We're debating the merits of TV vs online TV as a venue for original scripted comedy and drama with "English Dave," who regularly blogs an insider's view of the ups and downs of UK screenwriting in Was it something I wrote?
Dave kicked off the debate in his post Internet Hype?
"I'm about to commit heresy. For the next twenty years at least, unless a HUGE player gets involved, TV will still be the primary method of delivering scripted entertainment."
He goes on to raise several crucial and thought-provoking points about the future of TV vs online for comedy and drama and of course, we couldn't resist replying and arguing the case that "online is an ideal venue for scripted comedy and drama."
Click below for Dave's full post and our in-depth reponse, covering innovation in funding and production, new online formats and how the the relationship between broadcast TV and online TV is developing.
From English Dave's post Internet Hype?
I'm about to commit heresy. For the next twenty years at least, unless a HUGE player gets involved, TV will still be the primary method of delivering scripted entertainment. Forget all the 'let's do the show right here' bollocks.
There, I said it. Only small stones please and not the face!
Why do I think that? Because despite all the marketing hype, most people still like to sit down in their favourite armchair, watch their big screen HDD with dolby and tune out to their favourite programme.
Yep, to marketers the internet is cool and hip and trendy. But marketers deal in product, not entertainment or the reason why we like certain types of entertainment. With the marketers it's all about trends and statistics. They see a huge explosion in the use of the internet, a huge decrease in the TV viewer numbers on network primetime, put 2 and 2 together and get 17.
The internet is not the future of delivering scripted entertainment. It is the future of 'catch up' tv, 'dang I missed that' tv and 'I wonder what that's like' tv.
Watching TV is part of our social and cultural fabric. Prime time network ratings have gone down because people now have better things to do than sit down and make an appointment to watch shit. Pure and simple. Putting that same shit on the internet isn't going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference.
That's not to say that a ratings success purely on the internet isn't possible. Or internet streamed direct to the TV. And if someone has the balls to put up the cash for decent production values and promotion it might happen. But I think it will be the exception rather than the rule.
Sure, the networks can make a good deal of incremental income from the internet, but TV will still rule. Mass Entertaimnent has a lot more to do with why we view it than how we view it. But apart from porn and Youtube most of us don't want it huddled over our computers. So the Tv will still rule. The internet will be another way of feeding the TV, like another one million channels to surf. More fragmentation, more crap.
It's going to take a hell of a show to persuade the money men that a network level production value show on the internet can attract the same or more viewers.
Our response
Hi Dave,
No-one’s anticipating that broadcast television will disappear, any more than cinema did when TV arrived, so it’s entirely possible that indeed “TV will still be the primary method of delivering scripted entertainment.”
But that’s actually a very narrow claim and the future – and 20 years is a long time on the Internet – is much more nuanced than an either/or scenario.
One of the US producers that we interviewed, Marc Campbell, CEO of the Independent Comedy Network studio, said that, “Our view is that there is a new rung in the content development ladder, and we fill that gap. We are creating a cost-effective portfolio of entertainment properties, each of which has the potential to migrate up the entertainment food chain.”
There’s a lot of innovation going on in the US market around how to finance and produce lower-budget Internet shows that can either recoup their funding directly online and/or be picked up for television. People with online experience are teaming up with Hollywood execs who know how to cut the deals, so you see someone like Kathleen Grace, who created The Burg (www.theburg.tv) getting together with Mike Eisner’s Vuguru to make The All-For-Nots (www.theallfornots.com). It’s a mockumentary about an indie band on tour, but shot on the road with the band doing some real-life gigs, like at the SXSW festival. They’ve liberated the sit-com from the studio, so it’s hardly a case of “putting that same shit on the internet.”
At the high end of the budget range, you can see a production such as In The Motherhood (www.inthemotherhood.com). This is now in its second season, completely funded by Unilever’s Suave (shampoo) and Sprint (mobile operator) at a per-minute budget on a par with a broadcast sit-com. They’ve hired household name talent (Leah Remini from CBS’ The King of Queens and Jenny McCarthy) and they believe that online TV is ideal for their very mainstream target audience of busy mothers, who don’t have time for television but can find a spare five minutes for comedy directly based on their own lives. The show runs a competition for viewers to contribute story ideas that are polished by pro scriptwriters.
You wrote: “unless a HUGE player gets involved.” Which KIND of huge player is missing? Some companies are further ahead than others in embracing online TV, as you’d expect, but all the sectors are represented.
Whenever people ask if online TV is working, we simply point to recommissions like In The Motherhood that are funded by major corporations such as Unilever. Much of this is simply bypassing the US networks entirely. Many of them are setting up their own online production outfits, such as Warner Bros Studio 2.0, but they could find it tough to compete with the more nimble start-ups , particularly when the talent and talent agencies see an opportunity to go direct to the public with their own productions. Meanwhile, News Corp and NBCU have set up Hulu at a distributor – and possibly a video search engine to compete with Google. There are huge players all across online TV, just in a range of positions in the whole business – production, distribution etc.
Perhaps the main flaw in your argument is that on the one hand you expect the Internet to deliver catch-up TV, but you’re also saying that much of broadcast TV is poor quality. If so, then what’s there to catch up on?
An alternative view is that the Internet is going to be the ideal venue to pilot and incubate new scripted shows. You allude to this in saying, “The internet will be another way of feeding the TV.”
In the US market, there seems to be a shift in favour of more reality programming, partly because of the writers’ strike and partly because the networks like the lower production costs. It’s easy to imagine a scenario for the 2008-09 season with a slew of reality on the TV and people looking online for comedy and drama, at exactly the time when the new online studios have a slate of shows up and running. Marc Campbell’s ICN alone aims to pilot 40 shows and they’re far from alone.
How about a future when TV is dominant, but in a vicious circle of stagnant or declining audiences and ad revenues that fund ever less appealing shows? And when online is in a virtuous circle of successfully incubating a new approach to production, across the whole range of budget levels, and innovating ways to engage the people that we should stop calling viewers? GM has just pulled out $1.5 BILLION dollars from TV in favour of online advertising. Which way is the wind blowing?
You’re right about funding for top quality production values and promotion. If there’s a particularly weak link in the chain at the moment, it’s the production company being able to tell people that a new show exists and is worth watching. There’s way too much reliance on online users telling friends “virally.”
You say that “Watching TV is part of our social and cultural fabric.” Yes, but ever less so as audiences have fragmented, as you acknowledge. If anything, online has the greater potential in the future to re-assemble those fragmented individuals into at least mid-size (not mass) audiences that have similar interests or outlooks. It’s no accident that MySpace and Bebo have both emerged as commissioners and are closing sponsor deals. If larger audiences can be re-created, surely larger funding will follow.
In the UK, it’s a slightly different picture at the moment, as much of the activity is between broadcasters, particularly the BBC, and major indies, such as Endemol. So far, we’re seeing an alternative approach to the interactivity, with the Endemol teen drama Signs of Life (www.bbc.co.uk/signsoflife) including gameplay as part of the video. BBC Switch has commissioned several online projects from Lime Pictures’ Conker Media and Channel 4 has gone for a third season of Dubplate Drama, which has a significant online element.
However, it’s very likely that the US models will emerge here in some form. In February, we saw Mindshare, who put together the funding for In The Motherhood, presenting the show to indie producers at an InSync evening in Soho. They are already looking for producers to work with. Meanwhile, Unilever’s Sure Girl deodorant is sponsoring Sofia’s Diary on Bebo.
And it’s also very likely that the highly innovative UK indie production scene will once again emerge with some more killer formats that go global.
The main difference for writers interested in creating online TV is there’s a more immediate relationship with the audience and a particular need to take account of and gain experience of the various opportunities for interactivity.
And as for slumping in front of the big screen... Yes, viewers will continue to do just that, particularly for live sports and top-quality drama. But the same households are full of other screens – more TVs, PCs, consoles and mobiles...
To conclude, we believe that online is an ideal venue for scripted comedy and drama.
Comments