Standardized Liability

            Business people often like to compare themselves to large carnivorous animals. This is meant to give an impression of strength and power. However, they never seem to notice that the vicious animals that they compare themselves with are either endangered or hunted for sport.

            In nature the most successful animals are scavengers. This can be seen in any populated area that has been overrun by squirrels, rats, raccoons, and mice. The larger and more complex an area becomes the better the scavengers seem to do.

            The reason for this is adaptation. The carnivores that seem so impressive are adapted to live in a standardized and stable environment with a set amount of resources upon which to draw. Whenever there is a change in that environment, or the nature of the resources, the carnivores die out almost instantly.

            Scavengers are forced, by their very nature, to constantly adapt to changing resources and environments. Since they never know what they will have to work with they require intelligence, versatility, and creativity in order to constantly find uses for whatever they have available to work with. Because of this the things that kill off the large predators rarely affect them.

            This analogy is particularly relevant to the production industry in the modern era of economic and technological change. With fiscal resources at an absolute minimum, and a technological environment that is drastically different than anything seen before, it is incredibly easy to see the correlation between large businesses and large predators. Neither is able to adapt easily to a change in resources or environment.

            This also means that smaller ventures that are willing to try radically new approaches in order to adapt to the changing business environment have an enormous edge resulting from their willingness to act like scavengers in order to obtain resources and their creative adaptability in finding new uses for the available resources.

            This means that by the end of the decade we should see a radicle power shift in the production industry and the business community. The carnivores are all going to disappear. And, the long-term survivors will be those with the greatest ability to adapt, change, invent, and push the boundaries of what is considered standardized practice.

The A-List

            There is a lot of talk in the production industry about the need to have an A-List celebrity attached to a project in order to obtain funding. This is a bit misleading.

            First, most people do not understand exactly what an A-List celebrity is. There is a general understanding that an A-List celebrity is someone extremely well known, and therefore marketable. But, the term actually comes from a complex system of measurement invented by an entertainment journalist named James Ulmer.

            The Ulmer Scale is a rating system designed to quantify an actor’s value to a production. It includes an analysis of professional demeanor, public image, historical box office success, willingness to travel in order to promote a film, and their over-all versatility in handling different roles.

            An actor’s placement on the Ulmer Scale then determines their marketability in terms of a score similar to a person’s credit score. These scores are then broken down into subcategories that are given letter grades.

            The top percentage, and highest paid, are categorized as the A-List. Slightly lesser known actors, new faces in the industry, and pop stars that may not last are then categorized as the B-List. The C-List is then populated by working actors with a solid body of work that are recognizable, but are easily forgotten.

            The final category of marketable talent is the D-List. This is an unusual category because it contains smaller celebrities with little market value, but they tend to be incredibly vocal about their ranking. This is the List that tends to contain the majority of comedians, stand-up acts, live performers, and general extroverted personalities. While their pay scale is at the bottom and their marketability is ranked as minimal they still manage to maintain a cult status that is nearly as great as the reputations associated with A-List celebrities.

            The flaw in the Ulmer Scale is that it is based on a broad generalization of the production industry as a whole. It can only determine an actor’s value to a production that is designed for standardized mass media exposure. There is no inherent methodology within the Ulmer Scale for determining an actor’s value to a production that has a specific target demographic.

            For example, a romantic comedy that targets an LGBT audience would benefit more from signing Ellen DeGeneres than it would from signing Will Smith. Or, similarly, a production designed to target a young Latino audience would benefit more from including Jessica Alba than a well know A-List actor like Danny DeVito. 

            Therefore, the importance of having an A-List actor attached to your production in order to obtain financing is not exactly a rule so much as it is a guideline. You must be able to analyze your production in advance in order to determine what actor would be the most valuable to your production as an individual business venture, not just to the industry as a whole. 

Harrisburg Entertainment Attorney

            The role of entertainment attorneys varies depending upon the region in which they operate. It is something of a given that every area has its’ own unique population with their own specific approach to the entertainment industry. This means that every area has specific issues to face that are primarily applicable to the individual region.

            Developing an understanding of the unique business atmosphere in the Harrisburg area involved a certain amount of research as well as a conversation with attorney Todd J. Shill of Rhoads & Sinon LLP. Mister Shill is a dedicated entertainment attorney in the Harrisburg area who is actively engaged in the local creative community.

