If you have enjoyed the past two posts, and want to learn more about these concepts, I highly recommend the seminars put on by Media Bistro and taught by the incomparable Chad Gervich.
In three hours Chad can bring you up to speed on at least the baseline concepts you will need to succeed in this industry...What you do with them after that is up to you.
Of course, you can also email me with your questions and I'll answer them in this blog. noheltyr@gmail.com
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Sick-dycation
Hey everyone,
I've been sick for the past week, which has caused me not to do anything, except have one job interview today. That is the first time I left the apartment since Sunday. Gross.
Anyway, I promised I would talk a bit about tv syndication. While I can't delve into incredible detail, I'll do a cursory explanation.
First, as previously discussed, we know a network does not produce programming. Either a studio or production company, usually both, produces programming.
Then, that studio sells the rights to that show for a specific length of time to a network. The network buys the rights to the programming for roughly half what the studio pays to make the programming.
Let me go back for a moment. The average half hour programming costs roughly 1.5 million, an hour long program costs 3 million.
For ease, let's talk about an hour long program. And let's take the 24 as an example.
***These numbers are hypothetical***
STUDIO produces SHOW. Each episode costs 3 million dollars to make. And they have sold the rights to NETWORK to broadcast the show for 1.5 million dollars.
Which means, for every episode that goes out the door and onto NETWORK, STUDIO loses 1.5 million dollars.
So, how do they make that money back? Well, usually they don't. Most shows do not hit syndication. However, since SHOW will, we will discuss that.
Once SHOW hits roughly 100 shows (this number has lowered in recent years), stations now has an interest in buying the rights to show that program in syndication, or OVER AND OVER a la Scrubs, Office, Simpsons, Friends, Seinfeld, etc.)
So, if the show is now in deficit for 1.5 million an episode, they can sell the rights to the show station to station in every station around the country. Let's say a 10 STATIONS across the country buy the rights to the show for 500,000 dollars a piece.
Remember, an episode still cost $3 million to make. but now NETWORK has paid 1.5 million to distribute the show. Now, 10 STATIONS have paid $500,000 an episode to distribute the show in syndication.
So:
Pre-syndication:
Cost of Show: 3 million
Fox pays: 1.5 million
_________________________
-1.5 million
Stations paying for syndication
10 Stations 500 thousand
x 10 stations
__________________________
5 million
Post Syndication:
Deficit -1.5 million
Syndication+ 5 million
_________________________
+3.5 million
Now, you can see, that if you hit syndication for an episode of SHOW, you will be in the black by 3.5 million dollars, an episode. On 100 episode show, that's a lot of money that a studio can rake in.
However, almost NO shows hit syndication. So, studios LOSE money on almost all of their shows.
So, a show not only has to be successful for a network, in order for a studio to reclaim their money, the show has to hit syndication. Because, as we now know, a HIT for a network means NOTHING to a studio.
Of course, some smaller networks have a network and studio under the same roof, like Nickelodeon. However, we are simply speaking of networks that have separate studios/networks.
Now, maybe you will understand why studios gravitate towards the few show-runners who are proven commodities.
I've been sick for the past week, which has caused me not to do anything, except have one job interview today. That is the first time I left the apartment since Sunday. Gross.
Anyway, I promised I would talk a bit about tv syndication. While I can't delve into incredible detail, I'll do a cursory explanation.
First, as previously discussed, we know a network does not produce programming. Either a studio or production company, usually both, produces programming.
Then, that studio sells the rights to that show for a specific length of time to a network. The network buys the rights to the programming for roughly half what the studio pays to make the programming.
Let me go back for a moment. The average half hour programming costs roughly 1.5 million, an hour long program costs 3 million.
For ease, let's talk about an hour long program. And let's take the 24 as an example.
***These numbers are hypothetical***
STUDIO produces SHOW. Each episode costs 3 million dollars to make. And they have sold the rights to NETWORK to broadcast the show for 1.5 million dollars.
Which means, for every episode that goes out the door and onto NETWORK, STUDIO loses 1.5 million dollars.
So, how do they make that money back? Well, usually they don't. Most shows do not hit syndication. However, since SHOW will, we will discuss that.
Once SHOW hits roughly 100 shows (this number has lowered in recent years), stations now has an interest in buying the rights to show that program in syndication, or OVER AND OVER a la Scrubs, Office, Simpsons, Friends, Seinfeld, etc.)
So, if the show is now in deficit for 1.5 million an episode, they can sell the rights to the show station to station in every station around the country. Let's say a 10 STATIONS across the country buy the rights to the show for 500,000 dollars a piece.
Remember, an episode still cost $3 million to make. but now NETWORK has paid 1.5 million to distribute the show. Now, 10 STATIONS have paid $500,000 an episode to distribute the show in syndication.
So:
Pre-syndication:
Cost of Show: 3 million
Fox pays: 1.5 million
_________________________
-1.5 million
Stations paying for syndication
10 Stations 500 thousand
x 10 stations
__________________________
5 million
Post Syndication:
Deficit -1.5 million
Syndication+ 5 million
_________________________
+3.5 million
Now, you can see, that if you hit syndication for an episode of SHOW, you will be in the black by 3.5 million dollars, an episode. On 100 episode show, that's a lot of money that a studio can rake in.
However, almost NO shows hit syndication. So, studios LOSE money on almost all of their shows.
So, a show not only has to be successful for a network, in order for a studio to reclaim their money, the show has to hit syndication. Because, as we now know, a HIT for a network means NOTHING to a studio.
Of course, some smaller networks have a network and studio under the same roof, like Nickelodeon. However, we are simply speaking of networks that have separate studios/networks.
Now, maybe you will understand why studios gravitate towards the few show-runners who are proven commodities.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Network, Studio, Production Company
I was at a seminar last night for tv writers and a question was introduced which made me realize many people don't understand the difference between a Network, Studio, and Production Company. So,
Network: A network distributes programming. They are the STATION that puts a show on the air, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, USA, TNT, ESPN, etc. there are six major companies that own networks for SCRIPTED TELEVISION: FoxCORPS, CBSCORP, GE, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, Sony.
FOX-Owned by FoxCorps
CBS-Owned by CBSCorps
NBC-Owned by GE
CW-Co-owned by CBS and Time-Warner
ABC-Owned by Disney
These channels DO NOT produce programs. They BUY programs and sell ad space to recoup their cost. You may ask, but Russell, I who produces these shows, I thought... Well they are produced by...
Studios: Each show is produced by a STUDIO. Studios are designed to FINANCE and PRODUCE television. These studios DO NOT distribute television, the finance shows and SELL THEM TO NETWORKS. If you are asking HOW Fox doesn't have a studio, the simple answer is THEY DO. Each network ALSO has a STUDIO that produces shows that air on their network.
FOX- 20th Century Fox
CBS-CBS Paramount
NBC-Universal Media Studios
CW-Warner Brothers
ABC-ABC Studios
So, you're pretty confident now, that whatever is on FOX is produced by 20th Century, CBS Paramount is producing everything on CBS, etc etc. Right? WRONG. While 20th Century does produce many fox shows, like 24, they also sell shows to other networks. My favorite current example is SCRUBS. Scrubs is produced by DISNEY, but was DISTRIBUTED by NBC. However, when NBC cancelled Scrubs, it was PICKED-UP by ABC for another season.
Why does this happen? A bevy of reasons; A show a studio is developing doesn't fit on the network they are producing for, a network thought they would like a show but then decided after seeing it they aren't wild about it, the studio specifically produces a show for another network, etc. etc.
When I lived in DC, I met a guy who worked at History Channel's studio, just like the model I've been talking about, but smaller. He explained their system like this. History Channel is only obligated to buy X amount of the content they produce. If history channel passes on a show, they are free to shop that show to other networks.
The point is, it's reciprocal. Sometimes the studio produces the show for another network, sometimes the network doesn't want the show. However, this shows why you'll be watching a show on CBS, and see a 20th Century Fox logo. Or when you're driving past the Warner lot and see banners from other network's shows.
Production Company: Most people think a production company is the company that actually PRODUCES the show. However, this is a misnomer. In actuality, a production company has EXACTLY the same role as a studio, but they are not owned by a network. Most production companies that work with television are successful producers, showrunners, directors, etc. That have OVERALL DEALS with a studio because of their success.
An OVERALL DEAL means this...A Studio will pay a production company X dollars, and in return they will own EVERYTHING the production company produces, whether it's ideas, scripts, etc, for the length of the deal. People like David E. Kelley, Joss Wheadon, J. J. Abrams have overall deals with studios.
So, there is a general overview of WHAT each type of entity does. Next time you're watching a show and you see a production company, a studio, and a network, you'll understand why it is the way it is.
Next time...I'll try to explain what syndication is...maybe...unless I forget.
Network: A network distributes programming. They are the STATION that puts a show on the air, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, USA, TNT, ESPN, etc. there are six major companies that own networks for SCRIPTED TELEVISION: FoxCORPS, CBSCORP, GE, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, Sony.
FOX-Owned by FoxCorps
CBS-Owned by CBSCorps
NBC-Owned by GE
CW-Co-owned by CBS and Time-Warner
ABC-Owned by Disney
These channels DO NOT produce programs. They BUY programs and sell ad space to recoup their cost. You may ask, but Russell, I who produces these shows, I thought... Well they are produced by...
Studios: Each show is produced by a STUDIO. Studios are designed to FINANCE and PRODUCE television. These studios DO NOT distribute television, the finance shows and SELL THEM TO NETWORKS. If you are asking HOW Fox doesn't have a studio, the simple answer is THEY DO. Each network ALSO has a STUDIO that produces shows that air on their network.
FOX- 20th Century Fox
CBS-CBS Paramount
NBC-Universal Media Studios
CW-Warner Brothers
ABC-ABC Studios
So, you're pretty confident now, that whatever is on FOX is produced by 20th Century, CBS Paramount is producing everything on CBS, etc etc. Right? WRONG. While 20th Century does produce many fox shows, like 24, they also sell shows to other networks. My favorite current example is SCRUBS. Scrubs is produced by DISNEY, but was DISTRIBUTED by NBC. However, when NBC cancelled Scrubs, it was PICKED-UP by ABC for another season.
Why does this happen? A bevy of reasons; A show a studio is developing doesn't fit on the network they are producing for, a network thought they would like a show but then decided after seeing it they aren't wild about it, the studio specifically produces a show for another network, etc. etc.
When I lived in DC, I met a guy who worked at History Channel's studio, just like the model I've been talking about, but smaller. He explained their system like this. History Channel is only obligated to buy X amount of the content they produce. If history channel passes on a show, they are free to shop that show to other networks.
The point is, it's reciprocal. Sometimes the studio produces the show for another network, sometimes the network doesn't want the show. However, this shows why you'll be watching a show on CBS, and see a 20th Century Fox logo. Or when you're driving past the Warner lot and see banners from other network's shows.
Production Company: Most people think a production company is the company that actually PRODUCES the show. However, this is a misnomer. In actuality, a production company has EXACTLY the same role as a studio, but they are not owned by a network. Most production companies that work with television are successful producers, showrunners, directors, etc. That have OVERALL DEALS with a studio because of their success.
An OVERALL DEAL means this...A Studio will pay a production company X dollars, and in return they will own EVERYTHING the production company produces, whether it's ideas, scripts, etc, for the length of the deal. People like David E. Kelley, Joss Wheadon, J. J. Abrams have overall deals with studios.
