Monday, January 21, 2008

The Irrational Fear That Reruns Will Disappear

One of the popular "problems" with the DGA deal (and past proposals) which keeps getting repeated like Gospel, is the idea that television reruns are going away and that soon all repeats will only be on the internet.  

The fear mongering argument then says that any money in this area, short of $20,000 (the current residual for a one-hour program) is a roll back.  Writers are going to go broke, claim the writer radicals, because their residuals will vanish.

The problem with this "problem?"  It's completely false.

Content is indeed shifting to the internet, and in a big way.  The issue, though, is who is watching it there.  The answer?  First time viewers.

People are watching more and more of their favorite TV shows online.  But they are watching it there instead of on TV, not in addition to TV.

The bigger problem with the Fear of Disappearing Residuals is that those afflicted can't come up with an answer to what will replace these supposed vanishing reruns.

If there's an empty timeslot on CBS' Monday Night Schedule, what do you think they're going to air?  The answer is simple CSI: Miami Repeat.  Why?  Because even if NBC airs a brand new episode of Studio 60, The Black Donnelleys or Journeyman; guess what show wins the timeslot?  CSI: Miami Repeat does.  Don't believe me?  Look up the last two years worth of Neilsons.

And, okay, I grant you that CSI: Miami is a hit show, and the WGA is striking for all writers, not just those on crappy David Caruso vehicles (nice shades, dude).

Let's take our dearly departed Journeyman then.  Assume for a moment that the show was still on the air.  March rolls around.  It's not Sweeps.  You could air a new episode, but you want to keep it for later.

So what is NBC to do?  According to the No More Reruns folks, NBC can't repeat an episode of Journeyman to catch up someone who hasn't watched from the beginning and still doesn't quite get why Dan Vasser travels through time, but never bangs his ex-girlfriend.

Well, if they can't rerun something (doomsday scenario), doesn't this mean that they have to -- gasp -- air something original instead?!?  And wouldn't this mean that there's a Writer somewhere getting first episode money instead of much lower rerun money??  Isn't this a GOOD THING??

Or is NBC more likely to just go black for the hour?  Seriously, they can't compete against CSI: Miami (ignore for the purposes of this argument that THEY are in repeats), so NBC should just throw in the towel and go dark, or let the late local news come on early so we can get extra footage of the Butt Naked Bandit.

In short, repeats -- to the detriment of the Television Viewer -- are not going anywhere.  They are a staple of American Network Programming and they are here to stay.  And all those cable channels?  They've got even more reruns than the big 4.

Streaming Media moolah is fresh, delicious moolah.  If you want more, go out and get it; but don't do it out of fear that stale old rerun moolah is going anywhere.  That garden is mighty green for years and years to come.

10 comments:

Post Guy said...

Hi BTL,

Yes, I believe many keep forgetting about this aspect as you point out. See if your friends at UH will allow this as a main page story.

Since the initial divided reaction to the DGA deal, things seem to be calming down. I'm personally happy the WGA neg comm has remained silent until all the details are in, and have more info from the AMPTP presidents to make some decisions and recommendations.

Cooler heads will find solutions.

Anonymous said...

There's also the factor that airing a rerun is significantly cheaper and more profitable than producing a new reality show. It may wind up costing something like 100 grand or more to air a rerun of CSI MIAMI but it will cost more than that to put up a new episode of BIG BROTHER or SURVIVOR in its place.

And there's also the little matter of all those cable channels that are stocked with network repeats anyway. Are we to believe that the studios will simply give up on F/X, USA, A&E, SCI-FI, LIFETIME, TV LAND and all the others because they'd rather not pay residuals?

The people making that argument are simply showing their own ignorance of how this industry works. Working writers will dispute this faster than I can - one of which has already told me that the more bizarre responses indicate a need to educate the membership in how television works.

Unknown said...

I don't work in entertainment and my interest in this strike is just as a television viewer (of precious few shows), and maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy (but I'm only 42).