            While the entertainment industry offers a wide range of potential jobs the two main areas of focus in Harrisburg are writers and musicians. Both fields require the assistance of an entertainment attorney for contract review and negotiation, establishing and protecting copyrights, and agent or management agreements.

            Additionally, writers often need help in the sale of optioning of their material. And, musicians frequently need help with licensing agreements, unpaid royalty collection, and merchandising arrangements within record deals.

            Many of these issues can also be translated into aspects of the local film and television production community. The creation of such projects inevitably requires the addition of the previously mentioned two professions. However, full-scale productions also require a large number of additional people with a variety of skills and abilities.

            The interesting fact is that all of these additional members of the production industry who operate on the more physical aspects of a production encounter situations for which they require representation outside of matters that are commonly considered with the creative industries.

            Gaffers, grips, and production assistants who are frequently required to deal with heavy lifting can develop repetitive motion injuries such as bad knees or back problems.

            Lighting directors, carpenters, and set designers often have to work on ladders or scaffolding at great heights where they face the chance of falling and suffering severe injury.

            One of the most important reasons for a producer from any variation of the creative fields to hire an entertainment attorney is to ensure that all legal requirements are met and the needed insurance is in place in order to protect the crew should they be hurt and the production company should it face the possibility of litigation over an accident or an attempt to issue a work-man’s compensation claim based on a pre-existing condition from another production job.

            With these issues in mind it can be seen that a competent and successful entertainment attorney is one of the most important people to have on the staff of any production company.

The Occasional Bastard

            The Federal Communications Commission is frequently viewed as a dark and ominous government agency bent on using its power and resources to restrain free speech and strip away the average person’s rights under the First Amendment. This view is reinforced by the large number of legal cases  they have been involved in, and the number of times that advocacy groups have questioned their adherence to the First Amendment. 

            Public opinion is further swayed by cases such as the FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. in which the FCC levied fines against Fox over the fact that two celebrities used vulgar language during two separate awards shows a year apart. The idea that the FCC was pushing the limits of its control over free speech became so culturally relevant that the court case was covered in publications as divers as The Washington Post, The Christian Post, and The Huffington Post. The overwhelming public opinion was that the FCC was crossing the line. However, the court upheld the position of the FCC in the case.

            The view that the FCC is constantly pushing the limits of its authority is generally heralded by references to the case of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation in which a radio station was charged for broadcasting the George Carlin routine “Filthy Words” during daytime hours. The case established the precedent that the FCC can control language as it relates to public decency.

            Any time an organization successfully fights the FCC they are viewed as heros. This is especially true in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. The issue of this case revolved around the FCC “equal time rule”, which stated that in order to maintain a fair and balanced source of information for viewers it was required that equal time be given to both sides of any issue being publicly discussed. The final court ruling determined that this violated free speech. Since that date broadcasters have been permitted to air one-sided stories without giving consideration to opposing points of view.

            Red Lion is generally considered a hero of the First Amendment and is held in high esteem for their victory over the FCC. But, it should also be noted that they opened the door for a situation in which a small group of broadcast company owners are now able to decide what views are shared with the public, and act as their own independent board of censorship in order to suppress any opinions that they disagree with.

            The point where the FCCs villainy really comes into question is with cases such as Verizon v. FCC  and Comcast Corporation v. FCC. Both of these cases are directly related to the concept of Net Neutrality and the Open Internet policy enforced by the FCC.

            The issue in both of these cases was that the FCC stated in no uncertain terms that everyone had equal rights to digital distribution. The companies charged that they should be allowed to delete the websites of their competitors, or at least slow down their connection speeds. Their actual stated reason was that they would be able to make more money. In these cases the FCC went head to head with major corporations in order to maintain the freedom of speech and the free flow of information.

            There is an old saying that you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time. No matter what policies the FCC enforces there will always be people who call them bastards for doing it. However, the fight to defend the First Amendment has a lot of grey area. It is a never-ending fight to defend our rights. And, if we hope to maintain the free flow of information, it is going to take the occasional bastard who isn’t afraid to stand up to the corporations and the wealthy elite in order to get the job done. That is why we need the FCC to fight for us. That is why we need them to be our "occasional bastard". 

