That’s royal.
In today’s creative environs, we establish salary via another way of measure in places where we can’t establish the number of hours, but want the output — fixing the rate at which artists can put a price to their masterpieces: at cost, or via number of hours spent on making them? And another way was to put it at-par with other artists in the marketplaces, which is put to the buyer’s perception of value, versus other art pieces or gallerists’ perception of its aboslute value
There is another way to accompany its value — through another post-creative process that worked in pieces of ambiguity in its measured value whether perceived, or put at marketplace’s price tag, ***the royalty***.
When you have made a piece of music and is now available for purchase for everyone — people can borrow something established that you own, to be scoring other people’s work, as a version or to be used commercially as in a piece of advertising commercial tvc 30s that relies on people’s watching or having seen it, recognition, and eventually being associated with the brand or product that’s being vended.
It works as a *commission process* (as in formal advertising shoppes and the production houses that produces and cuts the commercials together and creates a seamless creative message for the brand — to be flashed during a viewing space or online, on browsers), or as a direct message via mail or the avid building of *campaigns* or prolonged suite of brand building spots, or things that take up the media space that is sponsored by serial placements of messages from a new product, or to essentially make a footprint into an established brand.
In this space, the methods vary but the objectives are all the same.
We need people’s attention, and we pay for it. To be aired, to be put out there, to be noticed. By the right people, at the right time, and this brand efficiency sometimes is a direct translation to impact and effectivity.
When we coin something — we measure recall as number of times we actually encounter in various times, and places / instances, by the number that is quantified as impact. Marketing back-ends require knowledge that is double-take, or what is a more qualified harvest of what is digitally or occipitally planted. And the difference empowers the quality of brand, or its brand value.
Before everything *or everyone*, can be accessed digitally, the amount of knowledge is tantamount to the process, and actual methods of harvest: do we sit down a 30 group to discuss, do we corner people on the streets for surveys, do we place an installation and understand that people aren’t volunteering their answers unless you bought them coffee?
We call that a background survey, or in marketing : a focussed group discussion. The people who are now strategists, use research as their arsenal of choice to tackle their problems posed by the brand growth in question.
The host of all this knowledge is now being centralised online, and we take things that took 12 years of social, 20 years of browser efficiency, and 30 years of pixelised imagery on a colour-scale, a quiet understanding (and in my case, awe) of how we progress things when we need to get ourselves “*in the know*”.
(Sort of like me, in the kitchen with an omelette pan.)
So, the exchange to what you know, is socially priced in fame - or fortune, depending on if you charge for the things you share, or your manager charges the companies that are in charge of the publish, like your new wave music playlists or movie downloads or movie streaming - or really price-sensitive/ time-sensitive or are paid in characters-per-day (if you could pay with a tweet, or with a post and article, as with the subscription models / of what editors write in to dailies).
Convinced with the dedication to systemic / harmonious scope of lives that are pre-occupied with serving others, there are those who remark on their lives in quality not quantity — and whether their bodies of work are not pulitzer-prize materials, or bestsellers at length.
Their lives are lived well when we understand the underlying majesty of their entire creative lives which, may not only be considered royal, it’s noble.
