-
Website
http://www.mathewingram.com/work -
Original page
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/01/30/jeff-zucker-all-of-our-tv-pilots-suck/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
StevenHodson
37 comments · 66 points
-
webomatica
35 comments · 5 points
-
howardlindzon
46 comments · 71 points
-
JoeDuck
57 comments · 1 points
-
Karoli
32 comments · 44 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Daily Mirror editor says to forget about SEO
2 weeks ago · 4 comments
-
The Dallas Morning News pulls down the wall
2 weeks ago · 2 comments
-
Peabody Hotel, Memphis
2 weeks ago · 2 comments
-
Video of my TEDx Toronto talk
3 weeks ago · 2 comments
-
Go ahead: Ask me a question
2 weeks ago · 1 comment
-
Daily Mirror editor says to forget about SEO
See Music Industry -5%
reasons -- and I would prescribe the same solution.
Funny enough that's the same strategy of the VC industry. Which on a whole year after year provide returns to their investors of ... well.....
- 5%
That MINUS five percent. (So there is no confusion.)
Your idea about quick-and-dirty pilots is worth considering, especially since webisodes and YouTube vids have done so well. Viewers are becoming used to shorter videos.
came and said we're clueless as to what's going to be at hit show or not. oh wait, such an admission might put their jobs at risk and the millions of dollars they command from the corporations they report to. It's easier just to blame the system than hold themselves accountable for making poor decisions. No one knows what is going to stick, thats why making shows is like throwing spaghetti against a wall.
If you were a TV executive, you would not have such hair-brained ideas as developing webisodes and embracing new content delivery and business models. You would be smoking your cigars, enjoying some "flowers and fruit", and talking to your lawyers (if you weren't one already) about suing those punk downloaders who don't respect or value the hard work you are doing at your studio.
Plus, you'd have to pay writers for that, and lord knows that's not going to be good for your bottom line.
I disagree that fortunes would reverse if the quality of shows would improve. What makes a show good or bad is subjective. While some would argue that shows, movies and music suck today, others would argue the opposite.
The woes can be blamed on increased competition for the almighty spending dollar and the failure of record companies, movie studios and TV networks to adapt to that additional competition.
Looking at today's BBC 1 morning programmes, we have "Homes under the hammer" (a programme about auctioning houses), "To buy or not to buy" (a programme about selling houses), "Car Booty" (about selling bric a brac from your house) and "Bargain hunt" (a game show about selling at auction). Can you see why I might suspect that poor quality content is a MASSIVE issue for the big media companies? And the BBC is nowhere near the worst offender.
Content companies have thrived for years on rehashing the same formats, over and over again. The problem is that people are bored to death of them. Is it any wonder that people would rather play scrabble online with their friends than watch yet another programme about doing up your house? Or that millions of people worldwide would follow something like Ford's innovative "Where are the Jones?" interactive comedy (http://wherearethejoneses.com/ - created by an independent production company in collaboration with an ad agency).
You're right that there's increased competition. And in a landscape of increased competition for people's time, if you want to win their attention, you had better start producing the best, most inventive and well-produced work you've ever done if you want to be in business.