This Can't Be A Good Thing, Or Is It?

29 Comments »

1. If the internet series Quarterlife hadn’t been such an instant flop, I think more people would be going this route. Sadly, it appears that the content providers haven’t figured out a way to make this work yet. If there was a way for this to work and people were having success with it, I’m sure many writers would jump at the chance to leave the studios and networks in the dust.

   Comment by Non WGA Writer — November 11, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

2. I believe I was the first person to float this idea several days before anyone else right here on Nikki’s blog. But I never suggested Google. I thought Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer or Barry Diller would be a better choice.

   Google has a somewhat questionable history and may not be an ideal fit.

   There’s still time to do this - or even to boldly announce we’re doing this to force the studios/networks back to the table.

   Comment by anotherWGAmember — November 11, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

3. I think that’s a misread on the article. Based on the article, Simon Fuller isn’t cutting a secret deal with Google along with News Corp (or any other Hollywood studio), but rather it looks like he’s trying to cut the studios out. That makes sense. I’m sure he’s tired of FOX making the lion’s share of his creation.

   Now of course, if Fuller’s deal is involving an AMPTP studio then this is bad news. But if he’s cutting out the AMPTP studios, then this is spectacular news.

   Comment by Jim - writer — November 11, 2007 @ 1:49 pm

4. I don’t understand, why is that a bad thing? Does that deal preclude Google from signing other deals with writers? I’m not sure about the point you are trying to make, on the surface it seems naive. If anything, I think this is a positive sign as it shows that there are new distribution channels opening up and everything does not have to go through a studio.

   Comment by Don'tGetIt — November 11, 2007 @ 2:16 pm

5. Why is this a bad thing? You think if Google should get into funding content that they should only fund original/scripted content and not reality? I think it’s a great sign - Google wants in. If this thing isn’t settled soon, and there are zero indications it will be, the internet will be the place for television. Networks are going to lose another significant share of the viewing audience. The guild cannot let this fight end without significant rules in place for fair residuals from online airings.

   Comment by nemme — November 11, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

6. …no, bad idea. Give Google even MORE power than they have now? Haven’t we learned yet?… Huge companies like this WILL screw the writers - sooner or later. Writers must control their own destiny!!

   Comment by dante writer — November 11, 2007 @ 2:30 pm

7. Yeah, let’s give MORE power and influence to Google. That’s just what they need.

   Comment by Googe rules the world — November 11, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

8. Dear Writers,

   Right now we should go out to the music community and ask artists not to sell their publishing rights to American Idol. Peter Chernin (Fox) likes to brag how that show is invulnerable to the strike, but almost every word on that show has been written. They are nothing without the hit songs. Let’s see how “Un-American Idol” does without writing.

   Mike Gibbons
   WGA Member
   Showrunner

   Comment by Mike gibbons — November 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

9. “anotherwgamember” — get over yourself. You’re not the first one to “float this idea”. In fact, if you had been at the big membership meeting at the LA Convention Center, you would have heard someone else make the same suggestion, and Patric Verrone’s response to the effect that they’ve been to busy with other things to be working on the WGA alternative distribution model.

   The idea that writers are saying “f this studio shit” and going directly to Internet investors is pretty old. Just getting some new play these days.

   Comment by A WGA member — November 11, 2007 @ 2:54 pm

10. I’m confused on the ‘bad thing’ part, too…I posted something about this sort of thing at http://stranahan.com/2007/11/10/the-wga-and-the-illusion-of-power/

    You can’t look at the success or failure of direct-to-internet content up until now as a barometer. An unknown band releasing content online and bypassing record labels two years ago wasn’t news. Bare Naked Ladies doing it was sort of news and Radiohead doing it was big new.

    It will take a couple of major stars / shows / creators doing it to make news in TV or film. Tom Green is doing it, but that’s not big news because of his more limited fan base.

    Rosie could be first because she’s halfway there right now but if someone with a fan base like Joss Whedon were to announce a show with a direct sponsor relationship and all the production value his fans expect - available free on any device from iPod to TiVo to HDTV - all without the studios…that would change everything.

    The technology is here right now. The business relationships just aren’t in place yet.

    Comment by Lee Stranahan — November 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

11. I just watched the first ep. of Quarterlife. I thought it had some nice moments in it. I think the lead woman is pretty tootin’ good.

    Can anybody game theory out the possible ramifications of Google approaching WGA and striking a deal? Would the WGA not deal with a solo entity?

    Comment by shaun — November 11, 2007 @ 3:28 pm

12. i’m sure simon’s tired of fox taking the lions share of the money from american idol. i’m so sad for him that 100 million a year or whatever the hell he makes isnt good enough. the reason fox makes the lions share is that it distributes his show to millions of homes. let google and others get into the game, fine with me, i dont care. but let’s be real here. this whole debate is mainly about who thinks they deserve what $$$. all about money. How much $$ does farmer x get when i buy a pack of Lay’s that his potatoes made? if he could make the chips himself and distribute it to every store in america, i’m sure he would, and he’d keep all of his money.

    Comment by Bored — November 11, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

13. AnotherWGOmember says, “There’s still time to do this - or even to boldly announce we’re doing this to force the studios/networks back to the table.”

    This is hilarious. I laughed out loud when I read it, as would anybody at the studios. Do you really think they would find this threatening? The truth is, very few people CHOOSE to watch TV online. People want to watch TV on TV. Just a small group of people are watching TV shows online regularly. Another small group will watch an entire show online if they missed the show on TV. The vast majority of online video viewing is people watching short video clips on sites like YouTube. The internet is the future of TV, but the future isn’t here yet. There isn’t enough money in online long-form video right now to rival broadcast or cable TV. That said, TV viewership continues to decline and the longer this strike lasts, the greater the chance that many of these viewers won’t return. Forget trying to sell your shows online vs TV. You should be trying to figure out how to get people to watch your shows period. Right now the younger generations are too busy playing Wii and playing with Facebook apps.

    Comment by not a writer — November 11, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

14. My question is, if Google moves into production/distribution of TV content, it wouldn’t be mandatory to hire WGA writers at a premium, so why would they? Clearly this is in the infancy stage, but if they’re veering toward cheaper programming (reality TV), maybe this isn’t a great thing for Union scribes. I don’t know.

    Comment by Concerned — November 11, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

15. Ask musicians not to sell their music, Mike? Man I’d buy tickets to that meeting…and get a seat real close to the door.

    Comment by SighItsFiction — November 11, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

16. To Not A Writer…

    The future is actually here right now…forget about ‘watching TV online’. TV time is now a commodity. The supply far far outweighs the demand. Look at how networks - especially cable nets - will run the same episodes, over and over. Look at how much of the programming is filled with infomercials. And analog broadcast TV is about to be over, by law.

    So - you can watch TV on your TV, sent through the internet on AppleTV or your Xbox360 or TiVo or Netflix or by time rented on some cable network for cheap that your DVR records. It’s all out there now.

    Comment by Lee — November 11, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

17. Lee, it is all there right now, but most TV is still watched on TV. Some of it is DVR, some is re-runs during the week (especially for cable) but DVDs and online is still a relatively small share of the pie.

    TV time has always been a commodity - that’s what networks and stations sell. That’s what pays the syndicators and the production companies and the residuals. The difference is now TV sales is trying to bring in the same or more ad dollars for fewer eyeballs as TV audiences continue to shrink. And that’s not because viewers are watching on TiVo or DVD. Yes, that contributes, and so does online to a small extent, but the biggest thing competitor to TV viewing is the internet as a whole (facebook, email, games, short video clips, etc.) and video games, especially among the 18-34 year old male audience.

    Cable nets run the same programs over and over again because cable ratings are still considerably smaller than broadcast (though there are rare exceptions). Cable programs are run in repeats so cable nets can get more ad revenue for these programs, and so they can get cumulative ratings for a show (0.8 rating Monday night, 0.4 for the Tuesday repeat = 1.2 rating, etc.)

    You know why so many stations run infomercials? It’s because they make more money running informercials. Once a cable net or local affiliate buys syndicated programming, they have to sell enough ads to pay for the programs. It’s getting harder to do all the time. Infomercials are proliferating because they bring in more revenue than a sitcom rerun in the middle of the day.

    I’ve worked in TV, primarily in sales and research, for 12 years. I honestly don’t think many of the WGA members really understand the business of TV. It’s frustrating to hear so many of you complain about a business model you really don’t understand.

    Comment by not a writer — November 11, 2007 @ 6:34 pm

18. This is nothing new. And here is why it is a bad thing. These projects are NON UNION.

    Google has the same kind of deal with Seth MacFarlane. The guy who created Family Guy and has been out in front of Fox all week telling everyone that he will not work until he gets his way with internet residuals. Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical that he is hiring non-union writers to write for his Google project while he claims to be pro-union? That’s having your cake and eating it too. Meanwhile the WGA is turning a blind eye because they need his support.

    http://www.fuzzuck.com/2007/08/16/seth-macfarlane-inks-deal-with-google/

    Comment by Someone Who Voted Against the Strike — November 11, 2007 @ 7:11 pm

19. Seth MacFarlane, “Mr. WGA” inked a deal like this earlier in the year. Of course this project is non-union and doesn’t require him to hire WGA writers. I don’t suppose he will be talking about this on the picket lines.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iae79e78c381150a59a046b6e8dcd5169

    Comment by Disgruntled — November 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

20. Not a writer…

    Quite wrong, but that’s not surprising. The Companies are making the same mistake. It’s amazing how many college-age kids watch all of their TV via the computer. The future will reside there, one way or another.

