With or Without Your CommercialsComplications Ensue
Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog




Archives

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023

November 2023

January 2024

February 2024

June 2024

September 2024

October 2024

November 2024

 

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

As you know, the biggest sticking point in the current WGA strike is that the studios want to pay writers nothing for re-airing their episodes on the Internet. With commercials. The studios are calling these episodes "promotional," which is a pretty truthy use of the term "promotion."

I find it intriguing that the studios find it more profitable to air shows on the Internet as a second window rather than rerun them in syndication. Why? An internet ad can be linked to a product site, so that if you dig the car/sneaker/perfume they're selling, you can just click and go straight to the car/sneaker/perfume site and learn more, and maybe even order. The Internet audience is younger, richer and more proactive than the TV audience. Crucially, it is not easy to bypass the ads on a streaming episode.

Getting the audience to sit through the ads in the age of the DVR is potentially the Big Question for the future of TV. Is Internet streaming part of the solution?

(It is, at least until someone invents a widget to buffer streaming TV, and the audience gets hold of it. Technically this is trivial to program, though preventing buffering is trivial, if a tad awkward as well. The anti-skipping technology would be a simple bespoke viewing application that used encryption technology. Instead of sending you a Real Media or Windows Media Player doc, they send you an encrypted doc that only the viewer can play -- and the viewer's skip button is disabled until you've viewed the ad. You can still walk away during the ad, but the audience has been getting up for a cold one during commercials since the dawn of TV.)

Internet downloads are an even better solution, since the audience pays for the shows directly -- it's basically DVD without the awkward issue of physical distribution. How many people would rather pay cash for TV, rather than agreeing to watch a commercial, is the key question here. There could be a pay/free model -- download free with ads, with some sort of anti-skipping technology built in; or download for a fee, with no ads. Something for everybody.

No one could have a serious objection to this model. Don't like ads? Buy your way out. Want it free? Sit back and relax.

The duration of the strike is really in the studio's hands. The writers can't afford to back down on this issue, because it's the future of their livelihood.

Labels:

7 Comments:


I find it intriguing that the studios find it more profitable to air shows on the Internet as a second window rather than rerun them in syndication.


They don't, not by a long shot. But the streaming doesn't cut into their syndication potential. Notice they aren't streaming old stuff for free(although you can catch a good deal of NBC stuff on Netflix and the new season of Heroes as it drops).

It is, at least until someone invents a widget to buffer streaming TV, and the audience gets hold of it. Technically this is trivial to program, though preventing buffering is trivial, if a tad awkward as well.

There already are programs that will download a stream, and the networks already have players that don't buffer(much). Try tuning into a 30 rock episode with a slow connection. It's unwatchable.

The only reason people aren't ripping them off of streams is because it's still easier to get them from the broadcast.

By Blogger Whaledawg, at 3:38 PM  

I guess I don't totally understand why a strike is necessary for writers to split such a small portion of a small pot.

I'm an internet marketer. It takes a heckuva lot of success to make good money on the internet. And in order to do that you have to spend alot on servers, development, etc.

I'm not saying this fight isn't worth it. But quitting work for pennies seems so pointless. I'm just not sure it's worth it - yet.

By Blogger Nathania Johnson, at 12:06 AM  

Oh - and by the way - giving away stuff for free on the internet is considered promotional by many people in the industry.

Internet marketers write stuff available for free to attract audiences to the premium content. It's a proven technique.

Again, I'm not opposing you. But this is how I see it as an online marketer from Raleigh, NC.

By Blogger Nathania Johnson, at 12:09 AM  

Nathania, they're not giving it away for free. They're putting commercials on it. They're charging advertisers for it. And there is no "premium content." They're not promoting anything -- they're just airing episodes and getting paid for it, and not paying the people who created the show.

As for pennies -- the pennies add up. DVD sales are in the tens of billions. The difference between .3% and .6% of that is a lot of money.

By Blogger Alex Epstein, at 6:40 AM  

Alex, you're half right. They are giving it away for free but charging the advertiser. I too have a definite distaste for not paying the creator on the internet portion, but if you were to charge the viewer and define royalties off of that charge (which is in a nutshell what happens now), would the creators be earning much at all on these streams?

By Blogger Ed McNamara, at 12:56 PM  

Right now, not much. Soon, a lot more.

Bear in mind that the whole TV industry is supported on nothing but advertisers. So is the internet. So yeah, it's a completely viable model. And the % that the writers are asking for is derisory.

By Blogger Alex Epstein, at 1:51 PM  

Agreed. Soon there will be much more, and yes, the model of advertising which runs TV (and the soon, if not already, the internet) is a viable one. But unless I'm mistaken, the current residual formulas are not (directly) tied to the advertising dollars brought in. This, I believe, is the disconnect with streaming and which makes the argument of tying the DVD % to it illogical.

By Blogger Ed McNamara, at 2:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.



This page is powered by Blogger.