We don’t see a lot of information on the business models for TV studios (the companies that produce the shows, as opposed to the networks that air them), but today’s article in the LA Times is an interesting look at Fox Television Studios strategy. Note: the broader Fox conglomeration has other studios that do not employ this strategy, like 20th Century Fox Television. The strategy below is specific to Fox Television Studios:
Fox Television Studio’s strategy, on the other hand, is to co-produce shows with international partners willing to commit to a series right from the start — bypassing the expensive and uncertain pilot process — and sell the completed shows to a U.S. network. A similar model has been used to finance production of independent films before they find a distributor.
Last summer, for example, Fox Television Studios was able to sell 13 episodes each of the dramas “Mental” and “Defying Gravity” to Fox and ABC, respectively, with backing from several international partners.
The advantage to a network is that the fee they would pay for a show is dramatically lower than the $1.5 million to $2 million per episode that has become the industry benchmark.
[...]
So far, Calemzuk’s track record is mixed. Neither “Mental” nor “Defying Gravity” survived past their initial summer run, and no amount of creative financing can transform a show on the bubble into a hit. From a financial standpoint, however, it wasn’t a disaster since both shows were fully protected.
“At worst you come out break-even as opposed to losing $10 million,” he said.
via latimes.com.
There’s something in the article for everyone. For folks who think the current studio model is the way to go, they can point to a lack of hits produced with this strategy. Folks who like Fox Studio’s strategy can point to the lack of losses. Enjoy!
When I saw the pic for Defying Gravity, I thought they may actually have a time set for the rest of the eps, nope – ABC Sucks
isn’t that what they are doing with persons unknown too
Partnering with other countries does seem like a good idea, but I’m pretty sure the whole “no pilot” thing is a terrible idea. NBC tried that for development of the 2008-2009 season, and they ended up with exactly one show that they kept for this season. (Southland doesn’t count, since it was canceled in the end.
)
Yes, pilots are expensive and most of them end up being a complete waste of money, but without them, it’s impossible to know what you’re really going to get. I wonder if there’s some way to make money off of pilots that aren’t picked up. It would be interesting to see a studio try to make a two hour movie for a pilot, which can then be released on DVD if/when not picked up. Have two different ending scenes, one for if it gets picked up, one for it if doesn’t. It would cost more initially, but maybe they would be able to make enough money back to make it worth it?
From what I understand Julia, many networks option all rights to the story/concept covered in the pilot, so there might have to be a LONG time before they would release it back to the studio. Also, when I viewed a pilot preview of shows a few years ago they were obviously shorter than the full episodes would have intended to be. The shows I saw were “Soul Mates” and “City” and they never made it to the airwaves, btw. I don’t know if the extra short/extra cheap pilot format is still in effect.
However, plenty of 5+ year old shows run on cable, and if an anthology of horror/supernatural can work with Twilight Zone’s various incarnations, perhaps these pilots could be categorized by genre. Maybe fill the rest of the necessary time with people talking about the project and where it would have gone and that would still be something to sell and even cheaper than a two hour movie. There have to be at least enough leftover pilots for Romance, Comedy, Action, etc. to do anthologies cheaply for some cable network somewhere.
Regarding the thread’s topic though, I can tell whether I like a book without paying people to act it out. I don’t see why a script would be so different except that it would weed mistakes out from the casting department.
Or a pilot would weed that out from the script, rather.
Bitey, there are two types of pilots. Regular pilots are full length episodes. Pilot presentations are shorter, usually between 15-30 mins. What I’m proposing would be longer than a normal pilot anyway. And it would be made with the intent that it could be sold on DVD if not picked up, so I’m sure the studios and networks could work that out ahead of time. But in the case of shows that are produced for a network that is owned by the same parent company as the studio, I can’t see any problem at all.
And the book analogy doesn’t really work. I’m not sure how many scripts you’ve read, but trying to imagine how they will end up on screen isn’t an exact science. I’m sure you’ve read books that you loved that were turned into movies you hated. It’s the same thing, and it’s not just down to casting. Some things just don’t work on screen the way they did on paper.
What Julia is suggesting is more or less what was done way back when with Lynch’s Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive. With Twin Peaks, the show was picked up, and the extra footage worked into later episodes (but the entire pilot movie was released on video), with Mulholland Drive, it wasn’t and extra footage was added to the end for a theatrical release.
The only problem is that because of the rights being sold for video release, the box set of season one of Twin Peaks does not contain the pilot episode.
Glee is not a hit?
Chris, Glee is not what this article is talking about. It’s not a joint production which splits the cost.
Julia is correct, but perhaps I could have been clearer in the post. The cost/risk sharing method described in the article as being used by Fox Television Studios has yet to produce a hit.
They have found ways to cut costs and minimize losses on productions. It’s pure genius to pre-sell 13 episodes overseas where that number of episodes is financially feasible and avoid the expense of a pilot. But for real cash flow, one cannot simply cut costs (uh, hello NBC), one has to increase the revenue. In other words they need a hit TV show which runs for a few seasons.
A pilot is a necessary part of the process. Think of the synopsis for House: Obnoxious, drug-addicted MD insults patients and staff yet is a brilliant physician. Hugh Laurie was virtually unknown in 2004 and no one would have had any idea how this premise could have worked as a TV show. You need a pilot of some sort.
I’m not convinced that going to series without a pilot is a bad idea in itself. Producing pilots is such an ancient piece of conventional wisdom that it could do with some examination, and creating a strong pilot doesn’t necessarily mean the producers have cracked the show (it often just means they were savvy enough to hire somebody like David Nutter or James Burrows to put it over with the network).
The problem with current TV is they are 1% plot and 99% “drama” – try changing that a bit.
When is there new show Company man starting?
In addition to being ratings failures, both Defying Gravity and Mental were pretty terrible shows which isn’t a good sign. If Fox Television Studios produces a good show with bad ratings then I’d have a lot more confidence in this model.
Personally I still think pilots are the way to go as they can be pretty spectacular (Lost, FlashForward). To cut losses on pilots that aren’t picked up, maybe networks could package all of them into a DVD which could then be sold. Not only would the networks be able to make a little extra revenue but tv fans would benefit by possibly stumbling across some gems (Virtuality).
Why doesn’t any network produce an anthology series whereby they show pilots that were never picked up for that season. Viewers could vote for their favorite pilot. Then, have the final episode be a clip show showing scenes of the previous 22 to 23 pilots and the winner with the most online/telephone votes gets picked up for a series. That would be a superb idea!!!!!
I think if Fox hadn’t aired Defying Gravity and Mental during the summer, they would have had a better chance of survival.
Oops, I meant if ABC hadn’t aired Defying Gravity during the summer, and Fox hadn’t aired Mental during the summer.
Ya know, it’d be ironic if NBC/ABC/Etc are all entertainment interests who lose money on news because no one’s watching, while Fox has all the news, but loses on their fiction, ’cause no one’s watching.
I mean, NBC for instance, is owned by GE; they’re happy to drive their news into the ground if this “green” initiative will mean they get to make wind turbines. And the biased coverage really shows.
Are the two Fox units actually related?
Brian, probably best to keep the crazy conspiracy theories in the comments for the cable news posts.
It’s a very smart move on behalf of American producers, however it is disastrous to those that purchase the content and air the content on their channel. I really cannot see how this is a feasible operation to co-prouce content with other countries long term.
Using Australia as an example, Australia already has to spend millions on Australian drama to meet the local law of having local drama quota points. If these aren’t met, the channel is in trouble. I can hardly see them forking out more money than they need to on uncertain drama as it is.
Not to mention it is far cheaper for overseas networks to purchase episodes once they know the programme is a hit. Channel 7 is already regretting purchasing Flash Forward which has lost over a third of its viewers.
It might work with American networks, but as people can see for themselves the track record is hardly stellar.
The best way to move forward would be to do what Fox did with Glee, air one pilot and if it is met with success produce a series at a later date. I realise Knight Rider tried this, but that was hardly a new concept and probably only succeeded on the nostalgia factor.
The difference between Glee and Knight Rider was that Glee came back as a show very similar to the Pilot, Knight Rider ignored the pilot and went in a new direction.
Also, Glee had already been picked up for 13 episodes when Fox aired the pilot. The airing was a sneak preview, not a test run.
Parenthood writes, “Why doesn’t any network produce an anthology series whereby they show pilots that were never picked up for that season. Viewers could vote for their favorite pilot. Then, have the final episode be a clip show showing scenes of the previous 22 to 23 pilots and the winner with the most online/telephone votes gets picked up for a series. That would be a superb idea!!!!!”
I guess you must have slept through 1987, when the “CBS Summer Playhouse” did just that. Well, except for the picked up to series part. (Feel sorry for all those losers who wasted their money calling the 1-900 number, since CBS couldn’t have cared less about their opinions.)
With that said, I would rather see FOX broadcast dead air than ever inflict “Two Dollar Beer” upon the unsuspecting public.
Andrew, if Glee had not performed well and flopped, it would have gotten canceled. Why would FOX waste money on 13 episodes they knew would flop?
Thanks for the post Bill.
The real concern with co-production from my standpoint is that it continues the unfortunate allocation of risk incumbent in vertical integration; which only really reared its ugly head after the end of fin-syn rules. My argument isn’t really that regulation is fantastic, but that pilot production was a way for network decision makers to have access to potential shows without internalizing risk. The move to co-production of this sort eliminates the intermediary decision levels; gutting the marketplace of programming ideas. In this sense, all television after the end of fin-syn and PTAR will head down this road. Meaning, less transparency, more cronyism, weaker shows, and non-modelable decisions. An army of Ben Silverman’s is waiting in the wings for co-financers to crown them.
Films have been around since the long before television, and they go into production based on script, stars, director, etc. No footage is shot to convince a studio to bankroll them, and that industry has made money hand over fist forever and a day.
Do pilots, or don’t do pilots. This isn’t an either-or scenario. Both methods can work, and both methods can definitely fail. The problem isn’t the nuts-and-bolts of the process. The problem is the people making the decisions on what to go forward with and what not to. If you have people making smart decisions, you will do well, with many fewer hits than misses. If you don’t, then you miss more than you hit.
This formula Fox came up with can be a money saver, which is probably good, but no formula will ever guarantee making a hit show. People make hits, not processes.
its clearly working ok for them because they’re still using the model after the first batch of shows (Defying Gravity ,Mental and the yet to premiere Persons Unknown) if its so cheap i hope NBC actually promotes Persons Unknown and doesnt like dump it on fridays or something on the plus side they only have 1 other drama (Parenthood)
Julia,
FOX released the 2-hour Virtuality pilot as a “movie” and neither fans nor the producers was happy about that. Virtuality now has been released on DVD.
Andrea, I don’t care about making the producers or fans happy. What I’m talking about is finding a way to make some money off of pilots which aren’t picked up. That way networks don’t feel like they have to stop making them, when obviously they have better success with pilots than without.
I think the notion that pilots are needed is flawed there are numerous international markets (and I work in one of them) that rarely if ever use pilots and have no problems producing hits or quality shows. Obviously there are some concepts that benefit from production of a pilot but in no way do I think there an essential part of the process, ultimately I would argue that Fox Television Studios slate and last years NBC schedule failed not because of the lack of pilots but because on the whole the shows were bad and/or just wrong for network television and anyone with half a brain should have been able to tell that from the scripts. Production executives just need to get better at reading scripts.
On the subject of making money out of pilots you don’t pick up, its a double edged sword. The fear is that you’ll air or release a pilot you passed on and people will love it and you’ll ultimately look stupid for not picking it up. The CW got into enough trouble over Body Politic and hardly anybody had seen that if more people had then that would have been even bigger. Personally though I don’t know why passed on pilots aren’t slotted into the summer schedule in place of repeats. Hell they could even air them online, I’m sure Hulu would love a ‘pilots’ section that could be part of their proposed subscription service. They’d at least make back some money off of that even if it wasn’t much.
Alex, it’s possible that pilots are not necessary, but for US broadcast networks, they still seem very necessary.
As for releasing pilots, my idea is that you have an alternate ending that would be there in case the show is not picked up. That way the show can easily be released as a standalone movie, and the majority of the world will have no idea that it was once a pilot. You don’t market it as a failed pilot, but as a DTV movie. Sure, there will be some people who know and who will beg for more, but the majority of the audience for the movie will just see it as a one time thing. If it does well enough on DVD, they could release a sequel. This obviously wouldn’t work for all/most pilots, since a lot of them wouldn’t work as movies, but there’s at least a few a season that it would work for.
Julia,
If you don’t pick up a pilot (thus making the producers happy) why would they want to assist the execs in creating an ending for a dead project?
Execs will just have to deal with the fact that pilots may be money makers or money breakers.
Andrea, it’s called residuals. Everyone who works on a project makes money if the project makes money. And if you’re paid for those extra 15 minutes, why wouldn’t you be willing to do it? It certainly gets your work shown in a way that a dead pilot that just gets tossed out never does. Wouldn’t you rather have exposure to an audience in some way, rather than none?
Alex, the notion is not flawed. It saves the networks in the long run millions, if they networks engage their brains. Though its just not practical for major American networks to produce a 22 episode/13 episode season before the first has even aired. You have to consider ad sales, international sales and of course demos. The network would be pretty stuffed if the first episode was a turkey and completely failed expectations. With co producing also, yes the idea of sharing the financial burden is a prudent one, but if by some chance a show does become successful, then its less profit due to so many fingers in the pie.
Alex, which international market do you work in?
Alex is right, most other countries do manage without having to have a pilot for a series, however the are numerous factors involved.
1. British seasons are far shorter than American ones, usually 6 to 8 episodes, therefore the cost is not nearly as great as American producued programmes.
2. Tax payer funded channels in western countries. It would not be economical for them to produce a pilot and then go back and shoot a series. After all tax payer funded money is at stake.
3. Local Drama Quota. This is a minimum requirement in some countries that force networks to produce a certain amount of drama. In Australia there is usually a reluctance for a commercial network to produce Australian drama as American imports are far cheaper and usually get the same ratings. So pilots are generally a waste of time, as no channel is going to commission a dozen pilots and then judge which ones to use to fit the quota rule. It’s a waste of time and money. However, Channel Ten has commissioned pilots in the form of tv movies in the past. If they are a success then they get a season. Though even with a show already produced before it hits broadcast in Australia and it immediately flops it still really isn’t seen as something that could have been avoided due to the quotas in place. It just costs the networks millions.
In the case of Persons Unknown though NBC actually got to watch the entire 13 episode first season before they even picked it up meaning they are happy with the quality of not just the 1st ep but all 13
Julia,
I wonder if putting extra $$$ in extending a 1-hour pilot into a 2-hour movie is worth the one-shot airing. To me it seems to be wasted money.
I’m talking about releasing a DTV movie, not a one time airing on TV. The economics won’t work for most pilots, but there are definitely some where it could work.
Cruel_Heartless you’re view on how the networks are using pilots and why they’re important is completely misguided.
With only a few exceptions the networks do not air pilots before they’ve committed to producing (usually) 13 episodes and most of those exceptions come in the form of back door pilots. Knight Rider is the only recent example I can think of where a pilot/TV movie was made and aired before a series commitment was made. If the networks were actually airing pilots to gauge public reaction and get some kind of ratings expectation for the shows then I’d absolutely agree that they serve some kind of purpose but the networks don’t do that, instead they finance a pilot (which isn’t cheap) and the executives who have already read the scripts and heard the series pitch watch that pilot and decide whether to give a series commitment or not, the pilots only see the light of day to the general public after that decision has been made.
The whole system as it currently stands is largely ineffective and perhaps more importantly more expensive than it needs to be. The only reason the networks still make pilots now is pretty much out of habit rather than a real need for them. You don’t need to see a pilot of The Mentalist to know that’s a show that works just like you don’t need to see a pilot of Dollhouse to know that’s a show that doesn’t work. Everything you need is there in the script and the pitch.
Already saw the summaries for the remaining episodes of DG as they aired in the UK. The problem with that show was it was too dull. Too much time spent on flashbacks and realationshippy nonsense. It was like Greys Anatomy in space. In space no one can hear you cry.
Oh, Alex, deary me. You sound like some jaded ex-employee that used to work for an ‘international’ market before the whole advertising loss hit the fan.
You still have not not said which market you work for, and judging by your simplistic comments without any actual evidence or thought process to back up what you say, you seem rather naive in the business sense and really common sense in general.
If it was as ineffective as you say, why would the networks continually waste money (as you say) in producing a pilot? Despite what you say, you cannot possibly judge the potential of a series on a script alone. You actually need to see the script executed to see what works and what doesn’t. Hence the need for a pilot. As you will have seen from many pilots aired as well with their respective series, a lot can change from the pilot to a series, so it is a crucial creative process, for either better or worse depending on what your feelings are for the programme. If the script alone was that good, why then are there so so many changes from pilot to series?