Written by Colin Donald
Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 5:32 PM
There is a much bigger issue about the significance of Web comedy In The Motherhood making its move to TV, beyond the show losing its interactivity (see our previous post How to destroy an interactive Web TV format).
It's clear to me that the reason why In The Motherhood migrated between different media is IP – intellectual property.
MindShare, the agency which originated the concept for the show, needs to make more money from the format.
This is policy, straight from the top. MindShare is owned by ad agency giant WPP (via GroupM) and WPP chief executive Sir Martin Sorrell has repeatedly stated, even before the recession began, that agencies can no longer rely only on fees from clients for their revenue.
They should be creating intellectual property, such as entertainment formats, that can gain revenue in their own right.
"Content and intellectual property does give us an opportunity to add, or develop, a new business approach and a new structure to the way we develop our business, particularly in media planning and buying." (Sir Martin at the Venice Festival of Media, April 2008.)
Back in February 2008, I attended an event on advertising and new media where a MindShare executive said exactly that - and even showed a clip from the Web version of In The Motherhood as an example of formats the company creates.
However, it is clear to me that the strategy is fundamentally flawed.
The format for In The Motherhood has failed to make the leap from Web to TV. On the Internet, it gained fans because their contributions were valued and integrated into the storylines. That form of interactivity was not carried over to TV.
The TV critics are unanimous in comparing the TV version unfavourably with the Internet original. The TV version, without viewer contributions, is widely regarded as less authentic than the online original.
MindShare's clients, Sprint and Suave, who sponsored both the original version and TV adaptation, have not benefitted from the move.
On the Internet, they were associated with an innovative hit Web comedy that resonated with viewers because it came from the viewers.
Now, with MindShare attempting to exploit the format and get more money out of the IP, they're part of an old media flop, an attempt just to get more eyeballs, but without the interactivity and viewer involvement that might have kept the success going.
A strategy intended to make more money for the agency has failed the clients.
Instead, it has killed the goose laying the golden egg - on the Web.
The key lesson is that if any digital media format - a Web show or another form - cannot keep its interactive characteristics when it moves to TV, then maybe it's better off staying on the Web.
Which do you think clients Sprint and Suave would be happier with: another successful, interactive season on the Internet - or a very public failure on old media?
From the mainstream media reviews of the TV show
The consensus view from the top newspapers: the Web series where real mothers contributed was authentic and funny, but the TV adaptation is TV-sit-com-as-usual and not.
Writer-producers Jennifer Konner and Alexandra Rushfield have adapted David Lang's Web creation without unearthing the inherent humanity (or much humor) in parents' fears that, amid the frenzy of modern life, they might forever scar their little angels. (Variety)
A watered-down adaptation of the racier Web series. (Reuters)
[The Web series'] five- and seven-minute vignettes worked better, possibly because they were short and the expectations not very high. Ms. Remini and Ms. Handler, in particular, can display mean streaks that are genuinely scary and funny, a little like the callous heroines of the British series Absolutely Fabulous. ABC's version waters down the fierce, farcical spirit of those webisodes to suit broadcast television tastes. (New York Times)
In the Motherhood is no longer a guilty pleasure. The series of sketches that were a defiant mom's darkest confessions is now ... a mainstream sitcom, with all that implies. It's got snappy writing and superior stars, but treat yourself by looking up the original shows. They go great with wine during nap time. (Chicago Sun-Times)
The viewers have their say
And finally, some reader comments from Entertainment Weekly's article about the contributions being killed off (which also reveals that the Writers Guild rate for the material would be $7,000):
weas3kids Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:59 PM ESTRidiculous....let a writer try to write better than a mom who has been there and done that. Good luck with that. lol
Lia Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:16 PM ESTWhy don't they just pay the contributing moms their due? All this website sounds like is a way for them to take ideas off the moms using this message board and then not credit them at all. I think if people were willing to sign an agreement giving up the rights to their stories just to see their anticdotes on tv, that's up to them. The Writer's Guild should butt out.
Comments