen. The new Diagon Alley in Studios is particularly great. Wide lanes for packing in the tourists aside, it really feels like you're walking onto the set from the films. The entrance to the area from the rest of the park is even inconspicuously located in an unmarked brick wall, going along with the bit from the books about Diagon Alley being hidden in London. Everything is just so well done. You could have fun standing just inside the entrance and listening to the cries of surprise and joy when people enter for the first time.
There is only one real new ride in both Potter areas. Universal re-themed two old rides in Islands for Hogsmeade—the Dueling Dragons as the Dragon Challenge and the Flying Unicorn as Flight of the Hippogriff—but those coasters are exactly the same. The Hogwarts ride in Hogsmeade is probably the better of the two, although its plot is incoherent. The Escape from Gringotts ride in Diagon Alley makes sense, and the queue is the best themed one in either park, but it's kind of short.
Aside from the fact that Universal spent almost no money in theming the old Dueling Dragons queue—it used to be the coolest area in the place, but now it's mostly just plain and boring "stone" walls—I don't really have complaints. Everything looks great, the train ride between Hogsmeade and Diagon is a themed ride in and of itself, and the Butterbeer is dangerously good given the astronomic sugar content.
The problem with these Potter areas is that they make anything that came before them look old and tired. Some of that is simple neglect on Universal's part, like the terribly faded pictures on the side of Shrek 4D. Some of it is the passage of time, with Men in Black now mostly looking silly where it once was cool. A lot of it is that the Potter areas are state of the art and had far higher budgets behind them than other attractions (looking at you, Simpsons ride).
The Studios park is mostly fine because it has been getting newer stuff. There’s the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster in the front plus recently opened Transformers and Despicable Me attractions. Its general theme of simply “movies” means it’s easy to rotate things in and out.
Islands is a different story. Hogsmeade is the first major update the park has had since it opened in 1999. The rest is showing its age, and I don’t know how they’re going to proceed other than replace large sections entirely.
Marvel Super Hero Island has been a dead end ever since Disney bought Marvel. The major rides there—the Hulk coaster, Spider-Man, Dr. Doom’s Fear Fall—do all hold up well. The theming is pretty dated to the late ‘90s though, and there’s no way any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is making its way in. It’ll have to do as-is until it gets replaced some day, but it’s not going to age gracefully until then.
Toon Lagoon is also a dead end, being based on newspaper comics and old cartoons. Children don’t read newspaper comics anymore, and the most famous ones—Peanuts, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes—aren’t included in the area. It also only has water rides, so if you don’t want to get wet, there’s nothing much in the area for you to do. Big updates are unlikely because the area is basically composed of cultural relics. In 10-20 years, the name “Popeye” might be more well known for fried chicken than the sailor. It also will have to be replaced entirely instead of upgraded.
Jurassic Park is pretty safe because they keep making more JP movies. Plus, everyone loves dinosaurs. The only big ride there is another water ride, though, so unless you have kids who will look at the kiddie attractions there, people who don’t want to get wet have another entire area to skip. Another ride, perhaps based on the upcoming Jurassic World, would help.
What’s left of the Lost Continent is probably not worth saving. It used to be right there with Marvel as the best area in the park, but Hogsmeade took over its best ride (Dueling Dragons). All that’s left is a Sinbad stunt show and Poseidon’s Fury, a walkthrough show attraction that has always been embarrassingly cheesy. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hogsmeade or even a new Potter area eventually consumed the rest of it. It could even get pincered, with Potter taking some and Seuss Landing taking the rest.
Speaking of, Seuss Landing is fine. Dr. Seuss books are evergreen as a part of children’s entertainment. It could use some sprucing here and there—the Cat in the Hat ride is surprisingly unpleasant—but second to Hogsmeade, it’s in the best shape long term.
There is some conspicuous construction between Toon Lagoon and Jurassic Park, and supposedly that’s going to be a King Kong themed Skull Island. It’ll be a nice nod to people who remember the old Kongfrontation ride from Studios, and apparently it’s based on a new Kong movie that will come out in a couple years. That’s nice and all, but it’ll end up another new thing to make the old attractions look, well, old.
Universal is now spending $500 million per year on its parks, and overhauling Islands of Adventure has to soak up a lot of that money in the coming years. IOA immediately became the most exciting park in Orlando when it opened, but now, everything outside Hogsmeade just not very thrilling. The place is going to need to look completely different a decade from now to retain its viability.
So you know, I grew up in Orlando and even worked at Universal Studios for two summers and a Christmas break during college. I've been to all the Orlando theme parks more times than I can count. I know more about this stuff than a person probably should.