Digital Dollars

            The way that production companies make money off of television shows in America is a disorganized hodge-podge of business methodologies that were obviously slapped together as quickly as possible by the Federal Communications Commission in conjunction with a number of legal and business representatives while attempting to maintain the integrity of the United States anti-trust laws.

            The situation isn’t as difficult in other countries where they were able to look at what had been done in the States, and then formulate their own system without the complexities that had developed through the spurious period of adaptation to a new form of technology.

            Today we are seeing this same response in the techniques being used by production companies to try and capitalize their products within the digital medium. Internet distribution is rapidly becoming just as needlessly complex as the American television distribution system due to the speed with which corporations are being forced to adjust their core business practices.

            However, the American broadcast system does provide a surprisingly reasonable framework upon which to base the evolution of Internet based production distribution.

            In order to operate within the laws of the United States, no business may control more than a certain percentage of a total market. This means that the major television networks are not allowed to own all of the individual local stations within the country. The business repercussions of this are remarkably similar to the situations inherent in on-line distribution where a variety of individual sites are competing on a global scale.

            There are three primary ways for a production company to make money off of a television show that they have produced in the United States.

            The first is called First Run Syndication. This is where the production company signs an exclusive agreement with a network to air new episodes of the show while it is being made.

            The second is called Off Network Syndication, or Second Run Syndication. This is colloquially referred to as “reruns”. This is the aspect of American distribution that most closely resembles Internet distribution. In this phase the show is sold as packages of multiple episodes (one to four seasons worth) to all of the individual local stations around the country.

            The specific purchase arrangements will vary from one station to the next. However, there are two specific methods that can be seen as viable to the digital medium. These methods include straight sales and bartering.

            In straight sales the production package is sold for cash with the station taking all advertising rights within the show.

            In bartering the show is given to the station for free, and the production company keeps the advertising rights in order to make their profit off of the sale of commercial time when the show is airing. This method will usually have a contractual agreement stipulating that the show will have a specific time slot.

            The third way of making money is non-broadcast sales. At this time that primarily consists of selling collectors sets of DVDs. While it can be very lucrative for a successful show it is not directly relevant to this discussion on conducting business within the on-line market.

            Now, if we look more closely at the system for Off Network Syndication we can see how the overall structure is quite closely related to Internet distribution. And, how the evolving business methodologies are reflections of the predecessing sales structure.

            At first, on-line video distribution involved no commercials or any exchange of money. It was used primarily as a vehicle for gaining publicity. Just as television shows were originally free, because they were actually trying to sell the television sets that people were using to watch the shows.

            Then, some enterprising individuals began adding commercials to on-line videos. This quickly developed into a system nearly identical to Off Network Syndication.

            Now, we are seeing the more successful digital distributors (such as Hulu) beginning to produce their own First Run shows. This then opens the door for other production companies to begin selling their shows to the larger digital distributors for First Run Syndication.

            The important aspect of this is that the digital platform allows the audience to choose what they want to watch at any time. Prime Time slots are now irrelevant. Additionally, the major networks were always constrained to the number of hours in a day. The digital platform does not have this limitation.

            A digital distributor could, in all plausibility, launch 300 First Run shows at the same time. Then, only keep the ones that get strong ratings after the first season.

            While it does mean a drastic reduction in the amount of money available for production costs, it has one huge benefit. In an increasingly tight market where production companies are constantly fighting for airtime it is now possible to give every show an equal chance.

            The potential for increasing revenue by allowing every consumer to choose which shows to watch instead of leaving the choice for airtime up to a small focus group is exponential. It also allows for a drastic shift in the way that shows are made.

            Small production companies with great but unknown writers can now have the same opportunities as large companies that get away with cranking out over used material just because the producer is friends with the right person at the network.

            It brings the success of a production company back to a merit based system. And, most importantly, it opens up new doors for fiscal gain through proven techniques that can now be refined.

            Quite frankly, I think the next decade of digital entertainment is going to be a lot of fun to make. And, I’m really going to enjoy the additional revenue it is going to generate.

Death of a Salesman

            Over the past decade there has been a great deal of positive declarations about the benefits of on-line retail. Money Morning even compiled a lengthy article detailing how on-line sales were not only growing, but also benefiting the economy as a whole.

            Many businesses have found it as a way to expand their existing services in order to reach new sales markets. It is also true that the advent of digital retail has opened up a low cost opportunity for small businesses that have interesting products, but lack the capital to found a brick and mortar enterprise.

            However, I have just read an article by Larry Downes that was published by Forbes that suggests otherwise. The articles can be seen HERE.

            Mr. Downes begins by trying to explain the complexities involved in the current downward spiral that is being experienced by Best Buy. He veers off slightly when he goes into detail about a personal encounter when he went shopping with a friend at the aforementioned mega store. However, his over all message is related most specifically to Internet sales.

            The main point that he brought up is that larger retail stores have now placed such an emphasis on digital sales that they are neglecting to maintain their standards for in store live customers. This is not entirely surprising.

            Stores used to conduct regular free events. They would employ live musicians and host elaborate holiday parties. Malls contained fountains, plants, and things to see. In the 1930’s people would go to Macy’s just to see the tree. In the 1980’s pop singer Tiffany became a household name by doing a tour of malls. And, then they stopped.

            It would be easy to blame on line sales for the losses in retail outlets. You could simply say that people aren’t showing up, because they have other options. But, that isn’t true. The reason customers aren’t showing up in person is because the stores aren’t giving them a reason too anymore.

            It began with cost cutting measures. Reducing over-head is such a simple way to make it look like you have an increase in profits without actually making any gains. Then they reduced salaries. This looked great in the budget, but employees who feel under appreciated are not overly eager to provide quality service. Then there is the ever-present threat of lay-offs, and the fact the retail stores only higher part-time employees so they don’t have to pay for benefits. Employees won’t be loyal to a company that isn’t loyal to them.

            But, the main problem is the atmosphere. There is nothing left to make it an experience. Now people are just wandering into a warehouse full of merchandise where people are rude to them.

            If retail wants to save its’ brick and mortar businesses they need to bring back the show. Add a little P.T. Barnum to the shopping experience. Get people to come because they want to see what you are going to do next, and they will spend their money while they are there.

            The best way we could save the American retail business market as a whole is if we started teaching entertainment classes in business schools the way we teach business classes in the schools for the entertainment industry.

            If they don’t give the customers a reason to be in the building, then the customers are going to stop showing up completely.

Gov's Gone Wild

            There has been a great deal of media attention paid to the sentencing of Illinois Governor Blagojevich who has just been given 14 years in prison for attempting to sell President Obama’s former Senate seat. But, what I find most interesting is that he is being sent to the exact same prison as his predecessor Governor George Ryan who was convicted of fraud and racketeering. They just need a few more Illinois State Governors and they’ll be able to start their own prison gang.

            It may seem cold to make light of such a terrible situation. Perhaps it’s the amount of time that I have spent in the entertainment industry. But, I can’t help thinking that this would make for an amazing reality show. Just imagine the first awkward conversation upon the two former Governors suddenly discovering that they’re going to be cellmates.

            Production costs would be incredibly low since the prison already has the entire building under video surveillance. You could use inmates on work release for crew to save on wages, and craft services could be covered by the prison cafeteria.

            However, there might be an incident when the boom mic operator would be accused of “wearing a wire”. Although that could lead to an entire episode of Three’s Company styled misunderstanding comedy.

            And, just imagine the hilarious Meatballs styled comedy when those wacky Gov’s tried to embezzle from the warden. Oh, how hilarity would ensue.

            All kidding aside, this situation is a truly horrible occurrence that highlights the severity of the corruption problem in America. A situation so wide spread that it has resulted in the creation of several independent citizens groups who try to draw attention to the issue through self-publishing articles such as “Corruption in America”.

            This is upsetting because The main stream media not only ignores many of the issues brought up by the independents, but the media then attacks the individuals for exercising the very First Amendment rights that make the media possible.

            The only conclusion is that the press has fallen under the influence of the corruption that they are meant to prevent by being the eyes and ears of America.

            If we want to solve this problem then we need to start with the press and follow the money back to its’ source.  Only with a truly free media can we ever hope to stop the spread of political and corporate corruption.