Water Cooler

By Leah Hochbaum

More than 1,500 international television buyers descended upon the City of Angels last week for the 43rd annual Los Angeles Screenings, and while they were there primarily for the studios, most managed to make at least some time for independents — who were more than happy to see them. On the average, and despite the difficulties, indies managed to get 30 meetings each. The number isn’t big, but it’s better than staying home with no one to call because all their clients are in L.A.

“The Screenings are always a challenge for the independents,” said Olga Romero, head of Sales for Latin America for Canada-based Cookie Jar Entertainment. “But part of being an indie is rolling with change and making it work to your advantage.”

And make it work she has. Romero cited a slew of Cookie Jar animated series, including Johnny Test, Gerald McBoing Boing and Arthur as stirring up interest in the Latin American market. “For us, this is more of a Latin market,” said Romero. “The Screenings are a great opportunity for us to catch up with the Latin clients we see at NATPE and continue the conversations we started at that point.”

Katherine Kaufman, vice president, Worldwide Sales for PorchLight Entertainment also dealt with a number of Latin clients, but said she sees the Screenings as more of an international affair. “Buyers from all over were in a buying mood,” she said, before adding that despite their eagerness to acquire, “buyers don’t seem to have the time they’ve had in the past [to meet with the independents].”

At the VideoAge International L.A. Screenings breakfast, execs from a number of independents spoke of a collective epiphany that the indies must come together and establish a general screening of their own in which exhibiting companies would be centralized in a single conference room. Ideas as to how this would come about were varied.

Echoing the thoughts of many indies at the breakfast and beyond, Kaufman acknowledged that buyers “are coming to the Screenings because of the studios, so it’s a double-edged sword. They drive the business, so we’re happy to have them.”

Overall, Kaufman found that, “the market moved along at a healthy pace.” She shored up a number of movie package deals with Artear and Venevision. “And we’re working on some U.S. Hispanic deals, which are very exciting,” she said, though she was unable to provide specifics since negotiations are ongoing. Kaufman felt the Screenings were “less rushed” than in previous years, allowing her to “take more clients out to dinner,” and ultimately, close more deals.

Bob Kennedy, executive vice president, Sales for Alfred Haber Distribution, Inc. concurred, saying “The best aspect of the Screenings was its relaxed atmosphere. Buyers don’t have meetings every 20 minutes, so they can take their time and really move things along.”

Of course, it also helped that Kennedy and his Haber colleagues scheduled over 40 meetings with buyers prior to the Screenings “so we didn’t have to rely on walk-in traffic,” he said.

For Haber, like Cookie Jar, the market is very Latin American-centric. The company just licensed its flagship Court TV series Most Shocking to Televisa and Teleamazonas, and has plans to bring the show into both Panama and Colombia, as well.

“The L.A. Screenings just work for us. I don’t really know what I would change,” said Kennedy, before adding, “except maybe I’d close for weekends so we could all golf.”

Posted by watercooler at 01:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Leah Hochbaum

The eighth annual Forum Brasil international TV market, to be held May 30-31 at the Frei Caneca Expo Center in São Paulo, Brazil, will be attended by some of Brazil’s leading networks, including Globo, SBT and Bandeirantes. The event will surely prove once again that Brazil is a most unique — if difficult — region among Latin American broadcasters for outside content providers to sell programs into.

“Brazil is quite different from other territories,” said Sheila Aguirre of FremantleMedia Enterprises, which will not be attending this year’s Forum. “They produce most of their own programming, so distributing content there is more difficult. Because Brazil is such a big market,” continued Aguirre, “the country is quite prolific in producing its own content, but they are open to outside product.”

She pointed out that Fremantle has been successful in Brazil because the country is “very open to product coming out of places other than America.” In fact, Brazil’s Record recently acquired Fremantle’s Naked Science series, as well as animal specials Penguins and Ugly Animals, and controversial political doc 638 Ways to Kill Castro. Brazil-based cable and satellite TV service Globosat bought Fremantle’s The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency and Bandeirantes just acquired two seasons of Mr. Bean: one animated, one live-action.

