Water Cooler

By Dom Serafini

Regularly, like tax collection, the question of public TV funding returns to stimulate the volatile minds of politicians, TV executives, journalists and academics. This time it was French president Nicolas Sarkozy who fired the first salvo, when he announced in January that he wanted to Sarkozy-ize France’s public television by banning advertising on its programming.

Italy followed suit with a proposal from the political left (now the Parliament’s minority party) to privatize at least one of RAI’s TV channels. This would effectively be the equivalent of castrating the public TV sector in Italy. These seemingly out-of-character proposals are actually a staple of the left if one remembers that it was late socialist president Francois Mitterrand who was responsible for the privatization of France’s TF1.

Last, but not least, it was the BBC’s turn in April, when British media regulator, OFCOM, began pondering whether the U.K.’s public broadcaster should share its annual license fees with commercial TV outlets such as ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

In reality, OFCOM began looking at the question of whether or not Channel 4 (C4) should get some of the BBC license fee because of C4’s “public service remit.” However, the license fee is set by Parliament, so if OFCOM finally decides that C4 should get some of this money, it would have to be approved by Parliament. Although entirely commercially self-funded, C4 is ultimately publicly owned and was established with a remit of public service obligations, which it must fulfill.

Now, I’ve always considered the BBC a bit extravagant — represented as it was by 130 of their executives at markets such as MIPCOM, versus just 24 from U.S. studios such as Buena Vista — but nevertheless an important element in the fabric of British society. Plus, last October, the BBC announced that it was shedding 2,500 jobs and selling its London headquarters, thus showing lots of financial goodwill and discipline.

On the topic of the future of public broadcasting, some acute observations came from SkyB’s Mike Darcey who argued that:

* The commercial television model, which is wholly funded by advertising, is drawn towards bland, middle-of-the-road programming.

* People consume less BBC programming, so they should reduce the license fee they pay.

* On the other hand, viewers like to pay for subscription television because it is directly accountable to them. If they don’t like it, they’ll cancel it.

All true, I’d say, except that one has to make a distinction between subscription television — which is the basic service that includes a large number of channels — and pay-TV, intended as a premium service. While viewers tend to like to pay for their channel bundling services, pay-TV channels tend to have a high churn. Plus, SkyB must also soon make some adjustment to its business model when, with the mass market introduction of IPTV, it will have to convert from its current “push” (sending all channels at once) to a “pull” system.

A bigger question, though, is the definition of “free-TV,” which is often associated with over-the-air services. In this case, BBC, French TV and RAI are not free since they are funded by compulsory license fees. Perhaps, this is what OFCOM, Sarkozy and the Italian politicians want viewers to understand.

Commercial over-the air television, on the other hand, is a free, if only “impurely free” service, and now it is in a transitional stage due to technology, such as the Internet, that depletes viewers. It’s like a dog biting its own tail. Programming from traditional TV services, mostly generated by the commercial sector, is what drives entertainment on the Internet, which, in turn, takes away viewers from traditional television.

And please note that, while people enjoy watching traditional TV programs on the Internet, Web-generated programs do not work on traditional TV, as recent examples have demonstrated.

Therefore, the key problem for all concerned — regulators, TV execs and politicians — is to make sure that a balance between license-fee TV and commercial over-the air TV services is maintained. This, perhaps, is what regulators and politicians are ultimately trying to achieve in order to adjust imbalances that could prematurely trample the whole broadcasting system.

Naturally, we are aware that all proposals that are so far floating around represent only band-aids to the bleeding over-the-air broadcasting system, both public and private. But in my view, what they are doing is just buying time until technology and entrepreneurship come up with a real and lasting solution. I’m sure that no one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rather to allow this newborn (that is broadcast television facing the Internet era) to grow again into a mature business, whatever it might be or become.

Posted by watercooler at 08:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

OK, here’s a common sense question for you. On one side we have industries, such as big oil, coal, pharmaceutical, etc., that tend to pollute the environment but present pollution like it’s the best thing since sliced bread. On the other side, we have advocacy groups that try to clean up the environment by denouncing the danger posed by pollution. When talks between these two sides hit the global warming argument, who are ya gonna believe?

This introduction serves as a preamble to the recent controversy over a questionable scientific documentary first shown on U.K.’s Channel 4 on March 8, 2007.

Last July the British television watchdog agency, OFCOM, managed to criticize the network for “unfair treatment” of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was depicted in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary it aired.

Now, my first question is: Does Channel 4 have the right to broadcast a controversial program? It certainly does. No censorship is ever wanted here. And I agree with the Guardian’s Leo Hickman, who stated, “Channel 4 was fully entitled to air a program asking critical questions about anthropocentric [man-made] climate change.” I’m also in agreement with OFCOM, which recognized Channel 4’s right to show the documentary and that broadcasters should be able to challenge orthodoxies and explore “controversial” subject matter.

