November 17, 2024

Pivot TV Pitches to Young Viewers

The question is more than academic for Mr. Shapiro, a former president of IFC and the Sundance Channel, who is honing his own plan for something new, a channel for young people called Pivot that will become available in 40 million homes on Thursday. Being around students has reminded him again and again how hard it will be to keep their attention.

“There are a bajillion media choices out there,” said Mr. Shapiro, now the president of Pivot, probably slightly underestimating how many options there really are. “This generation has information and data and content thrown at them at lightning speed. The idea that they will actually care about us and know about us is probably our biggest challenge.”

So Pivot is keeping expectations low — it won’t be rated by Nielsen at the outset — while trying to be on every screen it can. The channel is part of a drive into television by Participant Media, the film company behind “An Inconvenient Truth,” “Lincoln,” “A Place at the Table” and others. It comes at a time of intense skepticism about whether people under 35 are watching traditional television at all anymore, now that alternatives like Netflix and YouTube are available.

Nielsen data backs up Pivot’s claims that old-fashioned television is still paramount among young people. In the first quarter of 2013, the typical adult aged 18 to 24 watched about four hours of TV every day, most of it live, and 16 minutes of Internet programming. Those aged 25 to 34 watched about an hour more TV than the younger group, and almost as much on the Internet.

Still, the trend lines are ominous; traditional TV consumption has been slipping among those under 34 for the last two years. And many people suspect that the shift is happening faster than Nielsen’s data suggests. So why start a channel for the so-called millennial generation, besides the obvious answers involving advertisers who pay a premium for younger demographics?

Mr. Shapiro’s answer involved a great deal of flattery. Where others see stereotypes about “navel-gazing entitled narcissists,” he said, “we see the most open-minded, most connected, most generous, most giving generation alive on the planet today. We’re betting heavy on their ability to make the changes that the world so badly needs.”

Participant Media’s progressive mandate — “entertainment that inspires and compels social change” — will carry over to Pivot through on-screen graphics about how viewers can help combat, say, hunger in America, or support antibullying efforts. But Mr. Shapiro stressed that Pivot will be a general entertainment channel, complete with an original comedy called “Please Like Me” and repeats of “Friday Night Lights” and “Farscape.”

“We can’t fulfill the second part of our mandate if we can’t fulfill the first,” he said.

Mr. Shapiro, 46, is not himself a millennial, nor is his senior management team, and when told during a telephone interview that this reporter was 27, he exclaimed, “You’re a child!” At other times, he used “kids” before correcting himself and saying “young people.” But he said “half the programming group are millennials.”

The channel’s celebrity backers include Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose variety show, “HitRECord on TV!,” will come on early next year, and Meghan McCain, whose on-the-road talk show, “Raising McCain,” will premiere in September.

In an interview Ms. McCain, 28, daughter of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, admitted to some hesitation before her first meeting with Pivot, given the history of high-minded start-up channels “that quite frankly don’t do that well.” (Participant acquired two failed channels, the Documentary Channel and Halogen TV, last year to allow the creation of Pivot.) But she said she came away convinced by the channel’s potential.

“When I was growing up, MTV News had such a big impact on my life,” Ms. McCain said. Now it scarcely exists, she added, implying that Pivot could fulfill a similar purpose. Mr. Shapiro included MTV in Pivot’s competitive set, along with ABC Family, BBC America, the forthcoming FX spinoff FXX, Hulu and Netflix.

“Our bet is on a pluralistic view of the future of television,” he said, meaning viewers can choose scheduled or on-demand offerings. Kent Rees, Pivot’s top scheduler, said the channel has been constructed with binge viewing in mind: For instance, the first six episodes of “Please Like Me,” an Australian comedy starring Josh Thomas that made its debut in that country earlier this year, will be shown several times in a row during Pivot’s first week. They’ll also be available on demand.

While Pivot is dependent on the support of cable and satellite providers, some of which have declined to carry it, the channel also wants (and needs) to reach the viewers it calls “broadbanders” (and others call cord-cutters), who pay for Internet but not bundled TV channels. It is encouraging broadband providers to sell a small bundle of channels, Pivot included, for Internet streaming.

“It would be the first product of its kind,” Mr. Shapiro said, sold through the broadband provider — if any agree to do it, that is. Exuding confidence, he said the Internet version would “roll out in the next 12 months.” By then, Pivot hopes to be premiering its first scripted drama, “Will,” about Shakespeare’s life as a millennial.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/business/media/pivot-tv-pitches-to-young-viewers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Media Equation: TV Foresees Its Future. Netflix Is There.

But Netflix already has.

Netflix knows a little about transformation. It’s worth remembering that it managed to go from the largest user of the Postal Service to the largest source of download traffic on the Web in the span of months, not years. After a big stumble on pricing in 2011, Netflix recovered and then some, using its expertise in technology and algorithms to accrue over 36 million users worldwide, a number that will probably grow when it announces its earnings on Monday. Its stock has already risen more than 200 percent in the last year.

