NOVEMBER 1999:
Recently I was invited to take part in an online debate, the topic of which was (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Will the Internet provide more opportunities for screenwriters?' Once I battled back the urge to snap, "It hasn't fucking YET!", or "Yes - it can offer a lucrative second income as a pornographer," I actually sat down and gave it a little thought.
Scary, I know.
And the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that the 'net can be a medium that offers film and TV writers more advantages... but that day is still a ways down a very long, dark road.
When I say the 'net can be advantageous for movie and TV writers, I'm speaking from a financial standpoint. As in 'Will the Internet provide more writing jobs'. I remember when cable technology exploded in the television industry 10 (or so) years ago, there was the widely quoted assumption that "more channels equals more need for content". Well, now there's the Internet - and there’s no place with the potential for more channels than the World Wide Web. It’s boundless. There can be millions of channels. (And the thought that the WB could take over even one of them is terrifying beyond mortal comprehension.)
At first glance this 'more channels = more jobs' theory would seem to be true. A friend of mine is working with a company that is currently developing a situation comedy that will be filmed like a TV show but broadcast over the Internet. Each show is budgeted (if I’m not mistaken) at $100,000. And I’m sure they aren’t the only ones planning such a venture. Ultimately it’ll be the success of these initial shows that determines the path that filmed entertainment is to take on the web. Not so much ‘if’ it will exist, but ‘how quickly’.
The ‘net offers advantages to the viewer that can make the manufacturers of VCR’s quake in their boots. Imagine not having to be home at a certain time to see the shows you like, but rather have them available at your fingertips whenever you want to view them. The Internet offers that option. A show can be placed on the ‘net by the broadcaster, and the viewer can access it whenever they desire. And with the proliferation of cable modems, as well as lower pricing for the technology that allows people to turn their computers into glorified TV sets, there will soon be little difference in quality between what the average viewer sees on their television versus their PC.
Networks would no longer have to rely on the Nielsen company to provide their shows with ratings, as they could now track exactly how many viewers have accessed their shows. This would allow them to set accurate advertising rates for each program based on actual hits, rather than the cross-section demographics they now must rely on. The only question (in my mind, at least) is what form the advertising would take? Would they still run traditional commercials during the shows? Would the screen size be reduced so that they could run banner ads around its borders? I’d assume both would apply, and as many more as they can devise – and ‘click through’ advertisements might be a good barometer of how well your show is faring creatively. I mean, if halfway through the program viewers are clicking banners to go to another site or show, then you’ve got problems. Especially if they're leaving your show to watch anything starring a Wayans brother.
This is as close as
the major networks come to innovation
on the web - adding a gimmick to an existing show.
What do these technical and business issues have to do with writers? Plenty. Because for filmed entertainment to take hold on the ‘net, it’s got to (a) look as good as what you see on your TV every night, and (b) turn a profit. If it’s not watchable then you will frustrate and alienate viewers, who will not return. If it’s not profitable you will frustrate broadcasters and advertisers, who will find other ways to make piles of money that stack up to the sky. I’ve often thought that the Internet will not become a true power in broadcast entertainment until you can switch from website to website as easily as you can switch from channel to channel on your television. That day has not yet arrived, but it is coming soon. And that's when the real test of whether the ‘net is a viable broadcast medium will truly begin.
If (but probably ‘when’) that test is passed, it would seem that there would be a flood of opportunities open to writers. Millions of channels, remember? But I don’t think it’s going to work quite that way. Remember how much each episode of the Internet sitcom my friend is involved with costs? $100,000. One hundred large. And although that’s a pittance by network standards for a half-hour sitcom, it’s still a healthy wad of money. For each show. Every week, another hundred grand out the door. But! If the show becomes popular, then the advertising rates will cover that, right? Sure – until the show’s creators, stars, and writers decide that some of those profits that they are helping generate should go into their pockets. Suddenly your $100,000 a week show is costing two, five, ten, twenty times that.
So whether the shows broadcast are beamed to your computer or TV, the fact remains that they are going to be expensive to produce. They’re going to cost the kind of money that only the big boys can afford. Which is why, for the foreseeable future (my foreseeable future, anyway - I think I may have a career with the Psychic Friends Network... ) I think the Internet will be a place where current, established broadcasters will place the shows that they are already airing more conventionally on television. Their pitch will be along the lines that I mentioned earlier: you missed ‘Dharma and Greg’ the other night? Well it’s right there on ABC’s website – go check it out. This creates an added market and source of revenue for these shows (they can snatch up advertising bucks from both TV and the ‘net), without adding much to the cost of the product. In corporate terms, this is what’s known as a ‘win-win’ situation. Except for writers. Because that situation doesn’t actually create new jobs.
Until the big conglomerates
deem the Internet a viable source
of profit, I guess we'll have to make do with what the 'net
does best. Look! Here's a fake nude of Sandra Bullock,
star of THE NET! Can I stick to a theme, or what?
I’m sure that there will be plenty of lower cost programming available via the Internet. Shows that don’t cost $100,000 and up to produce. And I’m sure there will be some BLAIR WITCH PROJECT-like phenomenon that takes off and gives people the impression that you don’t need money to have a mass market success. But I’m equally sure that those phenomena will be few and far between, just as they are in the movies and TV. Just as they are with any product. There are many more channels on TV with the advent of cable technology, but those broadcasters with the ability to generate material of a certain technical quality still garner the greatest viewers. The path to making the Internet viable as a broadcast medium is to appeal to the largest possible market. And it’s a proven fact that the largest possible market – with rare exceptions – likes their entertainment glossy. And glossy costs money.
Think of it this way - cable TV has provided us with plenty of low cost shows. They’re called ‘public access’. And personally, the thought of millions of channels of public access seems less like a promise than a threat.
As I said earlier - I believe the internet CAN be advantageous for movie and TV writers. But, as with all other mass broadcast media, the writers do not have any direct control over how quickly the medium grows, or what directions that growth takes. Those intangibles will be decided by economic factors. Technology may be growing by leaps and bounds, but where that technology will lead us is yet to be determined. Until it is determined that there is money to be made by taking steps forward, I’m afraid most of the large entertainment conglomerates will continue to move laterally, which means that any significant, positive changes for writers are still a ways down the road.
Personally, the Internet innovation that I'm waiting to take off is the ability to transfer money over the simplest mail servers. Because I can't wait to hear the phrase, "The check is in the e-mail." Now that's something that will change writers' lives.
Point to the movie director
(I know it's hard to tell!) to return to the SPEW archives!
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page!