« Have crows avoided a Malthusian equilibrium? | Main | In which countries do kids respect their parents the most? »
The best article so far on the writer's strike
Not surprisingly, it is in the FT (or try this link instead). Excerpt:
But when the rules changed in 1995 the four US networks – ABC, now owned by Walt Disney; CBS; Fox, part of News Corporation; and NBC, now controlled by General Electric – integrated production with their broadcast, sales and distribution businesses. The independents began to lose ground to in-house producers.
Owning content allows networks and studios to exploit it internationally via syndication or DVD sales. But while broadcasters have more rights, they also have to fund production, which is increasingly expensive. The cost of a one-hour scripted drama has tripled from about $1m in the early 1990s to $2.7m, according to some executives. The cost of a 30-minute comedy has doubled to around $1.5m.
This, together with competition from cable channels, explains why the broadcasters are taking such a hard line, says Garth Ancier, president of BBC Worldwide America, the BBC’s commercial arm. “They are fighting for their lives. They need every last piece to come together, every last revenue stream.”
There is much more, do read the whole thing, it also explains why cable is not the only reason why TV programs have gotten better.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 5, 2007 at 05:52 AM in Television | Permalink
Comments
I had trouble with the FT link in the post. Editing off the last part of the url helped. Other readers having trouble may want to try:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f541bdc-a1d3-11dc-a13b-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: Mike G at Dec 5, 2007 7:42:52 AM
"cable is not the only reason why TV programs have gotten better."
The main reason why TV programs have gotten better is DVD sales. Before DVD, the end users weren't the network's customers; advertisers were. Now that end users are directly buying TV shows, the networks have to pay more attention to what they do and don't like.
Posted by: Tom S at Dec 5, 2007 8:21:50 AM
The cost of a one-hour scripted drama has tripled from about $1m in the early 1990s to $2.7m, according to some executives. The cost of a 30-minute comedy has doubled to around $1.5m.
So what is the breakdown in a shows cost between actor, producer, writer, etc? And what is the return on a show today as opposed to the 'early 1990s'? I have a problem with any article that makes such a statement doesn't back it up with any meaningful data.
Posted by: tim at Dec 5, 2007 8:39:03 AM
Marc Andreeson made a very interesting post on the writer's strike like 3 weeks ago. Check it out, he discusses the potential ramifications of a prolonged strike and the redefinition of the way he thinks shows and movies will be made in the future.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/11/rebuilding-holl.html
Posted by: Ryan at Dec 5, 2007 9:14:10 AM
Interesting point, Tom S. That makes a lot of sense to me. But, wouldn't advertisers care about customers liking the shows? If they don't like the shows, then they may not watch them, and if they don't watch the shows, they don't watch the ads either. So it seems like it's got to involve the customer's elasticities of demand, because if customers have many alternatives, then they'll switch shows, which ultimately lowers ad revenue to the producers.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Dec 5, 2007 9:24:32 AM
Will someone please answer Tim's post?
Posted by: John at Dec 5, 2007 9:47:12 AM
Nobody in his/her right mind could argue that TV programs have gotten better.
There are some exceptions, but as whole?
Posted by: Caped Crusader at Dec 5, 2007 10:47:33 AM
Here's the best article I've read so far concerning the strike. It attempts to estimate the value of the divide between what the studios are offering and what the writers are asking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-handel/reflections-on-residuals_b_73908.html
Posted by: Trey at Dec 5, 2007 11:29:43 AM
I have to disagree with the post claiming that TV shows have not gotten better. Yes, TV is still a wasteland and far below movies, books, music etc etc. But against TV from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Much better. More complex plots, more psuedo-science (not real science but tries to look real), multiple threads that take more than one show to resolve. Definitely on a higher intellectual plain than earlier TV.
Have to agree that we may have only reached 2 feet above sea level, but higher than before. Go and watch I Dream of Jeannie, Father Knows Best, Happy Days, Dragnet, 3s Company, then watch today's shows.
Posted by: techreseller at Dec 5, 2007 12:21:18 PM
I would like to agree with the idea that television programing has gotten better. At least in my own case, one reason is the digital videorecorder, which has allowed me to keep up with and sample programs I would otherwise have been forced to ignore or miss.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett at Dec 5, 2007 1:08:17 PM
Tim,
I will try and answer your question in generalist terms as it does change from project to project. A writer on an independent film or a mini major project (focus features, fine line, miramax...) will make a fee of approximately 3% of the films budget. A producer will take around 5-7% fees, but this is to run his/her affairs along with assistants and other office people. Actors who are above the line will usually take 5-10% of a films budget according to their bankability rating, or their ulmer rating www.ulmerscale.com
Do the math on these fees and if the average independent film costs 8-12 million dollars I don't really see a reason for complaining.