So, there is a general overview of WHAT each type of entity does. Next time you're watching a show and you see a production company, a studio, and a network, you'll understand why it is the way it is.
Next time...I'll try to explain what syndication is...maybe...unless I forget.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Premise...
I'm so excited. This is the first time I can comment on a comment to the blog.
Dave writes:
I could not agree more. When thinking of a project, the first thing you should be thinking is...This premise...would I watch it if I wasn't writing it? Would I pay $10 to see it? Would I want my mother, brother, sister, uncle, best friend, to watch this movie? Would they even want to see it?
There is nothing worse that a boring, bland, run of the mill premise. In all of my reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, one thing I see over and over with my clients who have open submissions is a boring premise, which is a certain deal killer AND the first thing a reader comments.
As far as structure...once again I couldn't agree more. That's why I am trying so hard to modify my writing structure in order to make the structure perfect. I've spent so much time relying on my dialog to get the message through, that I forgot the most important thing to make someone read it, the structure.
As a reader, the thing I see with all of my CLOSED submission clients is that the premise in on point, pitch-able, and high concept, and the structure is relatively well-constructed. However, in almost every instance, the dialog and characters are just atrocious. Still...they are getting their film read, and the quirky esoteric unmarketable story sits on the shelf.
This is very important...if the structure is NOT good, and the PREMISE is not on point, NO ONE will read the script even if you are the next "Harold Pinter".
That felt good...like really gooood. Keep the comments coming.
Dave writes:
I definitely agree that bad dialogue is an instant turn-off when reading a script. However, most producers will only even start reading the script if they’ve first been triggered by an intriguing premise. So when they start reading they’re looking to see if this is a movie, not whether the writer is the new Harold Pinter!
In my experience (but this may have to do with my penchant for structure), producers are reassured when the structure is clear and firm. All the details can be perfected during development, as long as the basic framework feels solid.
Having said that, great structure, great dialogue, great locations ... none of this can make up for a lousy, uninteresting premise."
I could not agree more. When thinking of a project, the first thing you should be thinking is...This premise...would I watch it if I wasn't writing it? Would I pay $10 to see it? Would I want my mother, brother, sister, uncle, best friend, to watch this movie? Would they even want to see it?
There is nothing worse that a boring, bland, run of the mill premise. In all of my reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, one thing I see over and over with my clients who have open submissions is a boring premise, which is a certain deal killer AND the first thing a reader comments.
As far as structure...once again I couldn't agree more. That's why I am trying so hard to modify my writing structure in order to make the structure perfect. I've spent so much time relying on my dialog to get the message through, that I forgot the most important thing to make someone read it, the structure.
As a reader, the thing I see with all of my CLOSED submission clients is that the premise in on point, pitch-able, and high concept, and the structure is relatively well-constructed. However, in almost every instance, the dialog and characters are just atrocious. Still...they are getting their film read, and the quirky esoteric unmarketable story sits on the shelf.
This is very important...if the structure is NOT good, and the PREMISE is not on point, NO ONE will read the script even if you are the next "Harold Pinter".
That felt good...like really gooood. Keep the comments coming.
Figuring out what you're terrible at
As promised...an optimistic post.
Writing and working in this industry is as much about finding your weaknesses as it is accenting your strengths.
For instance, I am great with dialog, decent on structure, and terrible at proofreading.
So, how do I account for that? I send my scripts to tons of people, have begun outlining more strictly, writing more extensive character developments, and trying to read scripts backwards. (yes, it's a little trick I learned recently. Try it)
The problem, not to sound boastful, is that in my opinion great dialog can make up for piss-poor structure. I look at the most recent re-write I did for a tv pilot I'm working on, and while I know the structure needs work, it sounds good, and flows because of the dialog, so it becomes difficult for me to see how to correct it. I know, I know, I know, it sounds terrible, and I know it does. On the other hand, great structure rarely makes up for piss poor dialog. But, I'm learning how to get the structure right.
