Uh yeah, I think we pretty much covered all of those things. Angela from a little blog called AdRants, John Wall from Marketing Over Coffee and me are on this week’s podcast. Download the show directly here. Topics here. (Subscribe through iTunes here.) You can also follow us on Twitter: TheBeanCast, mtlb, Angela and John.
But wait, there’s more. One topic discussed was online content and Pay Anywhere. At one point I’d mentioned how this is not just something affecting brands, but the actual talent in the shows, the crews and anyone else involved. It was only because of a haphazard link from Justine Bateman on Twitter that I discovered what was going on. (Yeah celebrity whores, Mallory from Family Ties.)
Plus, I’m betting that her name was likely never greeted with such utter silence as it was last night, so I wanted to clarify a little better what I meant. Briefly, she’s been focused on the recently signed SAG agreement and how affects anyone who hires actors—especially online—and especially anyone who’s not A-list.
This means agencies no matter what size will be affected if they plan on doing more content online and have to hire actors. (Explained in greater detail here in this clip.)
The other problem is residuals. As I understand it, the networks want to charge as much as they can for showing/rerunning content online, but, they don’t want the actors getting their normal residual rates.
Imagine paying a photographer or illustrator for their work in print while paying next to nothing if the work was then used online? (No way that ever would happen.)
This relates to that get used to it buzzword: Branded entertainment. The networks see this huge opportunity to create specific content just for brands now and make a killing. The networks also think they’ll control everything with that Pay Everywhere idea.
Well, they may control rebroadcast of their TV shows, but they’ll have zero control over the Don’t Tase Me Bro viral crowd if they try the same approach. Right now, YouTube runs ads before each clip. How long before they do one or the other though? They’re basically saying you can watch content online if you show you paid for it.
Okay, then do away with the ads then. Why should I pay for advertising—again, and why should networks be paid for it—again. So they can make money off both the rerun and the ad in it? No thanks.
And, with more and more people trying to score big with their own YouTube channel shows, they have to rely on either a sponsorship from a major brand or serious traffic in hopes of getting picked up by a network or other distribution channel.
Branded content may be all the rage, but having two different revenue streams will mess things up for both users and producers. Not to mention what do you do with all the amateurs out there working for almost nothing, and working in content that will generate income for everyone but them?
They’re not all going to score a deal with the next Rocketboom.
Tags: The Beancast
No comments:
Post a Comment