But few would have guessed that Netflix’s software expertise would extend to entertainment produced by top-flight actors, directors and writers. Beginning this year, Netflix streamed four original series — “House of Cards,” “Hemlock Grove,” “Arrested Development” and “Orange Is the New Black.” The shows earned generally good notices, kicked up a great deal of chatter, and, drum roll here, were nominated for 14 Emmys. It was the first time an Internet-only service earned a seat at the big-boy table in television.

The Emmys were the most prominent marker of change, but hardly the only one, in a week full of headlines about what TV is becoming. It’s not their first foray, but if Apple and Google move further into the television space, they are sure to collide with not only traditional players, but Netflix, Amazon, Sony and Intel. And Aereo, which so far is a small but persistent player backed by Barry Diller, won another court victory for its plan to totally upend broadcast networks, by streaming their content without compensating them.

Meanwhile, what were the traditional television players up to? Squabbling yet again over retransmission fees, with a standoff between CBS and Time Warner Cable that could set off a blackout, driving audiences to other ways of viewing. The only constant was steady price hikes on cable bills.

The future of television — a place where cable is not the only answer for average viewers — just drew a little closer.

Netflix has earned its place in that future. It won some victories on the programming side by financing creators and staying out of their hair, an approach invented and perfected by HBO. Given that HBO pulled in 108 Emmy nominations last week, Netflix has a long way to go. But David Bianculli, a professor at Rowan University in New Jersey who blogs at TV Worth Watching, suggests another view.

“It took HBO 25 years to get its first Emmy nomination; it took Netflix six months,” he said. In that sense, Netflix is more like Pixar than Hulu, showing that a Silicon Valley company could produce creative, successful programming.

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, told The New York Times last week that the Emmy nominations solidified the idea that “television is television, no matter what pipe brings it to the screen.”

He’s right. Television used to come over the air or through the coaxial cable. Now it seems to come from everywhere on all kinds of devices.

Both Google and Apple continue to hover around the honey pot of television. Apple’s rumored effort at making a TV set has been like Godot — much anticipated, never arriving — but in the meantime it is in talks with distributors like Time Warner Cable and programmers like Walt Disney to explore collaboration on apps.

Google has been in talks with program providers, including cable channels, about distribution over the Internet, a more complicated approach — the cable systems that distribute programming would be left out of the mix — with a higher risk in execution.

In both instances, the companies are taking the same wine and putting it in a new bottle, creating a new interface to replace clunky remotes while hoping to gain a lot of valuable data in the process. Figuring out how to put a new skin on the same database can be lucrative — Weather.com, a huge business, is built on existing government data — but it’s one thing to present better navigation, and another to produce better television.

Apple reinvented the music industry on its terms and in doing so cut the legacy music business in half. The TV business, which is still sitting on healthy earnings, if not ratings, saw that movie already and wants no part of it.

But Apple is nothing if not relentless. One of its reported approaches is to enable ad-skipping while making a payment to ad-supported networks. “In essence they were saying that they would cut them a check while destroying their business model,” said Craig Moffett, a telecommunications analyst. “How long do you think that conversation lasted?”

Meanwhile Google is selling its ability to make content more visible and searchable; that sounds like the favor Google did for the newspaper business, which, like music, is half the size it once was.

E-mail:carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter: @carr2n

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/media/tv-foresees-its-future-netflix-is-there.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Netflix Dominates Speculation Over Emmy Awards

Two programs created for that Internet streaming service, the drama “House of Cards” and the comedy “Arrested Development,” are leading contenders for best actor or best program nominations that formerly were the province of shows produced for broadcast and cable networks. And if they are nominated, it would be the first time that slots in the most avidly pursued categories went to programs not specifically produced for the medium of television.

The reaction to this development inside the traditional television business has been largely muted, with many executives suggesting that only the quality of the work is important. But to some, this is a moment reminiscent of the days when cable channels like HBO first began to challenge the dominance of broadcast networks like ABC.

John Landgraf, the chairman of the cable network FX, who has been critical of Netflix’s practice of not disclosing how many people are watching its programs, acknowledged that “House of Cards” seems likely to grab one of the six nominations for best drama, potentially knocking out one of his network’s strong candidates, like “Justified” or “The Americans.”

Mr. Landgraf said that FX aggressively pursues Emmy nominations, but he added, “It would be the height of bad sportsmanship to seek to keep a show out because it comes from a different distribution system.”

Another senior broadcast network executive said, “It’s hard to say anything about the Netflix thing because we only sound defensive or whiny.” The executive insisted on anonymity because of a reluctance to criticize the inclusion of streaming services publicly.

More than anything else, Netflix’s arrival in the Emmy mix is disquieting to some broadcast and cable executives because it is probably only the beginning.

Though there is little evidence than winning Emmys drives up viewership (just ask Tina Fey about “30 Rock”), creators and networks still see them as validation. Netflix clearly does; it campaigned ardently for nominations this year, which including planting lawn signs in Los Angeles neighborhoods presumed to be dense with members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

With everyone from Amazon to YouTube to Condé Nast having announced rosters of planned programs this spring, the prospect of a glut of new nominees is on the horizon. Already the number of eligible dramas under consideration has leapt to 105, from 87 last year. One academy member said this year’s nominating ballot “was mind-boggling; it was like an SAT test.”

