Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Television -- As We Know It -- Is Finished -- - "It's the beginning of a structural tailspin. The total collapse of the model."

Hello All, My brother Gerard Martin, a Camera Operator/AC sent this article to me and I read it with a harsh reality check - wow .... times are shifting ... on a lighter note: will Melrose Place survive? Jean-Luc Line-Producer, UPM


Network TV may be a cyclical business -- but for bruised and battered broadcasters battling the worst economy in a generation, there's little evidence to suggest a bounce back is in the cards anytime soon.

If anything, things could get a lot worse before they get better. Some observers are even beginning to question whether there will ever be a turnaround, predicting that the business model which has sustained broadcasters for close to 60 years has begun an irreversible decline.

The latest blow: A disastrous upfront advertising market that saw revenues plunge an estimated 15 percent from last year, dropping from $9.2 billion in 2008 to around $7.8 billion, according to estimates by several publications.

"This is a turning point," argues Bob Garfield, author of the just-released media doomsday tome "The Chaos Scenario" and the long-time critic for Advertising Age.

He believes networks will continue to bleed ad dollars, which will lead them to reduce original scripted programming, thus causing deeper ratings declines.... and even further drops in ad revenue.

"It's the beginning of a structural tailspin... the total collapse of the network television model," Garfield predicts.

In fact, Garfield -- echoing the feelings of multiple industry leaders interviewed for this article, most of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity -- believes the current network landscape will look dramatically different by the middle of the next decade.

"I don't think we'll have four networks five years from now," he said. "One of the networks will drop out, maybe two."

If there's any silver lining in all this doom and gloom, it's that broadcasters aren't completely burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the looming crisis.

While their public pronouncements remain largely upbeat, their actions over the past months indicate they realize massive change is a must if they have any hope of proving the Bob Garfields of the world wrong.

The shifts range from draconian belt-tightening to stepped efforts to create -- or at least consider -- new revenue streams for network programming outside of advertising.

On the cost side of the equation, networks are playing hardball with studios when it comes to license fees for veteran shows.

Witness NBC's decision to walk away from "Medium" and "My Name is Earl" last spring rather than meet the fiscal demands of CBS Television Studios and 20th Century Fox TV, respectively. Or Fox's up-to-the-brink talks with 20th on "Bones," a successful drama which nonetheless almost proved too rich for the network's blood.

In years past, networks tried to get tough on costs but were stymied because there always seemed to be another buyer willing to spend "crazy money" for a series, pilot or piece of talent.

But now, "The 'idiots with money' don't exist," said one senior network executive. The same sense of realism holds in the actor, writer and producer markets. Overall deals with writers, for example, have become all but extinct.

No comments: