I've been fascinated by the rise of the online video sharing websites in China. Unlike the US, where video sharing sites have jammed a stick into the side of traditional broadcast media, in China they have jammed sticks into the sides of both traditional broadcast media and the government. This is not surprising since broadcast media and the government are closely entwined in China, and anything that upsets the equilibrium of the government's carefully managed media environment is destined to make for interesting times.

I therefore highly recommend that anyone else with a similar interest read David Wolf's recent post on the collision courses of digital video and broadcast, written following a panel discussion at this year's CASBAA conference in Hong Hong. It's a few days old now, but still worth your time. Looking into the future and considering the current (deteriorating) business environment, David writes:

Here is my scenario: either this year, next year, or in 2010 the results of the CCTV advertising auction are bad - so bad that they cannot be hidden. We're talking like a 10-15% decline, or maybe worse. Meantime, Youku, Tudou, et al are starting to rake it in. They've concluded content licensing deals, they've fixed (or kind of fixed) the measurement issues, and there are upwards of 300 million users online.

At that point, it is not going to take long for CCTV and its fellow broadcasters throughout China to add things up. They will turn to the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television and to the Publicity (propaganda) Committee of the Party, making the case that these private online companies are not only hurting their business, but, worse, doing damage to the ability of broadcasters to serve their propaganda/social administration function for the state.

At that point, the government's options become fairly clear: restrict the online video sites, let the broadcasters run whatever content they want, or force some kind of accommodation between the two sides (i.e., compel each of the sites to take on a state broadcaster as a part or majority shareholder.)

David's advice is for the online video sites to start preparing for such an eventuality now.

One of the reasons why the video sharing sites are so popular in China is that, although tightly regulated in comparison to their American cousins, they offer a low (though improving) resolution but much livelier product than the thoroughly ossified State and provincial broadcasters. But tight regulation, which is largely subtractive ("do not show this") is not the same thing as active programming guidance ("emphasize this"), which makes the complaint about undermining the propaganda function seem like a very likely angle of attack. Thinking about David's two resulting scenarios, Imagethief reckons he will have substantially more gray hairs by the time the Chinese government gets around to allowing broadcasters freedom to program on a relatively unregulated commercial basis. Driving video sharing sites into the arms of traditional broadcasters seems much more likely. Something similar was hinted at in the new online video regulations published by SARFT earlier this year, which officially mandated state ownership or investment for video sharing sites. But that regulation seems to be only loosely or cosmetically applied to the industry leaders.

That is probably for the best, because if there is one thing governments have no idea how to do, it is to create or program commercially competitive content. (For one take on this, read this post from The Nut Graph.) Asia's dismal, continent-wide history of state owned or state managed media stands as testament to that truth, as does any flip through the TV channels in China, most of which are as firmly trapped in the slide whistle and bicycle horn approach to entertainment as a fly is in amber. Hollywood types and New York big-media barons may be a mix of ruthless tycoons and venal, coke-snorting jackals who want to defile your daughter, but Imagethief prefers handing the production budget to them any day because they want to make money. That means that for any given product they are about twenty times more likely to come up with a product people actually want to watch or read (although not necessarily something I'd want my son to watch or read, which suggests that at least some role for government is sensible). And that's allowing for the fact that 99% of Hollywood output is some variation on one of the two following formulas: A) A group of [teenagers/astronauts/cops/cartoon animals/scientists/sorority girls] are pursued through a [haunted house/spaceship/office tower/underwater research laboratory/locker room/jungle] by an [alien/masked murderer/group of terrorists/giant shrimp/amorphous pile of man-eating jelly] or B) Two cops in Los Angeles who at first hate each other for shallow [cultural/racial/age/you weren't in 'Nam/you screwed by best girl/you let my brother die in that hellhole] reasons before progressing through grudging respect and then firm buddyhood under a hail of gunfire from a bunch of guys with generically foreign accents. Mix and match and create your own treatment and shop it to Hollywood. You can send your check for ten percent of the option fee to me care of this website.

But Bollywood and Hong Kong are just as bad when it comes to formula, and they also manage some consistent entertainment (although Hong Kong has never recaptured the golden age it had before Hollywood turned it over and shook all the talent and ideas out). As for government guidance, if I have to watch one more mainland film where guys in ponytails stand around brooding at each other in between awesome-yet-tedious battle scenes and tepid, sexless interludes with winsome looking girls I might have to commit suicide by stir-frying my own head in peanut oil.

So it goes. My standards for entertainment are nevertheless rock bottom. Some people get misty at sweeping cinematography or outstanding screenwriting. Imagethief got all choked up during the scene in Iron Man where Tony Stark tests the control surfaces on the suit. To thine own geeky self be true.

Bonus pop culture quiz (for the first time in perhaps two years): In what movie was former MTV VJ Nia Peeples pursued and (thankfully) eaten by a giant shrimp? No Google. God bless Hollywood.

Previously:

Asian media vows to make western media cry (April 2007)

Why patriotism won't save the Chinese film industry (September 2007)

Notorious MDA: The Singapore government raps (November 2007)