（有些内容是译者不要脸自己加上的，英文原文在文末，用力往下拉）
对于电视迷、书迷、影迷和音乐爱好者来说，这是个黄金时代。互联网提供了一个几乎取之不尽的选择菜单，来满足我们人类无尽古怪的口味。如今的智能手机，已经可以装下所有类型的娱乐，无论是经典摇滚音，还是火爆的YouTube视频节目，这个星球上每时每刻都有数十亿次的点击在发生着。
正如我们这周special report里提及到的那样，这些科技产生了很矛盾现象。尽管这些技术使消费者有更多的选择空间，但是运用这些技术的公司，却把大部分资源集中在了那些点击量最多的流行点，和最大的平台上。也许因为娱乐本身是种社会行为，也许是因为消费者被繁杂的选择所迷惑，他们更多的时候是去根据榜单排名和平台上推送内容来做选择。比如Netflix,YouTube和Spotify就会引导消费者去浏览他们希望消费者看到的内容。
品牌效益日益兴旺繁荣。
去年，全世界一共发行了好几千部电影，但是票房最高的前五名全部都是迪士尼制作。但在电影行业的另一端的神龛贡品（票房）却少的可怜。根据一家Nielsen调查公司的报告，去年全美消费者一共为8.7百万不同的歌曲付费，这个数字在2007年的时候已经超过5百万。但是，在这么多付费的歌曲中，销售超过100张的歌曲有35万，而销售仅一张的歌曲数量却高达1百万到3.5百万。新技术（互联网）让内容的传播成本接近为零，但是和以前一样，想在这么多歌曲中脱颖而出依旧极难。
但是到底谁赢谁输？
消费者是最大的受益者。根据长尾理论，无论是YouTube还是音乐媒体平台，很多内容都是免费的。但是，这些内容相互激烈竞争，来吸引消费者的有限的注意力。那些在娱乐业里手握最稀缺资源的公司，正在不断提高付费服务的质量。电视节目最能说明这一点。在2016年，美国电视上播出了超过450部原创节目，相比2010年，这个数字增长了2倍。这之中，亚马逊和Netflix投资了数十亿美元。这样产生的影响是，一旦有线电视网络的订阅费高速增长，后续的投资必须连续不断跟进。
而在制造端，获益者是可以那些可以支撑这些巨大投入的公司。比如，迪士尼的票房之所以有如此统治力，是因为其收购了Marvel, Lucasfilm 和Pixar。另外一类的受益者是已经盘踞大量用户的平台，比如Facebook和YouTube。还有一种受益者是掌控娱乐内容和分发权力的公司，比如亚马逊和Netflix。这种逻辑就像美国的AT&T用109亿美元来收购时代华纳，其目的是要将美国最大的付费电视分销商和电视电影制片商强强联手。
那谁是最大的受害者。在美国娱乐史上，有线电视可能是最有利可图的商业模式。但是，这种不停地增加电视频道和收费的这种模式已经不再吸引消费者。而低价的诱惑，便捷的网络内容，让美国每年超过1百万的人不再为电视付费（体育直播是最后撑得起这个系统的支柱）。这个栗子证明了选择悖论。现在的内容越来越多，但是真正被消费只是很少一部分。如今，消费者自以为有选择权，但实际上更多的时候，选择权会被交给那些大公司，比如迪士尼Netflix和Facebook。（更多的消费者更倾向直接摄入推荐的内容，不是么？哈哈哈）
远离民主化娱乐，互联网将确定寡头。
（非英语专业，请TM积极的给意见啊）
The paradox of choice
The modern entertainment industry is a nirvana for consumers
Feb 11th 2017
FOR couch potatoes and bookworms, filmgoers and music-lovers, this is a golden age. The internet provides an almost endlessly long menu of options to meet the almost infinitely quirky tastes of humanity. Smartphones have put all kinds of entertainment—from classic rock to prestige television to silly YouTube clips—at the fingertips of billions across the planet.
Yet, as our special report this week describes, these same technologies have a paradoxical effect. Although they expand choice, they concentrate attention on the most popular hits and the biggest platforms. Perhaps because entertainment is a social activity, perhaps because consumers are baffled by the range of choices, they depend on the rankings and recommendation algorithms of platforms like Netflix, YouTube and Spotify to guide them to their next dose of content. And they are drawn to familiar titles that stand out from the clutter.
So big brands continue to thrive. Of the thousands of films released worldwide last year, the top five box-office earners were all made by Disney. At the other end of the spectrum, the “long tail” of niche offerings is proving to be extremely skinny. Listeners spent money on digital copies of a total of 8.7m different songs in America last year, almost 5m more than in 2007, according to Nielsen, a research firm. But the number of songs that sold more than 100 copies remained at 350,000. And the number of songs that sold just one copy increased from under 1m to 3.5m. It is as hard as ever for talent to break through.
Who wins and loses from this? Consumers are the biggest beneficiaries. The long tail is always there for people with eclectic tastes. Lots of content, from YouTube videos to some music-streaming services, is free. And fevered competition for consumers’ attention, the scarcest resource in the entertainment industry, has raised the quality of paid-for services. Nowhere is this more visible than in television. In 2016 more than 450 scripted original shows were available on American TV, more than twice as many as aired in 2010. Amazon and Netflix are investing billions of dollars. In response, cable networks that once grew fat on subscription fees are having to invest.
On the production side, the winners are companies that can sustain this spending on premium fare—Disney’s box-office dominance, for instance, rests on its purchases of Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar—or that have built platforms with large numbers of users, like Facebook and YouTube, or that can master both distribution and content, as Amazon and Netflix aim to. This is the logic behind AT&T’s proposed $109bn deal to buy Time Warner, marrying America’s biggest distributor of pay TV to one of the biggest producers of television and film.
The remote principle
One big loser stands out. Cable TV in America has been perhaps the most lucrative business model in entertainment history. But its formula of adding channels and charging more no longer appeals. Seduced by cheaper, more flexible internet offerings, Americans have begun dropping pay TV at the rate of more than 1m households a year (live sports is one of the last pillars supporting the system). The decline of pay TV exemplifies the paradox of choice.
There may be more things to watch and listen to than ever before, but there is only so much content that people can take. And the choices they make will concentrate power in the hands of giants like Disney, Netflix and Facebook. Far from democratising entertainment, the internet will entrench an oligarchy.
