(R)evolutions in television and film – Peter Pan and The Player

What goes around, comes around…

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose… TV executives’ concern over changing viewing habits is nothing new. Sports coverage continues to deliver; it’s such thinking that pushed BT to pay almost GBP900m to show some football matches. But it’s not just knowing the score as it happens that has kept audiences from time-shifting. We wrote a piece back in 2011 detailing how the industry was trying to put a renewed focus on live events. Social media have contributed to this; having a constant stream of wry comments on Twitter to snark at while watching Downton Abbey can vastly improve the viewing experience. This is somewhat lost if viewing the show later.

There was a time when live events were much more common on network TV. Back then it was other formats – radio and cinema – that were running scared from the box in the corner. Now it is television that is trying to retain eyeballs; DVRs and OTT rivals are diminishing its sway; the cable industry lost 2.2m subscribes last quarter and Fox COO Chase Carey recently conceded the cable cord was “fraying”. TV viewing in general dropped 4% last quarter, Nielsen reported on Friday. Mobile use in general seems to be the largest culprit (see chart, below). As part of a strategy to keep viewers glued to scheduled, linear TV, NBC has previously screened the live performance of Sound of Music, and recently announced plans for a live rendition of A Few Good Men. Like the latter piece on content, Peter Pan similarly began as a play, and this past week saw its own broadcast, live, on NBC. It was a fine tactic in a broader strategy. Sadly, execution, and timing, are everything. Salon saw much room for improvement. The New Yorker compared it with earlier TV adaptations (NBC did a live version back in 1955) and found it lacking. More damningly, it also saw a broader disconnection from reality, as protests swept the nation in reaction to events unfolding in Ferguson. Viewing figures were half what the network got for Sound of Music. As The Wall Street Journal points out, live events may be losing their pull; both the Emmys and MTV Music Awards saw dips in ratings this year. Meanwhile though, marketers are still willing to pay a premium for advertising during such shows. Brands are said to have paid as much as $400,000 per-30 second commercial for the telecast.

“The nature of the internet as a platform for art is double-edged. The thing that makes it attractive — the fast turnover of content produced by unusual, gifted people — may be what stops it from bringing about a Golden Age 2.0.”

– India Ross, Financial Times

Another tactic in the strategy to retain eyeballs has been to license old seasons of shows still running to OTT providers like Hulu, Amazon and Netflix. On the one hand this may cannibalise viewers who are just as happy watching old episodes as new ones. On the other, it could provide a new platform to find audiences and increase advocacy and engagement. What Nielsen has found is that both are happening. As the WSJ reports, “Dounia Turrill, Nielsen’s senior vice president of client insights, said she analyzed the results of 16 such shows and found an even split of shows that benefited and those that didn’t”. Netflix, meanwhile, closed down its public API and is seeking world domination with culturally diverse content in the form of Marco Polo. Such OTT providers have their own problems to worry about, too; their niche is becoming increasingly cluttered. Vimeo is not mentioned often as a competitor to the likes of Amazon’s services, but it too is now producing original content for streaming, in much the same way as its peers, where shows are greenlit by popular demand and creatives given full rein. An article in this weekend’s Financial Times points out the limits of such a business model, “the internet audience — vehement but fleeting in its interests — may not always know what makes the best content for a more substantial series… returns are unreliable in a marketplace where even established services suffer at the hands of a capricious audience”.

In film, new possibilities arise in the form of ticket-booking innovation. While TV is recycling old ideas of content and engagement, these new tactics look to push the industry onward. This month through January 17, New York’s MOMA hosts a Robert Altman retrospective. One of his seminal films, The Player, shows in some ways how far the film industry has come, and in others how we haven’t moved on at all. The New Yorker wrote a brief feature on the retrospective. It’s insightful enough to quote at length, below:

“In the opening shot of “The Player,” from 1992, Robert Altman makes an explicit attempt to outdo Orson Welles’s famous opening to “Touch of Evil.” He has the camera zoom in and out, track left and right, pan one way and the other, and, before a cut finally comes, pick up with most of the major characters of the film. The scene also situates “The Player”—a movie about a studio created on a Hollywood studio lot—in film history, with passing references to silent film, forties genre work, the sixties, and, finally, the Japanese, who were then moving in on Hollywood, and are seen looking the studio over.

When it came out, “The Player” was regarded as a scorching attack on greedy and unimaginative Hollywood: in the film, the industry’s shining past surrounds the executives at the studio and shames many of them. Twenty years later, the huge profits from big-Hollywood movies—digital fantasies based on comic books and video games—have washed away that shame. The executives in “The Player” have stories pitched to them constantly by writers, and then they say yes or no. They don’t consult the marketing division on what will sell in Bangkok and in Bangalore. The thing that Altman may not have anticipated was that one would be able to look back at the world of “The Player” with something almost like nostalgia.”

Intellectual Property ReBoot

The British Library corrals some bright sparks and lights some fires over copyright protection.

At the Emmy Awards recently in Los Angeles, emcee Conan O’Brien bemoaned (or rather, celebrated, see above) the demise of old media, in particular his erstwhile host, NBC. While media fragmentation has played a significant role in this, many in the industry also complain of piracy. Intellectual Property Rights [IPR] are not sufficient they say. At the end of last month, the British Library published a paper under the Creative Commons license entitled “Driving UK Research. Is copyright a help or hindrance?”, in which 13 scholars, journalists and artists, all intimately familiar with IPR, advocate for a more relaxed approach to incentivising and regulating.

“There is a growing tension between laws designed to protect the intellectual property of writers and performers and their desire to capitalise on their own copyrighted material.”

The above quotation is from author and journalist Richard Donkin, featured in this report. The original purpose of copyright as set out in the United States is to incentivise people and to encourage innovation. Zeitgeist would argue that these original aims have been lost in a orgy of corporate overindulgence. As discussions continue on lengthening Europe’s current 50-year copyright term to equal the 95-year length in the US, one issue that many of those writing have difficulty with is the issues of ‘fair dealing’, more commonly known by it’s US term, ‘fair use’. According to this paper, it currently allows little scope for sampling for educational or critical purposes. As Professor Lionel Bently comments, “the publisher insists that I and my co-author have the consent of the copyright owner. But identifying and locating the copyright owner is not at all straightforward.” It is often very hard to track down the rights to a work as attributed to a particular person – especially if this person is no longer among the living. One of the contributors to this paper argues that people should be actively encouraged to register their copyright, rather than just assuming it as the work is created. This would not only give some authors the option of immediately making their work rights-free, but would also make the identification process that much simpler. The labyrinthine complications are echoed by Dr. Estelle Derclaye, who calls issues of IP law a “daily dilemma to some researchers”, constantly worried that photocopying this extract or inserting a video into a presentation would bring them (or the institution they work for) a step closer to a lawsuit.

‘Fair dealing’ also states that “[t]he copying of an image to make a presentation [on PowerPoint] is an infringement, as there is no statutory exemptions”. This is quite remarkable, and indicative of an anachronistic copyright structure. The notion is also hampered by issues of semantics. Professor Nick Cook writes that there are “specific problems” with ‘fair dealing’, one of which being that they “do not fully cover sound and film”, allowing only small excerpts to be reproduced. There is, however, no clear definition of ‘small’. This is stunningly inadequate. Until matters like this are cleared up, those creating, using and critiquing content will face confusion as to their rights. Cook continues,

“[P]erhaps the greatest problem… is ignorance of the law on the part of researchers (who frequently ask for permission they don’t need), publishers (whose copyright guidelines are often needlessly restrictive, and rights holders (a number of music publishers, for example, claim that fair dealing does not cover printed music – a claim for which there is no legal foundation.”

The danger of this last example of overprotective rights holders is that content does not find its way into the public domain and hence does not become used. Everyone from Picasso to Dizzee Rascal has used previous works to create their own content. Works “that people cannot access create no revenue for anyone”, comments Cook. This is no mere hypothetical abstraction. There are currently many, many films literally rotting away in the basements of various film studios in Los Angeles, waiting for their copyright limits to expire. Inaccessible, and not making any revenue for anyone. Journalist Mike Holderness argues that an alternative revenue stream could be set up to compensate creators of works for making their works available online and to anyone

The irrelevance or mere disdain people have for IP laws today is abundantly clear. Marshall Mateer, Education Consultant for the National Education Network, writes simply, “[t]oday copyright often becomes a barrier standing in the way of what it should be enabling”. Dr Gabriel Egan points out that the effort to get people to stop pirating content purely by enforcing Digital Rights Management software has failed spectacularly (not least because there are always loopholes in software). Taking an educative stance by trying to convince people of piracy’s moral corruptibility rather over-stated the case, and rather too late as well. Egan points out,

“Trailers in cinemas warning that copying a film is theft, akin to purse-snatching, strike most spectators as manifestly untrue. Stealing deprives someone of the use of their property, while copying something only adds to the number of copies in existence. The supposed loss to a rights holder is notional and dependent upon the untestable hypothesis that a consumer prevented from copying something will buy it instead.”

