Blog WordSpark

HOLLYWOOD SPEC MARKET IN THE TANK

Well, this is depressing, but not all together unexpected.  The following info comes off Nikki Finke's excellent Industry blog (www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com), but is compiled by Jason Scoggins, a lit agent, who keeps track of the state of the spec market. 

You know what they say, "baby, it's cold out there..."

• 436 spec scripts came out in 2009, of which 72 sold (17%).

• 373 specs went out wide in 2009, of which 19 sold (5%). Of those 19, only 3 sold after April 30th, out of 178 attempts during the period (1.7%).

• As for spec sals by genre, comedies led with 32% of sales, thrillers 29%, action adventures 21%, while dramas and sci-fi/fantasies tied with 10%.

• Universal and Warner Bros bought the most specs among the major buyers (6 each). But Warner Bros bought only 1 spec script in the second half of the year. Paramount & Sony tied with 5 each not counting ony's Screen Gems which bought another 3. DreamWorks had 4. 20th Century Fox had 3, but adding all its three banners, Fox bought 6 specs. Lionsgate purchased 3. New Line didn’t buy any specs in 2009.

• Relativity and Intrepid bought the most specs among the other buyers (3 each).

• In the spec market scrum among agencies, CAA made 14 spec script sales out of 34 attempts, or 41%), followed by UTA's 10 sales out of 30 attempts, or 33%, and ICM's 10 sales out of 33 attempts, or 30%. WME didn’t form until May 2009, but when you take the numbers for all three of its component companies -- Endeavor, William Morris, and WME -- the combined agency would have been a dominant #1 in total scripts sold, with 18 sales out of 47 attempts, or 38%)

• Benderspink among management companies had the most spec sales (5 sales out of 11 attempts, or 45%). Kaplan/Perrone had 4 sales out of 12 attempts, or 33%. Principato-Young made 3 sales out of 8 attempts, or 38%, while Circle Of Confusion did 3 sales out of 15 attempts, or 20%.

Scoggins also found several interesting patterns:
1. The wide spec basically died on April 30, 2009. For the first four months of 2009, 8.2% of the specs that went wide to the town ended up selling (16 out of 195). Not a great percentage, but probably to be expected, all things considered. From May through the end of the year, however, sales of wide specs fell off a cliff: 3 out of 178 wide specs sold during that period, or 1.7%.

2. Somewhat surprisingly, specs sold consistently throughout the year on a percentage basis. The Spring selling season is roughly twice as long as the Fall season: this year, there were 21 weeks in the Spring (from the end of Sundance to theweek before Independence Day) versus 10 weeks in the Fall (from the week after Labor Day to the week before Thanksgiving). So all things being equal, there should have been twice as many scripts and sales in the first half of the year versus the second. But not everything was equal in the latter part of 2009: there was significant studio head turnover, plus three studios put a moratorium on development spending. Spring sales were front-loaded into the first four months of the period (41 out of the 50 sales for the first half of the year), yet roughly the same percentage of scripts on the market sold in the first half of the year (16.7%) as the second (16.2%).

HANDICAPPING THE 2009/2010 NETWORK SEASON: FOLLOW UP

Now that we're 6 weeks into the new season and sweeps are upon us, I thought I'd do a follow up to see how my predictions for the new season were holding up.

TODAY's, Follow Up, BEST NEW SHOWS.

By my count, I had 4 hits, 1 BIG MISS.  See what you think.

ABC: Modern Family.  HIT.  Bona Fide winner.  Already has a full-season order.  Averages about 9.33 million viewers to this point, with an important 3.7/9 in the a18-49.  More importantly, about 30% tune in JUST for this show (outgrowth 34% from the previous show). This will be Emmy material come next nomination time.

CBS: The Good Wife. HIT. Full season order.  Critically acclaimed.  Well-written, pulling in about 13.5 million viewers a week.  Last two weeks,  beat Dancing With The Stars and is winning the timeslot. Guaranteed Emmy Nom for Julianna Marguiles.

CW: The Vampire Diaries. HIT. Full season order.  Solid performer each week.  It's A18-49 demo is a 2.0/6 and is tied for 45th (of all shows on the air).  For a little network show, that's huge.  For comparison, Melrose Place,  is 85th.