Flavio Medeiros, senior Sales executive, Latin America, for Granada International, which recently opened an office in Rio de Janeiro to sell content to the Brazilian market and the rest of Latin America, concurred. “Brazil is quite a different market from the rest of Latin America because its free-TV relies on local productions,” said Medeiros. “They do not commission many series from outside their own studios.”

Regardless of this ostensible obstacle, Medeiros feels Granada took a big step forward when it opened its Brazilian office. “Latin America is so big,” he said. “it’s key to have people close to the main markets.”

Medeiros is attending the upcoming Forum Brasil in the hopes of “meeting producers and find out their interests in terms of content.” And while he feels his main goal is networking, he also plans to make time to attend sessions on formats, factual productions and local incentive laws.

Johanna Samuel, director, International Sales for Canada-based CBC, would like to attend some sessions herself, but will probably spend more time helming them. “I will be speaking about the kinds of projects CBC is looking to distribute worldwide, as well as explaining our catalogue, what kind of distribution advances we are able to put up, our sales history, how we work and what works content-wise for us,” said Samuel. “I will also be speaking about our move into multiplatform distribution.” In addition, Samuel will conduct a workshop on pitching wherein she will take two or three case studies and analyze those pitches while also discussing producing for the international marketplace, as well as pitching co-productions with Canada for international distribution.

Samuel feels Forum Brasil is an important market for CBC to attend because “the production and co-production marketplace in Brazil is an exciting place right now,” she said, citing the talent and “great production infrastructure” in the region. “It makes sense for the CBC to explore potential partnerships both in co-productions and in acquisitions of programming.”

Posted by watercooler at 09:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

The April issue of VideoAge touched upon several aspects of Internet Protocol TV, which, among other things, brought to light many misconceptions about IPTV. In many instances during our research, some content providers –– interviewed as experts or called upon to comment on the subject –– would insist on indicating systems of some Web-related operators as IPTV.

Let’s now make it clear that what we define as IPTV is not an audiovisual stream of the type played on a computer.

In addition, strictly speaking, IPTV is not a “walled-garden” system like Verizon’s FiOS in the U.S., where users need to connect set-top boxes (STBs) to their local optical fiber network. FiOS and similar systems are basically cable systems of the “push” type, which, at least in the U.S., require municipalities’ franchises.

IPTV is a “pull” TV platform that competes with cable and satellite, and it’s totally unregulated. In effect, it’s a “cable bypass,” or as explained by a U.S. studio’s executive: “IPTV is just like a normal cable signal that uses Internet protocol. It works just like cable’s linear channels, but the STB uses a different protocol to interpret the signal. It is still closed circuit and only for TV.” Let’s explain it better.

Cable companies have traditionally consumed enormous amounts of bandwidth by sending all TV channels across the cable network at the same time (“push” technology).

Streaming media is usually consumed from a computer. If the computer has audio and video terminals, the streaming can be also be seen on a regular TV set. In this case, though, the video quality decreases with the increased picture size.

In any case, when we talk about streaming video, we refer to it as Internet, and therefore the content is licensed as Internet rights. The same goes for computers’ download systems, even though –– through such devices as the new Apple TV or Microsoft’s Xbox 360 –– programs can be viewed on TV sets.

If, on the other hand, content rights are sold for platforms like Verizon’s FiOS or Free (in France), the license is like any other for cable or satellite rights.

Those platforms are of the “pull” TV types because transport is in the form of a proprietary (or “walled-garden”) broadband system: dish antenna, coaxial cable or optical fiber (be it fiber-to-the-node or fiber-to-home) delivery.

Therefore, the rights for any broadband proprietary (i.e. “walled-garden”) platform are like selling programs to a cable MSO or satellite system that sends (pushes) TV signals as a six MHz channel in North America and seven MHz elsewhere.

On the other hand, when we talk about IPTV, we refer to it as a “pull” TV system that can be connected to any broadband: Wi-Fi (wireless), cable and telephone lines (DSL) anywhere, regardless of the high-speed provider. Up to this point IPTV is similar to the computer’s “streaming” audiovisual system analyzed above, hence the confusion. But this is where the similarity ends. IPTV tends to use compression and streaming of the MPEG-4 and other technological advanced families, and the new generation STB needs speeds of only 500 kbps. But most significantly viewing is done through a regular TV set at a quality comparable to standard-definition digital TV.

