... right there with photo-finishing and record stores.
"Companies such as Technicolor(TCH) have suffered as a result. Industrywide, revenues have fallen 25% in the past decade to just north of $4 billion, with another 11% decrease predicted by 2016."
I'm pretty skeptical in general of these kinds of survey/verdict articles (Who is The Street, anyway?) (Villain from Prime Suspect?) as I think they reflect some large players but not necessarily shifts in the focus of industries to smaller (and more prolific) venues.
But still ...
There's a lot of anecdotal info pointing at similar situations.
You'll see elsewhere Avid's recent financial history.
It's important to note that both Adobe and Apple are very diversified (not post dependent). They may be better able to support the post market in this economic climate. It's not that post is dying so much as the movement to lower capital investment and shorter ROI needed on that investment (IMHO). Post companies need to run on ever lower overhead and avoid debt due to decreasing costs for new technology.
Companies the work out new business models may survive both in post and the developers of hardware and software for post.
Also as edited becomes a language more people speak, it'll mean a wider market for developers but at a lower price point.
This is well related
although I have some disagreement with
They save the salaries of 50 professionals and get all sorts of free content, no matter how it’s shot or edited with no regard for sound or video quality.
Long term, the craft of editing is probably stronger than ever. Now that the tools are in the hands of the many, we’ll discover some new folks who just blow us away with their storytelling skills. But short term, many long time professionals could get hurt when editing decisions are based on price alone and not the skill of the artist. Like anything else, with storytelling you generally get what you pay for.
Because the real problem, I think, is that they can get more than they pay for. Some of the CNN iReporters have decent equipment and are very good story tellers and they give away their material. It's not price alone but getting skilled people with decent equipment at a low (no) price.
Basically the assumption that all User Generated Content is done with poor quality gear by people with poor skills is questionable. CNN will cherry pick the best stories amongst a very wide "talent" pool that's just deep enough (given its size) to cover for the staff they laid off.
[Craig Seeman] " the assumption that all User Generated Content is done...by people with poor skills is questionable. XXX will cherry pick the best stories amongst a very wide "talent" pool"
Replace XXX with Ridley Scott (and his team) and you've got what went on with YouTube in 2010, and is being repeated with the BBC's participation once again. Some of the participants who got their clips selected seem to be those who, whilst having considerable skills in an unrelated 'day job' also have a degree of video story-telling literacy that is highly entertaining to watch (if you enjoy cinema/programme watching).
With '80,000 submissions, 4500 hours of footage' (according to IMDB) FCP Legacy would be the least effective software solution to managing the preliminary selection and assembly work on that sort of movie IMO.
If Ridley Scott going there - YT-type production - then many others will want to follow, not just CNN for news. (Again IMO).