FOX: Glee: HIT (fox style).  Full season order and a DVD out for the holiday's.  It's already had the cover of Entertainment Weekly.  The ratings are underwhelming - just 3.3 on average, meaning, only about 3 million people watch.  It does slightly better with women of the 18-49.  But still, these numbers would be a loser on any big network, but on Fox, Glee, a critical fav, can float on by giving the netlet some pop culture buzz. 

NBC: The Jay Leno Show. BIG MISS.  I still think that given time, this idea might perk up, but so far, so bad.  The only show it's beating is Eastwick. ABC is benifiting greatly from the no competition in the 10pm hour.  On Thursday night, Private Practice's A18-49 numbers are up a stunning 47%.  Not only is TJLS destroying most of NBC's other shows, it's destroying network affiliate news numbers. 

 

 

 

 

HANDICAPPING THE 2009/2010 NETWORK SEASON, SURPRISES

 

One of my favorites developments in every new TV season is the SLEEPER HIT SURPRISE that for all the money, big name stars and faux media fawning by jounalist stenographers  -- Networks simply cannot buy.  Some shows just strike an honest chord with the audience and are rewarded with loyalty, despite a lack of advertising, faith or good scheduling by a parent co.   

Trying to predict these under the radar, little-shows-that-could is probably asking for a pie in the face, but nonetheless, I will try, because I have blog and I can.  So, my SURPRISES for 2009/2010 are:

ABC: Hank.  Kelsey Grammar plays a big wig, CEO on the downward spiral - in other words, a man humbled by these leaner times and trying to figure himself and his family out.  This half-hour, multi-camera, family based sitcom tees up the ABC comedy lineup on Wednesday.  I predict surprise status because Kelsey Grammar is a fantastic, likeable snob (Frasier).  His writers are smart - not condescending as so many sitcoms are - and, I believe most of America will be thrilled to find a decent, family sitcom on at 8pm.  It will be a star at ABC for delivering an audience all the way up to Cougar  Town, where  unless Cougar Town vastly improves, this group'll click out.

CBS: Medium. What a fantastically, smart pick up by CBS.  Medium aired for the last 3 seasons at NBC and was a marginal hit - in part because nobody is watching NBC anymore and they seem to have lost any real ability to market a good product.  When NBC let this show go, CBS wisely picked it up and plopped it down in the middle of their women-friendly, character-based, Friday-night-at-home-with-the-kids lineup.  Monster good move.  I predict ratings for all CBS's Friday night shows to tick up, with Medium essentially anchoring the audience to the net at the difficult 9pm hour.

CW: One Tree Hill.  Not a new show, but one that seemingly will be in production long after life ceases to exist on earth.  I mean, really... it's the energizer bunny of the CW.  The surprise is, I think, the ratings for this aging show will go up this year and deliver an audience of note to sophomore series, Gossip Girl.  Mondays will be the one rare good night for the CW this season.

FOX: American Idol.  They're hoping a new cycle will tick up, especially with Ellen coming on to judge.  Ellen, really?  You think she plays well with your teeny girl demos for Idol?  I don't.  Idol is getting lost in the fifty other X-factor, America's Got Talent, SYTYCD, etc shows.  Fox's juggernaut will slow noticeably down this year.

NBC: The Jay Leno Show.  By this point, if you have read my other posts, you know I'm a fan of Jay's and the idea of this show at 10pm.  Right now his ratings suck because viewers are out sampling all the new, delightful pickings.  But once they taste some, if not all, and realize they are less than advertised, where are they going to go...? To Uncle Jay.  Like an old, worn, stained sweater, the guy is cozy, easy-going, feel-good.  When the fall ratings stabilize, I predict Jay will be sitting just fine and might find a night or two where he's actually quite competitive. 

And there you have my fall TV predictions.  Check back from time to time as I cop to what I got right and what I got wrong!  Thanks for playing.

HANDICAPPING THE NETWORK 2009/2010 TV SEASON, BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS

I'm doing two posts today, to get the negative out of the way.  This is my second.  I don't delight in the notion of The Big Fail, I'm just calling them as I see them.