I just don't get the "television is going away now" arguments. They certainly seem to be selling well enough in the electronic stores I visit, and the manufacturers (including Sony) keep producing new and better models.

The silliest argument is that college students don't even have televisions anymore. I didn't have one when I was in college. I couldn't afford one and I didn't have time for television anyway. People had computers because they were actually useful.

In any case, in this scenario what is going to happen to the television stations? Are they just going to fold up shop because the networks are going straight to the internet? But then why have networks at all? The studios could just as easily go straight to the internet. And why would companies like Time-Warner and Viacom abandon their cable television companies?

But then, I don't think CD's are dead yet, which a lot of people insist has already happened, so what do I know?

Anonymous said...

BTL,

I keep telling you. STOP IT with the rational thinking. GOD! How will the writers ever "win" without all the hyperbole?

You too, Kevin. We mustn't speak of the cable channels. They are the red-headed, one-legged step children. Shhhhh.

Post Guy said...

Here's an interesting article I ran across concerning internet downloads of large files (like HD versions of television and feature films)




NEW YORK (AP) - Time Warner Cable will experiment with a new pricing structure for high-speed Internet access later this year, charging customers based on how much data they download, a company spokesman said Wednesday.

The company, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, will start a trial in Beaumont, Texas, in which it will sell new Internet customers tiered levels of service based on how much data they download per month, rather than the usual fixed-price packages with unlimited downloads.

Company spokesman Alex Dudley said the trial was aimed at improving the network performance by making it more costly for heavy users of large downloads. Dudley said that a small group of super-heavy users of downloads, around 5 percent of the customer base, can account for up to 50 percent of network capacity.

Dudley said he did not know what the pricing tiers would be nor the download limits. He said the heavy users were likely using the network to download large amounts of video, most likely in high definition.

Anonymous said...

Not to hijack this comment board, but UH just had a major screwup occur. They had a post with a link to a comparision of the DGA deal with the Dec 7th AMPTP offer to the WGA. The link was to a pdf doc within wga.org. Not only has the link now disappeared, but the entire post and comments too! Looks like somebody might have leaked the wring info and WGA called and said take it down.

The original link was: http://www.wga.org/contract_07/ContractStatus.pdf

Wonder what the explaination will be from UH?

Unknown said...

Oops, make that:
http://www.wga.org/contract_07/ContractStatus.pdf

Unknown said...

Join the spaces to view

http:// www.wga. org/contract_ 07/ ContractStatus. pdf

Anonymous said...

There is a DEAL!!!!
And this one is no re-run.

wait and see - news this week???????????????

Post Guy said...

From Variety today, right in line with your thinking BTL guy.



During a midday meeting on the sidewalk outside Paramount's Windsor gate, panel member Steven Schwartz stressed that one of the key goals for WGA leaders is to build long-term protections into the new deal.

"What I want to do is protect us regardless of consumer behavior," he said, in answering a question about how writers should be paid when their TV shows are streamed on the Internet. "The staff is trying all kinds of ways to skin that cat."

Schwartz admitted the terms in the DGA deal for ad-supported Internet streaming -- about $1,200 for a primetime drama for the first year and a 17-day period of free use for promotional purposes -- don't sound impressive, but he also cautioned the members against reaching the conclusion that Internet residuals will automatically replace conventional TV residuals -- which usually amount to about $20,000 per year -- since it's unclear whether all TV will shift to the Internet.

"If you are insisting on replacing the $20,000 residual with the Internet residual, you're going to be on strike for a long time," he added. Schwartz told a group of about 20 pickets that other key issues to be sorted out include language on separated rights, which covers compensation for scripts when used in areas such as plays, and the DGA's gain of jurisdiction on made-for-the-Internet. Schwartz, whose credits include "Critical Care" and "The Practice," noted at one point that the negotiating committee has not yet seen the actual DGA deal. He credited the DGA deal with locking in the definition of "distributor's gross" as the basis for payment of residuals in electronic sell-through.

"Distributor's gross is huge," he added