So long, Variety…

Morning, everybody.  Been away from my computer for three or four days, so I’ll try to catch up.  First, it appears that print editions of the venerable show biz bible Variety may be going the way of silents. Weekly Variety seems likely to go first.  I work in a library, and processing publications is my primary job, and I expect to see mags and newspapers dropping like flies over the next five years.

Things aren’t so hot on the other end, either.  Most ominous for the movie studios is a massive decline in DVD sales (must read article), from which they have been reaping an actual majority of their income, even over box office receipts from new movies. Indeed, Hollywood depends on DVD monies to push many new films over the break even point and into profit to start with.

Aside from the woeful econony, the fact is that many people (like myself) have enough DVDs that they aren’t buying as aggressively as they once did.  Then add in the fact that consumers are starting to realize that movies and TV shows are going to start being available, often for free, over the Internet.  Things have gotten so bad that the people long agitating for a strike over at SAG (the Screen Actors Guild) appear to have finally figured out that this isn’t the best time for it.

The worst part for buffs like us is that DVD sales of catalogue titles–older movies, in other words, as opposed to new stuff like Paul Blart Mall Cop — are especially hard hit.  Man, you’d hate to see they stop releasing increasing weird older films, although that seems likely.  Somebody needs to figure out a way to make money ASAP off downloads, because the free thing is incredible, but not if it kills the golden goose and we end up never being able to see a lot of stuff we’re still waiting on.

The extinction of Hollywood as we know it continues apace.

  • mitch

    Can’t advertising pay for TV online, just as it does for broadcast TV? With NetFlix (the wife and I watched a pan and scan version of “Omega Man” on NetFlix a few weeks ago) analogous to cable and HBO/Showtime et al?

    Looking at your specific issue, weird old films, wouldn’t just streaming niche items be cheaper than producing and marketing DVDs?

  • “Can’t advertising pay for TV online…” We’ll see, but I don’t see that sending it over the Internet radically changes the circumstances that are killing commercial TV right now: Increasingly fragmented audiences coupled with ever larger production costs. If you’re paying a million dollars an episode to produce a show (which is currently VERY conservative), you’re talking about $20-25 million a year just for that one program. That’s why NBC is about to be the first of the traditional Big Three to attempt to dump five hours of prime time programming a week in favor of a stripped Jay Leno talk show. The old model is dying, so attempting to make it work online seems unlikely to succeed.

    There are possibilities; for instance, we may partly go back to the radio model where some shows are sponsored by one company (The Ford Battlestar Galactica Hour), or perhaps they would charge viewers on a subscription basis. However, how many individual shows could people afford to subscribe to? Five? Ten?

    Streaming old films makes sense IF you can actually get people to pay for them, if only via a subscription cost like Netflix. However, let’s admit it, people seems increasingly balky at actually paying for entertainment, and it’s going to be hard to keep folks from illegally downloading stuff rather than paying for it.

    Presumably something will arise from the ashes of the current system, but whatever it is, I expect it to be radically different. We may be seeing the final days of anything that can really be called a mass culture.

  • Terrahawk

    I believe production costs are going to have to come down. Most likely the economy is going to make them come down one way or another. Also, I think program sponsors along with product placements are going to become the predominant revenue streams. Finally, if you look at cable, the market really can’t fragment at any more of a practical level than it already has. Some of the fragmentation is pretty superficial as it is now. What’s the difference between History and History International? Not a whole lot and they show a lot of shows that are on Discovery. So, I think the one word to describe was is going to happen is “consolidation.”

  • JoshG

    I’m not sure the one sponsor model would work as well for TV. Radio was pretty cheap it didn’t require sets, extras, and the sound effects weren’t very expensive(but when done right are very impressive).

