CHAT AT SCIFI TONIGHT

drakh · Oct 12, 2001

One more thing - those with WebTV should be able to participate by following the link at the bottom of this page and selecting the auditorium.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited October 11, 2001).]

The One Who Was · Oct 12, 2001

Thanks for the tip, I'll be there....

------------------
"Faith Manages"

drakh · Oct 12, 2001

BTW - Alyson... Would you mind expanding on your question (that Mr. Vitale seemed to dance almost completly around)? Do you know what's been causing this drop in ad revenues? Are studies proving TV comercials overrated, or is just faith in ads down in general after the "Targeted Web Ads" fiasco?

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

**DONOTDELETE** · Oct 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by drakh:
BTW - Alyson... Would you mind expanding on your question (that Mr. Vitale seemed to dance almost completly around)? Do you know what's been causing this drop in ad revenues? Are studies proving TV comercials overrated, or is just faith in ads down in general after the "Targeted Web Ads" fiasco?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He danced around much of my question although he did provide some interesting information. I will need to provide him with less weasel space in the future. Next time I need to give you all business questions to ask in follow up and we'll get far more insight from Thomas. Is anyone else curious, too, what the questions were submitted that he wasn't asked by the moderator?

It wasn't the ad revenue part that provided the "wow" I'm sure. The question I asked is typical of the questions he deals with on a day to day basis. They tend not to be found on chats, I suspect.

I digress from answering your question. What's causing the drop in revenues? I don't need Thomas to answer that. Easy. We are in a recession and have been (at least informally) since the beginning of this year. Like other industries, the Networks benefited from the high-tech boom. When it busted in January, 2001, advertising was an early-indicator. There are fewer companies and they all have less money to spend. It has nothing to do with efficacy.

The bottom line result for all the Networks is that they have significantly less advertising dollars this year then they hoped, based on FY2001 projections.

I'm not sure if it was clear to you but your question about efficacy wasn't the question I asked him. I assumed (correctly) that he knew the answer to your question as a starting point for my question.

Best,
Alyson

------------------

crazybillyo · Oct 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> We are in a recession and have been (at least informally) since the beginning of this year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a common mistake. We aren't in a recession, nor have we been in a recession this past year. A recession is 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline. Granted, we aren't growing as fast these days, and this reduction in GDP growth has been going on for about 2 years now, but the US still has GDP growth, meaning we're still in a long expansionary period.

------------------
Sheridan: Are you trying to cheer me up?
Ivanova: No sir, wouldn't dream of it.
Sheridan: Good, I hate being cheered up. It's depressing.
Ivanova: So in that case we're all going to die horrible, painful, lingering deaths.
Sheridan: Thank you, I feel so much better now.

taichidave · Oct 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crazybillyo:
This is a common mistake. We aren't in a recession, nor have we been in a recession this past year. A recession is 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline. Granted, we aren't growing as fast these days, and this reduction in GDP growth has been going on for about 2 years now, but the US still has GDP growth, meaning we're still in a long expansionary period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Context is everything.

Compared with the years of explosive growth, it only feels like a recession.

If we'd been in a recession, the economic climate right now would feel great.

------------------
"We are all Kosh."

drakh · Oct 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ala:
He danced around much of my question although he did provide some interesting information. I will need to provide him with less weasel space in the future. Next time I need to give you all business questions to ask in follow up and we'll get far more insight from Thomas.

That'd be fun... Although aren't companies generally reluctant to give out more business details than they have to in order to keep the competition in the dark?

Is anyone else curious, too, what the questions were submitted that he wasn't asked by the moderator?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At least the questions seemed to be wholly decided by the moderator, given that Vitale needed time to think about a few of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It wasn't the ad revenue part that provided the "wow" I'm sure. The question I asked is typical of the questions he deals with on a day to day basis. They tend not to be found on chats, I suspect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure he expected the chat to be with silly fanboys who have yet to grasp that their favourite show is dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We are in a recession and have been (at least informally) since the beginning of this year. Like other industries, the Networks benefited from the high-tech boom. When it busted in January, 2001, advertising was an early-indicator. There are fewer companies and they all have less money to spend.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahh... What I was worried about was that if this reduction was a warning sign that something bigger was afoot in the TV biz... That something was collapsing and we'd end up with the equivalent of the post-crash web where the amount and quality of content has been drastically reduced and while ad placement has become much more agressive (especially since we're already seeing signs of the latter).

I am glad that was not the case (I suppose it was silly of me to think about it at all... TV has been a solid industry for a long time - a far cry from the half a decade old dotcoms.)