I am not an economist but have read all of Tylers work and am trying to become one in the world of media. When Tyler asks the question: What is Scarce....in media this has shifted dramtically over the last 30 years and our company is building the resolution.
stay tuned
Posted by: david geertz at Dec 5, 2007 1:36:34 PM
Has TV gotten better, Yes. Find me shows from earlier decades that beat Arrested Development, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, King of the Hill, Futurama, and How I Met Your Mother.
And thats not including HBO and Showtime. Throw in Flight of the Conchords, Entourage, and Curb your Enthusiasm and I think modern television is awesome.
As all things go, it depends on your preference curve.
My high school teacher still loves Greatest American Hero and Knight Rider.
Posted by: Niederriter at Dec 5, 2007 4:14:44 PM
Compared to older TV, it seems modern shows have more characters, more intricate plots, more unresolved plot threads at once, and a faster pace of dialog.
Interestingly, I often find that people who enjoy the shows miss out on a good deal of the complexity. Dialog goes by so fast it isn't heard, plot threads get forgotten about.
I'm reminded of a line by the guy who wrote West Wing. When asked how to create smart characters, his answer was just to have them talk really, really fast. The content wasn't important or more complex, just faster. And the audience can't follow it anyway, but they like how the faster speech *feels*. It feels smart the same way making a character wear glasses makes them look smart.
Are audiences enjoying the greater complexity and speed because they are following it all ... or do they just like the feel of blur and complexity?
It's like science shows on the Discovery channel. When I'm watching it I always feel like I'm learning something interesting. But I can never remember anything specific an hour later, just that sharks or pyramids or the Maya were cool somehow. I think the Discovery channel sells the *feeling* of learning without much actual education happenning. And I think that's what the audience wants.
Posted by: jim at Dec 5, 2007 6:23:59 PM
The best of TV is leagues ahead of even the 1980s.
The worst of TV is arguably the lowest it has ever been.
I'd say, the variance has increased. Look for your answers there.
Posted by: doctorpat at Dec 5, 2007 8:25:50 PM
My sense is, HBO and Showtime raised the bar for network TV, at least for fare aimed at desirable demographics -- upper income educated adults.
Once premium cable became more or less ubiquitous, the networks had to improve their shows lest they be abandoned by advertisers able/willing to pay the big bucks to reach the most coveted market segments.
Better network TV means, however, that we no longer have shows that the whole country watches. Viewership for any single network show may be down in absolute numbers but the network can live with that if the show draws well among potential buyers of German cars, say.
Posted by: Auto at Dec 6, 2007 11:37:27 AM
I find it funny that NBC's Ben Silverman says "Heroes" is better than ABC's "Dynasty" and CBS's "Dallas". Anyone who says TV is better today than it was "back then" is not giving credit where credit is due. The old shows were paving the way for today's programs and without those shows you wouldn't have a "Heroes". Silverman can't say the network involvement has bettered programming. It was bound to get better anyway! Network involvement in the production of shows is reality so the writers are going to have to come to some sort of an agreement. But why should the networks take all the cash?
Posted by: Kyle at Dec 7, 2007 1:21:34 AM
In my opinion the writers are ultimately the ones that make or break shows for the broadcasters. They do deserve to be paid a fair amount for their creative abilities, but there needs to be a ceiling set on the amount (in percent of the broadcaster's total budget for that particular show)that the writers get paid. If there is no ceiling in place then the price of everyday products that we buy could rise due to this growing cost of scripts for our favorite shows. Granted, it would take a while to see results, but it is very possible that we could pay more for some products because the networks would have to keep charging higher and higher advertising fees.
Posted by: Ashley at Dec 7, 2007 11:39:38 PM
Ashley, are you a shill for the networks/producers?
Because you're mouthing all their talking points to explain why writers do not deserve what they're seeking.
Posted by: Auto at Dec 8, 2007 2:02:55 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now, is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Tonny at Mar 18, 2008 4:40:39 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 11:11:31 PM
Tiffany Replica Jewelry/a>
Links of London Jewelry
Replica Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Replica Jewelry
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 19, 2009 11:05:04 PM
吉安慶修院,花蓮七星潭,花蓮旅遊景點林田山,花蓮石藝大街,花蓮鯉魚潭,花蓮太魯閣國家公園,太魯閣砂卡礑步道,合歡山武嶺,花蓮太魯閣九曲洞,花蓮七星柴魚博物館,花蓮漁港,花蓮瑞穗牧場,台東旅遊景點,花蓮玉里安通溫泉,蓮花池步道,花蓮立川漁場,太魯閣國家公園,豁然亭,台東旅遊,七星潭風景區
Posted by: 花蓮租車旅遊資訊 at Aug 8, 2009 2:51:36 AM
花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,租車,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,泛舟,溯溪,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮美食,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊地圖,花東旅遊,花蓮租車
Posted by: 花蓮租車旅遊資訊 at Aug 8, 2009 2:51:54 AM
