As I understand it, the reason that things like IMDBtv exist is that so not everything is in one basket. Just how many subscription video on demand services (SVOD in the industry parlance) is one home likely to subscribe to? And because so many of them have minimal or indeed no advertising at all, and there's still an awful lot of TV advertising money floating around, the advertising-based video on demand services (AVOD) exist basically to hoover up that money. And they are popular, even if you and I don't like commercials, and can't even do that record-the-show-on-my-DVR-so-I-can-fast-forward-through-the-ads thing that I would do with cable channels.
I would be surprised if there were specific contractual limitations placed on certain shows that they *had* to appear on ad-based platforms. There are definitely rules in place to prevent self-dealing, where, say, Warner's HBO-Max pays less-than-market-rate for a Warners TV production, particularly if there are profit participants. There was that case about Bones and Hulu getting it cheap when Fox had an ownership stake. They had to pay out. In terms of new contracts, I spoke with a TV producer a couple of years ago who said that when you deal with Netflix etc, you go in knowing that you're going to make x% on the deal. Netflix pays more than a network would, but you are going to get zero residuals afterwards. If the show catches fire, you're not going to be like Warners and Friends, licencing it repeatedly for the next 25 years. Netflix buys everything outright, and I suspect these days even takes all the subsidiary rights. Their mooted new gaming offering springs to mind. I doubt Shona is getting extra if they make a Bridgerton mobile game - not that she did badly out of her Netflix deal anyway! On the other hand, when Warners make Manifest for NBC, the fee that NBC pays is less than it costs Warners to make. They hope to make up the difference licencing it on to Netflix and international broadcasters. And of course, if the series catches fire, then they can cash in vastly more than simply selling it for a flat-fee to Netflix. I wonder if Warners playing hardball over that very show right now is what is keeping NBC/Netflix from renewing it? It is complex, because while the show in on Netflix in the US after its NBC window, in other territories the picture is more complex. In the UK, for example, it's on the Comcast owned Sky and not on Netflix at all. Netflix likes more and more to do global deals. Adam On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:47 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > This would be consistent with the observation that the ad supported > programs seem to be older shows. Maybe newer shows are more likely to have > negotiated a way to deal with subscription fees? > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 7:45 AM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 6:16 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So, this starts to make sense, like IMDbTV has programs Prime could not >>> make available ad-free for licensing reasons. And now that you mention it, >>> i think I have seen a note on some subscription services that they are >>> required t o show ads for some programs. >>> >>> But then I guess the question is why would a license holder require ads >>> rather than subscription payments? >>> >> >> Here's my uneducated guess: When creative people talk about making TV >> shows for Netflix, they say Netflix pays out up front and there are no >> residuals. The deals the guilds have with the media companies have >> breakdowns for residuals in different platforms. If the streamer gets the >> show from the license holder to be added to the ad free library the guilds >> will still demand compensation for their members. If the streamer shows the >> TV shows with ads, residuals can be apportioned according to the ad >> revenue. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiGrbyXPvHtRWSx%3DGpjSU-Cgn9LF2PBRN%3DPSZKZN4kvzMw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiGrbyXPvHtRWSx%3DGpjSU-Cgn9LF2PBRN%3DPSZKZN4kvzMw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK-bkdX2R%2B%3D-3MD4D7zAxsw2ipACyc-O2etijthN5g1PQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK-bkdX2R%2B%3D-3MD4D7zAxsw2ipACyc-O2etijthN5g1PQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGB9gkPRsOKHXdXEhzDGTj2-q%3DGPh%3DnoL9CDSWmifDng%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
