A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Mergers in Hollywood
In
your opinion, has the recent trend of corporate conglomeration in Hollywood
resulted in an increase or decrease of originality in the content on American
television?
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
As discussed in class, I think there's a give and take on both sides of the argument (don't go there, I'm about to choose a side).
Although one could argue that more channels per network could lead to more voices because they have more slots to fill, I would argue that overall, the corporate conglomeration is limiting originality and voice. If the vast majority of content is being approved by the same small group of people with similar demographics, then they're going to continue to run shows that play it safe and are (what they think) successful representations of American life. If each subnetwork were run by different people, I believe that independent producers would take bigger risks knowing that there might be someone out there who would take on their show.
I see where Daphne is coming from, but I believe the recent trend of corporate conglomeration in Hollywood has increased the originality in the content on American television. As I mentioned in class, corporate conglomeration provides an incredible amount of organization, both an organization of power and an organization of wealth. These corporate conglomerates are mostly run by non-creative people. Since the 1960s, television creativity has mostly been in the hands of independent producers, and this has remained true today. The non-creative heads of these major conglomerates rely on independent producers to create a majority of the content on television. From an independent producer standpoint, the conglomeration makes it easier for them to get their shows made, if they make the cut. An independent producer today only has to shop their film around to a few different networks, because of this conglomeration. They can bring it to NBC/Universal and it has a chance to be show on a variety of different channels, from NBC to Syfy, USA, Bravo and many more. Similarly a show can be taken to FOX and have the opportunity to shown on FOX, FX, FXX and others. If NBC or FOX doesn't see a show fitting on their main network, they can kick it down to the heads of other channels who may have different needs and different ideas about a show. I believe this corporate organization is incredibly valuable to independent producers. Especially since today there are not just the big 4 networks, there are 100s of channels that could host their shows. The variety of channels with different and distinct brands and needs fuels creativity on television, and the conglomeration makes all these diverse channels more easily accessible. Similarly, the conglomeration provides an organization of wealth. Television shows are incredibly expensive, especially the more creative. Creative shows often require expensive technology, sets, costumes, and other costs. The average episode of Game of Thrones costs $6 million dollars, The Walking Dead costs around $3 million an episodes. Multiply that number by anywhere from 10-20 episodes in a seasons, and you have yourself a very expensive endeavor. It is not enough for a television program to be creative. I'm sure there are a million people in Hollywood right now writing incredibly "creative" television plots. But, to be a television show, you have to have people behind you ready to drop millions and millions of dollars. Conglomeration allows for vast amounts of money to be organized in a few different places. This allows executives to give large budgets to these creative projects, allowing them to fully realize their creative potential. I believe without conglomeration and the resulting organization, independent producers would spend more of their time trying to find funding and trying to find who to pitch their projects to, instead of focusing on the development and writing of their show.
I'd say it's increased originality on television. Everyone keeps saying how now is like a golden age for television and personally I think they're not too far off. There's a really good variety of shows that are out there and many are getting recognition. I think part of it is since there's less people to present your show too, you have to do more in order to make it stand out. This means more original programming that will help to set yourself apart from the other shows that each conglomeration already has. And since a lot of channels already have flagship shows, it makes it even more important for people to create new original programming in order to compete. I think it's because of this that we don't have 20 zombie shows on air but instead we only have like two or three.
I believe the landscape of television shows has become much more diverse now than it was five or ten years ago. These conglomerates are able to produce not only higher quality programming, but more original programming. Often, these media conglomerates are able to shift around their monetary resources to different shows, which may lead to being able to take more risks with a wider variety of shows. If a television network debuts three or four new shows one season, one of them may survive more than two seasons, but there’s a good chance that those shows will greatly vary in content and genre. Television shows have a monetary cushion when they’re made by bigger conglomerates whose income doesn’t solely rely on the television shows they produce. In addition, these bigger media conglomerates can seamlessly move programming to their other cable channels if they feel the fit isn’t right for the “big four” networks. Now, a lot of what I knew about media conglomeration before this class comes from my avid watching of 30 Rock, as they often discussed the specifics of working with NBC, GE, Universal, and the Sheinhardt Wig Company. There was an entire episode based around product placement, where Alex Baldwin’s character tried to convince Liz Lemon to write a sketch solely based on a new GE product. Now, I’m sure that doesn’t happen super often, but product integration inside of a company has to come into play at some point. In addition, these monetary cushions allow shows to be given a second chance if their first seasons aren’t stellar. Take three of the biggest recent NBC comedies: 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, and The Office. All three of these shows had pretty low ratings during their first season, and most of the stars and writers of these shows mention in their memoirs that they thought they’d be cancelled pretty quickly. Tina Fey even mentions her fellow showrunner Robert Carlock didn’t unpack for the entire first season. Yet, by the end of the first season of 30 Rock, they won the Emmy for best comedy, which helped them gain even more viewers in the following seasons. But these shows weren’t immediately taken off the air due to lower ratings, though they might’ve been had they not have been produced as part of the NBC/Universal media conglomerate.
I agree with Lexie about the increase in originality and the organized wealth. I think that the conglomerations take care of a lot of the work and funding that writers and producers would otherwise have to do. I definitely think that the work on TV today is higher quality than in previous years, it is just the idea that all of the media we see is controlled and owned by so few people is a little bit frightening. I think things are fine right now, but if people are allowed to only subscribe to a few channels then voices will really be silenced.
I think that it is true that we've seen an increase in original content and that more conglomerate mergers are taking place, but i don't think one necessarily results from the other. In fact I think it's competition that makes for better and more original content. The more small independent networks are forced to look for niche markets which results in content in styles that we've never seen before. If there are only a few parent companies that own every channel then the risk of dying off as a network decreases. The threat of dying off promotes new ideas and more risks being taken.
I agree with Joey's point that competition increases the push for more original content in the television landscape, for broadcast networks and streaming services alike. However, big media conglomerate mergers decrease competition when they do occur. This wasn't as much the case when Comcast took over NBCUniversal, since Comcast didn't produce much programming beforehand, but it would have been true back in 2014 when Time Warner and Fox were negotiating merging. Fox and Time Warner are direct competitors in the film and TV industry, so if they did actually merge, competition would have been severely impacted. They would also have produced around 40 percent of scripted broadcast television, which is close to half of what audiences take in. The merger would have given so much power of what people see on TV to much fewer executives at those companies.
From my perspective, it seems that media conglomeration hasn't directly increased originality in television in terms of a "point A to point B" process. Rather, it's a combination of causes and effects that has allowed this to happen. In the post-network world, I think that independent producers and smaller channels were already producing original programming in efforts to stay alive and stand out from the Big Three/Four networks. But now with parent companies owning more and more niche channels that target specific audiences, it seems that unique programming is not increasing; it simply is becoming more visible and accessible to wider audiences who are subscribed to these bigger parent companies and networks. It's similar to what Alexa said above—the ability for independent producers to only have to direct their shows to a single influential source and have it be eventually filtered down the line and then (hopefully) broadcast on smaller channels seems to be one of the greater forces that is pushing unique content to the forefront. It's not that the amount of original content is increasing, but rather it is simply becoming more accessible and more visible to audiences.
I think I have to agree with Lexie on this one. Though its seems kind of counter to what you would expect, I think consolidation of media conglomerates actually does increase the diversity of content on television. Just to tack on to what Lexie said, conglomerates are active, but highly disciplined, business portfolio managers more than anything else. So when it comes to television, they only make acquisitions for shows when it makes sense in terms of beating out their competitors, and they don’t hesitate to get away from shows that disadvantage them against there competitors or are a bad fit because of poor reception by audiences (or any other reason for that matter). General Electric is the classic example. I remember watching a documentary about GE in the 1980s, where they divested hundreds of operations that had poor prospects for achieving the company’s goal of being number one or number two in its various industries. So the idea that conglomerate heads won't hesitate to pull shows definitely makes it a friendlier place for new content, as mentioned by others, the conglomerates are happy to pick up new shows (from independent producers or others) and use them in whatever slot they need or on what ever channel needs new programs. And because television is very much so at the mercy of the producer, content is again more readily diversified, given that the heads of various conglomerations are rarely if ever involved in the creative process.
