13 comments

• 

  alan herrell -the head lemur

  8 months ago

  "What kind of crazy business spends a half a billion dollars on 80 prototypes, and gets less than 10 per cent that actually work?"
  
  See Music Industry -5%
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  8 months ago

  That's an excellent point, Alan. And I would argue for the same
  reasons -- and I would prescribe the same solution.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  8 months ago

  Yes - it's the old "throw enough shit at the wall, and something will stick" approach.
  reply
• 

  David Gratton

  8 months ago

  Alan,
  
  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.)
  reply
• 

  Mark Dykeman

  8 months ago

  You can add big pharma to that list of industries pouring billions of dollars into R&D, looking for that "pipeline" of wonder drugs. If you look at pilots as samples or prototypes of new products (which makes me very sad, but nonetheless I think it's a valid comparison), the success rate of new product introduction is usually quite low when compared to all of the tries.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Vincent Clement

  8 months ago

  Add this to the mixture: big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D.
  reply
• 

  Name Gunga

  8 months ago

  It would be refreshing if the executives reponsible for network programming
  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.
  reply
• 

  David Gratton

  8 months ago

  Mathew, Mathew, Mathew.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  8 months ago

  I have to say, I do like a little "flowers and fruit" now and then :-)
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  8 months ago

  I've often wondered if the woes of the TV/music/film industries can't be easily explained by "You're making a lot of really shit content in the hope that some sucker will buy it. Make something good, you idiots". Sounds more plausible than "the internet stole my lunch money".
  reply
• 

  Vincent Clement

  8 months ago

  The music industry (which is thriving) is not the same as the recording industry (which the RIAA keeps telling is not well these days).
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  8 months ago

  Simply because what people enjoy is subjective doesn't make it impossible to make good or bad content. Creating content is a mixtures of talent, craft, understanding what people in a particular market like, and talent management. Talent management is important, because it's all about being able to take risks - and risks are what drives innovation in content.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  8 months ago

  That's a good point, Ian.
  reply