What is necessary for the creatives to *survive* is for them to be able to get a living wage. The salary compression from the A/B/C list down into the ranks of the middle-class actors has been devastating...the 'names' take the jobs that character-actors used to take
That clearly shows an industry that has way too many people trying to get jobs within it. This happened, to a smaller extent, in the IT industry, about ten years ago. The answer was for a lot of folks to leave the industry, restoring balance between supply of labor and demand for labor. This happened, in a big way, in my father's industry, typesetting, starting in the mid-1970s. My father, today, subcontracts to a company, part time (though I'm not sure how many hours he works -- probably more than 30 per week), and accomplishes as much work as he and the fourty people working for him in the early 1970s accomplished
together. That's a 97.5% compression of the demand for labor. And it continues today; his wife and her daughter, both in the industry, both lost their jobs this past month.
All the "fights" have hopefully been settled
I think many folks in SAG are looking forward to 2011, to carry-on the fighting -- hoping that economic conditions and other factors combine to give them more bargaining power than supply and demand does, today.
Really? They
NEED to get 39 for what they now pay for
24?!?
I hope not.
Please understand the context of that statement you replied to. There are many people who are unhappy with the fact that their favorite series broadcast only 24 episodes per year, and wax poetically about the late 1960s, when it wasn't that uncommon for some series to offer 39 episodes per year. They point I was making is that the difference in revenue to be made between broadcasting 24 episodes per year, and then running reruns over the summer, and broadcasting 39 episodes per year, is not that big of a difference -- there isn't really more money to be made, by doing so -- so in order to get 39 episodes per year, as those folks want, the networks would have to be able to obtain that programming for little more than what they're currently paying for 24 episodes.
The problem as I see it is that the viewing audience simply isn't there any more.
Well, kind-of, but also kind-of not: The people are still there -- it is just that there are so many more options for those people to amuse themselves with beyond broadcast television: More and more cable networks are offering more and more programming, including, in just the last several years or so,
original programming; premium cable networks, also big with original programming these days; DVD and BDs, not only for movies but for original series programming as well (that's most of our Netflix consumption); Internet, including web surfing, online communities, and now even television programming via Hulu,
Amazon Unbox, Netflix, BB Online, etc.; (as you mentioned) video games; and so on.
If one looks at the actual numbers, they are way down - we can thank the computer revolution/gaming systems/media systems for that loss in the real audience. For instance, the numbers of households (and the actual people) viewing the series finale of M*A*S*H versus the actual numbers watching today aren't even in the same universe.
And so it is unreasonable to expect quality television programming to be as plentiful as it was back then --
yet the reality is that this period, 1981 through 2011 -- from the premiere of Hill Street Blues clear through to the finale of Lost, 24, and likely NCIS, CSI, House, etc. -- is the
real "Golden Age of Television", with consistently great television available for free, beating any other period in history, by a mile, AFAIC. And yes, I do believe that it will end in 2011. I think this coming year begins the end, with Jay Leno taking over the M-F 10PM-11PM slot, on NBC.
Why? Does 'eye-candy' cost more than 'ugly'?
In that context, absolutely. The stunning visuals and high production values we see on shows like Lost and The Unit (for example) are far far far more expensive to produce than the video presentation provided by lower-budget shows like Doctor Who, Primeval, and Hotel Babylon.
I think the UK TV business-model is not viable in present US TV(broadcast & cable), the UK has a much more extensive government-subsidised network system, it's basically PBS on steroids.
That's just another method for the money to get from the viewers' wallets into the costs of production. It is a more efficient model, even though it involves the government: Taxpayer to government to broadcaster to production company. Here in the United States it goes from commercial-watcher, to retailer, to wholesaler, to manufacturer, to advertising agency, to broadcaster, to production company.
I don't disagree that, as things are now, the UK model, in total, isn't viable here. My point was with respect to the aspect of the UK model I specifically referred to, i.e., short-run series, with lower production budgets. These are things that aren't specifically inappropriate for the US market.
The production end of the business is almost as slow to adapt as the performers
Which is why I said that thing "needed" to change.
but the money men BUILT the cable TV business on the backs of actors and now want to hold on to an out-dated revenue-sharing model.
And as long as there are "too many" actors, that's not only going to be the way things are, but it is the way things should be, too.
The numbers of productions being shot in LA this year/season is WAY down, some of that is due to the SAG/AMPTP troubles, but some of that is due to the glut of so-called 'reality' shows (and really, folks they are scripted, if not beforehand then they get scripted in the editing suite).
With respect, not quite. If I remember correctly, there is actually one or two
fewer un-scripted programs being presented this summer than last summer. The main reason why the number of productions being shot in LA is way down is because so many programs are now being produced
elsewhere, where costs are lower, including in Canada (Flashpoint, The Listener), UK (The Philanthropist), Columbia (Mental), etc.
As it is, there was an interesting article published this week, which is related to these issues we're discussing...
The Business of Television
How Network TV Will Reinvent Itself
Because of growing competition and dwindling TV ad dollars, the big networks will be forced to make major changes, and fast
By Ronald Grover and Tom Lowry , Business Week
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...+2009_special+report+--+the+future+of+tv+2009
