|
Greetings all, and a belated welcome to 2025. Here’s hoping it’s a good one for everyone mixing business with creativity.
Let’s start off with some New Year’s resolutions. The good news is, you don’t have to make them; someone else has done it for you. This article from the US marketing industry site The Drum summarises what design business owners plan to commit to in 2025. There’s plenty of focus on adapting to a changing industry and making the most of new technology like AI. They also discuss improving hybrid work models and making pitches and procurement processes more efficient and fair. Other resolutions include focusing on transparency, creating unique customer experiences, questioning briefs more (oh yes, I hear many people cry), and using mixed reality to boost brand engagement. It’s not a bad list for creative businesses in general and certainly worth a look for design-led agencies.
|
|
|
This week, blockbuster exhibitions have been on my mind, having taken some time out to sample Magritte at the Art Gallery of NSW (I’m saving the amazing-looking Cao Fei for another day) and Yayoi Kusama at the National Gallery of Victoria. From the crowds at both galleries, I think it’s fair to say this is smart Summer programming from each venue. These blockbuster exhibitions are increasingly important to large museums and galleries in Australia, as tent poles in their annual programs. I think there’s more work to do on how these institutions convert first-time attendees lured in by these big-ticket shows into repeat visitors, but that’s the sort of thing you’d expect me to say. 😉
One of Kusama’s trademarks is her infinity rooms where visitors are swallowed into spaces covered with her distinctive colourful patterns (see pic above). These are immersive experiences embedded within the exhibition itself, where a shareable selfie is the most highly sought-after prize. This got me thinking about the business model for immersive shows (again, the sort of thing you’d expect me to think about), which led me to Felix Barber and András Szántó’s article on how immersive exhibitions are changing, and changing galleries. I was surprised to read that immersive experiences featuring contemporary artists’ work have overtaken those of historical artists. They require many more people to work on them than traditional exhibitions, and they have different spatial and technological requirements. And tellingly, to make any money, you have to program them in multiple locations – up to 40, this article says – and partnerships are often the way to share the risk. A good read for those in arts, events and technology (or all of the above).
|
|
|
Have video game developers concentrated too much on how games look compared to how much fun they are to play? This video from Zachary Small at the New York Times outlines the problem. Games studios have steadily concentrated on improving video game graphics quality over the last 30 years. The result is an astonishing level of graphical fidelity in newly released games. And achieving these hyper-realistic effects costs a lot, as much as $200-300M.
However, gamers’ tastes have changed over the last 5 years. They’ve become less interested in graphical fidelity and more interested in being able to play games with friends (Roblox and Fortnite are examples). Why? Well, games are expensive to buy, and the creativity in graphics hasn’t necessarily been matched by creativity in gameplay. Small argues that it’s better gameplay that’s going to attract and retain players, so that’s where studios should concentrate their efforts.
|
|
|
A bit of streaming catch-up is always a fun holiday activity, and over the break, I watched Netflix’s documentary Dirty Pop: The Boy Band Scam. It tells the amazing story of Lou Pearlman, the boy band impresario behind ‘90s pop idols like the Backstreet Boys and NSYNC. But the inevitable tales of the band members being financially exploited aren’t the surprising bit of this story. That was only a high-profile side hustle to distract from a much larger case of business fraud, so audacious it boggles the mind. Recommended salacious viewing, notable also for its (openly declared) AI-doctored archive footage of Pearlman, used to make it appear that he’s participating in the documentary.
Having been immersed in so much ‘90s pop, I wondered who had written all of the songs (not a topic covered in the doco). It turns out that many of them were written by Swedish writer and producer Max Martin. He didn’t stop writing in the ‘90s – his songs are all over albums by Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, and The Weeknd, to name a few. He has more Billboard number ones than anyone other than Lennon & McCartney. Here’s a profile of him by Karl Quinn at the SMH to give you his background. And if you’re interested in the “melodic math” behind his songwriting and no doubt become a hugely successful pop songwriter yourself (!), this 12-minute video from Songwriters International breaks down how it’s done.
|
|
|
Onto our semi-regular AI watch, and in an article for Boston Review, Alexander Hartley asks, “To whom does the world belong?” in which he discusses the significant legal battles surrounding AI and their potential impact on wealth and power distribution in democracies in the coming decades. Hartley talks about AI authorship challenges from an inputs/outputs perspective: who owns the prompts going in, and who owns the product coming out the other side? Spoiler alert: no one knows, but there are lots of competing views.
Hartley emphasises the transformative potential of AI in rapidly increasing the creation of new intellectual products. He points out that while the AI services market is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2032 (only 7 years from now, friends), the value of intellectual property generated by these services could far exceed this amount. So, who owns and generates revenue from those products is like asking who owns water or nuclear fission. Should that AI-generated IP be in the hands of the government or private enterprise? This one’s a long read, so make a cuppa and settle in. It’s worth it, though – a complex issue clearly and engagingly explained.
|
|
|
As I write, wildfires still besiege Los Angeles, so the impact of this terrible event on the US Film & TV industry is still yet to be seen. But even before then, there was plenty of evidence that the screen industry there was suffering a post-industrial action slump. In this article, Joseph Chianese provides an overview of the film and television industry’s challenges and developments in 2024, with projections for 2025. He points to a 20% global decline in film and television production levels, with the US experiencing a sharper 40% decline from pre-strike levels.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom proposed increasing the state’s annual funding for incentives to $750 million, up from $330 million, to reclaim productions that have moved elsewhere. Where exactly are they moving to, though? Oh Canada, it seems as it has expanded its production incentives, with provinces like British Columbia increasing tax credits for film production. And if President Trump makes good on his threats to impose tariffs on imports of Canadian goods, it looks like even more production spending might be heading north. Let’s hope a low Australian dollar has a similar impact on our industry if only to insulate the industry from a softening screen business in the US.
|
|
|
Some resources and opportunities to consider this month:
- The Creative Industries – Connectivity Initiative is a new grant program offered by Create NSW that aims to foster collaboration between arts and cultural organisations and creative industry businesses. The program provides grants of up to $50,000 to support innovative projects and programs. It is designed to encourage partnerships across various creative sectors, including broadcasting, digital media, design, architecture, fashion, heritage, arts education, food and beverage, and technology. Applications are open until March 17, 2025, and are invited explicitly from not-for-profit small-to-medium arts and cultural organisations working in collaboration with a creative business partner.
- Those funsters over at the ATO (I say with it love, as I used to be one years ago), have a couple of things worth looking at if you’re considering investing in technology or training this year. The Small Business Technology Investment Boost offers an additional 20% tax deduction on eligible technology expenditure (digital media and website building included – something for the tech company owners reading this to point out to their customers?). And the Small Business Skills and Training Boost offers an additional 20% tax deduction on providing training to employees, delivered by registered training providers. As always, read the fine print and talk to your accountant about the details.
- The Creative Equity Toolkit website produced by Diversity Arts Australia and The British Council, offers a comprehensive set of resources aimed at promoting cultural diversity in the creative sector. The toolkit covers various aspects of the creative industry, including: Anti-Racism strategies, Programming and Commissioning guidance, Governance best practices and Cultural Consultation methods In addition, the website features a launch event stream discussing “How to be Anti-Racist in the Arts” and showcases twenty-one Australian creative equity case studies through the Imagine Australia Project.
|
|
|
