What's the ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT of Emergent Media?

I'm trying to learn more about emergent multi-media -- the online content I keep hearing so much about (and which, in Canada, Telefilm is so anxious to fund). I've seen viral YouTubes of course. Hunter is very fond of online games like Mastermind World Conqueror. I've spent a fair few hours on physics games like Diver2 and the almost evil Fantastic Contraption.

There are the ARGs, like the one for REGENESIS and the one for LOST, and the seminal The Beast.

But I don't have a sense of what the parameters of the medium are. I don't know what the medium-defining examples are. What is the FRIENDS of multiplatform? What's the ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT of emergent media? What's the SOPRANOS of online fictional content?

Oh, and double props to anyone who comes up with the names of seminal multiplatform content that actually made money. Or, for that matter, resulted in cost-effective promotion. (Spending who knows how many million bucks to reach, say, 40,000 fans for the movie A.I., does not seem as effective as a TV ad. The problem I see with most ARG's is they don't automatically scale.)

Conventional wisdom overheard at the Telefilm Multiplatform Conference:

Part two of Lisa's foray into the oncoming wave of multiplatform content that Telefilm, at least, is insisting on.

1. “The television advertising model is broken.”

I got the impression that, as far as advertisers are concerned, a YouTube of a sock puppet yodeling is just as good as, say, the finale of THE SOPRANOS. Maybe even better. Kate Hanley at Digital Theory Media Consulting (www.digitaltheory.ca) makes a convincing case (which I won’t re-create here because it’s proprietary, and as a writer, I care about things like that).

2. “Expensive-to-produce content is doomed.”

Really? I like LOLcats as much as the next guy, but it’s fun the way pork rinds are yummy. Don’t we still want the filet mignon of MAD MEN? I don’t believe people will stop wanting sophisticated stories that are well-acted and well-produced. But I’m an opera fan, so draw your own conclusions.

3. “Consumers won’t pay for content.”

If you believe that, try getting into AVATAR on Saturday night. People who spent their workday surfing YouTube mash-ups will still fork over $15 to see high-quality content.

Conventional wisdom once said viewers wouldn’t pay for cable TV either, because broadcast was free. But instead, pay cable channels are thriving; we’ll pay Showtime for DEXTER because we can’t get the same experience on ABC.

If you want more proof, look at the video game industry; it reportedly made about $20 billion last year. Every single one of their customers could have checked out library books for free instead, but they didn’t.

Consumers are driven by content, not price.

(And please don’t argue that the newspaper industry is “proof” consumers won’t pay. Yes, the New York Times failed miserably to get paid on-line subscribers, but that’s because the Washington Post, LA Times, etc., were giving away essentially the same content. )

So while the near future is challenging, I don’t think TV writers need to panic. Consumers might not pay for a lot of the crappy, dumbed-down content they now get free. But surely creative people can get behind not having to make crappy, dumbed-down content anymore, right?

Canada Goes Multiplatform, or, the Message is the Medium

Think creating a TV show is hard? Starting March 1, Canadian TV series not only need to have a great hook, great characters, and a kick-ass pilot. Now they need to have a multiplatform business plan too.

Telefilm will now require all funded television series to have internet, iPhone, or social networking apps that go beyond mere marketing and are viable (ideally, profitable) projects in their own right.

To inspire panicked TV writers, Telefilm has been criss-crossing the country, hosting conferences about what all this means for the future of Canadian entertainment. Lisa Hunter (my wife and often writing partner) went to the Montreal conference, and I asked her to share what she learned. Lisa writes:

The Good News:

1. Multiplatform apps can be a creative opportunity. They’re a chance to tell stories that don’t fit into a conventional 22 minutes with commercial breaks. Writers can expand the “world” of a show, flesh out a story thread, or spend time with characters who don’t get a lot of screen time. 30 ROCK, for instance, has on-line webisodes starring some of the show’s most hilarious minor characters.

2. Multiplatform is a foot-in-the-door for newbie TV writers, because there aren’t many old timers in the field, and the demand for multiplatform content is going to explode on March 1.

3. There’s money falling out of the sky. If you’re Canadian and your multiplatform idea is any good, you should be able to get funding for it.

The Bad News (these are my personal observations, not the party line):

1. This is one more hoop that a Canadian TV series has to jump through to get a green light. They already need a US or foreign sale. And it could potentially slow down the development process of timely, in-the-zeitgeist series.

2. Viable TV shows don’t necessarily lend themselves to other platforms. Right now, most multiplatform/TV pairings are in animation and kids shows – the sort of programs that also lend themselves to Happy Meal toys. I can easily imagine a video game app for ANIMAL MECHANICALS, but how about for THE RON JAMES SHOW?

Demographically speaking, most multiplatform apps skew young (even though “old” people over 30 own computers and iPhones). That could make for some ridiculous adult drama apps (“Which WEST WING Character Should You Date?”) But more worrisome, the multiplatform requirement could unintentionally shift Canadian TV development more towards teen and youth programming. Those proposals are going to look a lot more viable than a nuanced adult drama. Network execs: please tell me I’m wrong.

3. Where is all the multiplatform development money coming from? I’ve heard it’s coming out of the TV development funds. If that’s true, then even fewer Canadian shows will go into development. We’ll find out on March 1.

4. What happens when the internet's entrepreneurial culture, where content providers cheerfully do all the work for free in the hopes of getting famous, mashes up with unionized television? Let’s say a TV show’s multiplatform proposal includes a series of webisodes. Since the show is required to have them to get funding, and the WGC doesn’t cover internet work, the creator is in a very bad negotiating position to get paid for that work. No doubt some producers will suggest that it’s “promotion” for the show and ought to be done for free, like giving promotional interviews. WGC negotiators ought to focus on this issue, before we set any bad precedents.

UPDATE: David Kinahan of the WGC writes:

Section F of the IPA provides for contracting for Digital Production. It states “the Guild, producer and producer association shall negotiate the applicable fee for each production.” This means all fees for digital writing are negotiable. (The other general terms of the IPA still apply, however, i.e. payment on delivery, I&R, copyright, grievance, etc.)

The guidelines (PDF), offer some suggested rates formulated by the WGC in consultation with members already working in digital formats for different types of digital writing. The rates and conditions offered are a guideline for writers and agents in their individual negotiations with producers. But we believe they are fair rates to ask.

Tomorrow, Lisa will talk about the "conventional wisdom" of multiplatform.