Second question: Should information be considered public goods or merchandise? Third question: Does Channel 4, an over-the air licensed broadcaster, have the right to show “questionable” scientific programs? And, if by doing so, does it fulfill its general mandate for using public airwaves? The answer to this latter question could be implicit since one can argue that a “controversial” show and a “questionable” show are one and the same.

Then, let’s bring the “disinformation” factor in and, with it, the tobacco industry’s handling of a similar “controversy.” Here what comes up is that, despite the tobacco industry’s well-documented disinformation apparatus, today, no TV station would air a documentary showing that smoking doesn’t pose a danger to people. In the past, however, television stations went along with the tobacco industry’s disinformation campaign and, as we all know, the problem persisted.

Clearly the television industry, especially outlets that rely on public airwaves, has some responsibility towards the common good. But, how can one differentiate between “controversy” and “questionable” programs?

Similar to global warming, in the great debate about damage done by cigarette smoking, there were scientists with opposing viewpoints, who were willing to put their hands into the fire, like Roman soldier Mucius Scaevola did in 508 B.C., in order to prove a point.

Throughout the years, tobacco companies have worked hard to develop a system of front groups and allies that allow them to stay in the shadows and have others carry their message publicly, perhaps even unwittingly. For example, in May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat that claimed to find only a weak association between secondhand smoke exposure and heart disease and lung cancer. The study was funded by the now-defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, which was created by several tobacco companies.

Last year, a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Change,” illustrated how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to flout the scientific understanding of climate change. According to the UCS report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Now let’s go back to OFCOM’s initial ruling (Bulletin Issue No. 114), which, in essence, stated that the program manipulated and misrepresented the views of at least two of its main interviewees who had earlier complained about having their views distorted by British TV producer Martin Durkin in order to fit his central thesis that global warming is “a lie” and “the biggest scam of modern times.” Carl Wunsch of MIT, who appeared in the documentary, was quoted as saying: “A film claiming to be a science documentary that is really a nonscientific political tract is poisonous.”

This is the third time that the 46-year-old Durkin, who has been widely depicted as an ideological hater of the environmental movement, landed Channel 4 in hot water. The first time was in 1997, for his Against Nature (the environment cripples economic development) and he did it, again, in 1998 with Storm in a D-Cup (danger of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated).

OFCOM found that, although “intemperate,” the 76-minute documentary had not “materially misled the audience so as to cause harm or offense,” but it had breached its (for commercial TV) Broadcasting Code in regard to fairness and impartiality (the public broadcaster BBC has its own code of conduct).

In view of the misinformation brigade that is lurking around, every responsible TV network should be careful before transmitting programs that are questionable in their findings.

Posted by watercooler at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

Undoubtedly, the previous international television industry leadership was an excellent one: It created the International Council (now International Academy). It made markets such as MIP-TV and MIPCOM into premier global gatherings. It helped create a prosperous commercial television sector first in Europe and later in the rest of the world. And it set the pace and laid the foundations for today’s digital TV world.

I see such leadership in today’s Latin American television industry — an industry that is fast becoming the second largest after the U.S., not in terms of revenues, but certainly in terms of program hours sold internationally.

However, one grudge that I tend to hold against the elder industry’s leadership is the fact that, collectively, it never gave me or anyone else for that matter, any good advice about investing in real estate in Cannes.

The place had always been a tourist town but it also became a business town with the advent of the Cannes Film Festival, which was originally created with the hope of burying the pre-WWII Fascist-sponsored Venice Film Festival. It never actually managed to put the Venetian event to rest, but subsequently, with MIP-TV and MIPCOM, Cannes succeeded in burying another entertainment-related Italian event: Milan-based MIFED, the world first audiovisual market.

In my earlier years, when I was at Television/Radio Age, going to a Cannes TV event required three months of planning — as it still does today, at least for us at VideoAge. Then, we started getting ready in January for MIP-TV. Technology didn’t help much. There were no direct flights, but there was plenty of luggage with bulky communications tools and no ATMs (cash machines). We used to carry wads of American Express traveler’s checks and spent hours trying to convert them into French francs.

Then, once finally in Cannes, there was a race for who could depart first! As soon as the market started, the common greeting was: “Where’re you staying?” followed by: “When are you leaving?”

Most of the TV execs couldn’t wait for the closing bell. Indeed, some of them didn’t even bother waiting for the bell. They simply took off at the first opportunity, leaving me dumbfounded. They would talk so fondly of the place, before and after, but not during!