  • Terrahawk

    Maybe a sponsor + product placement though would do the trick. Plus how much of cost is tied up in non-production items? One area that might take a hit is talent salaries. Wasn’t the cast of “Friends” making about $1 Mil each per episode the last few seasons? It could end up being more of a base salary plus a percentage of the take like sometimes happens in the movies. All I can see right now is:

    1. Watching show X at time Y is a dead concept.
    2. As Ken pointed out, plunking down a decent amount for a DVD is a dying concept. Blu-Ray may keep the patient alive for a little longer but not long.
    3. The market can’t realistically fragment any more. Economics is going to starting killing off the shows and channels that don’t have enough viewers.
    4. Unless the cable companies manage to get serious bandwidth metering, the web is going to be a significant delivering mechanism.
    5. Expect more sit-coms and other cheaper shows.
    6. Expect Max Headroom to appear on your TV set.

  • bryan

    Kind of like sports, “celebrities” have been inflating their salaries at an unsustainable rate. Also, the “product” has been declining quickly. CSI used to be one of my shows; now I miss episodes from waiting too long to watch it OnDemand. Lost seems to be getting interesting again after 2 years, but we’ll see (at least they had that recap show). And I still haven’t been able to watch I Am Legend in one viewing.

    For DVDs, Netflix has pretty much replaced my buying habits, especially with the “Watch Now” feature. I hook my TV up to my laptop and I can watch close-to-anything weird I want (heck, I have Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter on my list) on demand. I have downloaded some stuff, like Within the Woods, but that’s because it is not available anywhere else.

    Considering how slow downloading is to real time streaming at this point, I really think that streaming will become prominent in the near future. This coming from a guy who used to scoff at the idea.

    Print publications, in general, have a shortish life span. Being a Philadelphia citizen, I don’t subscribe to any Philly papers- I got to Philly.com and get the news from several of the local papers. I don’t don’t get Sports Illustrated or USA Today, I go to their websites. ESPN is trying to push their Insider subscription web service, but I for one just wait for the story to hit elsewhere rather than dish out $xx per year.

    It seems like Hollywood is going through what the rest of us already know- you can’t bleed money and squat out crap at the same time. Like those car manufacture execs, don’t take your private plane, and don’t order the $300 tofu lobster. And maybe make a movie I would actually spend $10 bucks on seeing? Oh boy, I just had a swift nightmare- a “re-imaging” or a sequel to Casablanca.

    Thanks for your time, and I’ll be screaming for the next few hours thinking about Fredie Brinze Jr. playing Bogey.

  • itsmenotyou

    Do you think that sports will go to a pay per view thing? I see NFL network taking on more and more. This leads me to believe they will try to do games as a premium channel or pay per view basis. I don’t want it, but I wonder if they will go to that soon? The NBA tried it a few years ago, and it tanked. But maybe now would be a good time for that.
    With all this, why do networks offer their shows free online?

  • bryan

    I’ve heard of the pay-per-view model for the more popular sports. I don’t think it will work since it will push out the marginal viewers. Sure, I’ll watch my Phils and Eagles, but my casual viewing of the other teams drops to zero. I wouldn’t even watch the Sixers. I can see a higher-tier channel (like an HBO) that offers stuff (like the Direct TV’s NFL package), but not a straight pay-per-view, unless it’s like $1. Wrestling gets away with it at whatever price it charges, but it has some very committed fans (man, I miss the Iron Shiek).

    And you’re right about the free website TV show streaming. I guess it gives them provable numbers. But the strange thing is that some of those same shows don’t have OnDemand over cable, which has the same provable numbers. Maybe the providers have a higher overhaed cost than hosting it on their own website.

    I think the entire entertainment industry is baffled right now on how to most effectively an profitably provide their product. And no, I have no ideas, either. Except to give me lots and lots of money. And some monkeys, I like me some monkeys.

  • Huntress

    Bryon, Casablanca has already been “reimagined” at least twice. Cate Blanchett was in the latest take. They’ve all been pretty low profile so far, though.

  • hk6909

    “All of you have the power of Hollywood in your hands..,” indeed…