My previous posts were : BEST NEW SHOWS and SURE TO FAIL shows for this season.  As always, just my opinion...  and I always like the hear from the two people who are reading my blog!  So comment away if you have the inkling.

Okay, so this post is: BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS. 

And let's admit it, whenever you create something, or are part of the team that creates something, your heart is in it, at least a little, sometimes you're all in.  And for sure, in some shows, more than others.  Even Network TV presidents have hearts.  Really.  Somewhere.  So this list is the saddest I'll make, it's about hope not able to overcome cold, hard reality... and that is surely not what this dreamer business is about. 

The nominees for the BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS for the 2009/2010 Network Television Season are:

ABC: Flash Forward. ABC is hoping for a cult hit to replace the aging and on the way out, Lost franchise - the kind of show that builds legions of fans.  Here's the gist: A mysterious global event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously experience, for two minutes and seventeen seconds, his or her life six months in the future.  And then the whole show is about an FBI guy trying to figure out WTF happened.  Oh and there's a nifty world database called the Mosaic something or other. And people wonder, will that stuff I saw really happen?  It just leaves me wondering, how tedious this franchise will be.   Did ABC really place this show in Ugly Betty's berth?  And weirder still, they placed this before Grey's Anatomy -- as if the Sci-Fi geeks will give a crap about Meredith's self-revelatory thought of the day.  Watch for The Vampire Diaries on the CW and Bones on FOX to reap the reward of a non-competitive timeslot and for Grey's to take a ratings hit this year.  This show was originally developed for HBO - which seems a better place for this convulated mess.   Is it too much to ask for a good show that I don't need to join a cult to understand?  You just know this thing will be a big fave at Comic Con.  Which means ratings disaster. 

CBS: Nothing.  CBS has a GREAT SCHEDULE.  These people are pros.  They know how to develop, how to put stuff on the schedule to maximize audience flow and to counter program.  I know, I wrote Three Rivers was going down.  But I bet they know that show isn't all that and so, when it pitters away quietly, there will be no heartbreak... just a head shake, knowing they tried.  But the few, new, big shows that the net is counting on: NCIS- LA and The Good Wife will be solid. 

CW: MELROSE PLACE. The hope here is to revitalize the CW brand by essentially trying to copy what worked on the WB - ten years ago.  But the world moves on, even if the scriptors of this dreck don't -- Could the characters in this new version be any more cliched?  One more set of spoiled kids trying to make it big in the glam world of Hollywood (note to showrunners, America hates this set up).  Could the cheesy murder angle of the pilot be anymore lame?  For you non writers - that's a crutch to toss in a murder in the pilot of what should be a character based show.  The need for that makes it clear, you really don't care about the characters at all.  I was a BIG FAN of the Original MP, but this dog is gonna be one more body that drowns in that courtyard pool (which must hold a record for the most TV deaths in any one set).  And to think, they just signed Heather Locklear to ride on in and save this dying beast.  Run, Amanda, run on back to D&D and hide under your desk.  I hope they paid you a fortune with a show guarantee for your return (of course they did).   I hated this pilot...  CW, get your midseasons ready!

FOX: Glee.  Glee was also my BEST NEW SHOW for Fox.  But as I wrote in that post, I think overall, it's mediocre.  I love the singing aspect of it.  But not enough to go back and watch each week.  And I for sure don't care about any of the characters.  I don't think it will break out beyond the hipster media and a niche of Dawson's like tweeners that are already there for So You Think You Can Dance.  And therein lies the disappointment.  I think they were looking for a broad hit that would bring people to FOX. 

NBC: THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE.  What a travesty for this once-great network.  It's as if they have given up on the notion they can ever be great again.  Breaks my TV-loving heart. 

Previous Posts: BEST NEW SHOWS, SURE TO FAIL

NEXT POST: GREAT SURPRISES

 

HANDICAPPING THE 2009/2010 NETWORK TV SEASON, SURE TO FAIL

In yesterday's post, I listed BEST NEW SHOWS for each network.  I'm pleased to say that ABC's Modern Family, my pick to be their sure-thing breakout, scored HUGE Neilson rating numbers last night.  People sampled big.  Which proves my theory, the decline in network television viewership isn't that people aren't watching network TV anymore - they leave because the shows are mostly mediocre...but they come back when quality and broad appeal is there.  If the big 3 and little 2 (Fox & CW) want to stay in the game, they must produce shows with mainstream America appeal.  Networks, other than the CW, cannot exist on niche shows alone.  

Which brings us to today's list:  SURE TO FAIL

The SURE TO FAIL are those head-scratchers.  The shows you hear about and think - what idiot okayed that?  Oh, maybe that's snarky.  But some shows really never stand a chance.  My list of this year's nominees for SURE TO FAIL are:

ABC: Eastwick.  A TV show remake of a not-so-great movie from 1987.  Really?  Really?  My guess is, somewhere in the ABC empire, they owned the rights to this and thought, hey, let's waste 8 million dollars.  The show that aired was dreadful.  I walked off midway and never thought once, gee, I wonder what happened next.  The writing was poor, the story cliched and the stench of Desperate Housewives all over that project.  I think they even shot most of the pilot on the Universal lot - the same location Housewives shoots many of their scenes.  It will probably eek out its order.  But look for this to be off air by November sweeps.

CBS: Three Rivers.  A show about doctors poaching organs from dead people?  Really?  So you come home from a hard day at work and you want to watch a show about death winning - every time?  How do your lead characters ever win in that franchise?  Oh, and you've cast as your lead a guy who last season was a Vampire?  Isn't he still in this show, just a little bit?  His little throng of vampire-loving teeny-boppers are not going to dig a show about organ stealing.  Too much sad here.  No matter the story you write, there will always be a little bit of ICK FACTOR.  And I know the people on this show - they are fantastic writers and yet -- off the air by November sweeps. 

CW: The Beautiful Life.  Hey, so the totally up-in-flames tv shows Models Inc. and Central Park West weren't good indicators that the only TV show franchises that audiences hate more than watching about spoiled Hollywood folks, are shows about spoiled model folks.  Aston Kutcher is the Executive Producer, so my bet is, it will play out its order (don't want to offend AK), but -- the ratings will be dismal, even by CW standards - which is to say, it could rate almost zero and still be, according the overworked and brilliant PR Dept at the CW - a demo hit!

FOX: NOTHING.  Fox knows its audience and programs well.  They don't even have many new shows - because most of their slate works well for them.   I will say that I think Brothers will either fail huge or be hilarious.  But it's not a SURE TO FAIL by any stretch.  I applaud Fox for knowing its brand and audience.

NBC: Trauma.  Oh, another crash and burn, run to the smashed up car and crank out those jaws-o-life medical show.  Yawn.  Wow, so you took one scene from ER and decided to just do it over and over again, week after week?  No dearth of creative ideas there.  Hey, Is Trauma the same as Mercy?   No, but -- Trauma does looks like any number of lame TV shows from the 80's.  Really, NBC, this is the best you got for fall? And you put this weakster after Heroes, where there will be NO AUDIENCE FLOW?  CBS's ratings for Two and Half Men should be HUGE against this.  Somebody at NBC should be fired.  Oh wait, Benster was.  Nuff said.  Bye bye in 6 airings.

UPDATE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 @ 8pm: THE BEAUTIFUL LIFE CANCELED

CW announces after just 2 airings, it shut down production today.  TBL first aired Sepember 16th at Wednesday at 9 PM. Only 1.4M saw the first outing, and only 1M the second.  I'm amazed they didn't hang in there more for the AK association.  Maybe they threw him another pilot commitment to make it all better.  Like I said, America never goes for model shows. 

LAST POST: BEST NEW SHOWS of 2009/2010 SEASON

NEXT POST: BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS of 2009/2010 SEASON

 

 

 

HANDICAPPING THE 2009/2010 NETWORK TV SEASON: BEST NEW SHOWS

I have always found the business side of network television to be fascinating, marveling at those who actually believe you can, by sheer force of a personal stamp, create, control and schedule creative genius.  You can't, of course.  Success in network TV, IMO, is a witches brew concocted by Bewitched's Kooky Aunt Clara.  Even with all the right ingredients, you never really know what you are going to get.  Best you can do is go along with existing trends, make educated guesses and hope that the show you okayed a multi-million dollar ad campaign for, is actually the one you should back.  What works, what doesn't, what bombs, what succeeds -- you don't really know until you roll them out.  Which is why the Fall season is so much darn fun. 

