Water Cooler

We continue with our series of snippets highlighting parts of the top stories from the MIPCOM Issue of VideoAge. This week, we asked industry insiders to compare Canada’s two upcoming film festivals: The 33rd Montreal World Film Festival (Aug. 27-Sept. 7) and the 34th annual Toronto International Film Festival (Sept. 10-19).

According to a Toronto-based film and TV financier, “Toronto is much more important [than Montreal]. It is number two in the world after Cannes. Montreal is a niche event, and has had a volatile past.”

A Montreal-based filmmaker provided a similar comparative assessment: “The Montreal World Film Festival is more or less the launching pad for new filmmakers as well as a more intellectual festival. It is truly an international event, as it showcases films from everywhere. A few sales industry people go to Montreal although it mainly has a huge local consumer following. The Toronto Film Festival is definitely a more festive, Hollywood type event. It’s a business hub. Business and stars are the driving force there. Montreal is more where you discover films and filmmakers, while Toronto is where you make deals, meet the stars and enjoy big parties. Montreal World Film Festival is the very personal vision of a film historian while Toronto has a mercantile and cultural bottom line.”

Another Toronto insider who, like the other executives, preferred not to be named, provided a further assessment: “Montreal is a small, part-time organization run by a difficult executive director who has alienated all of Hollywood and many people in the Quebec film industry. Toronto is a massive organization whose programmers and management are respected the world over. Both organizations claim approximately the same attendance. They do not really compete with each other for films or talent any longer. Montreal is Canada's 'official' competitive film festival as sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Films. Toronto is non-competitive. The Festival has no jury and presents no awards, other than a people's choice award voted for by filmgoers. Broadly speaking Montreal is more of an 'art film' festival. These days it programs few, if any, studio films. Montreal has an official market, Toronto does not, but instead operates a sales office to match buyers and sellers on an as needed basis.”

Finally, Ron Moore, CEO of Toronto marketing firm SONARmediathink and executive producer of Los Angeles-based, internationally syndicated Red Carpet Diary, best summarized Canada’s two fests by saying: “Toronto is a colossus that just keeps growing in scope and reputation. It’s not only one of the most well-run film festivals on the planet but among the best-run cultural events. Montreal just isn’t in that league any longer but that’s not to say it doesn’t provide a great experience for cinephiles. It simply does not put Montreal on the map any longer.”

Film festivals at a glance:

Montreal World Film Festival (Aug. 27-Sept. 7 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel with screenings throughout the town).

This year's Montreal World Film Festival screened a record 240 feature films from 78 countries. As usual, the festival also included a small market. One talked-about premiere was that of Everlasting Flame, the official film of the Beijing Olympics, directed by Gu Jun. PR manager Henry Welsh explained that highly anticipated films like Flame are what set the festival apart from the others. That, and the fact that regular movie-goers screen films alongside critics and industry executives. Unlike other festivals, Montreal does not award cash prizes to its winners, and that, Welsh said, helps it maintain a less commercial feel.

Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), Sept. 10-19 at Sutton Place Hotel with screenings around town.

This year, the festival featured screenings of 335 films, including 271 feature-length films from 64 countries. Seventy-two percent of those were either world, international or North American premieres. And there were about 500 bold-faced names in attendance, including Oprah Winfrey, Clive Owen, Natalie Portman, the Coen brothers, Ricky Gervais and Snoop Dogg. The festival opened with Creation, a biopic about Charles Darwin. It also caused a stir with its inclusion of Lars Von Trier's controversial Antichrist, which elicited boos after its premiere in Cannes in May.

Posted by watercooler at 09:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For this week’s edition of Water Cooler, VideoAge would like to stray from our usual style and instead use this space to alert you to the extra-special MIPCOM ‘09 issue we have in the works. From suggestions for U.S. broadcasters in light of the recent move from analog to digital, to biting commentary on what U.S. Studios call “Ultimates” (a way for them to predict with a fair amount of accuracy how much money a program will make overall), the October edition of the magazine is densely packed with information and makes for essential market reading.

Our front cover features two impressive interviews. The first is with Pier Silvio Berlusconi, vice-chairman of Mediaset and son of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio (the founder of Mediaset). It’s been said that Pier Silvio receives close to 5,000 interview requests per year and only grants access to a select few.

We at VideoAge feel privileged to be one of those few, and used the opportunity to cover a vast array of topics. From Mediaset’s acquisition of Endemol to the company’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s Sky Italia, Berlusconi offers a bevy of insight.

The second features Disney’s Ben Pyne in his first full-fledged interview since taking over Disney’s Global Distribution, Disney Media Networks, in 2007.

In addition to these chats, our MIPCOM issue spans the globe with coverage of the international landscape. From a salute to the 30th anniversary of WIN, Australia’s largest terrestrial TV network, to a report on the cable TV situation in mainland China, few territories remain unexplored.

If the above isn’t enough to whet MIPCOM attendees’ appetites, we also report on the growing popularity of food-related programming in America. This seems to be a hot topic these days, with the New York Times Magazine devoting its cover to it a few weeks back. We review a related book, as well as discuss the recent Julia Child-centric film, Julie and Julia and the latest additions to cooking network lineups.

And, for the new media aficionado (you know you are one, you’re reading this online aren’t you?) – we analyze the differences between terrestrial television and the World Wide Web, and what recent moves to digital, etc. mean for the futures of both.

These are just a few of the highlights of the 40+ stories we have in the works for the MIPCOM 2009 edition of VideoAge, which will hit stands on September 31st.

Posted by watercooler at 01:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Karen Ruttner

A recent poll of minorities and foreign-born U.S. residents determined that 45 percent of them prefer ethnically targeted television to its Anglo counterpart.

Despite the data, the U.S. remains grossly underserved when it comes to such programming. The reasons for this are debatable, but the folks behind the ethnic IPTV platform TV2Moro begin by suggesting that, for one, existing traditional TV platforms have limited capacity for ethnic channels, and two, many ethnic communities reside in tightly-knit apartment buildings, thus making satellite installation a near impossibility (due to both physical and digital congestion).

The Burbank California-based TV2Moro is the vision of Elie Kawkabani and Haytham ElMokadem, two industry veterans with acute understanding of both subscription services and TV content distribution. Kawkabani is a co-founder and 10-year veteran of Reach Media Inc in the U.S., as well as the founder, president, and Chairman of the Board of Ethnic Broadcasters of America (EBA). His role with the latter organization, which represents 90 percent of all ethnic broadcasters in the U.S., positions him as a crucial cog in the specialized content machine. ElMokadem brings a wealth of experience in the marketing and distribution sectors.

“Unfortunately, many companies attempting to build an ethnic or niche business using the Internet have done so either prematurely, or, in my humble opinion, using the wrong business model,” Kawkabani stated flatly at the start of the interview. So what, then, is the proper business model?

“Our business model is that of traditional pay-TV,” he explained, “Content will be the main driver for our success, and that is where our competitive advantage lies. We know how to secure content, how to package it, price it, sell it and service it. And we know where the ethnic communities are and how their buying habits affect the business.”

Kawkabani also suggested that the targeted viewers might have been too unfamiliar with the underdeveloped technology. “Those early adopters [of IPTV] who have tried getting their favorite channels via the Internet, whether to their computer screens or even directly to their TV screen have not been happy with the outcome, and may still believe that the technology does not work.”

So how does one get this internationally-sourced content to specific audiences? The answer is through a “TV2,” the name given to TV2Moro’s customized set-top box that encodes and delivers content to viewers’ TV sets. Using a home’s Internet, i.e., broadband connection (be it DSL, cable or Wi-Fi), the TV2 works just like a cable box, offering remote control access, on-screen program guides, and VoD services. “Our current infrastructure and distribution model allows us to deliver, sell and service any ethnic customer anywhere in the world,” Kawkabani said, “We are taking very strategic steps that will ensure systematic and healthy growth. Starting with North America (the U.S., Canada and Mexico), we will open up markets that broadcasters don’t currently have or realize the potential of.”

ElMokadem explained,“Our initial language package that is launching is Middle Eastern….We are also contracting new locations that will be covering content initiated in the Asian and South American continents.”