It is also important to understand that an IPTV subscriber can take the rented or purchased STB anywhere in the world that has any kind of broadband connection. That is, if an NTSC (30 frame/s) set-top box is purchased while visiting relatives in New York, it can also be utilized in Chile (to receive channels that have not requested “regional blocking”). After all, all payment transactions are done by leaving credit cards on file (including the deposit of the loaned STB), and the conduit for the signals is the Inter-Net.

With this in mind, let’s think of the implications. First to be affected will be satellite TV. After all, why install a cumbersome dish on the roof, when a one kg STB connected to the telephone plug will do? However, satellite operators are the best program aggregators, so what could happen if they exchange their satellite STBs for IPTV boxes? Well, for starters they will become the de facto gatekeepers and, second, IPTV will allow them to increase their penetration (now limited by satellite orbits and city and other restrictions). Perhaps, this is why Telcos –– IPTV’s natural players –– are now looking to acquire satellite TV platforms.

Then, let’s think about the new opportunities for linear channels, which could easily monetize their signals beyond their coverage areas, at an international level, if well prepared.

Finally, there are implications for rights holders who have to adapt to this new technology by licensing language rights, rather than territorial rights, which is not so easy in the case of the Spanish or English-languages.

In conclusion, IPTV is here and growing at lightning speed. Unfortunately, the whole industry needed, but failed, to address it yesterday, focused as it was on money-losing cellular video.

Posted by watercooler at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

Is there a real need for “appointment television,” when technology and new viewers’ behavior have made it obsolete, and, in some cases, even risky? Yes, this kind of television could still make sense for live sporting events, awards shows, series finales and some reality shows with audience participation –– the “can’t miss” type of shows –– but no longer for the rest of programming, including news, and even breaking news.

Naturally, “appointment television” still makes some sense for advertisers, but even there I’m not sure how much sense it actually makes, since it skews toward seniors, who tend to be slower to adopt new technologies. I agree on the need for a “critical mass” factor, but what’s the difference if all of us see the same show at different times?

Not even an argument concerning “demographics” could be used, since soon, these will be replaced by “populations” (small groups), which online marketers are now using.

Broadcasters are now investing an enormous amount of marketing power –– the equivalent of twisting viewers’ arms –– to keep this “appointment television” model.

In effect, TV networks are artificially keeping in place something that is not only becoming obsolete, but also anachronistic. If the industry would, instead, figure out new ways of generating “critical masses,” I’m sure an effective system to deliver spots to them will be found.

Thinking back, appointment television started losing its power with syndication, when one could see a good show either as a repeat or off net. It continued losing steam with VCRs –– even though consumers at large were not even able to change the clocks on their VCRs, so complex were they to program. It accelerated with the introduction of DVRs and TiVo-types (even more complex than VCRs) of devices. It sped up with cable net replays (full nights devoted to the same series with multiple episodes), and spun out of control with digital cable VoD.

Some argue that appointment television comprises shows with watercooler value, but that still doesn’t explain why this is more valuable at 9 p.m. than at 9:30 p.m.Why, for example, must we wait until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. to watch local New York City news. At those times, some of us are tired and sleepy. I’d like to watch local news at 7 p.m. At 9 p.m. I’d prefer to watch the soothing Antiques Road Show and not 24. Plus, in the U.S., Germany’s DW-TV news interferes with BBC World News –– both are on at 6 p.m. Is this the best way to promote the way to consume television, especially considering that technology now allows all of us to really enjoy it?

Television should be a pleasurable experience –– not a rush to beat the clock. It is a reminder of the so-called “blue laws” when, in some parts of the U.S., one had to rush into stores within certain hours to buy beer before the outlet ceased selling it. In Texas, for example, blue laws prohibited selling housewares such as pots, pans, and washing machines on Sundays until 1985.

Why do we have to watch a president Bush infomercial (e.g., the State of the Union address) after dinner? For that sort of thing, some of the public is better prepared in the pre-dinner hours. We don’t need the President to ruin our digestion (“give agita” in the New York parlance).

Today, marketing power is spent to reach consumers in many ways (cellular phones, Internet, print advertising, billboards…) to persuade them to tune in at particular times. Imagine, how many viewers a network loses this way because people are stuck in traffic or taking their mother-in-law’s Chihuahua to the vet!

Plus, when forcing viewers to tune in for “appointment television,” the networks not only have to fight for consumers’ attention, schedules and their limited time availability, but also compete against a dozen or more shows all transmitted at the same time. Wouldn’t it be better if the networks concentrated their energy inducing viewers to watch their shows when it’s convenient?

Networks have to start tackling this question pretty soon, first to work with advertisers in figuring out how best to take advantage of the new way to aggregate audiences and, second, to better compete in the marketplace.

Also to take into consideration is the fact that TV networks, in addition to competing with each other are now going against computers, videogames and social networking, and will soon begin to compete with program aggregators and content providers –– those who will sell programs directly to the public.

Posted by watercooler at 09:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Bruce:

As promised, here is a note listing the 10-point grievances I have with what is now called the International Academy (IA), and was formerly known as the International Council of Television Arts and Sciences.

First of all, thank you for the personal call after my December 20, 2006 letter of resignation, which I’d like to summarize below before moving to the laundry list.

About your question of why I hadn’t called you first, before firing off that letter, suffice it to say that VideoAge’s Day One MIPCOM Daily, last October 9, ran a “2¢” feature addressing some of the problems facing the IA. Even though the feature was widely read and commented upon, no call from the IA was received inquiring, “What was that all about?” as the expression goes. So, it was logical to assume that the IA wasn’t all that interested in my resignation.

As the letter indicated, I’ve been a member of the IA from almost the beginning. Some still remember that, before I could become a member, the then-Council had to seek special approval from its whole board, since its by-laws did not then even contemplate membership from journalists. Apparently, then we weren’t considered part of the industry; just some annoying pests!

However, such was the Council’s prestige in the industry that a journalist would endure humiliation, just to become a part of it. Picture the initiation of college students into the Delta House frat featured in Animal House.

The resignation letter pointed out the services I’ve provided to the Academy (such as directories), and the enormous satisfaction received from its activities.

Then it continued: “For the past few years, the IA has lost its function, mandate and leadership. Its once revered statuette seems no longer appreciated or valued.

“The association is slipping away from the membership and moving into a direction that has nothing to do with its members’ goals. Indeed, there are at least 10 issues that need immediate attention and, if requested, I will be willing to express them in my direct and frank trademark fashion.”

Now, before enumerating the alluded 10 points, it’s important to reiterate what was said during our conversation –– that, when something like this goes first to print without a detailed explanation, it only shows the tip of the iceberg. It also indicates that the dissatisfaction is widespread (as indicated by other resignations) since we, as journalists, reflect what’s out there like a mirror.

The most important issue the IA faces is the loss of prestige once associated with the International Emmys. I don’t recall a recent winner of the prestigious statuette to have bragged about it in a press release or a trade ad. Thus, my suggestions:

IA should subsidize, or at least encourage, the placing of congratulatory ads by winners of the International Emmys (also involving the program distribution company).

The International Emmy Awards ceremony should alternate between New York City and Los Angeles. Also to be considered is a third venue such as NATPE in Las Vegas. This is for several reasons, including facilitating the presence of L.A.-based members.

Those members asked to judge programs should receive a better discount on the Awards ceremony gala. Right now the IA does little for its judges and doesn’t do anything for its members.

IA’s management is too bloated. In the past it operated with an executive director and a part-time assistant. Today, the association has had to increase its fee in order to pay for its large staff. Additionally, in the past, the hiring of its executive director was a membership affair. Today, people are hired and dismissed without members’ involvement.

IA has become too political, allowing politicians to use it as a platform for partisan politics.

There should be a term limit for Board members –– especially for the president and chairman. Plus, once one has served as president or chairman, he/she should not assume the other position.

IA should at least produce a newsletter. It certainly has enough personnel to do it, especially since it was done when it operated as a one-man band!

When IA sets out on a mission, the findings should be shared with its membership, otherwise the mission becomes useless for those associated.

IA should redefine its role and goals.

The membership should be involved in all IA decisions.

There are some others issues to go over, but for now, I’ll limit them to the aforementioned 10. After all, one cannot be too critical at once!

Dom Serafini

Posted by watercooler at 09:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)