TV on Life Support…
In 1994 I owned a company called VNI, Video News International.
One of the things that we did was to produce television shows for cable, and one of the shows we produced was called Trauma, Life in the ER.
It was one of the first reality shows, and I got the idea from a magazine piece I read by NPR’s Scott Simon.
It was a big success for TLC and for us. So big that the show went on for years.
That was then.
Yesterday, I read on Cynopsis that my ex-wife and former best friend (who ran off together to form True Entertainment (let’s not get into that)), are pitching…yes, Trauma, Life in the ER for BET.
OK.
16 years later and retreading the same old idea.
Well, they are not alone. A great deal of television is the same old, same old over and over and over again.
It is any wonder it’s called an idiot box?
But, there is a reason for this. The sheer cost of producing a TV show, the risk involved if it fails, drives both production companies and broadcasters to a realm of safety. Thus if we see one hit, ie, Survivor, we immediately see a dozen iterations of the same concept. The same holds true in movies. How else does one account for The Flintsones: the movie?
Yesterday we talked about the almost unbelievable number of videos that have been mounted on Youtube in the past 3 years – more than 120 million, and most of them produced for little or no cost.
Yes, the vast majority of them are sheer garbage. So what?
Suddenly, almost overnight, the cost and difficulty of producing video has been reduced to next to nothing.
In that circumstance, there are those who will now say that as a result, the product must be worth nothing.
Wrong.
This is one of those exquisite moments when the basic rules of economics get turned on their head by new technologies.
Before the telephone was invented, value was in rarity. If you owned something no one else did, it was of great value. The more people owned it, the less it was worth.
The phone changed all that. If you own the only phone in the world, what is it worth?
The answer is – nothing. Whom are you going to call?
Ironically, with phones, the more common the ownership, the more valuable each phone is.
The same holds true for Blackberries. When I was at The BBC, they gave Blackberries only to senior managers and no one else. It was a status symbol. The problem of course, was that the Blackberries were almost totally worthless. The managers couldn’t use them to text their staffs – only other managers, and only to say, ‘hey, I have a Blackberry!’. Like phones, the more people who have Blackberries the more valuable they are.
Now this inverted economy is coming to video.
It used to be that ‘creativity’ was vested in the production companies. They would sequester themselves for hours and hours and come up with some ‘really creative ideas’ for new TV shows. Like, Real Housewives of Atlanta… or Real Housewives of Detroit.. or Real Housewives of Cleveland. Hey, I’ve got one… Real Housewives of St. Louis.
The ‘creative’ thing was something ‘special’, give only to the select few.
The result of this ‘valuation’ of ‘creativity’? Just turn on your TV. Trauma, Life in the ER – The Remake.
Now, suddenly, Youtube and it’s ilk have reduced the perceived value of the ‘creative’ process to zero. Any idiot with a video camera can make a TV show. Anyone.
So there is no longer anything so ‘special’ about having a ‘production company’. My 13-year old nephew has one under his bed. He makes stuff all the time. He recently made one about a shrimp that came to life during a Japanese dinner. It wore my glasses.
Is 99% of the stuff on Youtube pure garbage? Could be. And even if that is the case, then that leaves only 1.2 million videos that are not.
1.2 million new ideas in video, all provided for free.
Surely, buried amongst those 1.2 million are a few ideas that are far better and more interesting than what is on TV now… or rather, what was on TV 16 years ago.
Interestingly, as the value of the individual videos becomes worthless, the value of the aggregate becomes, well, invaluable.
4 Comments
Rachelle September 30, 2009
I think you’d be surprised at what kind of audiences YouTube is gathering. A friend of mine as two sons, ages 4 and 6, and ALL they watch is homemade lego movies on YouTube. They have AppleTV and search YouTube everyday for new Lego movies. They even make their own. And every time they visit us in the Orlando area they have to stop at LegoLand at Disney to pick up another $150 lego building set.
I think marketers need to be paying a lot more attention to product placement and YouTube videos. It’s what kids are watching. Either at home or on their parents iPhone.
They don’t watch cartoons, no Nickelodeon, no cable … just YouTube. Some are really well done. Some are crap. But these kids love them all!
Here’s one I actually liked …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkyeFA8bPeU&feature=youtube_gdata
Michael Rosenblum September 10, 2009
Hi Kevin
I don’t think they’re going to get an audience on Youtube, but it’s an indicator of how much potential there is. I think you have to look at Youtube as a no risk/no cost farm team. Cable and networks still garner the numbers to make the advertising worthwhile. What they are lacking is the creativity. You’ll never make a dime on Youtube. It isn’t built for that. But it’s a great place to test out new ideas at no risk. I only wish the cables and nets spent more time scouring Youtube for the talent that is buried there and less with the same old production companies.
Kevin September 10, 2009
I understand what you are saying. It is a great test bed. I’m just tired of seeing all of the viral crap. It’s sometimes worse than watching really bad reality shows. Granted, there a some very nice vids on youtube and some very talented people. It would be nice if there was a way you could easily get to them. And most people don’t have the financial wherewithal to pay the premium to get featured.
Thanks for your answer, always appreciate the insight.
Kevin September 09, 2009
Okay Michael,
I’m confused???
Youtube is an outlet for people to post stuff to the internet, which will probably never be seen by anyone other than friends or family; and is also an outlet for Hollywood trailers.
I’ve been hanging on your every word (published and email) for almost 2 years now. You have produced quality Television for years, your concepts are revolutionary (and I’m not saying this to kiss up, because I’m betting my business on it).
After going to the TC Academy in L.A. the only thing I wanted to do was pick up my camera and shoot. I got some good stuff and a lot of bad stuff. I made a bunch of mistakes, which I’m continuing to learn from, but… …I’ve learned to step back and look at the whole picture. Is it quality photography? Is it something that I would want to watch? Who is the audience it is directed too? Does it tell a story? I missed what your lesson was saying.
So in one respect, I think you are right, the 120 Million videos on youtube could be invaluable. But in the other respect if no one watches, they are unvaluable. I think the value of youtube is gone, so the value of the videos is also gone.
People want to be entertained, people want to be informed. The need for video journalism, good story telling is as old as mankind, and the basics will never change. I think there is a battle to be waged to overcome old thinking in the area of story telling. New ideas and means of expressing and marketing those ideas have to be explored.
I have one of the most vocal cats on the planet. Do I want to make a video of her meowing her head off.. NO. I don’t want to make better home movies, I want to make a difference. I only hope that someday my vision, my product stands the test.
So if the un-educated quality video producing minority who upload to youtube and provide value for free… …can they continue to do so? They would be idiots if they did. People will continue to watch the idiot box, Web 3.0 will bring huge changes in personal entertainment experiences. The need for real quality will continue. And it won’t be on youtube.