    Comment by harley — November 11, 2007 @ 7:34 pm

21. Uh…this wouldn’t be files on a Google-bad website, or YouTube. This would be that new spectrum that had all the studio heads writing the FCC a joint letter a few weeks back. They know what’s coming.

    Rabbit ear super wi-fi right into the “box”, HDMI into your set and bam! you’re at the main menu. No studios, or studios in their own corner. Open market. Its the **new spectrum** that will open up in the next few years. The open devices that (may) be possible. Forget “broadband”.

    Last time I checked, Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo owed very little to keeping the broadcast advertising model dominant, let alone alive.

    If I’m a media buyer in ‘09, ‘10 - do I go for a general shotgun blast with a broadcast network (+ local cable buys, yawn…) or do I trust Google’s placement algorithms? Targeted advertising works worse when? Oh, that’s right. NEVER.

    Comment by The Hague — November 11, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

22. Who really has a handle on future viewing trends and the media of choice?

    The porn industry.

    Without their driving force, the home VCR won’t have exploded like it did. One unforeseen outcome for one of their own money making venues — the death of porn theaters.

    Then along came Internet Porn, putting a spike in many an adult or gentleman’s type of magazine.

    Plus the DVD surplanted the VCR and opened a whole new level of “viewers” pleasure. I have yet to use the multi-angle feature of a DVD, but it’s there for a reason. The porn industry.

    And porn in all too many ways, is still the big engine driving many parts of the Internet, all around the world no matter what Google might think.

    So what’s next? USB slots for Flash Drive porn via the Net?

    Wi/Fi HD movies due to radical increases in technology? Remember boom boxes? And when will iPods seem dated? One year? Three?

    Substitute TV/FILM for Porn and it’s all pretty much the same route, but a bit slower and later.

    And dare I mention the “new” tech battle… Blu Ray and HD?

    Does your head hurt yet?

    pb

    Comment by pb — November 11, 2007 @ 9:01 pm

23. The Hague — I missed the news about the studio heads writing a letter to influence the 700MHz FCC auction. Where did you see that?

    Comment by Lee A. Arnold — November 11, 2007 @ 9:54 pm

24. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iae79e78c381150a59a046b6e8dcd5169

    Strike captain Seth MacFarlane made a multimillion $ deal recently to provide scripted programing to google. This should keep the money flowing in while he works the PR side for the WGA from the sidewalk.

    And if this doesn’t show you where the showrunners really stand, he’s not planning on using WGA writers on this project. In fact I doubt anybody on this project will get union wages or benefits. And we are supposed to believe this strike is for future generations? Seems like young Hollywood has already figured out how to have their cake and eat it too.

    Comment by AngryInLA — November 11, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

25. AngryinLA– How do you know he’s not going to use WGA writers under a new type of contract with WGA? Right now there’s no MBA in place that covers internet, so he can make any kind of deal he wants.

    Comment by Writer — November 12, 2007 @ 9:21 am

26. EXCELLENT! We should all go to google I’m sure they would be willing to pay us hundreds of thousands of dollars for blind pilot scripts and at least $30,000 an episode. Google is where it’s at. Let’s shut down the studios permanently or better yet let’s all pool our resources and produce our own projects. At $3 million for a half hour pilot and $6 million for a one hour pilot we can easily gather up enough money to produce one of each - then when they become huge successes all that money will be ours - the writers. Sound good guys! Who wants to donate?

    Comment by Great Idea — November 12, 2007 @ 11:06 am

27. I feel really, really sad for the writers…..I actually saw one of them choke on their cappuccino while trying to walk and carry a picket sign at the same time.

    Comment by let me shed a tear — November 12, 2007 @ 6:08 pm

28. @Writer - I understand that their may be no MBA, but if he is employing non-union writers that seems like a huge deal. That completely undermines the strike. Don’t you see the hypocrisy? He is fighting for internet residuals, but making backdoor deals with Google in case the strike goes on for a long time. That just shows how these guys are really only motivated on what makes them money right now. I thought the fight was about the future.

    Comment by AngryinLA — November 12, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

29. It is a FACT that Seth Macfalrane’s project is a back door project that uses 100% non union writers. Seth will stand to make MILLIONS on this. See, it is about the almighty dollar for everyone, nothing more. Mr. Macfarlane likes pontificating on the soap box, vbut doesn’t like actually working- he refuses to come into he office before noon, acts like a suprer prima donna and hasno real hand in anything he is supposed to create. He cares about nothing and believes in nothing, Except more money for him. He is a 1 hit wonder (remember “the winner”?) who is about to be crushed by the almighty fox. Hypocrite who needs to beset down a few notches.

    Comment by tommyf — November 12, 2007 @ 10:55 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment