My 2 Cents

Let’s talk about the future of NATPE. But before describing how it is envisioned, a “Frank”  (rather than a “Joy”) review of the current situation is in order.NATPE’s calendar year is viable, because it breaks a six-month stretch between MIPCOM and MIP-TV. The argument that there are too many trade shows, many believe, is not valid especially now that it is becoming unbearable to go through airports and to have to virtually undress before security guards. Particularly hard hit are those who travel through the London, England and Dallas, Texas airports, even though travel problems tend to be universal. For example, during a trip to New York from Rome, Italy last November, the Delta pilot “neglected” to refuel, so with the plane third in line to take off, it had to return to the gate, causing a three-hour delay and a myriad of missed connections.

As far as the market itself is concerned, NATPE remains especially viable for the Latin American TV sector. And until a European trade show such as Monte Carlo  reappears on the horizon in early February, NATPE should retain its appeal for Europeans, as well. In addition, until the Santa Monica, California-based American Film Market (AFM) does an about-face and stops being concerned about losing face (the necessity of the industry is and should always be more important than management needs) and restores its original February dates (instead of its current October-November dates), the call for a winter market is very strong.
Indeed this call is so strong that the industry is even trying to carve a market out of the Berlin Film Festival — an event that goes against the elements themselves (i.e., it’s cold!) and against the opinions of the nay-sayers who don’t want a winter market.

Plus, the U.S. venue is ideal in the sense that the country should host at least three TV-related shows per year: NATPE in its current month of January, AFM returning to February, and the L.A. Screenings in May. I’d move the very important LICO’s Licensing Show (but under different management) from New York City to Hong Kong or Singapore in early December, to combine it with a smaller TV programming market, such as the Asia TV Forum, which has failed to take off despite numerous attempts.

Several troublesome elements are, unfortunately, converging around NATPE. First, because of the changed U.S. television market — where domestic distributors can now make three calls to clear a new program for syndication — NATPE is no longer viable for studios, which are the key domestic syndicators. Second, having lost the domestic “piggy-back,” studios’ international divisions find that NATPE is no longer efficient, considering that Latin American TV sales represent about eight percent of their overall revenues. Third, with domestic syndicated clearance sales gone, the market has lost appeal for Europeans and Asian TV buyers and, thus, for many distributors. Fourth, the Las Vegas venue is not highly desirable. It was only dictated by its proximity to Los Angeles in order to entice the U.S. studios. Fifth, the market is split between floor stands and hospitality suites, making it problematic for all concerned.

And, to top it all off, NATPE’s valiant president, Rick Feldman, is entering into his second year of a three-year contract (after which he has indicated that he might  retire).

Under this multitude of concurrent challenges NATPE has to find the strength to evolve. But there are several options:

Instead of trying to merge with the consumer association CES, negotiate a merger with the AFM and move to Santa Monica at the end of January. This will give a needed face-saving excuse to the AFM to bring the event to a more desiderable calendar date, and give NATPE a new home.
Move it to Miami in January, since NATPE is now mostly a Latin TV event, and make it a hospitality suite-only trade show. The Miami venue is appealing to Europeans, as well, and the Hispanic TV market could be an added attraction.

Perhaps, in order to save money, instead of on the beach, the market could be held inland, in a place such as Coral Gables.

Make NATPE a for-profit market organization, with investors putting money in it.
With added financial resources, the market could be an inviting, expenses-paid venue for major buyers.
Restore the event as a content-only market, where broadcasters and electronic sell-through executives are buyers. Stage many receptions and luncheons with top-level keynote speakers.
Tie it in with the International Emmys. Eventually the board of this organization will get enough courage to give it a future.

Do not publish a market publication during the show, but encourage publishers to enter the market. The limited advertising resources available during NATPE aren’t beneficial to the organization and discourage publishers from investing in the event.

Surely some readers will find fault with the above arguments and the subsequent remedies, but our experience has been that ignoring problems (even just perceived problems) or proposing solutions that are unrealistic, will only accelerate the untimely death of a market. As the expression goes: If one can’t afford the solution, then it’s not a solution.

Dom Serafini