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

Click to expand...

**DONOTDELETE** · Oct 13, 2001

Alyson said
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The actual statement about Rangers, after noting earlier that SCI-FI were deciding the new acquisitions now and waxing positively about lots of other shows was:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it does really well there is a chance it could go to series.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This means that Sci-Fi decides on its new acquisitions in October. Does this imply that the decision to make the Rangers series will not be made until October 2002? This will have a big effect on the actors.

Alternatively, does Sci-Fi make these decisions twice a year? Which would imply April.

If the go-ahead came in April, when would filming start?

------------------
Andrew Swallow

sassy · Oct 13, 2001

It goes back to the neilson ratings..

People are paid, about 3 dollars to fill in this book and send it in.

ok..now, how do they pick who to send it to? I think it is a random thing..

BUT the thing is, is that YOU could watch Rangers..but UNLESS you are one of those people with a book..it doesn't mean anything!

------------------
24 hours in a day, 24 cans of beer in a case~~~coincidence????

drakh · Oct 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndrewSwallow:
This means that Sci-Fi decides on its new acquisitions in October.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you're referring to the issue that kept them from continuing Crusade in 1999, that was because they locked down their budget in the fall, and while they allocated out all their money in advance that year, there's nothing that says they have to do the same this year.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

**DONOTDELETE** · Oct 14, 2001

I was refering to Alyson's posting. I had assumed that she was talking about the chat and the new 2002 programs.

------------------
Andrew Swallow

Joseph DeMartino · Oct 14, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is a common mistake. We aren't in a recession, nor have we been in a recession this past year. A recession is 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm sure that's why Alyson said "at least informally." She knew that we aren't technically in a recession. But it sure feels like it to a lot of folks, myself included. (I've been out of work since last November. I went back to school from January to June, but was intermittently looking, especially as the end of the course rolled around. I've been actively looking for work for four months and I just took a job for less than half of what I was getting that is almost 60 miles away because I needed something.)

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job." (Of course he added, "And a recovery is when Mr. Carter loses his job."

)

Actually there are different kinds of recessions based on various indicators. An economy-wide recession is indeed two consecutive quarters of GDP decline. (Which we're likely to have by year's end, since the third quarter was awful.) But you can also have a sector recession based on two quarters of negative trends in a number of areas: employment recessions, sector or industry recessions, geographic recessions.

The economy has been on a generally downward trajectory since at least the fourth quarter of 2000, and things have been getting worse all year. Even prior to September 11th things didn't look rosy. Now they're looking extra grim, especiall in the TV biz. All the networks, but especially the all-news channels, collectively lost a lot of money during the wall-to-wall coverage immediately following the attacks.

Advertising was hit not only by the internet bubble bursting (a lot fewer companies with products and services to tout all of a sudden) by a weakening in other sectors of the economy, which meant business across the board advertised less. The magazine industy was also hit hard for the same reasons. Newspapers lost millions by cutting ad space in favor of terrorist attack coverage, and now they're finding fewer takers as well. Some publications aren't going to survive the current troubles.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

**DONOTDELETE** · Oct 15, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by drakh:
Originally posted by ala:
Next time I need to give you all business questions to ask in follow up and we'll get far more insight from Thomas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That'd be fun... Although aren't companies generally reluctant to give out more business details than they have to in order to keep the competition in the dark? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<Grumble of aside: How come we can't do embedded quotes?>

It rather depends on the question. Sometimes items are not particularly a secret or a competitive advantage. Sometimes you want folks to know some of your business strategy because the strategy is to have them know certain kinds of information (e.g, SCI-FI isn't just for boys/men any more).

Folks often ask on this Board and elsewhere questions about how the business works but when it comes to the chats where you have the opportunity to ask someone in the business, the same questions aren't asked. For example, next time why didn't someone ask Thomas to describe the timing of SCI-FI's new acquisition cycle? It seems rather like a basic piece of information you'd need to understand the process.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm sure he expected the chat to be with silly fanboys who have yet to grasp that their favourite show is dead.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And which show might have fanboys with that problem? <g>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ahh... What I was worried about was that if this reduction was a warning sign that something bigger was afoot in the TV biz... That something was collapsing and we'd end up with the equivalent of the post-crash web where the amount and quality of content has been drastically reduced and while ad placement has become much more agressive (especially since we're already seeing signs of the latter).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What leads you to believe that quality and quantity of content would not be affected by decreased budgets? We know this is happening. This was a part of my question that Thomas did not address.