How much money would it take to run a successful IPTV platform? “Whereas the initial investment to start an IPTV platform is not prohibitive, the key word here is ‘successful,’” ElMokadem said. “To run an IPTV platform that would appeal to all kinds of consumers would take a substantial commitment in resources, funds and efforts. At TV2Moro, IPTV is just the delivery method of the content — but the viewing experience, customer service, technical support and billing is the same as a traditional pay-TV platform. We have invested a substantial amount of funds and time to simplify the experience for our subscribers, whether they are computer savvy or not.”

In addition to the linear channels that TV2Moro is tapping, the platform offers a number of services familiar to pay-TV viewers. For instance, there are several features within the technology and hardware that allow for time shifting, on-demand and recorded viewing. The company has also been working on deals with a number of production houses to secure rights to recent movies and programs that would function as VoD. ElMokadem also pointed out that “a lot of the linear channels that we broadcast carry live shows, so our agreement with the content providers is such that we can provide a special U.S. centralized feed that would appeal to both West Coast and East Coast subscribers.”

Thus the TV2Moro vision is in place, it is just a matter of getting the word out. When asked about the company’s marketing plan, ElMokadem explained, “The most powerful marketing tool in the ethnic field is grass roots marketing and word of mouth. This is something [Elie and myself] have mastered over the past 10 years. Between us both, every Arabic channel that has successful distribution currently was launched, marketed and serviced. In addition to grass roots marketing, traditional media and incentive campaigns will be implemented.”

Posted by watercooler at 09:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

When U.S. President Barack Obama criticized companies like financially-troubled insurance giant AIG for their lavish and inappropriate trade traveling, the U.S. exhibition industry reacted angrily. Even the President’s key advisor, Valerie Jarrett, got involved. Through their own trade press, the exhibition industry pointed out that exhibitions and events shouldn’t be lumped together with lavish junkets and wasteful retreats, and that the sector is of vital importance to the U.S., representing a $240 billion a year industry that supports 2.4 million jobs.

In the initial stage, the industry had done little to support its own cause, apart from explaining their own needs, instead of proving the importance of trade shows to the exhibition-prone industries in general.

However, the sector has since wised up and started to present facts and figures to indicate how trade shows benefit exhibitors and not just the exhibition industry itself. It started by leveraging the obvious negative element that failure to attend an event could be interpreted by the marketplace as a signal of distress or decline. But the industry also highlighted some positives.

For example, according to Forrester Consulting of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 61 percent of marketers consider face-to-face exhibiting the most effective means of building a brand image. Furthermore, the Dallas, Texas-based Center for Exhibition Industry Research has calculated that, on average, it costs $215 to make a face-to-face visit with a potential customer at a trade show, and $1,039 to obtain similar results without using the organized events.

In addition, the Norwalk, Connecticut-based Event Marketing Institute found that 53 percent of sales and marketing professionals consider events to be the best vehicle for accelerating business relationships.

According to Doug Ducate of the Center for Exhibition Industry Research, for the past 20 years, the success story of trade shows was measured by their rate of growth. If a trade show had 10 percent more attendees each time, it was hailed a winner. “We sold that message,” Ducate told Meeting & Conventions magazine. However, market organizers now realize the weakness of that argument. Better measures of an exhibition are the quality of its attendees.

In the past, trade shows such as NATPE built their success on “real estate,” meaning the sale of square footage of floor space through large volume discounts. They prided themselves in how inexpensive said space was. This, however, encouraged the creation of larger and larger booths that eventually became too expensive to maintain, and thus as soon as the industry began to consolidate, recession began to take hold and cost-cutting became the norm, that kind of growth came back to hound trade shows like NATPE.

The lesson for show organizers should be that it is better to keep an eye on the future, not just on quarterly growth.

Similarly, the lesson for exhibitors should be the realization that trade shows are, in many ways, essential for their business and pulling out of a show to better the quarterly numbers with cuts rather than with sales growth, ultimately doesn’t pay off (except if management feels it’s on its last legs and wants to exit with a bang, leaving the underlying problems for its successor).

Posted by watercooler at 01:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)