Hollywood continues to shoot itself in the foot, especially with its labor problems. Well, actually, labor agitation is just speeding up a seemingly inevitable downfall, but still. Despite the fact that the economics of the business are radically changing, nobody wants to give up of the often vast pay and perks they’ve enjoyed in the past. (On a smaller scale, this is the same problem with the American auto industry.)
TV is more vulnerable; since the recent writers’ strike the big four networks rating are down a whopping 13% among the 18-49 age demographic that still (kind of) draws advertising dollars. That’s a huge drop in less than a year, and if SAG goes on strike as it is threatening to, the damage to overall ratings could be irreparable.
It can’t help the movie business much, either. Of course, the upper echelon people (who are mainly driving the call for a strike) have little to fear. They will always have work, and always make ridiculous amounts of money. Blue collar film workers are taking in the teeth, though, as is the local economy due to a trickle-down effect.
Indeed, Variety (Great article!) Don’t laugh. Especially with Democrats in the White House and having a majority in the Congress, it’s almost certain that bailout money of some sort or other will go to the entertainment (which already enjoys gigantic tax breaks that weirdly don’t often get labeled “corporate welfare”) and the newspaper industries. That’s especially true because these industries are hugely favorable to the Democrats, and prime sources of fundraising for the party.has a long story on the TV woes entitled Needed: Network Bailout?
What really needs to happen—again, this is true for any number of industries—is for the government to stand aside and let some big companies fail, so as to force the sort of restructuring required to make these businesses actually competitive in today’s marketplace. However, that sort of thing doesn’t generate votes, so fat chance. (And I wish Republicans were any different on this, but sadly no.)
Variety indeed also concludes that the current network TV model is unsustainable—unless, of course, the government decides it must be saved. It’s hard to get away from statistics like this: In 1954, the number one show, I Love Lucy, had a 49.3 household rating. In 1985, the number one show (The Cosby Show) had a 33.7 household rating. In 2008, the number one show, CSI, had a 12.7 household rating. Clearly something has to give. Indeed, fairly radical solutions are being bandied about, such as the big three networks going to the two hours of programming a night model that Fox follows.
The simple fact is, we really don’t have a mass culture anymore, and the entertainment business more than most have to change to reflect that fact. Here’s the thing: many more people should make money—because they are serving far more audience groups—but those people should also make a lot less money than folks did in the mass market days. The question is whether they can figure out an economic model for the production side that makes sense, and how long it will take for people in the business to realize that they just aren’t going to able to demand to keep making the same amounts of money.
Movies are facing this same problem, but are still being kept afloat by blockbusters. (Although ticket sales are generally declining, a fact masked by climbing ticket prices.) Even so, another strike is really going to risk much of the entertainment market share the industry still owns. Young people especially have other ways they like to spend their time, and with home theaters getting better and better, it’s a bad idea to encourage them to do other things by blocking up new movie production for another year.
One arm of the film business that’s really been taking it in the shorts is theaters. That’s why I think a recent development is fascinating. The problem for theaters, of course, is that they’re tied and dependent upon the film studios. However, the NFL is soon to test in a very limited way using theaters to live broadcast a game in 3-D. More and more movies are in 3-D, and thus theaters are adding the necessary technology. Music concert simulcasts are already getting increasing play this way, too.
In the long run this might give theater owners more options and thus bargaining power with the film studios. We might be a ways away from seeing all NFL games live on a big 3-D screen. But you can see the possibilities. Locally here in Chicago, it’s near impossible to get Cubs tickets for a regular game, much less a post-season one. But let’s say that 20 local theaters live broadcast Cubs playoff games in 3-D. For ten or twenty bucks you could watch the games on a huge screen, and still enjoy to an extent the immersive sensations of sharing the game with a crowd.
What if the Cubs themselves open up a theater exclusively devoted to live 3-D simulcasts of regular season games. They pretty much have maxed out how many people they can fit in Wrigley, so it makes sense. And you could sell season tickets, too! Buy a really good theater seat, maybe a big leather job, for a couple of grand a year, offering you the chance to watch up to 180 games in theatrical splendor.
This is all highly speculative, of course. Even so, one thing’s for sure. Changes are coming, and big ones. It will be interesting to watch, that’s for sure. Hey, what about a reality series documenting the death of the old studio system?