So in the best tradition of Johnny Carson's "Karnak the Magnificent", for the rest of this week, I'm am going to lay down my predictions 2009/2010 network television throw-down.

Today, starting out with the positive: BEST NEW SHOW for each network.  And the predicted winners are:

ABC: Modern Family.  Great cast. Great behind the scenes talent.  Terrific slot Wednesday at 9pm.  ABC will rock comedy this year and this will be their signature show.

CBS: The Good Wife. Great cast (always a key element).  Strong franchise.  Great fit with CBS's brand of procedural shows, yet, a slight, new direction (courtroom).  Plus, haven't we all wondered about the wife standing next to the cheating politician?  Perfectly scheduled with absolutely ZERO real competition.

CW: The Vampire Diaries.  Vampires are in.  They're cute and this is created by Kevin Williamson (Dawson's Creek).  Based on a popular book series, this show perfectly suits the CW's brand and the net's "supernatural" Thursday line up.  With little competition for the key demos, it's a winner.

FOX: Glee.   Glee actually premiered last spring and just got a "back 9" order (rest of the season).  It's generally fun, .  The music is okay  And, Jane Lynch, as always, is freaking hilarious in every role she touches.  However, I don't love it - it's mediocre.  The characters in the pilot were bland, the singing not that impressive and the lead character's story not at all compelling, but it is, nonetheless, by far Fox's best "new" show.  Which I think does not bode well for Fox.

NBC: The Jay Leno Show. Seriously.  I'm sure I will get killed in the cool circles for saying this.  And as a writer of scripted one-hours, I should wish death on this unscripted concept - but I don't.  I don't like Jeff Zucker (the guy who runs NBC) but, I admire him for trying a different business model.  And I believe there is a place for this at 10pm.  Monday night is a great example: Castle, CSI MIAMI (why does David Caruso whisper all the time!?) or Jay...?  I might just land and stay on Leno and relax.  It's late.  Let my mind rest.  Jay is funny, easy going, you like him.  And he's cheap (compared to scripted fare).

My opinion is just that.  What's yours?  If you've got one and are itching to get it out, comment it up! 

Be sure to check back for:

THURSDAY'S BLOG: SURE TO FAIL & BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS of the 2009/2010 Television Schedule.

FRIDAY'S BLOG: BIGGEST SURPRISES of the 2009/2010 Network Television Schedule.   

The Michigan Example: Government Can't Create Jobs

There's a lot of talk lately about the government investing in business, or running business and many voices are for this -- and many voices are against this.  I fall into the latter category.  I think dynamic individualism and a gob of hard, consistent work is what makes for job growth.  Where government can help, frankly, is by getting out of the way - less taxes, less regulation.  Below is an article from the Wall Street Journal detailing the failure of billions (with a B) in government subsidies to create anything but a meager set of jobs:

A central belief in Washington and most state capitals nowadays is that government should "invest" in certain businesses—"clean tech," say, or manufacturing—to drive job creation. We hope it all turns out better than it has in Michigan.

For the past 14 years, Lansing politicians have offered $3.3 billion in tax credits through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and spent another $1.6 billion in outlays to create and retain jobs. The subsidies have ranged from tax breaks for Hollywood, to money for new industrial plants, to millions for TV ads starring Jeff Daniels and Tim Allen talking about business and tourism in the state.

It's one of the largest experiments in smokestack chasing in American history, but one thing it hasn't done is create jobs. An exhaustive new 100-page study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank, has reviewed where all the money has gone and what came of it. The study finds that for every 100 jobs that were promised with these tax credits over 14 years, only 29 arrived. Dare we call this cash for clunkers?