Best,
Alyson

------------------

[This message has been edited by ala (edited October 14, 2001).]

drakh · Oct 15, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ala:
And which show might have fanboys with that problem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What did you think all the smileys were for? I'm not completly above poking fun at myself, y'know (even if I am an evil alien

.)

(Though personally, I've put Crusade "on hold" for now until we see how Rangers does.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What leads you to believe that quality and quantity of content would not be affected by decreased budgets?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was afraid of a big colapse... I didn't say that I thought the whole thing would go unnoticed.

(Although, I suppose we might see more the UPN situation, where the networks parent company is keeping it alive even when it's operation at a loss.)
(Scifi also has a lot of foreign co-financing deals to reduce their stake. I supose the fact that WB isn't too keen on that makes Rangers less atractive to SciFi.)

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

**DONOTDELETE** · Oct 15, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
(Although, I suppose we might see more the UPN situation, where the networks parent company is keeping it alive even when it's operation at a loss.)
(Scifi also has a lot of foreign co-financing deals to reduce their stake. I supose the fact that WB isn't too keen on that makes Rangers less atractive to SciFi.)
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may be confusing the players in the process of producing TV programs. SCI-FI makes its money from advertising. Part of the cost of making its money is the licencing fees for new or stripped product. SCI-FI does not co-finance any TV programs.

Studios USA is owned by SCI-FI's parent company, USA Networks (which, also, owns Home Shopping Network and Ticketmaster, among other companies). Studios USA provides both production and distribution as a competitor to Warners. If you've heard of shows like Law and Order or The Agency, you are familiar with their work.

Studios USA sometimes use foreign co-financing deals to reduce their costs and profits. It's a common technique these days and far from exclusively used by Studios USA.

The only thing interesting about co-financing to a Network is that it might cause a distributor to decrease it is licensing fee to that Network. In the end, Networks want to pay as little as possible for product. Distributors want to get as much as possible for a product as quickly as possible. Distributors used to run all first-run shows at a loss and figure that they would make their profits in reruns. This works well when the show in question is JAG or Law and Order. It can be a problem if your stripped show does not have legs, like B5. In general, arc-based shows do not do as well when stripped. These days, distributors want to get more money during first-run and then get the stripped profits. Hence, co-financing, re-broadcasting on other networks, etc.

The picture is a bit murky because Studios USA and SCI-FI actually act like sisters rather than the competitive fiefdoms that often plague other companies which are owned by mega-companies.

In the end, all the Networks have less money in their coffers for FY2002 than they anticipated. The smaller the Network, the more original programming you do, the more you notice.

Best,
Alyson

------------------

drakh · Oct 16, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ala:
I think you may be confusing the players in the process of producing TV programs. SCI-FI makes its money from advertising. Part of the cost of making its money is the licencing fees for new or stripped product. SCI-FI does not co-finance any TV programs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You sure about that? Because IIRC, co-finance was the exact word Mr. Vitale used in the chat with regards to Stargate season 6. Also jms has said that SciFi likes to own parts of their shows. And even if those two were missusing terms, there are a few shows where there seems like there is no studio involved... With Lexx season 4 for example, I've gotten the impression that SciFi paid the production company directly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The only thing interesting about co-financing to a Network is that it might cause a distributor to decrease it is licensing fee to that Network.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh? Doesn't it also lessen the exclusitivity of their product? For example, I know that European TV networks are often forced by their distributors to delay the airing of a new season with as much as 6 months to a year after the US premiere. I can't think of any sane reason for the distributors to want this, so I figure it has to come from the US outlet. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the end, all the Networks have less money in their coffers for FY2002 than they anticipated. The smaller the Network, the more original programming you do, the more you notice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, we better hope Rangers does better than expected, then

.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

Quagmire · Oct 16, 2001

Scifi is one of the financers of Farscape.

------------------
"Yeah, we could start our own game where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing's the way it seems."-Homer

drakh · Oct 16, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ala:
It can be a problem if your stripped show does not have legs, like B5. In general, arc-based shows do not do as well when stripped. These days, distributors want to get more money during first-run and then get the stripped profits. Hence, co-financing, re-broadcasting on other networks, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing I just thought of... JoeD has been mentioning how studios are warming up to the idea of selling series on DVD. There's a new aditional source of income, and it seems likely that arc based shows will do exeptionally well there. If it's enough to make WB willing to take a lesser licence fee however...

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

CHAT AT SCIFI TONIGHT

Regular

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Moderator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Regular

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE