[B5JMS] attn. JMS: A TV writing question...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: The Nuclear Marine <Nuke-Marine at cox.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 46

[posted and mailed]

jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in news:20030703021003.19729.00000058
@mb-m28.aol.com:

>>And when B5 went only to one cable station (TNT followed by Sci-Fi)
>>instead of multiple syndicated stations did this not lower the revenue 
>>potential of residuals?  
> 
> Not in the way you mean it, but it would take WAY too long to explain 
the
> details.
> 

Depends on what you implied by my meaning.

I meant that only as the difference between potential and reality.  
Potential would have had B5 only 4 seasons long and maybe syndicated 
scattershot across the countries various TV station.  The reality had it 
being 5 seasons long and continually syndicated since 1998 on an 
individual superstation that is seen by a wider audience.

The critics would latch on to the "potential" revenue lost to actors 
residuals by B5 only having exclusive rights to one station.  The reality 
means B5 has had continual exposure with occasional efforts to add in new 
blood.  This could mean when it is given to the open market, more 
stations will latch onto it for broadcast.

Of course, this was my interpretation of the matter.  The writers and 
actors have a better position to form an opinion on the matter since the 
results affect their livelyhoods.

Reminds me of the joke when when the son asked his dad about the 
difference between potential or reality.

Nuke

-- 
Listen to the Black Atheist Avenger: www.InfidelGuy.com

Atheist Radio on the Internet: www.AtheistNetwork.com

She's dead Jim, but still warm, I'll flip you for her.




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:20:26 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 40

>I meant that only as the difference between potential and reality.  
>Potential would have had B5 only 4 seasons long and maybe syndicated 
>scattershot across the countries various TV station.  The reality had it 
>being 5 seasons long and continually syndicated since 1998 on an 
>individual superstation that is seen by a wider audience.
>
>The critics would latch on to the "potential" revenue lost to actors 
>residuals by B5 only having exclusive rights to one station.  The reality 
>means B5 has had continual exposure with occasional efforts to add in new 
>blood.  This could mean when it is given to the open market, more 
>stations will latch onto it for broadcast.
>
>Of course, this was my interpretation of the matter.  The writers and 
>actors have a better position to form an opinion on the matter since the 
>results affect their livelyhoods.

It doesn't really work that way.

You're paid on the rerun qua rerun, not on the number of stations carrying it. 
WB makes a deal with whomever...a syndicator, a cable network, somebody...and
that organization pays X-dollars per episode for the right to show it for the
length of that contract (usually about 3-5 years).

There's a slightly different residual formula for cable vs. syndication, but
rather than get bogged down in that, let me get to the point.

If an episode runs on a thousand stations or twenty, the residual is the same,
a percentage of the purchase price of the episode.  So the number of stations
really doesn't matter.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)