While I do agree that we are witnessing a golden age of television, the increase in ownership conglomeration has not contributed to the increase in originality of content on American television. As I learned about in Comm 2, there are six major conglomerates in the United States: Time Warner, Walt Disney, CBS, Viacom, 21st Century Fox and CBS. Six organizations are responsible for the majority of content on our televisions. While there is a possibility that the production side of things have become more efficient, showrunners and writers are ultimately trying to appeal to the likes and dislikes of a few individuals. People who run these conglomerates are typically white, male and heterosexual; they will have a natural tendency to choose programming that they can relate to and reflects the world that they live in. As a result, shows featuring minorities might be pushed aside to make room for yet another show with primarily white actors. If a show with primarily minority characters is made, there is a chance that the characters will be reduced to racial or gendered stereotypes instead of taking the time to develop well-written and complex characters. Due to the financial payoff, media conglomerates may be more willing to take risks, but I think that is not a common occurrence and only happens when the network is faltering. When we decrease the amount of perspectives, it is difficult to create diverse content.
I agree with many of my classmates in that the recent trend of corporate conglomerates in Hollywood has actually increased originality in American television. It has been referred to as the Golden Age in television and I definitely agree. We are seeing much more diverse shows now than ever before, addresses new issues and targeting new demographics with new content. With the amount of money and resources these corporate conglomerates now have, they have more outlets in terms of acquiring new content for shows. I think that corporate conglomerates have increased competition for content which then increases the quality of original content being produced.
I agree with many others who have said that these corporate conglomerates in Hollywood has increased originality. I think that in doing so, there has been an increased amount of diversity in types of shows and there has been also the creation of many more niche television stations. This allows for them to target new demographics and, like Mercedes said, address new issues. But I also think that having these niche stations give room for this diversity in shows. If some original content is pitched to one station but the executives think that it will fit the demographics of another niche station more, the show will still get produced, hence, creating the increase in original content we have all seen and noticed.
I do not think that corporate conglomerates are producing more original content. Like Daphne said earlier, when corporation merge all that means is the same people are signing off on shows or the same people are creating shows for each network that are all similar. Like Joey and Ryan, I do think that the original content we are seeing is coming from the corporations that are falling and need some great idea to save themselves, this fear of folding is what is pushing the original content from the smaller corporations. With niche networks we are able to get the original content that is new and fresh and draw in so it becomes a hit show,
14 comments:
As discussed in class, I think there's a give and take on both sides of the argument (don't go there, I'm about to choose a side).
Although one could argue that more channels per network could lead to more voices because they have more slots to fill, I would argue that overall, the corporate conglomeration is limiting originality and voice. If the vast majority of content is being approved by the same small group of people with similar demographics, then they're going to continue to run shows that play it safe and are (what they think) successful representations of American life. If each subnetwork were run by different people, I believe that independent producers would take bigger risks knowing that there might be someone out there who would take on their show.
I see where Daphne is coming from, but I believe the recent trend of corporate conglomeration in Hollywood has increased the originality in the content on American television. As I mentioned in class, corporate conglomeration provides an incredible amount of organization, both an organization of power and an organization of wealth. These corporate conglomerates are mostly run by non-creative people. Since the 1960s, television creativity has mostly been in the hands of independent producers, and this has remained true today. The non-creative heads of these major conglomerates rely on independent producers to create a majority of the content on television. From an independent producer standpoint, the conglomeration makes it easier for them to get their shows made, if they make the cut. An independent producer today only has to shop their film around to a few different networks, because of this conglomeration. They can bring it to NBC/Universal and it has a chance to be show on a variety of different channels, from NBC to Syfy, USA, Bravo and many more. Similarly a show can be taken to FOX and have the opportunity to shown on FOX, FX, FXX and others. If NBC or FOX doesn't see a show fitting on their main network, they can kick it down to the heads of other channels who may have different needs and different ideas about a show. I believe this corporate organization is incredibly valuable to independent producers. Especially since today there are not just the big 4 networks, there are 100s of channels that could host their shows. The variety of channels with different and distinct brands and needs fuels creativity on television, and the conglomeration makes all these diverse channels more easily accessible. Similarly, the conglomeration provides an organization of wealth. Television shows are incredibly expensive, especially the more creative. Creative shows often require expensive technology, sets, costumes, and other costs. The average episode of Game of Thrones costs $6 million dollars, The Walking Dead costs around $3 million an episodes. Multiply that number by anywhere from 10-20 episodes in a seasons, and you have yourself a very expensive endeavor. It is not enough for a television program to be creative. I'm sure there are a million people in Hollywood right now writing incredibly "creative" television plots. But, to be a television show, you have to have people behind you ready to drop millions and millions of dollars. Conglomeration allows for vast amounts of money to be organized in a few different places. This allows executives to give large budgets to these creative projects, allowing them to fully realize their creative potential. I believe without conglomeration and the resulting organization, independent producers would spend more of their time trying to find funding and trying to find who to pitch their projects to, instead of focusing on the development and writing of their show.
