Striking out…

Updated on December 11, 2007 By Ken Begg 12 Comments

As the writers’ strike drags on (and in that it may well be followed next year by actor and director strikes), many are asking whether the writers and the film / TV corporations might not well be mutually killing off the golden goose here.  However, that misreads the situation.  The thing is, the golden goose has been dying for a long time now, and so at best this strike and any future ones may just be speeding up the process.

Whither TV?  In the early days, following in the wake of radio programs, TV shows were often sponsored by a single company (“This is Little Orphan Annie, brought to you by Ovaltine…”).  That proved inefficient, however.  And so, of course, networks have instead elected to sell short segments of advertising time to various companies. 

However, in the age of Tivo and other DVR recorders, TV viewers are increasingly getting itchy with watching commercials at all.  Clearly we will soon we a day in which the number of viewers actually watching commercials is so small that advertisers will not find it worth their while to buy commercial time, and certainly not at the current rates.

Exacerbating this trend is the wider-scale problem of fragmenting audiences.  It’s not just that the networks (five now, instead of three) must compete with a zillion cable channels, it’s that there are plenty of non-TV entertainment options out there. 

Right now, NBC is been reimbursing advertisers in hard cash (as opposed to the more traditional comped additional commercial time) because they have so badly failed to reach the audience numbers they promised.  That’s the route being taken by the other networks, who also are experience severe audience shortfalls.  And this is before the writer’s strike has really affected many shows.  Although that is soon to impact a lot more programs in a major way.

The short term answer, obviously, will be more reality shows.   Especially since, at least in terms of the upper echelon ones, they remain among the most popular shows right now.  To my delight, The Amazing Race is experiencing a viewer resurgence following lower ratings for the previous editions.   Other chart toppers include American Idol, Survivor, Dancing with the Stars, etc.  Reality shows don’t (officially) use writers, are generally cheaper to produce than scripted entertainment, and again can at least in some cases draw among the larger audiences on TV right now.

Given this, I don’t expect the writer’s strike to end soon, at least not on the terms sought by the union.  With more strikes hanging over their heads, the various studios and networks may be chary of giving the writers much and thus facing even higher demands from the actors and directors. 

So what’s the solution?  I’m not sure there is one.  More product placement and maybe a return to single-advertiser sponsorship may work for the networks, but then again, maybe not.  TV shows now cost an appalling amount to bring into existence.  Will many sponsors want to pay $50 million a year or more to attach their names to shows with ever shrinking audience shares?

As for movies, that business has been so messed up for so long that I’m not sure what to make of it.  For every film that makes huge amounts of money, there are ten that lose a lot of money.  Meanwhile, the strike threatens them more severely.  They will soon run out of scripts ready to be filmed, and then the crap will really hit the fan. 

Again, though, the studios (or the megacorporations that own them) may still consider that the lesser of two evils, with more potential strikes hanging over their heads.  Again, if you give the writers a lot, the actors and directors will ask for even more.  That’s human nature.

And we are approaching a technological leap forward with greenscreen movies like 300 and Speed Racer that may presage an era of homemade filmmaking tailored to every fragmenting audiences, just as is happening in television.  We may be getting back into a cycle where the Roger Cormans can step in and make a lot of money producing decently made low-budget movies aimed at exact demographics, a type of filmmaking completely alien to the giant media film studios.

So the strikes may be just another final battle by bewildered dinosaurs striking out at each other as the world around them alters in a fashion inimical to their survival.

Or maybe not?  Who knows?  One thing’s for sure, you can’t stop progress.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Ericb

    “And we are approaching a technological leap forward with greenscreen movies like 300 and Speed Racer that may presage an era of homemade”

    As I’ve mentioned before this is what is happening in the music industry. Frankly I think that there is more good music being released now than, say, 15 years ago. It would be great if this worked out with movies as well.

    In the meantime I bet Netflix is cleaning up.

  • Netflix is also smart to be getting ahead on video downloading, which is sure to be the next stage in rentals.

  • rizzo

    Don’t forget here that A: the networks are making crap programming with only 2 or 3 shows that are worthwhile viewing/week at all, and B: they’re making more money than ever on selling the DVD’s of the TV shows at $40/season. They make a big deal out of the TiVO thing, but that’s BS, it’s mostly the lack of good programming.

  • I agree with the assessment that Netflix is wise in their decision to offer movie streaming. As a matter of fact, that was mentioned is my last blog entry. There is so much material out there, right now, I could spend the rest of my life enjoying movies in the comfort of my home. I could easily hold out for a few years while the studios get their act together.

  • Rizzo — The thing is, one man’s crap is another man’s treasure. Fox hardly did a bang-up job promoting it, but Firefly would never in a million years have drawn anywhere near the audience of, say, CBS’ Yes, Dear, although most people here would say it was a *much* better show. The fact is, we are moving away from being a mass society, as technology allows us to pick and choose programming and entertainment options directly aimed at our individual tastes.

    Meanwhile, DVD sales are starting to stagnate. And I don’t think sales would come anywhere near, in most cases, to pushing many shows over the top into profitibility. Let’s say a studio makes, oh, $20 a set selling Lost episodes. (Probably an exaggeration, but anyway.) If they sell a million sets–and I imagine that’s a grossly inflated figure–then they would clear $20 million. However, a season of Lost, 24 episodes at three million per, costs $72 million to produce. If you pull advertising out of the equasion, even a (by today’s standards) massively successful show is still going to lose money.

  • Mr. Blue

    A few potential silver linings…
    1) It would be nice to see a few foriegn films get a wide theatrical release in the US (I’m thinking of the Evangelion re-make and the Death Note movie). Barring that, maybe re-screen a few good classics- Jaws, The French Connection, ect.
    2) I’m thinking advertisers will begin to put more effort into commericals with strong ‘viral’ potential (trunk monkey, anyone?). It would be nice to have super bowl quality commericals year round.

    I’m sure things will work out for the better. And if not, well, there’s always ‘Top Gear’ on BBC America…

  • sardu

    The only hope for TV as we know it is to further integrate the products right into the shows where they can’t be skipped. With the future of interactive technology this could wind up being more subtle than it is today- say you’re watching a show and you like what the lead actor is wearing. You pause the show, mouse over it and a pop-up gives you a link to get more info and even buy it. In such ways advertising could be ubiquitous enough to support the shows and still be transparent enough do allow you to enjoy what you’re watching. Obviously, that’s a ways off though…

  • fish eye no miko

    blue said: “1) It would be nice to see a few foriegn films get a wide theatrical release in the US (I’m thinking of the Evangelion re-make and the Death Note movie)”

    Which one? ^_^
    Ya know, just the other day I was thinking how it’d be nice if more studios would release foreign films instead of re-making them.

  • Danny

    I think that small amateur moviemakers are probably the future of film. Smaller budgets, smaller returns. Or, to paraphrases Scott McCloud: “The future won’t be written by those looking to make a killing, but those looking to make a living”.

    The $200,000 a year in profit that Wikipedia says “Red vs. Blue” earns wouldn’t even garner a second look from the studios, but to the average guy with a mic, an Xbox, and a computer, that’s a LOT.

    Especially given that the entire thing is provided free (and, indeed, at a rather steep cost to the makers. They earn profit through donations and merchandise). There’s a very real and growing trend in how people, particularly internet-y people, are thinking about content. It’s the norm on the internet for content to be freely provided, and fans to support their favorite sites through donations and such.

    That’s (again using RvB as an example, though it’s the Titanic of web site films) 600,000- 1,000,000 people who are regularly watching a sitcom that’s entirely and legally free. Even if they’re not dipping into their DVD funds to support it, that’s quite a bit of time and energy directed at a non-TV sitcom.

    That’s not even counting people playing video games.

    Hollywood’s response is to go for spectacle, going for the big budgets amateurs can’t provide. I don’t think it’s a winning move. I don’t think WATCHING a big budget action scene really compares with PLAYING one in Halo or what-have-you. (I suspect this is why nearly every video game in a movie makes 80s Pac-man sounds. Video games are lame, kids!)

    With Amateurs providing increasingly good comedy and drama, and video games surpassing Hollywood in action (and suspense thrillers, to some extent. Video Games seems almost designed for telling clue-finding mysteries, but that’s mostly untapped land), where can Hollywood go?

    My comments getting longer then the article itself. Suffice to say these factors kind of interest me.

  • The Rev. D.D.

    I caught a rerun of the Daily Show I hadn’t seen the first go-round, and the “Back in Black” segment mentioned a show that presented itself as a “news”-type show (think Extra or ET). It was run commercial-free, the show being promoted by a single sponsor. The clips were talking about Halo III and how hot and awesome it was…and how you could buy it at Wal-Mart. They said this REPEATEDLY. Enough times that I couldn’t even begin to imagine watching the actual show.
    If that’s the future…I’ll be watching even less TV than I already do.

  • Pilgrim

    “Video Games seems almost designed for telling clue-finding mysteries, but that’s mostly untapped land”

    Actually, I think it’s overtapped, and you don’t see it much anymore because it was so horribly overdone (not to mention just horribly done) in the past. The two Manhunter games certainly fall into that mold; most old adventure games also have clue-finding elements if not actual mysteries. Then there came Myst in the 90’s and the explosion of the point-and-click games, many of which were mysteries at least in part. And the genre isn’t dead yet. Pheonix Wright: Ace Attourney is reasonably popular on the DS.

    A big part of them problem here, I think, is that the games have been so poorly handled in the past. Too many relied on convoluted logic or on pixel-hunting. Also, searching a scene for clues is a lot less interesting than it sounds, especially if the clues are hidden. Combine that with silly issues (doors you can see but you can’t go into, objects you can’t examine, inventory items that have to be used in very specific ways to make them do anything) and you really can’t blame gamers for not clamoring for more noir detective games. Besides, it’s not like there’s no mystery at all in games nowadays. Metroid Prime was great partially because you had to figure out what was going on, even if the overall game didn’t hinge on that information.

  • Flakey

    “So what’s the solution? I’m not sure there is one. More product placement and maybe a return to single-advertiser sponsorship may work for the networks, but then again, maybe not.”

    Its all ready happening in Britain. Most soaps have a sponsor, the various C.S.I. spin offs are all sponsored by a car manufacturer. etc.

    While it does not meet the full price of the show, it is more than making up the loss in advertising revenue.