But, that's why it's so important to see your biggest faults and PLAY TO THEM. Two of the most popular ways:
-Writing Groups--i have some excellent ones.
-Writing Partners--i am looking for one.
Either way, the easiest way to find your faults is to get other people's eyes on your script.
A professional will not only know where they are strong, they will be even more aware of where they are weak.
Writing and working in this industry is as much about finding your weaknesses as it is accenting your strengths.
For instance, I am great with dialog, decent on structure, and terrible at proofreading.
So, how do I account for that? I send my scripts to tons of people, have begun outlining more strictly, writing more extensive character developments, and trying to read scripts backwards. (yes, it's a little trick I learned recently. Try it)
The problem, not to sound boastful, is that in my opinion great dialog can make up for piss-poor structure. I look at the most recent re-write I did for a tv pilot I'm working on, and while I know the structure needs work, it sounds good, and flows because of the dialog, so it becomes difficult for me to see how to correct it. I know, I know, I know, it sounds terrible, and I know it does. On the other hand, great structure rarely makes up for piss poor dialog. But, I'm learning how to get the structure right.
But, that's why it's so important to see your biggest faults and PLAY TO THEM. Two of the most popular ways:
-Writing Groups--i have some excellent ones.
-Writing Partners--i am looking for one.
Either way, the easiest way to find your faults is to get other people's eyes on your script.
A professional will not only know where they are strong, they will be even more aware of where they are weak.
I'm obsessed with...
Google Analytics, and it's telling me that the average time spent on my blog is in a tail spin, and I think i know why.
I got a nice comment from a buddy of mine, a client actually, that told me my blog has been wholly depressing recently. I can't disagree, because I am in limbo, so many projects close to being completed, so much potential clearly pent up, and so many projects in development...it's daunting.
But, I promise, my next post will be optimistic again.
WOOHOO.
I got a nice comment from a buddy of mine, a client actually, that told me my blog has been wholly depressing recently. I can't disagree, because I am in limbo, so many projects close to being completed, so much potential clearly pent up, and so many projects in development...it's daunting.
But, I promise, my next post will be optimistic again.
WOOHOO.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Making a movie...
...is incredibly frustrating because you have to rely on so many people. The dp has to light correctly, the actors have to act correctly, the camera op has to frame correctly, the producer has to produce correctly, and even the editor has to edit correctly.
Now, a lot of what that means is not only showing up and doing your job, but also doing it in a timely fashion. It is usually the problem that shows up in editing, because in low-budget films, you have to allow your editor and producers work on other projects in order to get a reasonable price. Either that or go with an inexperienced editor. Either way, what always ends up happening is a week becomes a month, and a month becomes a year. It's currently happening with my first feature, where we are 13 months out of principle photography. Now, granted, there were tons of problems, set-backs, and problems with all of the principles on the movie, but at the end of the day it's still 13 months out of principle.
Now, it wouldn't be that huge a problem, if we weren't having trouble lining up our next project, and if we didn't have a new project that is filming in October. So, we have to lock picture, do ADR, set sound/soundtrack, put up a website, and find a distributor.
It's definitely time to pull our stuff together and get this movie done.
Now, a lot of what that means is not only showing up and doing your job, but also doing it in a timely fashion. It is usually the problem that shows up in editing, because in low-budget films, you have to allow your editor and producers work on other projects in order to get a reasonable price. Either that or go with an inexperienced editor. Either way, what always ends up happening is a week becomes a month, and a month becomes a year. It's currently happening with my first feature, where we are 13 months out of principle photography. Now, granted, there were tons of problems, set-backs, and problems with all of the principles on the movie, but at the end of the day it's still 13 months out of principle.
Now, it wouldn't be that huge a problem, if we weren't having trouble lining up our next project, and if we didn't have a new project that is filming in October. So, we have to lock picture, do ADR, set sound/soundtrack, put up a website, and find a distributor.
It's definitely time to pull our stuff together and get this movie done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