I could never figure out why. Perhaps the long preparations took the sap out of them once they were there. The fact, however, remains that, like all the others, I too got influenced by this attitude and, before I could learn to properly pronounce a coupe de champagne s’il vous plait, I became as frantic as everyone else to run for the exit: by car, by plane, by train or even by boat.

At that point the routine became: Nice airport, hotel, Palais, Nice airport. At times we indulged in excursions to Le Moulin de Mougins restaurant, or to the Villa Domergue in the hills behind Cannes for some fancy events. The parties that Cathy Malatesta, then with Westinghouse, used to throw in Mougins were legendary.

In any case, we were oblivious if not to the beauty of the place, certainly to the opportunities it offered, especially where real estate was concerned. We viewed Cannes strictly as a place of business and, as such, on par with Las Vegas.

Can you imagine? In 1978, when I first started going to MIP-TV, the U.S. dollar was worth four francs, reaching as high as 10 Francs in 1985. At that time a one-bedroom 500 sq. ft. apartment with a small terrace near the Martinez hotel (not facing the sea), would have cost the equivalent of $15,000. The same apartment today goes for 360,000 euro or more than half a million dollars, and is thus out of financial reach for many of us. In addition to the great equity gain, today, such an apartment can generate at least $20,000 per year in various rentals and $3,000 in savings per TV market.

Why didn’t the elders give us “new kids on the block” some proper financial advice for the future? They surely weren’t shy or low-key buttoned-up people!

Perhaps they didn’t think Cannes represented a worthwhile investment. Indeed, they did not invest either. Surely, they did not see the TV trade shows held there as temporary events, since they invested heavily in the markets’ success. It is possible that those TV execs, who were well compensated financially, assumed, correctly, that most of us were penniless and thus afraid that, having made investment suggestions, we’d ask them for loans.

The fact that my generation did not have money to invest shouldn’t have been a deterrent because even then there were ways to be “creative” with bank loans, mortgages, and monthly payments, considering that an apartment there could be rented for good money both during the Cannes Film Festival and for the summer. But this epiphany comes only with the savviness of today. Then, we needed their savvy!

Posted by watercooler at 08:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Leah Hochbaum Rosner

With MIPCOM right around the corner, television executives around the globe are gearing up for a visit to Cannes that they hope will be filled with cocktails, conferences, meetings, meals and business deals. One such exec is Caterina Vacchi, senior manager and executive producer of Milan, Italy-based Atlantyca Entertainment, who will be at the market promoting her company’s flagship children’s series Geronimo Stilton. Following Atlantyca’s recent expansion — which established dedicated licensing and publishing divisions — VideoAge spoke with Vacchi about Atlantyca’s grand plans for Cannes and how the company manages to navigate the many television markets and festivals that take place in the fall.

VideoAge International: What product will you be bringing to MIPCOM?

Caterina Vacchi: For Atlantyca, our primary program is the new animated series Geronimo Stilton, and we are very excited to have just completed (with our co-production partner, MoonScoop) the first teaser for the series, offering international broadcasters a first peek at how the series is coming to fruition. For us, we see MIPCOM as an opportunity to update our clients and potential broadcast partners on the status of the production of the series. In addition, this is a significant time of growth with the recent expansion of our company — establishing dedicated licensing and publishing divisions — and we are [at MIPCOM] to not only talk about the projects and initiatives we are working on in those key areas, but we are also seeking potential business partners for all three (four if you count the foreign rights division) divisions.

VAI: Do you have anything special planned for the market?

CV: We will be announcing our first broadcast partners for Geronimo and have news from our publishing and licensing divisions, as well. MIPCOM is a market dedicated to many aspects of the entertainment industry and we seek to expand business opportunities in each of these key areas.

VAI: What territories will you be focusing on?

CV: We are co-distribution partners with Taffy Entertainment and jointly distribute the series worldwide. So all territories are important to us.

VAI: Why is MIPCOM such an important market for Atlantyca?

CV: It offers such an extensive opportunity to meet with people you might normally not be able to easily meet with, or would have to travel far to meet with. For us, we spend a lot of quality personal time with our co-production partner (rather than our usual teleconferencing). The market also permits us to have business and social time with potential new partners for all of Atlantyca’s divisions — whether it be publishing, licensing or production.

VAI: With the Toronto and Venice Film Fests, the AFM and SPORTELMonaco, as well as MIPCOM, all taking place in the fall, does it ever feel like there are simply too many markets taking place at the same time?

CV: We actually just attended Brand Licensing, and we are on our way to the Frankfurt Book Fair. It is a very busy time of the year, but these markets, like MIPCOM, are important to our business and help us to maintain strong relationships — especially from a publishing perspective. We look forward to all of them and manage to participate in many by splitting up a bit. Some of us attend one, while others attend others.

Posted by watercooler at 01:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)