Streaming Services vs. Rental Stores and Questioning Our Future As A Society
With Blockbuster going bankrupt and the number of subscribers to Netflix constantly rising, it is no question that the population wants their entertainment at their fingertips, on demand, without the hassle of leaving the house and fighting the elements to get it. It is no wonder that many start up companies are jumping on the bandwagon and launching their streaming sites albeit without all the A-list titles that Netflix has. It is an interesting turn of events for the world. The younger generation has a pin drop of a memory of VHS and soon they may have nostalgic feelings towards DVDs. “The future of VOD is a series of channels of content,” Cakarel says. “DVDs will continue their rapid decline as the choice of format for home entertainment. I think we all need to wake up and smell the coffee. My young sister in Istanbul will never buy a DVD in her life. That’s a fact. Period.” (Appelo, 2011).
Hollywood Reporter states, "That there are so many options is a testament to the popularity of streaming, which has become a preferred way to consume movies, according to a March study from PricewaterhouseCoopers. PwC reported that the Netflix model of mailing DVDs is No. 1 with consumers, with 43 percent of Americans doing it, while the subscription streaming service where Netflix also is dominant is No. 2 at 32 percent. Third is a la carte streaming, fourth is renting a DVD from a kiosk, and fifth is renting from a video store."
On a personal note, are we as a society disconnecting ourselves from each other? We all crave a more personal experience but will that in turn shield us from wishing to communicate with others? If we never have to leave the house because entertainment, work, marketing, etc can all come to us, will we? Are all these personalized experiences spoiling us by allowing us to exaggerate our own lives to others that we have forgotten how to listen? By this question I mean the younger generation that is so quick to have everything at a push of a button has not the time to learn the meaning of patience and because they are always talking (on the phone, texting, facebooking, twitter, netflix streaming online parties, etc) are they not learning the valuable lesson of listening. Has this digital age triggered the beginning of society's breakdown?
Appelo, T. & Bond, P. (2011, March 17). How the Assault on Netflix Will Shake Out. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved on June 2, 2011 from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-assault-netflix-will-shake-168562
- Interesting side note: did not realize companies for actually hiring for a purely "digital marketing" designated job. I believed that digital marketing was just in the general marketing mix. Should stop taking things for granted since all these new job creations are jobs my generation can fill.
What Makes An Indie?
When one hears the term ‘independent film’ it usually conjures up images of skeleton (minimal) crews, low budgets and novice actors on their way to the big time. After Miramax turned small independent films into household names the term started to lose its meaning. What I mean to say is independent films now come to mean A-list actors, A-list directors, A-list crew, modest budget and most importantly – an art house feel. Art house meaning garnered toward a smarter breed of audience. These movies are now Oscar contenders and usually the winners making them a draw for talent. So with all the positives an independent film has, when does it stop being independent? Are the true indie filmmakers scared that their content is not going to be seen or heard now that big budget films are calling themselves ‘indie’ because they offer a quirky storyline with bohemian beliefs? A current article in the Daily Variety informs on the issue that studios now consider their independent films the big money makers. One quote says that while some of 2010’s indie films “did no where near the $120 million gross of Fahrenheit 9/11… they were to tip grossing 2010 films for their distributors.” (Goldstein). Since when do studio and independent mean the same thing? The upside is that with these evolvements we are seeing that there is a thirst for smart films and not just the fun blockbusters that sometimes take over the multiplexes. But one has to wonder, how can I push through to the big time if the studios continue to masquerade as small independents and not need the content provided by the genuine independents?
Goldstein, G (2011, May 23-29). Daily Variety. Indies Splash Into Summer, Niche distribs adopt bolder counterprogramming moves
Everyone vs. Copyright Theft
The Motion Pictures Association has a new president in Mr. Christopher Dodd. He is actively joining forces with the Senate in passing a bill to curb online piracy. Piracy is where people access copyrighted downloadable content without paying the proper people for that content. It is big business in the States and even bigger overseas. Some people have cited that the amount of piracy overseas is the real problem as they are two thirds of the problem and the people in power should focus their efforts on chocking off their access in order to rein in the problem. The bill in question is called the Preventing Real Online Threats of Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act or PROTECT IP Act. If passed, “it would authorize the Justice Department to seek a court order directing third-parties – search engines, payment processors, advertising networks and Internet providers – to cease providing transactions and support to overseas sites engaged in online infringement.” (Johnson). This would be a great blow to the system, however that it violate search engines is still a questionable topic. Search engines work off of code to recognize key words and deliver what a person is actively searching. If they were to find these sites and delete them from becoming available in their searches, many believe it would start to slow the access to downloading. Dodd was quoted in Cannes saying, “The big issue for us is thievery. I hate the word ‘piracy’ because it conjures up these lovable characters. Theft of intellectual property is the dominant issue.”(McNary).” The MPAA may be an organization that people don’t agree with most of the time but at least this time they are fighting for the protection of content and not judging the ability of it to be shown. This new president may bring a bit of fresh air to the organization.
Johnson, T. (2011, May 13). Daily Variety. The War On Websites, New bills aim to curb online piracy.
McNary, D. (2001, May 17). Daily Variety. Dodd Digs In At Fest, New MPAA chief talk copyright theft.
Entertainment Law
For this month’s blog I wish to share about the importance of intellectual property as it pertains to the entertainment industry. I had wished to interview a prominent lawyer in the field but sadly he was too busy preparing for Cannes and finalizing issues with his current clients before his four-week trip to the French Riviera. By the time I obtained this information, it was too late for me personally, (with one week till the due date) that I would wish to ask someone to take time out for me.
So instead of an engaging interview, I am reviewing a couple of podcasts. The first is from Gordon P. Firemark, Esq. his 12th episode of his Entertainment Law Update Podcasts from iTunesU. His personal website can be found at http://firemark.com/.
One piece of news he talked about was that the copyright office issued a letter that supports the idea of a performance royalty for terrestrial radio stations to pay. An act is pending in congress which would require that there would be a performance right in broadcast radio. Terrestrial radio argues that if it is burdened with another fee that it will be put out of business, as they do not earn money by subscribers such as satellite radio. The fee could not be passed on to the listeners, as that would cause uproar with every listener fighting for their free terrestrial radio. A guest Firemark has on the show states that the fee is so nominal that it makes terrestrial radio companies argument invalid and that musicians are running out of ways to make money on their craft and this could be a new legal stream opening up.
He also talked about an interesting dispute between Michael Douglas and his ex wife Diandra who has filed a suit claiming an interest in his earning from Wall Street 2. As part of the divorce decree she would receive any money on any spinoffs based on movies from when they were together, however spinoff is not a legal term and the courts will have a hard time deciding this one. Could spinoff mean a derivation, a sequel, etc? How interesting is it that ONE word can make or break the meaning behind a contract? Spinoff usually means when one character from an original TV series breaks off on his or her own and makes a completely new series. This seems to be improper wording on Diandra’s lawyer’s part, as Michael Douglas is a film actor and not a TV actor. Yet Diandra could make the case that the character of Gordon Gecko is the only character that remains the same in this new film, which could make it a spinoff of sorts as opposed to a sequel that usually retains its original cast. This case will be interesting to see who comes out on top.
I’ll move on to a separate podcast by Georgetown University’s law center. It’s from their first Sports and Entertainment Law Symposium and Launch of GEMALaw. One lawyer talks about her experiences of how she got to where she is. Her most important piece of advice is that law students should pay attention to the business side of the industry they are in and not solely focus on the law. She divulges further by explaining that what makes a lawyer particularly effective in the entertainment industry is that they know the business that their clients are in and are abreast of all news and issues affecting those industries. I believe that even if you are not a student of law you should take this advice to heart. To succeed in any industry you should know the ins and outs of the business you are involved in as well as the business the people you work with are involved. In that way you can relate to those people better, build that trust since they will feel that you understand them, and grow a stronger business.
Thanks for reading!
Industry Liabilities
Lamensdorf vs. NYC, et Others
One recent case that is making it’s way to court is centering around the death of an NYU student on a student thesis film set in Georgia, USA. This case will have the biggest direct impact on my business plan as it deals with the danger of the unseen accident on a film set. The case centers around film students from New York University that wanted to shoot on a very remote location in Georgia. The location being so remote that for the night shoots the only lights available during set up where from the floodlights of their cars, without them it would be pitch black. This inability to see created the dark look the director and cinematographer wanted yet left every available opportunity for accident offset where the lights would not be shining. In the darkness the gaffer, who was on a lift with a 12k light, was being instructed by the cinematographer where he want the light positioned in the total darkness. The lift struck a power line no one saw and sparks flew from the 12k, which exploded, all the way down the electrical lines on the set until it reached a student named John Lamensdorf who was positioning another light on the opposite side of the set. Lamensdorf died at the scene. What I’ve failed to mention previously is that the shooting location was in a couple miles radius of “dead zone” for cell phones. In order to place a call one must drive out of this dead zone. When Lamensdorf fell dead, one had to do this in order to call 911 and then had to wait the couple hours it took for them to get to the location. On the outside looking in, we can find it irresponsible for the students to have picked such a location, without notifying authorities of their presence and without having EMT’s on location for safety. These reasons are why Lamensdorf’s parents are suing the university, the students involved on the set and outside hires involved in the shooting in Georgia. Most importantly for my business plan, their suit outlines many safety precautions I have to include to make sure I am not making myself openly liable for a negligence or wrongful death suit.
Thrasher, S. (2010, April 6). NYU’s Snuff Film.The Village Voice.Retrieved on March 30, 2011, from http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-04-06/news/nyu-s-snuff-film/
FILMS CORP v. MGM UA HOME VIDEO INC MGM UA
Another case is from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Film Corp asked for an appeal on the ruling that denied that the motion picture, “King of Kings” distribution company, MGM, had to cease the distribution of the film based on the expiration of the original copyright that granted them exclusive distribution rights filed jointly by both parties. MGM agreed to finance and distribute the film if they owned the rights in perpetuity, which means forever. They state that they never would have agreed to the terms in the first place if they didn’t not have rights to the copyright in perpetuity. The outcome was that the court agreed with the original ruling of the district court, which ruled in MGM’s favor. This is important in my business plan as it teaches me to have explicit details when it comes to copyright rights, distributions rights, promotion rights, film rights, etc. Without these listed in detail I may end up in court and could lose the rights to the film I founded and brought to the table to make a motion picture.
P.C. FILMS CORP., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. MGM/UA HOME VIDEO INC., MGM/UA Communications Co., Warner Home Video, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
No. 97-7399.
Argued Sept. 26, 1997. -- February 23, 1998
Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1420592.html
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INC v. VIACOM INC
The final case I wish to discuss happens in the Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County.
VIACOM INC. and Eighth Century Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The SEAGRAM COMPANY LTD., Universal Studios Inc. and Universal City Studios Inc. Defendants.
Civil Action Nos. 14971, 14973. May 15, 1997
Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-court-of-chancery/1271767.html
An Exciting and Informative Interview with Patricia Cusick
I was very lucky to have the opportunity to interview Ms. Pat Cusick who was a high level executive for Xerox. She is a very interesting woman who paved the way in her field not just for other women but for everyone in her field. Following is an excerpt from our interview where she tells intriguing stories about a couple of memorable negotiations. After the interview are a few pieces of advice she would like to give to students venturing out into their own negotiations in the corporate world.
Patricia Cusick -- experiences as:
Account Development Director, IBM Corporation
Corporate Vice-President & CIO, Xerox Corporation
CASE I.
One question is how you separated the person from the problem in a particular negotiation. Did you have to meet with someone you didn't particularly like in order to achieve a benefit for the company and had to put aside your feelings in order to negotiate effectively without affecting the deal? What was the negotiation about? How did you put aside your emotions? What was the outcome of the deal? Do you feel it was mutually beneficial?
“Although I had many situations negotiating with someone I didn’t particularly like, one stands out in my mind. My adversary was someone I intensely disliked…a self-interested, arrogant executive with less operational experience than me, but with some strong corporate sponsorship. We had several past dealings with each other which, while trying, mostly resulted to my advantage. We met again when our organizations were to merge and we were to negotiate the terms. My objective was to protect as much of my groups’ management team and structure as possible to provide service to our organization.
I knew my emotions could get in the way of our discussions. I scheduled set periods of time for our meetings to limit the interaction at any one time. I knew it would end in “x” minutes, so I could go to next steps & wrap-up if I got upset. I over-prepared so that I could take refuge in facts if things got heated. I came prepared to compromise on some items so that we could move on when we got stuck. I kept focus on my desired outcome and what it meant to my organization – the “big picture” versus my desire to win points. And I tried many calming techniques – especially the “2 second rule”, pausing 2 seconds to collect yourself before you speak in anger …often to no avail!
I was successful in a few areas, but lost many more. I don’t feel it was due to my losing negotiations, but more so because of behind-the-scenes corporate politics. My adversary had portrayed me as unwilling to cooperate and blocking the merger. I was instructed to cede several items in order to protect the overall deal. The outcome was substantially to my detriment.
I don’t know if this situation could have ended any differently given the personalities involved. The lesson I learned was that being factually prepared isn’t always enough. I should have known more about the corporate goals & the power bases I was dealing with. I could have lined up better defenses in advance.
By the way….all decisions that I lost in this negotiation were reversed over the next few years after they proved unworkable…& the corporate sponsors had changed!”
CASE II:
In a different negotiation how did you use your status as leverage to get what you wanted? Did you find being a woman in your field/position helped or hindered your negotiations? What was that one about? What was the outcome?
“For almost my entire corporate career I was the only woman involved in many high-level negotiations. It was a mixed scenario. I would say that, as a woman entering into these situations, I was usually underestimated and usually successful at the outcome. Initially, being the only woman was a disadvantage. I was often ignored. But it gave me the opportunity to lay back a bit and more fully judge the personalities & the objectives in the room. Many times, the “macho’ behavior was checked a bit because I was present. I sometimes overplayed my feminine style – politeness & consideration (always good traits!). That would allow me to make my points more effectively. I was patient, but persistent! I was tough, but fair. And, since I knew what I would be dealing with as the only woman involved – I was usually the best prepared in any negotiation I would enter. That always proved to be my advantage. And by the time I was a corporate officer, my status commanded attention & respect. I used it sparingly…but it was effective when I did.
One particular incident revolved around a promotion I was competing for. I got the job over several of my male peers. The executive I would report to told me I had been selected – to my delight. He then told me I would go into the role on a “trial basis” with no change in job grade or pay because he had to be sensitive to the men who did not get the job. What ensued was me swallowing my anger and asserting my position as the selected candidate…and the only woman at the level competing for the job. Any male selected would have been promoted without hesitation. I suggested that the potential for a discrimination charge was obvious and would have been embarrassing and distasteful to both of us. It became a “play me or trade me” kind of discussion. I was prepared to transfer rather than accept the job as offered. I got my full promotion.
I learned not to be afraid to ask for what you want, make your arguments and be ready to take alternative action if your negotiating tactics fail.”
CASE III :
Did you ever use any dirty tricks/tactics for your benefit in a different negotiation? Did you recognize when someone used them on you? Did you recognize them early and used those to benefit you or too late after the deal was done? What was that one about? What was the outcome?
“I was responsible to negotiate a deal worth tens of millions of dollars in revenue to my company. I was dealing with a no-nonsense customer looking to get the lowest costs possible for their company. They were an experienced team with a history of pressuring suppliers to get what they wanted. When I held my ground on some areas of pricing, they calmly said “no deal” and walked out of the room. I thought both companies wanted to make a deal and the mechanics would work out eventually. The abruptness of walking out shocked me and taught me a lesson at the same time. We found our way back to the negotiating table after higher level executive appeals, and closed a deal with more concessions than I intended. It was a tactic that worked and I never forgot the lesson.
Many years later I was negotiating a way out of a legal action, which revolved around an alleged breach of contract due to my company’s cancellation of services from a supplier. After discovering that the other party’s concern was really their loss of revenue, I moved the negotiation to extending our contract and replacing cancelled services with a prolonged revenue stream worth more money over time. This would be a win-win scenario for both companies, avoiding a costly legal action for us and providing desired revenue to them. As negotiations of the new deal unfolded we reached a point where we stalemated. When we exhausted what I thought were all reasonable attempts to compromise, I calmly stated my disappointment and that I would see them in court and walked out of the room. That abruptness had the same effect on my adversary as it had with me in the other situation many years before. After they had their higher level executive conferences, they called me back to the negotiating table and we were able to close a mutually beneficial deal.
This was an aggressive tactic and had to be used only when absolutely necessary, but it worked. I don’t know what would have happened if they called my bluff since we did not want to go to court! But I learned not to be afraid to walk away from a deal if it requires concessions you are not willing to make.”
SOME ADVICE from her EXPERIENCE:
· Be prepared, do your homework!
· Understand both sides’ objectives
· Constantly assess the situation – Listen, Listen, Listen!
· Be professional and polite
· Be patient but persistent
· Be firm but fair
· Don’t be afraid to ask for what you want
· Anticipate negotiating scenarios
· Ask high but know your bottom line
· Don’t compromise without reciprocity
· Always have options including a fall-back position
· Be assertive not aggressive
· Be willing to walk away