I'd say it's increased originality on television. Everyone keeps saying how now is like a golden age for television and personally I think they're not too far off. There's a really good variety of shows that are out there and many are getting recognition. I think part of it is since there's less people to present your show too, you have to do more in order to make it stand out. This means more original programming that will help to set yourself apart from the other shows that each conglomeration already has. And since a lot of channels already have flagship shows, it makes it even more important for people to create new original programming in order to compete. I think it's because of this that we don't have 20 zombie shows on air but instead we only have like two or three.
I believe the landscape of television shows has become much more diverse now than it was five or ten years ago. These conglomerates are able to produce not only higher quality programming, but more original programming. Often, these media conglomerates are able to shift around their monetary resources to different shows, which may lead to being able to take more risks with a wider variety of shows. If a television network debuts three or four new shows one season, one of them may survive more than two seasons, but there’s a good chance that those shows will greatly vary in content and genre. Television shows have a monetary cushion when they’re made by bigger conglomerates whose income doesn’t solely rely on the television shows they produce. In addition, these bigger media conglomerates can seamlessly move programming to their other cable channels if they feel the fit isn’t right for the “big four” networks.
Now, a lot of what I knew about media conglomeration before this class comes from my avid watching of 30 Rock, as they often discussed the specifics of working with NBC, GE, Universal, and the Sheinhardt Wig Company. There was an entire episode based around product placement, where Alex Baldwin’s character tried to convince Liz Lemon to write a sketch solely based on a new GE product. Now, I’m sure that doesn’t happen super often, but product integration inside of a company has to come into play at some point. In addition, these monetary cushions allow shows to be given a second chance if their first seasons aren’t stellar. Take three of the biggest recent NBC comedies: 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, and The Office. All three of these shows had pretty low ratings during their first season, and most of the stars and writers of these shows mention in their memoirs that they thought they’d be cancelled pretty quickly. Tina Fey even mentions her fellow showrunner Robert Carlock didn’t unpack for the entire first season. Yet, by the end of the first season of 30 Rock, they won the Emmy for best comedy, which helped them gain even more viewers in the following seasons. But these shows weren’t immediately taken off the air due to lower ratings, though they might’ve been had they not have been produced as part of the NBC/Universal media conglomerate.
I agree with Lexie about the increase in originality and the organized wealth. I think that the conglomerations take care of a lot of the work and funding that writers and producers would otherwise have to do. I definitely think that the work on TV today is higher quality than in previous years, it is just the idea that all of the media we see is controlled and owned by so few people is a little bit frightening. I think things are fine right now, but if people are allowed to only subscribe to a few channels then voices will really be silenced.
I think that it is true that we've seen an increase in original content and that more conglomerate mergers are taking place, but i don't think one necessarily results from the other. In fact I think it's competition that makes for better and more original content. The more small independent networks are forced to look for niche markets which results in content in styles that we've never seen before. If there are only a few parent companies that own every channel then the risk of dying off as a network decreases. The threat of dying off promotes new ideas and more risks being taken.
I agree with Joey's point that competition increases the push for more original content in the television landscape, for broadcast networks and streaming services alike. However, big media conglomerate mergers decrease competition when they do occur. This wasn't as much the case when Comcast took over NBCUniversal, since Comcast didn't produce much programming beforehand, but it would have been true back in 2014 when Time Warner and Fox were negotiating merging. Fox and Time Warner are direct competitors in the film and TV industry, so if they did actually merge, competition would have been severely impacted. They would also have produced around 40 percent of scripted broadcast television, which is close to half of what audiences take in. The merger would have given so much power of what people see on TV to much fewer executives at those companies.
