[B5JMS] JMS: Questions abour Sci-Fi channel

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Mac Breck" <macbreck at access995.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:52:23 GMT
Lines: 74

"Jms at B5" <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909173249.07001.00003870 at mb-mv.aol.com...
> I don't think the Farscape situation much impacts my stuff with SFC one
way or
> another.  I suspect there were a number of factors, including the cost of
the
> show (which was the highest on the network, from what I've heard, but
that's
> second-hand and may not be accurate) combined with the fact that SFC (via
their
> parent company USA Networks) didn't own the show.
>
> Lemme splain....
>
> If a network owns the show they air, they can reap long-term profits from
> syndication of the program.  More and more, USA Network (and other cable
> outlets) is under pressure to own what they produce, otherwise they're
paying
> huge sums of money to produce shows that they air a few times, then the
money
> goes to the studio that did the actual production.  The higher the cost,
the
> iffier the proposition.

So shouldn't the studio that owns a show be giving Sci-Fi a better deal to
offset that, and get a studio's show on the air?  That way, everybody can
win.


> So that may have been an issue here.  They needed Farscape to help build
their
> audience, but now that this seems to be coming together for them, the
logical
> (for a network) thing would be to start paring away what they don't own,
and
> which is costly, to replace it with their own stuff.

Makes sense if what they own is any good.


> One of the things you can never allow yourself to forget is that TV is a
> business designed around making a profit, and determining who owns what
> long-term revenue streams.
>
> Doesn't affect Polaris one way or another, since if that goes, it would be
> under the aegis of the network.

Owned at least partially by Sci-Fi - USA - Vivendi Universal?


Mac Breck
------------------------
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/  http://www.scifi.com/brimstone/
http://www.b5tv.com/
http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/
http://www.usanetwork.com/series/thedeadzone/


"Nothing much good on TV tonight anyway." (Captain Gideon, Babylon 5
Crusade - The Memory of War)

>
>  jms
>
> (jmsatb5 at aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
>
>
>
>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 09 Sep 2002 23:37:12 GMT
Lines: 38

>So shouldn't the studio that owns a show be giving Sci-Fi a better deal to
>offset that, and get a studio's show on the air?  That way, everybody can
>win.

That's the logical thing, but logic and show business rarely dine at the same
table.

Most studios would rather own 100% of nothing than 50% of something.  That
sounds outrageous, but it's all a part of that all-or-nothing profit thing that
they ALL have going.  And they're all in competition with one another.  

This came into play on the Rangers situation, where WB was reluctant to let SFC
own a part of the show, since SFC is owned by Universal Vivendi, and WB is in
competition with Universal.

So it's a real balancing act.  If Rangers had gotten a higher rating (had it
not been killed on the East Coast by the biggest football playoff in the last
decade), even though it was owned by WB, they would almost certainly have
committed to a series, since that rating would balance out not owning the
show...on the flip side, had Rangers been owned by SFC/Universal, and gotten
the same rating that it actually got, they would've been able to say "Okay, let
it grow, because we own it and we're willing to take the risk and we're losing
less money in license fees since we're paying them to ourselves in any event
and we can get the merchandising revenues," which only the studio gets.

Studio logic is kind of like looking at the gorgon...too close and you're
turned to stone.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)