Film Business? Rock Solid. TV, Not So Much
We’ve now seen earnings reports from the majors, and there’s a common theme. The movie business is booming. Television is in the toilet.Â
Take the Fox example. News Corp, the parent, was down 46%, with Fox Television barely break even. But 20th Century Fox earnings were sharply higher. It’s been pretty much the same across the board. The only thing propping up cable at all has been subscriber fees. Advertising has been hit hard.
The leads us to wonder about the emphasis of the opposition to the proposed TV-Theatrical contract. Theatrical is where the money is. That doesn’t seem to have changed.Â
Of course it’s important to keep an eye on the future. But at the expense of the present?
Box office sales are always a lagging indicator. The money’s already been spent. The risks have already been taken. They were already in the pipeline.
The price of a ticket is still a cheap thrill these days, despite the 11 and 12 dollar range. Ticket sales and profits won’t track the economy until 1) people are hurting even more and 2) the drought of shuttered productions produces a dearth of high yield films.
We’re still in for it.
Part of the problem with the opposition is an age-old one: trying to use a union contract to repeal the laws of economics.
As I have written many times (although those comments are now MIA), scripted television — at least on the major networks — is in peril. Reality programs continue to eat away at the hours devoted to scripted. Recently, producers of those programs have moved to 90 and 120 minute formats, discovering that the audience not only stays with the shows but actually grows during the second hour. Then there are the variety/talk shows — witness Leno stripping 5 days a week in NBC prime time. Factor in sports, news/documentary/exposé, and other non-scripted alternatives, and the seriousness of the problem becomes evident. On top of that, the networks are hammering the studios to cut costs (licensing fees) for the scripted fare they’re still buying. So there’s less money to spread around.
Scripted television seems, inexorably, to be moving to basic cable, but the economics there are quite different.
So the maniacal focus on network reruns, and the alleged imminent demise of residuals from such reruns due to the internet, almost completely misses the true problem. Before there can be a rerun, there has to be a first run. As scripted television continues to march toward extinction, the problem will be trying to hang on to even the initial work, never mind reruns.
VG
VG
“Scripted television seems, inexorably, to be moving to basic cable, but the economics there are quite different.”
The business model for basic cable incorporates as a fundamental premise that a single show/episode will be shown multiple times within a single time-frame. Part of this is clearly due to the lower budget these cable outfits have to purchase new content. Part of that is, in turn, due to the lower ad revenues received from a smaller audience base, and, in turn, part of that is due to the greatly fragmented programming landscape basic cable has created.
This is so much different than network broadcast models on so many levels, that I am continually puzzled by the failure to recognize the differences and the impact those difference should have on those negotiating labor contracts in the cable environment.
Demanding that cable play (and pay) by network rules doesn’t make sense, because the network residual formulas would place most dramatic content outside the budgetary constraints of most cable outlets. If you want basic cable to return to the early-days wasteland of infomercials and “repurposed” industrial films, demand that actors get paid broadcast residuals for every cable replay.
Personally, I am dumbfounded by the failure to see the potential of dramatic content on basic cable. The evidence is clearly there that edgy, clever, boundary-pushing material can be seen, and thrive, on basic cable; Mad Men,any one? Breaking Bad? Even the more “conventional” cable productions, the cop and detective shows, break new ground by focusing on characters you don’t see on network; Monk, Saving Grace, In Plain Sight, Psych and Burn Notice all bring great characters, and great acting, that never would stand a chance against the Survivors and American Idols of network. Oddly enough, you do see network starting to pay attention; to these eyes, “Southland” looks like something that would have been at home on cable, if it wasn’t for the substantial size of the cast.
And they’re only the beginning. As cable continues to fragment into niche and subniche audiences, new opportunities for targeted dramatic content will expand. Hallmark’s shown that drama written for women will draw a big enough audience to be financially successful. The GLBT networks are just starting to go in the same direction.
Demanding that these fertile new fields be cultivated with the same tools as network ignores their intrinsic differences. It is, sadly, the same mindset that dooms the equivalent demands for “first dollar” jurisdiction in new media. There’s no way that restriction will work well, and every chance it could stifle the investment of time and effort into innovation that could create thousands upon thousands of opportunities for performers to earn a living at their craft.
Somebody is going to have to explain this to me.