Embracing Merch: Selling Out Is The New Independent

I grew up expecting planning on being an independent film maker. Though I sorta work for “the man” now, and though I couldn’t predict what that DIY artist I wanted to be would look like, I’ve landed surprisingly close to the mark, all* things** considered***.  If new media is the new independent film, and I’m ok with that, then I’m certainly surprised in the (albeit limited) revenue streams (ha) we have to pick from. As it stands, most creators scrape their budgets together from a hearty out of pocket donation, and a combination of… 1) viewer donations, 2) ad revenue/product integration, and 3) merch****. Donations are contingent upon a large, loyal fan base and product integration relies on serious traffic and the wherewithal to get in front of sponsors in the first place. That leaves merch as one of the most popular, immediate and straight forward of the opportunities available to the independent web creator.

Back in the day independent spirits would scoff at the idea of emblazoning their likeness or logo on some unrelated junk  that doesn’t have anything to do with their art just for a quick buck. Why should they put their band on a lunch box? What does being an artist have to do with selling cell phones? That sort of behavior was perceived to diminish the potency of the art being created. They had a phrase for it; “Sell Out”. In web video, there’s no such thing.

Certainly, small run manufacturing of products like T-shirts, DVDs, calendars, and stickers has never been easier or less risky. It’s fascinating, though, to see the shift in attitude in many independent artists, towards embracing merchandising in such a way. Maybe it’s the fact that I’m in Hollywood (which has never been all that punk-rock anyway), maybe it’s the higher costs of film making than most other independent art forms, maybe it’ s that I project a misplaced DIY ethos onto people who weren’t ever interested in that sort of dogma in the first place, but there seems to have been a shift from independent artist rejecting corporate sponsors as an ethical choice, to embracing them as a means to facilitate control and a different sort of freedom.

To be clear, I don’t think anyone is, or should be, against making money as an artist. What I’m saying is, in the economy of “free”, we as a community have moved towards retiring the idea of making money directly off our art. We have subsumed the concepts of merch/ads/integration as part of our artistry.  Shows like 30 Rock make sport of cleverly integrating products into their program. Though web shows sometimes suffer from distracting product placement, that’s not to say that product integration wont make its way into an invisible (or even fulfilling) part of our cinematic vocabulary. The idea that our shows serve as commercials for our t-shirts doesn’t seem as distasteful as I would have expected.

Besides, you can monetize next to your content without it interfering. People understand that buying that t-shirt off cafe press is a way of supporting an independent artist and keeping their favorite content “free”. People still like to buy physical things, even though it’s no longer necessary (or part of our expectation) to buy a physical piece of art. Ownership is something people are used to paying for, but when all content becomes ephemeral (thanks to sites like Hulu) then ownership is no longer necessary. Why pay to own a DVD, when that same content can stream on your computer for free? Free up some shelf space and save a little cash, right? Audience expectations have been that ephemeral or broadcast content is free for years, and that’s the way it’s going to stay. But they still expect to pay for a t-shirt. Can and should we add “retailer” to the ever-growing list of skills a hyphenate web creator needs to be successful, or will we look back on this era with embarrassment (and a crate of unsold Mountain Man collectible refrigerator magnets collecting dust in my garage)?

—

* Hollywood isn’t really a bastion for independent artists, now is it? Funny that I ended up living literally under the sign.

** If Hollywood is the system, USC is the academy churning out the executive stooges to run said system.

*** Working for Viacom is kinda like working for the Sheinhardt Wig Company (and by that, I mean a BIG company, that’s all. Please don’t fire me.)

**** And yeah, 4) a development deal with some monied, traditional media company. Yes, we’re going to see a lot more deals like that in the future, but development deals are dependent upon someone else (an exec) liking your show enough to fund it. For the purposes of this conversation, that’s not really relevant. I’m talking about creators who decided to make their show, regardless of whether or not they thought it had a shot of going up the line and into the “big time”.