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.
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
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.
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.
Nobody in his/her right mind could argue that TV programs have gotten better.
There are some exceptions, but as whole?
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.
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 http://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
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.
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.
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.
å‰å®‰æ…¶ä¿®é™¢,花蓮七星æ½,花蓮旅éŠæ™¯é»žæž—ç”°å±±,花蓮石è—大街,花蓮鯉éšæ½,花蓮太é¯é–£åœ‹å®¶å…¬åœ’,太é¯é–£ç ‚å¡ç¤‘æ¥é“,åˆæ¡å±±æ¦å¶º,花蓮太é¯é–£ä¹æ›²æ´ž,花蓮七星柴éšåšç‰©é¤¨,花蓮æ¼æ¸¯,èŠ±è“®ç‘žç©—ç‰§å ´,å°æ±æ—…éŠæ™¯é»ž,花蓮玉里安通溫泉,è“®èŠ±æ± æ¥é“,花蓮立å·æ¼å ´,太é¯é–£åœ‹å®¶å…¬åœ’,è±ç„¶äº,å°æ±æ—…éŠ,七星æ½é¢¨æ™¯å€
Comments on this entry are closed.