The fact that the average person would even care about something as phony as Hollywood is in itself a problem. Who cares? Let alone write a page on something nobody knows about, the future.

[...] first response comes from Hollywood is Dead. Long live Hollywood at pandodaily (a new website started some former veteran bloggers from [...]

[...] at Pando Daily and Ycomb they say learning hollywoods game is required to kill hollywood.  I say it is possible for [...]

What your talking about then is augmented reality a few companies are already bringing concerts and such to the online world, but let's face it companies will due it wrong a million times over before they do it right and the battle for the internet is on. With politics and lobbyists trying to get copyright protection done to the extreme online doing things like concerts will become much more difficult and involve needing a lot more permits. I think it will take longer. This year is all about social then it will move to mobile then television and the internet will have to mingle then the need for augmented reality can come to play. The reason it will take so long is because first you need to make sure it will work then you need to find your niches. Think about it the idea of QR codes are great they have been using them in Japan since 05 and 06 I remember that and they allow people to buy things with their phones, but we have yet to do that mainly because the corporations here have the wrong idea and only a few are using them correctly and honestly a lot more need to be doing it right before it's accepted long term. In that that is the only issue with the predictions as for Hollywood dying no way look at where all the YouTube talent moves why??? Because eventually mainstream tv and internet based entertainment will become one and let's face it when it comes to entertainment if your going to do it you might as well be in the city that does it best.

I'm not exactly sure what comprises the "old Hollywood" that is supoosedly going away, but I see lots of hubris here (I assume that the author is talking the book of his company, which is fine but I'd take it for what it is.). Taking "old Hollywood" to be the content creation, financing, and marketing business of studios, networks, etc., they have proved quite resilient. These businesses have survived though the rise of TV, the rise of the VCR / DVD, and the rise of cable. In each case, the older distribution model (movie theater, broadcast TV) survived in a somewhat altered form, and I expect the same to occur now. The author states that "creating great content is hard." I agree and would add that it is also expensive, both to develop content and to market it. While any market faces competition, a deep-pocketed incumbent that knows how to do this is in a strong position. (I'll note that this cost of entry is a significant difference vs. the music business. For a band to record an album and build a following through touring costs far less money than creating scripted video content with the production quality that viewers have come to expect.) A question I have is how a player like Netflix fits into this world. Those with the expertise and deep pockets to produce quality content will find a way to monetize it. Those with the communications connections to deliver data to the home (cable, telcos) will have a place (subject to any game-changing technology in data delivery, and my belief is that wireless spectrum limitations mean that we will rely on a wired broadband connection of some type for the foreseeable future.). I'm not sure how Netflix's streaming business avoids being squeezed by content creators, since it needs them more than they need Netflix. The Netflix DVD business had a clear competitive advantage that will be extremely difficult for Netflix to duplicate in steaming. Hulu, due to content creator equity stakes, and iTunes and YouTube, because of deep-pocketed parents who can cross-subsidize from other businesses if they wish, seem better positioned than Netflix.

Dr. Beckett, It took me a few steps to find your post. But I think it may be worth sharing those steps to articulate a point, and perhaps heighten my support for the energy behind your post. Tonight a Lawyer friend tweeted me congratulations about my book being on Amazon's Hot New Releases #1 list this week. 1. I noticed that her tweet prior to the one she sent me had been to her friend who's a producer at CNN. 2. A CNN producer who only follows 14 people on Twitter- so I perused those people and noticed Bethanny Frankel whom I respect more for her business acumen than for her participation in the Real Housewives franchise – but I was intrigued so I followed her.. 3. I went to her website, and thought to myself "she, or whomever handles her, really gets social" 4. So I clicked on the logo at the bottom of her site, where I found your company. 5. I then thought that I should contact your company 6. I thought again - saying screw it - I want to talk to the CEO... 7. This led me back to Twitter - where I found your Twitter account. 8. Your last tweet was this blog post. Your post is spot on. Hollywood - or the old way of doing things is dead. As I illustrate in the circuitous manner in which I discovered your content the ways of old distribution are dead. Good content, will always bubble to the top. In my book, I explore the same premise. I know nothing of the inner workings of Hollywood, but I know digital - and I know that those who hold onto the old way of conducting business will be left behind. Otherwise - how would an Italian guy from NY be able to run his own digital marketing firm, create a social network for high school athletes, appear on TV as a social media expert, and self-publish a book that shot to #1 on Amazon in the first week of publishing. The world has changed - well done. Chris Dessi @cdessi

Tumblr is based in New York, not Silicon Valley

Right-o. The way to “kill” Hollywood is to combine those people who are good at great content creation with those who are good at great distribution & presentation. Right now, Hollywood has some of the former but none of the latter (and is giving every indication that it doesn't want any). May it rest in peace.

Simon, throughout the history of business, there have been people making the same noises, and the same mistakes you have here, ignoring that great lesson: yesterday is not a reliable indicator of what will happen tomorrow. There's no president for any incumbent business taking "an evolutionary step" in the face of a faster, leaner, more popular competitor, especially a step "it doesn’t want to take" Incumbent players do not evolve, they die. But first they use their old contacts to buy influence in political circles, they buy legislation, they slander their competitors and sabotage their operations, all the time ignoring the reality of what's happening to their industry and what's happening to them. So, geographical Hollywood is as dead as Hollywood the business model. There's no need to BE anywhere in particular to make a great movie. And the rationing based distribution model should have been killed many years ago. Cinemas are a great experience, but such a small part of how people experience movies today. The movie industry as we know it is is over. The future is art houses and home distribution via broadband. I seriously doubt anyone in Hollywood has worked that out yet, and won't until it's too late.

[...] Contrarian view: Traditional Hollywood is dead. New Hollywood takes over. [...]

There must be two meanings to the word Hollywood these days. 1) Hollywood - the place where the most influential content in the world has been created for almost 100 years. The place that has a greater gravity than the sun for those who have a passion to be part of the biggest story-telling machine ever created. 2) Hollywood - a set of business practices that have evolved over the same 100 year time period to maximize the profit potential of the product that is generated. If you mean that the Hollywood of the second definition is dying from the inside, I agree. Sort of. It's actually just on the verge of an evolutionary step it doesn't want to take. But take it, it will. Because it's adapt or die. Same thing goes for the music industry. But if you're referring to the first definition, I respectfully call B.S. *That* Hollywood is as eternal as the culture that fuels it. Unless you're prepared to acknowledge a total cultural collapse with the U.S. (go ahead, I may not argue) it is far too soon to write Hollywood's eulogy.