Richard Donkin, perhaps optimistically, writes that “[w]idespread disregard is often a prelude to legal reform”, arguing among other things that the copyright term needs to be shortened to around 20 years. It would be nice to see Mr. Donkin’s dreams come true.

Promoting “Lost” farewells

Marketing a series finale of a hit TV show should be relatively easy. However, with “Lost”, just as with its storyline, nothing is ever as it seems, as Zeitgeist has previously reported. In that instance, the marketing team at Disney’s ABC network went to great lengths to introduce some clips, that they hoped would go viral, of the start of the final season, only to have the terribly web-savvy fans -whom it had been assumed were desperate for any crumbs falling from the “Lost” table – reject the clips out of hand, choosing instead to wait until they could see the episode in its entirety, and in HD.

Their ultimate gambit was to simulcast the show’s finale (for which, in the US, they charged advertisers $900k per 30-second spot according to Time magazine, “more than anything save the Oscars and the Super Bowl”) across multiple timezones, meaning it was at a comfortable 9pm PST (unfortunately those viewers still had to avoid any spoilers for the three hours after it was broadcast on the East Coast) and a bright and early 5am for those in the UK (with higher viewing figures than the show usually gets in its 9pm slot). Variety reports, “59 countries will air the final episode of “Lost” no later than 48 hours after the U.S. broadcast.” To Zeitgeist’s mind, this sort of thing has not been attempted before to such an extent. When we think of other broadcasts that are viewed live globally, we think of the Olympics and the World Cup; “Lost” hoped to piggyback on this aura of unity. By closing the viewing windows it also discouraged piracy, though Sky Player suffered unfortunate hitches, as did Zeitgeist’s Sky+ recording, which stuttered its way through the entire finale, leaving Zeitgeist to wonder why he paid a premium for corrupted content that he could have easily downloaded for free (albeit illegally).

However, what such synchronicity meant was that, at the time of its airing, there would have been a lot of buzz (facilitated by ABC’s “Lost” page that allowed users to sign in via the site to Twitter and Facebook to post their comments) about the show online, more or less simultaneously. What would usually have been a community of fragmented chatter that was localised by geographical region, with people talking about the same episode, at different times, suddenly became coherent. The official “Lost” Facebook page certainly did much to help promote the show, with regular status updates (commented on by hundreds, “like”d by tens of thousands), clips, as well as the obligatory Facebook event page for the finale, “attended” again in the tens of thousands. Conversely, a lot of people went into hermit-mode during the run-up to the finale so as to avoid any hint of a spoiler. The New York Times writes “The show’s time-bending storyline and layers of mysteries can mean that a single indiscreet tweet might ruin a whole episode for someone who has yet to see it.”

The simulcast was the last in a series of bold moves those in the marketing department had made for “Lost”. To promote the series premiere, bottles were wedged into the sand on the East and West coasts of the US. The doomed plane’s airline that the passengers fly, Oceanic, had its own, official-looking website (which now redirects to ABC’s “Lost” homepage). Variety continues “The Oceanic Web page idea morphed into a competing site claiming a conspiracy behind the plane crash; Find815.com was nominated for an interactive Emmy. The network posted Oceanic billboards in several international cities connected to series characters, then ‘vandalized’ them with conspiracy claims.” During the finale in the US, SMS messages that viewers had sent in were displayed, presumably during commercial breaks. A UGC competition was also run online to see who could create the best trailer for the show (see video below).

Further to this of course were comic books, podcasts and videogames – not to mention the fan-made wiki Lostpedia – that expanded the mythology of the show’s universe. Moreover, as Mashable points out, “Lost was among the very first series available on iTunes, giving the option to watch on-demand on your computer, iPod or iPhone… At the time of writing, seasons 1-6 are available in HD, all for free (with ads) on the ABC website.” Michael Benson, one of ABC’s executive VPs of marketing said that “viewers want to believe there really are people lost on an island somewhere.” By playing on this insight, Benson and his team have crafted a lattice framework of exciting, original promotions. The proof is in the pudding; six years on, “Lost” bows out as one of the most talked-about shows of the past decade.

Of Mad Men and Spider-Men

From the November Zeitgeist…

What do fictional characters and celebrity ambassadors say about the state of masculinity today? The last twenty years have arguably seen a dramatic shift in terms of representation in these fields, from a black president to a different type of action hero.