From my perspective, it seems that media conglomeration hasn't directly increased originality in television in terms of a "point A to point B" process. Rather, it's a combination of causes and effects that has allowed this to happen. In the post-network world, I think that independent producers and smaller channels were already producing original programming in efforts to stay alive and stand out from the Big Three/Four networks. But now with parent companies owning more and more niche channels that target specific audiences, it seems that unique programming is not increasing; it simply is becoming more visible and accessible to wider audiences who are subscribed to these bigger parent companies and networks. It's similar to what Alexa said above—the ability for independent producers to only have to direct their shows to a single influential source and have it be eventually filtered down the line and then (hopefully) broadcast on smaller channels seems to be one of the greater forces that is pushing unique content to the forefront. It's not that the amount of original content is increasing, but rather it is simply becoming more accessible and more visible to audiences.
I think I have to agree with Lexie on this one. Though its seems kind of counter to what you would expect, I think consolidation of media conglomerates actually does increase the diversity of content on television. Just to tack on to what Lexie said, conglomerates are active, but highly disciplined, business portfolio managers more than anything else. So when it comes to television, they only make acquisitions for shows when it makes sense in terms of beating out their competitors, and they don’t hesitate to get away from shows that disadvantage them against there competitors or are a bad fit because of poor reception by audiences (or any other reason for that matter). General Electric is the classic example. I remember watching a documentary about GE in the 1980s, where they divested hundreds of operations that had poor prospects for achieving the company’s goal of being number one or number two in its various industries. So the idea that conglomerate heads won't hesitate to pull shows definitely makes it a friendlier place for new content, as mentioned by others, the conglomerates are happy to pick up new shows (from independent producers or others) and use them in whatever slot they need or on what ever channel needs new programs. And because television is very much so at the mercy of the producer, content is again more readily diversified, given that the heads of various conglomerations are rarely if ever involved in the creative process.
While I do agree that we are witnessing a golden age of television, the increase in ownership conglomeration has not contributed to the increase in originality of content on American television. As I learned about in Comm 2, there are six major conglomerates in the United States: Time Warner, Walt Disney, CBS, Viacom, 21st Century Fox and CBS. Six organizations are responsible for the majority of content on our televisions. While there is a possibility that the production side of things have become more efficient, showrunners and writers are ultimately trying to appeal to the likes and dislikes of a few individuals. People who run these conglomerates are typically white, male and heterosexual; they will have a natural tendency to choose programming that they can relate to and reflects the world that they live in. As a result, shows featuring minorities might be pushed aside to make room for yet another show with primarily white actors. If a show with primarily minority characters is made, there is a chance that the characters will be reduced to racial or gendered stereotypes instead of taking the time to develop well-written and complex characters. Due to the financial payoff, media conglomerates may be more willing to take risks, but I think that is not a common occurrence and only happens when the network is faltering. When we decrease the amount of perspectives, it is difficult to create diverse content.
I agree with many of my classmates in that the recent trend of corporate conglomerates in Hollywood has actually increased originality in American television. It has been referred to as the Golden Age in television and I definitely agree. We are seeing much more diverse shows now than ever before, addresses new issues and targeting new demographics with new content. With the amount of money and resources these corporate conglomerates now have, they have more outlets in terms of acquiring new content for shows. I think that corporate conglomerates have increased competition for content which then increases the quality of original content being produced.
I agree with many others who have said that these corporate conglomerates in Hollywood has increased originality. I think that in doing so, there has been an increased amount of diversity in types of shows and there has been also the creation of many more niche television stations. This allows for them to target new demographics and, like Mercedes said, address new issues. But I also think that having these niche stations give room for this diversity in shows. If some original content is pitched to one station but the executives think that it will fit the demographics of another niche station more, the show will still get produced, hence, creating the increase in original content we have all seen and noticed.
I do not think that corporate conglomerates are producing more original content. Like Daphne said earlier, when corporation merge all that means is the same people are signing off on shows or the same people are creating shows for each network that are all similar. Like Joey and Ryan, I do think that the original content we are seeing is coming from the corporations that are falling and need some great idea to save themselves, this fear of folding is what is pushing the original content from the smaller corporations. With niche networks we are able to get the original content that is new and fresh and draw in so it becomes a hit show,
Post a Comment