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE, CLICK HERE:

OFF TOPIC: TAKE THE RED PILL, MR. PRESIDENT

While this blog is not supposed to be political, every once and awhile, something hits the blogosphere that just cracks me up and I'd like to share with my readers.  Today, it's a column by David Freddoso, a Commentary staff writer for The Washington Examiner -- concerning President Obama's press conference on Health Care.  While his linking the presser to the movie the Matrix is hilarious, the point of the column is actually quite important -- and I agree, take the red pill, Mr. President, please.

So, onto today's featured column:

"If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?" -- President Obama

In last night's press conference, President Obama seemed to be reliving that famous scene from The Matrix. The main character is offered a choice between a red pill that makes him see reality for what it is, and a blue pill that allows him to continue living in a pleasant world of illusions.

Last night, President Obama appeared to have taken the blue pill before his press conference. How else could he convince himself, the Congressional Budget Office's numbers notwithstanding, that his health care reform bill will not increase both health care costs and the federal deficit? How else can he continue to make the argument that a massive expansion of government spending on health care will solve rather than exacerbate the current problems? How can he repeatedly express such absolute certainty that such a measure will easily pay for itself several times over in the long run? Why can he not at least acknowledge the possibility that it will become a costly and useless trillion-dollar boondoggle that follows in the footsteps of his stimulus package?

With his example of the red and blue pills, and another about whether a child's hypothetical tonsils should be removed, President Obama unwittingly presents the real problem with his plan for reform. Here is a well-meaning government official who so fails to grasp the problem in health care that he can present such absurd oversimplifications and suggest that this sort of thing is the real problem -- doctors simply lack the common sense to make obvious medical decisions. President Obama wants us to solve this problem by putting himself and other government officials in charge of rescuing medicine from the medical profession. If medical doctors with a decade of schooling cannot distinguish between good cures and ineffective ones that must be discontinued, then by gosh, we're lucky that the good folks from the government can.

TO READ MORE, CLICK HERE

 

ADWEEK's - ADBATTLE

The clever folks at Adweek have come up with a fun way to get you to watch ads and enjoy it! 

They are running a weekly online competition called ADBATTLE, where they pit two similar ads, such as this week's battle for Apple's phone service vs. AT&T's.

You watch, you vote.  After you vote, a tally comes up telling you how the current vote stands.  At the end of the week, they declare a "Battle Winner."

It helps that they are highlighting industry-cool ads that you will actually enjoy watching.

Bonus, once you vote, you get an additional online challenge of sinking a basketball - that could increase your vote count - or nullify it entirely.  I missed, so my vote wasn't counted... C'est la vie.

In general, I'm a big fan of Mediaweek and all its associated properties -- Adweek, Brandweek, The Programming Insider (Marc Berman's terrific morning TV wrap up).  For anybody interested in the world of TV, marketing and advertising, these are all must-read publications -- at least, must-visit-on-the-web-frequently destinations.

 

 

ADDITIONAL DETAILS - IMDb CAN SUCK IT

 

UPDATE: 9:30PM.  Apparently after a day of uproar, IMDb has put the writer's credit back where it belongs, at the top of the listing.  Geesh. They can still suck it for thinking nobody would notice.  But I do appreciate that the crazies over at IMDb seemed to be overruled by somebody with some sense of decency.

I learned today that the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb) has decided that writers - you know, the ones that write -- say the script, the dialogue, the action sequences - well, they are just "additional details" to the movie making process and their credits have been moved from the top of the citation to now appear BELOW THE CREW LISTINGS -- below extras, below PA's, below people who simply xeroxed the script.  I understand this change is for the free IMDB searches and that they remain "above the line" in pro searches.  Oh, wow.  Thanks.  I feel so much better.  Not really.

As a writer, I'm stunned.  What an insult.  We writers, even those of phenomenal talents, are continually treated like something on a bottom of a shoe in Hollywood - and that's on a good day.  I honestly do not know why we accept this and yet, I'm at a loss for any action plan to combat this disgracerful treatment other than to say: IMDB, you can suck it. 

When it comes time for anybody to buy  into IMDb pro, I say put your money into STUDIO SYSTEM, a far better, more accurate database -- the one that actually the studio peeps rely on. 

IMDBb may you die a slow, money-bleed of an internet death real fast.  And please, anybody who supports creative rights, boycott the site.

 

Graphic Courtesy: www.DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com