Indeed, we have gone from a period of filmic portrayals with Arnie and Stallone to a complete absence of testosterone-fuelled role models; Christian Bale toplines the Batman and Terminator franchises, Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man and Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man*.

Does metrosexuality, a word that Microsoft Word refuses to accept as real, now rule? The term suggests a love of the arts, of music and the theatre; it also seems to suggest a narcissistic obsession with personal appearance and general aesthetic. Russell Brand would seem to epitomize the more questionable side of this relatively new sexuality. Does he epitomise the direction manhood is heading?

Mad Men has become something of a cult hit in the UK, as well as Stateside where it has a bushel full of Emmy and Golden Globe awards. The show oozes style, cool and a love of the finer things in life. It also reminds the viewer of a time when men were [seemingly] far more in control; unquestioned, dictatorial, bitter, frustrated, introverted, promiscuous, manipulative.

Women were confined to the home, save for the most perfunctory work roles. Rather than illustrate a desire for males to return to this period of dominant bliss, what this show and its niche popularity really demonstrates is a wry enjoyment of seeing this tongue-in-cheek depiction of a world that once was, or might have been. Of indulging vicariously in a world without wars in the Middle East, without energy, water and food scarcity, without climate shocks and without gaping budget deficits.

The programmeʼs tone has undeniably bled into popular culture; the rounded collars and square pockerchiefs favoured by Zeitgeist have now become very au courant, as everything from clothing to luggage to scotch glasses becomes imbued with a touch of refined minimalist – but robustly masculine – elegance. The fictional lead, Don Draper, was recently voted the most influential man of the year by AskMen, ahead of such luminaries as Obama, Clooney and even the great Roger Federer.

Cultural depictions of men have clearly evolved over the last two decades to a less overtly aggressive portrayal. Are men more comfortable without these fantastical images? Perhaps a new pragmatism has arrived, one where men are willing to accept that moisturising may be as important as teeth brushing, and one where a superhero is not a ripped Arnold Schwarzenegger but rather a weedy, more accessible Tobey Maguire.

*UPDATE: Even Maguire is deemed too much of a man now, as Sony has scrapped plans for Spider-Man 4, instead returning the series to Peter Parker’s high-school days.

TV Evolves Before Our Eyes

From the October Zeitgeist…

As Octavius once said of the Roman Empire, so now says the TV industry and the advertising that supports it: we expand or we die.

In the US, the once niche and piffling cable networks now command a much larger slice of the advertising pie, and in terms of quality, their output speaks volumes; Mad Men, The Sopranos, Sex and the City and Dexter; these same shows are rewarded at the annual gush‐fest that is the Emmy Awards in Los Angeles. In the UK, the BBC is defending attacks on its unique position in the marketplace as a Public Service Broadcaster. It’s licence fee revenues mean it is moving relatively easily through the recession compared to its moribund rivals. ITV is desperately trying to find someone crazy/stupid enough to take control of the network and Channel 4 is angling for a slice of the BBC’s licence fee to help support it’s own PSB commitments. Sky meanwhile, under the stewardship of heir apparent James Murdoch, is resilient. It is having little trouble courting advertisers as the little personal liquidity that exists is sunk into home comforts like HDTV.

The crowded and volatile marketplace in both countries has led to audience fragmentation, but some are convinced there is not yet saturation. Variety wrote recently about the US push to broadcast TV to devices over ad‐supported mobile DTV; creating a “world where travelers waiting in an airport lounge will watch golf live on their laptops, or homemakers who have to dash out… won’t miss the last 10 minutes of Oprah because they can catch the end… on their cell phones”. 70 TV stations will soon be making their broadcasts available to the country’s 270m mobiles, providing another way for advertisers to create more impressions and reach more eyeballs.

Last month, Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw announced the end to the ban of product placement on commercial TV. The ban was somewhat arbitrary since imported US and Euro shows flagrantly display their wares already. The FT believes benefits to broadcasters are “hazy…a lot of the [money] would simply be transfers from traditional spot advertising”; they also might be tightly regulated, discouraging use. Advertisers though are really more fearful of no one watching their product. DVR penetration continues: most people tend to fast‐forward the ads. US networks are now trying to blur the lines even more between entertainment and advert; American Idol now inserts auditions in the middle of ad breaks.

All this risks putting off the consumer, but Brand Republic notes that viewers think product placement will “add a sense of realism” to fictional fare. If done sensibly, that is.