In a recent post on his blog, Rocketboom’s Andrew Baron talks about “10 Reasons Why The TV Studios Will Die” and, in it, links to another great read at the New York Times, “TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable”.
With the current economic climate, and the increasingly influential trend of online media popularity, I think we’re going to see some very interesting changes over the next couple of years. In the same way that the Wall Street bubble needed some bursting, maybe the industry needs to take a peak at why (as per the NYT article above) “network dramas now cost about $3 million an hour” and why everything has to be so relentlessly ad dollar-driven. And if “the future for the networks, it seems, is more low-cost reality shows, more news and talk” then I can’t imagine that doing anything but accelerating the influence of online media and small/independent producers. Even on the movie side of the equation, there are projects like the non-profit LOTR film “The Hunt for Gollum” (and countless others) being produced that clearly show what can be accomplished with the kind of raw will and vision that started people making films – not the unending bankrolls and 7/8-figure talent.
So, while most of us would have preferred that the recession had not occurred, I still see a lot of potential for a realignment of creative (and many other) forces. With the incredible power available at such low costs through modern technology (from cameras to editing suites to distribution, as well as sharing tools/techniques online), I really believe that we can bring an old and increasingly bloated medium into the 21st century. No cables required.
Are you aware of just how much a reality TV show costs to make? Good equipment, talented people who know how to use the equipment, cameras, lighting, audio, transportation, locations, etc. along with planning out everything cost money… unless you want to wing it and have what looks like an amateur home video. Don’t forget to include post production, post audio, music rights, distribution costs, etc., this too costs money. Again, you can wing, but 9 out of 10 times, it’ll look like the latest viral video that hangs on for a week at best. There are certainly some areas of sliming down in budgets, and the technology is helping in that area. But if you remove the ability of people who know what they are doing. to make a living in the business, then they will make a living doing something else. The visual result will mostly be worse than an unrehearsed high school play.
Sure, anyone can use low budget equipment and unseasoned talent (both in front of and behind the camera) to create something, but quite frankly, it starts to become more like looking at someone’s home movies and less like entertainment or even art. The studios wont die. They’ll finally start migrating to the internet as their distribution model, but they wont die. You wont have ‘channels’ to switch to as with TV, but I’ll bet my last dollar that it will be TV none-the less. Advertisers need to advertise to sell and they’ll do it on any medium that is popular and gets in front of the most set of eyes. They’ll sponsor the most popular programs out there and quite frankly, ‘little Jimmy’s’ home video that he made with a camcorder and a pc’ isn’t going to be it. I think you’ll find that what they do sponsor will look quite a bit like what you see on TV now.
If there are ad dollars to compete for, then people, networks, studios, independents, et al, will try to get those dollars by outdoing their competitors through quality ideas, quality production values and smart promotion. There’s a reason why a show like Lost is making money while 99.9% of everything on YouTube is unwatchable as well as unsponsored.
The TV wont die, it’ll just play over a different device. The cost wont drop either. This isn’t a bad thing at all. It may open the door to be a little more inclusive for those truly interested in creating something, but just as it is today, you’re going to have to know what you’re doing to even be noticed for long. After all, what good is art, passion, drive, will, etc., if no one wants to see it?
There will be a influx of quality “Over The Air” Hi-Def come this time next year. Get ready to put up a antenna on your roof like your ol’ granpappy did. The cycle is repeating and in the right way when it comes to broadcasting. The internet is not the end all.
QUESTION: What do you think is the highest production quality video content available online from outside of the studio system? Please reply in the comments threads.
And just a note that, as per my previous posts, I’m not saying programming is going to die, I’m saying that the people who create the programming are going to change and the way we watch that programming is going to change. On to the responses
…
SCOTT: Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful response – there are lots of good points in there. I know how much a reality show costs to make – but they’ve still removed a lot of the actor “talent” costs and probably a decent chunk of the professional script writing (I know there are still frameworks written out). So at that level, what do you need? Gear and talent – two things that are increasingly easy to secure. And I don’t believe that someone has had to work in broadcast television to have the talent and skill needed to make good productions, although there are certainly lots of very talented people in broadcast TV (for the record, Chris, our commandN cameraman, spent years shooting for cable news; Amber, of course, has a long history on G4TechTV, CityTV, etc.; I’ve worked at Mainframe doing computer animation for television and movies, etc.).
It’s kind of like that idiot anti-piracy commercial they used to show before the movies with some third string stuntman saying that downloading movies is hurting him. Well, that may be true, but where it NEEDS to hurt is the people like Tom Cruise and others who are carving out 7 figure chunks of budget space – enough pay to finance several other productions entirely. In a nutshell, it’s not hard to make an argument looking at all the little parts of the puzzle but it’s the big pieces of the puzzle we should be looking at. It’s like the billion-dollar Wall Street guys trying to cut their costs by limiting the amount of free coffee they supply their employees (instead of, say, looking at scraping some of the gold leaf off of their thrones or, perish the thought, maybe reducing the gluttonous incomes they make on other people’s backs).
Keep in mind, too, that the audiences’ tolerance for lower production values is certainly far above what it was pre-internet in a lot of ways. This is one of the best things about the web and one of the worst things about TV – it’s SUPPOSED to be about the CONTENT, so why are they churning out such (beautifully produced, professionally edited, carefully lighted, stunningly branded) CRAP? In the end, the web lets the (accurately measured and reported) audience decide, instead of a series of proxy evaluators.
And just b/c you have high production values doesn’t mean you have a good production – a good story doesn’t have to cost anything and yet it’s the most fundamental piece of the puzzle. We’ve forgotten this. Why? B/c we’ve let the industry convince us that there can’t be real players in the medium without monster budgets – the same monster budgets that they are wasting away creating worthless content on their way to potential bankruptcy (it reminds me of how I always say that, to some degree, Windows holds its market share b/c they’ve constructed an OS that requires overcoming such a learning curve that they essentially bred into their users a reluctance to switch platforms – whether it’s switching platforms or creating viable video productions online, Barack and I are here to say “yes we can”
).
And while advertising dollars certainly have a roll to play in financing productions, it can’t go on like it is (see my second post on this blog for what I see “this” as being), nor is advertising the exclusive source for funding (in this day and age, and leveraging the web, why can’t I fund productions I want directly instead of giving my money to the cable company, for example?).
The point of the title of the post is exactly that “TV” won’t disappear, it will be reinvented. That reinvention is going to take place online, where an enhanced and very flexible infrastructure will allow for financing from a much wider range of sources, will allow for productions from a much wider range of producers (no more gatekeepers), will allow for much more accurate tracking of viewership (good for advertisers), and will basically just be better than now – because it can’t be much worse (at least at current level of spending, i.e. the value for money is terrible).
Keep in mind that 10 years ago, your average person would have no idea whatsoever about how to shoot and edit a short video, even if they could have afforded the equipment. So if people can learn to go from not even being able to do something to being able to do it in a (potentially) amateurish way, then why wouldn’t we think that in 10 years from now these very masses will be able to reliably approach the professionalism we see in the “old industry” productions? In fact, lots of them are doing this right now (which is what prompted my opening question – see above).
EricVM: Yes, it seems like this has even already started and it’d be nice to be able to just antenna it all like the old days. However, the distribution side doesn’t really address the shortcomings on the production side (nor do I see how this ends up putting money in anyone’s pocket – if you or anyone else has an idea then please explain).
I read an interview with Joss Whedon (in Rolling Stone) who has said that once Dollhouse is done (hopefully soon), he’s never going to work in television again, rather, he’s just going to produce content for the internet only.
You can understand why the man who was artistically raped numerous times by TV execs, would want to do that.
It was a very inspiring interview, it was almost a battle cry for all the artist’s out there to join in on the revolution before the executives get their hands on the internet and muck it all up.
Have you seen Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog yet, Jeff? It’s wonderful.
EVERYONE: Some relevant Canadian-focused networks news at the Globe & Mail… http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090302.wrtelevision02/BNStory/Business/home
GlenJM: I meant to mention Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along (with Neil Patrick Harris at http://drhorrible.com/) in my previous comment – great stuff!
” However, the distribution side doesn’t really address the shortcomings on the production side (nor do I see how this ends up putting money in anyone’s pocket ”
But Jeff it has everything to do with it. Providing the content to the most available people stimulates money ventures and supports to create worthy viewing content….thus…money in peoples pockets.
I myself found that NY Times article as FUD. OTA TV is going to survive the recession and even in the midtz of a analog to digital conversion. Its not the viewers problem they have infrastucture problems with content and what to charge for adverts among themselves for crappy content.
Overall, I guess my point is there is a very high quality medium out there that will generate high interest and the next generation will flock to it once stable in delivery. Put an antenna on your roof and reap the benefits….no bandwidth required.
EricVM: While I understand your points, Eric, I don’t agree that the distribution is more important than the content (maybe it is for you but not for me – not that you’re “wrong”
).
Content is king, without content, distribution is irrelevant (and, yes, more irrelevant than content without distribution, as someone, even if it’s just the creator, can still enjoy that content directly – at least more than you’d enjoy a steady stream of fuzz or black screen distributed flawlessly to your TV
).
Part of the problem with cable is how they can’t/don’t directly track viewership, and so shows go off the air b/c the 2 dorms in the entire US (that are responsible for telling Nielsen what every 20-something in the country is watching) don’t happen to tune in to a specific show. The internet brings tremendous advantages to this situation (not only numbers but where, when, how, and other info) while over the air TV takes a huge leap backwards, not just to less info, but to NO INFO about viewership. This is not a structure that can be used to finance new productions b/c they can’t show that anyone is watching similar programs, etc.
Keep in mind, too, that OTA is only useful in areas where you can receive it, and so people in far off places can’t necessarily get at it (not sure where you’re located “north of the equator”
). There’s obviously the same limitation on cable and internet infrastructure but OTA certainly doesn’t have any advantage in this department (except that it’s free, which, as always, is a wonderful trait).
In the end, though, I’m working on the assumption that people have an internet connection – I couldn’t live or work without one for any length of time and I think more and more people are in that boat (for legitimate reasons, not just entertainment). So, under my own assumptions, the internet is already there and so, essentially, when it comes to a cable substitute, it is free (as you aren’t paying any extra for it beyond what you already pay for the essential services you require in any case).
That said, if you can get a good OTA signal then all the power to you! For years and years of my life that’s all I ever had
. Thanks for commenting, Eric!