"Get Out of There!"

In honor of the end of the semester, I offer up this video montage, created by Pajiba.com's video editor "hh." I found the theme fitting for an end of year wrap up.  Enjoy!

"What Recession?" Says $40 million in VC Money for Online Video Ads

There are nearly 2 billion internet users worldwide today.  Advertisers have taken note - and media companies selling the ads are raking in the bucks...or, rather, pulling in the dough in hopes of accomplishing said buck raking.

Video ad network, Tremor Media, announced yesterday that it completed a round of funding to the tune of $40 million, bringing it's venture capital total to $82 million since the company was founded in 2006.  (And who said we are in a recession?)

This VC round is also notable since Tremor's primary source of revenue is selling pre-roll spots - those approximately 30-seconds of online video that run before you watch your online video.  Research firms Magna Global and the Internet Advertising Bureau still show search-based advertising - such as the ads that pop-up on Google post-keyword search - hanging onto nearly 50% of the market share, while digital video ads pick up a comparatively tiny 4%.

Does Tremor and its deep-pocket financiers know something we don't?  This apparent confidence in the online video realm suggests they might.  Perhaps they are looking into the not-so-distant future when computers and televisions become synonymous.

Personally, I often find online ads...well, bothersome, and I suspect most consumers would agree.  Nevertheless, it is a solid competitor in the advertising market.  Analysis from the Internet Advertising Bureau, which keeps tabs on the market's trends, shows that Internet advertising revenues in 2009 ranked third, right behind television and newspapers.  According to a recent report from research and advertising firm, Magna Global, online advertising is estimated to generate global revenues of over $59 billion dollars this year, up from a "mere" $6 billion in 2000, and growing to $90 billion by 2015.

Hulu to You...for a Fee

To be free or not to be free, that is the question.   The Internet is all a-buzz these last few days, following breaking news from The LA Times that Hulu will begin implementing a subscription-only portion of the site, dubbed “Hulu Plus,” as early as next month.   

Per the Times, “people with knowledge of the plans” state Hulu, the go-to destination site for viewing television shows online, will begin charging approximately ten dollars per month for access to premium content that goes beyond the most recent five episodes of any given show.  By all accounts, Hulu is staying mum for the moment, but since rumors have been circulating for sometime now, whether the pay-service starts in May or sometime down the road, that it will happen, seems all but certain.

Comment threads, upwards of fifty postings long, are littered with people thanking Hulu for the service, but vowing they will leave if forced to pay:  “I will never use Hulu again if they add a subscription fee,” “I used to love Hulu but if they start charging then I will definitely stop using it,” “Good bye Hulu, I loved you while it lasted,” are just a few, but representative sample, of how many people feel about the news.

But is it so wrong for Hulu to charge?  After all, is there not some value in the content to which Hulu provides access?  Don’t we want more access to more shows on the web?  Shouldn’t the content creators have a right to receive payment for the work they produce, distribute, and own?  Frankly, I don’t see what all the hullaballoo is all about.

“Free” is precisely the reason a vast number of cable productions have opted to keep their content offline:  It’s simply worth too much to give it away for free. Unfortunately, “free” is also what many Hulu fans loved so much about the site that has, since its launch three years ago, relied solely on advertising for revenue.

Hulu users are generally divided into two camps:  those using the service to catch up on a missed show and those who have abandoned cable service altogether, relying on the site as their primary source of entertainment-dosing.  The latter group have generally come to be known as “cord-cutters” – abandoning traditional cable subscriptions in favor of something, well….cheaper.

But good, quality content certainly isn’t cheap – not to make anyway.  So, why should anyone expect to have the “right” to consume it when then want it and where they want it at no additional cost?  The fee is really two-fold:  It puts a price on the convenience and values the content for what it’s worth.

And for those who argue that Hulu’s fee will only drive them to view web content that is free I suspect will soon find that the offerings are far less satisfying.  (If you haven’t taken the time recently to peruse some of the vast, truly “free” content on the web, do.  You’ll find that most of it is not all that good.)  What’s more seem to forget, that only a few years ago, all video content was behind a pay wall:  It was called Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, or (insert the name of your preferred rental service here).

Granted, there are a few caveats to Hulu’s plan.  Among them, how it will differentiate it’s service offerings from, say Netflix, which already has a monthly “streaming included” subscription service of its own, and how it might expand its slate beyond its current offerings.  Regarding the former, Hulu does have a leg up, with its usually next-day release window on television content, while Netflix’s offerings come at more of a lag. 

This latter will be likely be more challenging to overcome.  It will require negotiation and cooperation with the networks and cable content producers that have been previously wary of offering their content for Internet syndication.  However, if Hulu’s successful in that regard, it might truly possess an offering worth paying for.

Phish...in 3D!

April is certainly shaking out to be the month of three-dimension:  sports events here and abroad at the beginning and a Phish concert to round out the end.

If you're a fan of the legendary jam band, your tickets are likely already burning holes in your pockets for the April 30th wide(er) showing...that is, if you weren't among those lucky enough to catch a pre-screening of the film in select theaters last week.

According to a press release on the film, tickets to the April 20th preview screenings sold out in less than an hour.

The taped concert footage, produced by AEG Network Live and Cinedigm (the same company that piped in the Final Four games to cinemas on the 3rd and 5th), has gotten mixed reviews by the advanced showing attendees...and by mixed, I mean, they either liked it or really, regretted losing hours of their lives they will never get back.  Then again, even those not so harshly critical of the production value, were left with a general feeling of ...eh.  "For me the novelty of seeing the band in 3D wore off about halfway through the presentation.  Watching the film never ceased to be enjoyable, but the initial "wow" factor doesn't sustain itself," said one review.

The Wrap's critic was...well...slightly more critical -  Not of the band, of course (every follow-up I read unanimously agreed that the music transcended any and all technical failings) but of the editing.

Just as close up shots and quick movements less than impressed those watching the NCAA games in 3D, so too did such cinematic techniques detract from Phish 3D:   "The camera jumps around so often – a different angle and distance about every 1.5 seconds or less – that your eyes never have enough time to adjust to the changing depths. Even movie rubes like me know you don’t fill a shoestring 3D movie with quick cuts; it throws the eyes into violent oscillations of depth-perception. And it sucks."

It remains to be seen whether a wider-set of movie goers and Phish fans will have the same reaction following the April 30th release.

Conan & Fox, Conan & Fox, Conan & ...TBS?!

Entertainment trades have been reporting since February that Conan is going to Fox:  The Wrap had the prenup, LA Times had sources asserting a "viable plan to bring the comedian back to late night."

But Conan announced that his new late night post will be at...TBS.

I was particularly fond of Video Nuze's take on the surprise move:  It shouldn't be much of a surprise at all, and merely is a sign of the ever-blurring lines between cable and broadcast television...and the deeper pocket's of broadcast's little brother.

"When it comes to bidding for expensive talent like Conan ($12 million/year reportedly) cable is at a big advantage to broadcast.  The recession and ad spending downturn has highlighted the benefits of cable's dual-revenue stream (monthly distributor fees + advertising) model vs. broadcast's ad-only approach."

Video Nuze further offers that the disappearance of "top-tier talent on TV" could be a symptom - and growing one at that - of cord cutting:  The more people move away from traditional television, the more the talent we love will be driven to alternative platforms.

What do you think?  Post your comments below!

The Salary Battle Royale: Moonves vs. Iger

Forty-three million dollars - that's what CBS Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer, Leslie Moonves, earned last year.  A host of reports in the press last week reported that Moonves' total compensation - inclusive of base salary, bonus, and stock options - more than doubled his 2008 earnings.

And who said we're in a down economy?

To put these numbers in perspective, Bob Iger, President and CEO of The Walt Disney Compnay (parent of rival CBS broadcast network, ABC) earned approximately 33% less.

According to proxy statements filed with the SEC, Iger's 2009 compensation summed to $29 million.  The package included a base salary of $2 million plus a $9.3 million performance-based bonus (Moonves commanded $3.5 and $15 million, respectively).  

Not slim pickings by any means, but if I were Iger, I'd insist the next dinner out is on Moonves.

Nevertheless, at a time when we are scrutinizing executive compensations in the financial sector, should we be extending that analysis to other industries....like entertainment?

Post your comments below!

On The Line with Tony Gilroy: The Final Draft

A Writer’s Respite

“It’s kind of musical isn’t it?” Tony Gilroy looks back at me, one hand on the window pane, and cracks a genuine Duchenne smile, his every feature engaged. 

I listen.  He’s right.  It’s gentler than the typical cacophonic din produced by jackhammers and drills.  A melody fills the air, a pitch that slowly rises and falls.   Smiling too, I agree.  What a unique observation.

But it makes sense:  Before “Duplicity,” before the Oscar nomination and Directors’ Guild win for “Michael Clayton,” before writing the “Bourne” series, “Proof of Life,” “The Devil’s Advocate,” “Dolores Claiborne,” and “The Cutting Edge” – Tony Gilroy was a musician.

“I can see a career path where I would have been a very mediocre successful record producer,” he says.

Turning onto a quiet brownstone-lined street on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, I was sure Tony Gilroy’s office was within one of the charming, Triassic Sandstone dwellings.   (Well, would-be quiet save for the construction crew set up mid-block, machinery whirring away.)  But as the numbers tick down to the address I sought what stood before me was a fairly non-descript, flat-front, simple apartment building, not much taller than the brownstones which flanked its either side.

Buzzer only, no doorman. Was it 6F or 6E?  I pause and dig through my always-overstuffed bag for the post-it on which I’d scrawled the unit number.  Neither.  Glad I checked.  

The speaker crackles in the way speakers are wont to do, and a voice, which I suspect belongs to my host, invites me up.  I’m suddenly nervous.  Does he remember me?  As I wait for the elevator, I think about the handful of times we’d met.  Most of them were on the set of “Michael Clayton,” where I’d worked occasionally as a production assistant.  I was so bundled to brave the cold on those days I fear I bore a striking, and not at all flattering, resemblance to the Michelin Man.

Stepping in the elevator, I recall a line from an elegant article in the “New Yorker.”  It was something about Tony Gilroy’s “easy smile.”  Was that it?  Perhaps the line referred to Clive Owen’s character in “Duplicity.”  Either way, the smile that greets me when I reach the sixth floor puts me at ease.  Mostly.  Whether Gilroy remembers meeting me before or not, he doesn’t let on, and we make casual conversation of the sort two old acquaintances might exchange after not seeing each other for a while.

So this is where Tony Gilroy writes.  The space is modest, like its exterior:  A kitchenette to the right; probably a tiny bathroom off that, perhaps another room beyond.  I peek.  Perhaps not. 

It is a classic New York efficiency apartment, complete with aged wood flooring and moldings layered with decades of paint.  It’s low maintenance, sparsely furnished and tidy:  Two straight backed chairs; an unimposing credenza on one side; a few framed photographs, others tacked to a corkboard on the opposite wall; a Vornado 660 fan on the floor; a simple bamboo area rug.  That’s it.  Facing two double-hung windows, a sturdy desk, the dominant fixture in the space, takes center stage.  Atop sits a computer.  A Dell, an HP?  I can’t tell, but it has me transfixed.  It holds the key to the burning question:  What will Tony Gilroy’s next project be?

It’s a question to which no one has the answer.  Perhaps his PC knows, but it’s not telling.  Regardless, one can’t help marvel at the fact that a guy who once had so little affinity for educational pursuits came to craft a career from weaving words into compelling stories.

Tilting back in his chair, balanced precariously on one leg, he recalls playing in bands as early as junior high (which he loved) and being miserable at school (which he hated).  His scholastic shortcomings prompted teachers to offer him an out during his junior year.  “If you’ll shut up and take a couple of extra courses, we’ll graduate you in the spring,” he was told.

By April he was applying to colleges and by fall he was a student at Boston University.  “At the time, if you could pay full freight and you were breathing, they would take you.  So they took me.”  Surprisingly he liked it.  And he was good at it, particularly at writing papers – particularly at making money writing papers for other people.  “My learning curve was quick.”  He smiles again, this one less bright…and infused with a good dose of mischief.

Also quick was his college career:  He dropped out during his second year to follow the music.  From Boston to Los Angeles and back again, Gilroy was making enough of a living, playing guitar in various bands.  Well that, and running a phone scam selling copy toner, “I made a lot of money – selling shit on the phone.”  Another mischievous smile.

But then the joy ride began to wind down.  There was a missed opportunity with a band that had a shot.  There were songwriting deals that began to fall apart.  There were habits developed that were…”of the time.”  “And sort of cataclysmically, the house that I was living in burned to the ground.  I lost everything – literally everything but a guitar.  And my car.”

He was wiped out, he says, “in a lot of different ways.”  The fire was an “epic bit of punctuation.”  So he went home.

Back under the same roof with his father, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Frank D. Gilroy, the junior Gilroy began writing more fiction in earnest.  He was writing, his dad was writing – He pauses to think about what it was like to be back there.  He remembers it felt good.  Yet he knew he couldn’t stay forever and hadn’t a clue how he’d ever get back out.

A temporary solution came when he got a deal to start a band based on some songs he’d written.  “Temporary” because he was facing a dilemma:  He couldn’t pursue both music and writing.  For Gilroy, it had to be either/or.  So he took the job offer to get into New York City, but ultimately decided to quit music – “cold turkey,” he says.  And he never looked back.

Gilroy had been hard at work in the entertainment industry for many years – he wrote screenplays that never got sold, he sold scripts that never got made, and he cringed at some that did get shot, but “fucked up” by those at the helm.  Finally he scored big with the one-two punch that was “Michael Clayton” and “Duplicity.”  Both were critically acclaimed, both boasted the Apollo Creed-Clubber Lang heavyweight Hollywood equivalents of A-list talent, and both films featured Gilroy as not only writer but director as well.

“I very much wanted to go right away (after “Clayton”) because I didn’t want to get into this ‘what are you going to do next situation’… like I’m in now.”

Now, Tony Gilroy spends his days thinking about what he is “going to do next.”  Frankly, so do the many people who worked for him on the previous two films.  Not to add undue stress, it’s a simply a testament to the strong, positive and lasting impression he’s made on his crews. 

I leave him to his work, though every inch wants to stay a moment more.  Just one glimpse…a taste…a hint perhaps?  Alas.