The Harry Potter areas in both Islands and Studios are the most impressively themed areas of a theme park I've ever seen. The new Diagon Alley in Studios is particularly great. Wide lanes for packing in the tourists aside, it really feels like you're walking onto the set from the films. The entrance to the area from the rest of the park is even inconspicuously located in an unmarked brick wall, going along with the bit from the books about Diagon Alley being hidden in London. Everything is just so well done. You could have fun standing just inside the entrance and listening to the cries of surprise and joy when people enter for the first time.
There is only one real new ride in both Potter areas. Universal re-themed two old rides in Islands for Hogsmeade—the Dueling Dragons as the Dragon Challenge and the Flying Unicorn as Flight of the Hippogriff—but those coasters are exactly the same. The Hogwarts ride in Hogsmeade is probably the better of the two, although its plot is incoherent. The Escape from Gringotts ride in Diagon Alley makes sense, and the queue is the best themed one in either park, but it's kind of short.
Aside from the fact that Universal spent almost no money in theming the old Dueling Dragons queue—it used to be the coolest area in the place, but now it's mostly just plain and boring "stone" walls—I don't really have complaints. Everything looks great, the train ride between Hogsmeade and Diagon is a themed ride in and of itself, and the Butterbeer is dangerously good given the astronomic sugar content.
The problem with these Potter areas is that they make anything that came before them look old and tired. Some of that is simple neglect on Universal's part, like the terribly faded pictures on the side of Shrek 4D. Some of it is the passage of time, with Men in Black now mostly looking silly where it once was cool. A lot of it is that the Potter areas are state of the art and had far higher budgets behind them than other attractions (looking at you, Simpsons ride).
The Studios park is mostly fine because it has been getting newer stuff. There’s the Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster in the front plus recently opened Transformers and Despicable Me attractions. Its general theme of simply “movies” means it’s easy to rotate things in and out.
Islands is a different story. Hogsmeade is the first major update the park has had since it opened in 1999. The rest is showing its age, and I don’t know how they’re going to proceed other than replace large sections entirely.
Marvel Super Hero Island has been a dead end ever since Disney bought Marvel. The major rides there—the Hulk coaster, Spider-Man, Dr. Doom’s Fear Fall—do all hold up well. The theming is pretty dated to the late ‘90s though, and there’s no way any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is making its way in. It’ll have to do as-is until it gets replaced some day, but it’s not going to age gracefully until then.
Toon Lagoon is also a dead end, being based on newspaper comics and old cartoons. Children don’t read newspaper comics anymore, and the most famous ones—Peanuts, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes—aren’t included in the area. It also only has water rides, so if you don’t want to get wet, there’s nothing much in the area for you to do. Big updates are unlikely because the area is basically composed of cultural relics. In 10-20 years, the name “Popeye” might be more well known for fried chicken than the sailor. It also will have to be replaced entirely instead of upgraded.
Jurassic Park is pretty safe because they keep making more JP movies. Plus, everyone loves dinosaurs. The only big ride there is another water ride, though, so unless you have kids who will look at the kiddie attractions there, people who don’t want to get wet have another entire area to skip. Another ride, perhaps based on the upcoming Jurassic World, would help.
What’s left of the Lost Continent is probably not worth saving. It used to be right there with Marvel as the best area in the park, but Hogsmeade took over its best ride (Dueling Dragons). All that’s left is a Sinbad stunt show and Poseidon’s Fury, a walkthrough show attraction that has always been embarrassingly cheesy. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hogsmeade or even a new Potter area eventually consumed the rest of it. It could even get pincered, with Potter taking some and Seuss Landing taking the rest.
Speaking of, Seuss Landing is fine. Dr. Seuss books are evergreen as a part of children’s entertainment. It could use some sprucing here and there—the Cat in the Hat ride is surprisingly unpleasant—but second to Hogsmeade, it’s in the best shape long term.
There is some conspicuous construction between Toon Lagoon and Jurassic Park, and supposedly that’s going to be a King Kong themed Skull Island. It’ll be a nice nod to people who remember the old Kongfrontation ride from Studios, and apparently it’s based on a new Kong movie that will come out in a couple years. That’s nice and all, but it’ll end up another new thing to make the old attractions look, well, old.
Universal is now spending $500 million per year on its parks, and overhauling Islands of Adventure has to soak up a lot of that money in the coming years. IOA immediately became the most exciting park in Orlando when it opened, but now, everything outside Hogsmeade just not very thrilling. The place is going to need to look completely different a decade from now to retain its viability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)