John Leverence, the academy’s senior vice president for awards, said of the proliferation, “I think this is a parallel situation to what happened with cable 20 years ago.”

In 1988 the academy opened its doors to cable entries, and within a few years, led by “The Sopranos,” cable networks had slowly eroded the hegemony broadcast networks had enjoyed at the Emmys, leading to cable domination in certain categories, especially drama.

Mr. Leverence recalled how the series creator Steven Bochco argued that he faced limitations on content in his drama “NYPD Blue” that “The Sopranos” never had to deal with.

“The Bochco argument was very compelling,” Mr. Leverence said. “It was so compelling, he made poor Dennis Franz take his pants off.” Laughing at the memory, he added, “Nobody liked that solution.”

The issue of freedom versus limits persists. Yet Preston Beckman, who was the top program scheduler at NBC and later at Fox, said that the inclusion of Netflix and other streaming sites “is a big deal, but not a game changer.”

Since pay cable channels already are included in the Emmys, “what does it matter if two shows from some other source are included?” he said. “The issue isn’t so much these streaming sites as the fact that you have five entities that are constrained in terms of what they can put on the air and need to attract as large an audience as possible.”

Mr. Leverence said the Emmys “are about excellence.” But he agreed that the mix of shows is important to the academy, which is eager to generate strong ratings for its annual awards broadcast.

After attracting more than 16 million viewers in 2006 — coincidentally, the last time broadcast shows won both best drama (“24”) and best comedy (“The Office”) — the show has not surpassed 13.5 million viewers and has fallen below 13 million three times. Last year, it hit a record low among the viewers most prized by broadcast advertisers, those between the ages of 18 and 49.

Mr. Leverence acknowledged that the awards show risks losing viewers “when they are not going to have any rooting interest” because the nominated shows were seen only through streaming services or Web sites. One potential answer would be to expand the number of nominees in the categories with hordes of eligible entrants.

Four years ago, the academy expanded nominees in the two major categories to six from five. Mr. Leverence said that academy rules are fluid and that some other adjustments might be made.

The film industry, in search of a way to include movies that attracted big crowds after “The Dark Knight” was snubbed in 2009, expanded the number of best picture nominees to 10 the next year. Mr. Leverence said his awards committee has had some discussion about expanding the pool of nominees. But, he said, “There is always a hesitation about award inflation.”

Similarly, he said that another suggestion — separating categories either by traditional distribution versus Internet or advertiser-supported channels versus subscription services like Netflix — would threaten to devalue the trophy.

“Tiering is degrading,” he said. “The best should be the best.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/business/media/netflix-dominates-speculation-over-emmy-awards.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Less ‘All My Children’ and ‘One Life to Live’ on Web

Rich Frank and Jeff Kwatinetz, who own the production company responsible for the shows, said viewers’ behavior had suggested to them that they make a change. While daytime dramas on TV typically have fresh episodes five days a week, Mr. Frank and Mr. Kwatinetz said in a statement on Thursday that in viewing patterns, “All My Children” and “One Life to Live” now resemble online shows more closely than traditional television shows.

Some viewers are stockpiling episodes and watching them on the weekend, on their own schedules. “In the past these shows had their vast majority of views within the first 24 hours,” said Mr. Frank and Mr. Kwatinetz, whose company is called Prospect Park. “Instead, our shows are primarily consumed on different days than when they originally air.”

Additionally, there is not as much overlap between the audiences of the two shows as there was on TV; many viewers seem to be choosing to watch one or the other. “This leads us to believe we are posting too many episodes and making it far too challenging for viewers to keep up,” they said.

So Prospect Park will start staggering future episodes, with new half-hours of “All My Children” on Mondays and Wednesdays alternating with “One Life to Live” on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The new schedule will take effect on Monday; the shows will continue to be distributed through Hulu and iTunes.

The schedule change was immediately assailed by some fans, but others said they supported the decision, if only to keep the shows alive in some form. The soaps were canceled by ABC in 2011. In the statement, which was addressed to fans of the shows, the two producers apologized for the change and added, “Please understand we are trying to ensure our shows succeed and not meet the fate they experienced previously.”

While the adjustment will not markedly reduce the production company’s costs — Prospect Park is still committed to producing 220 episodes of each show — it will give the company more time to recoup those costs and turn a profit. Prospect Park needs each episode to be seen roughly 500,000 times to break even. With that in mind, slowing down the release schedule so that those episodes last two years instead of one is a logical step.

Prospect Park also said it would combine the two Friday recap shows that it is currently producing into one.

Hulu, which has guaranteed a minimum amount of ad revenue to Prospect Park, has backed the new schedule, Mr. Frank and Mr. Kwatinetz said in their statement. Hulu was going to make only the most recent episodes available free, while providing the whole library to paying subscribers of its Hulu Plus service. But “because Hulu agrees with our findings, for the meantime they will keep all of our episodes on Hulu.com for free to give viewers the opportunity to find us and catch up,” the two men said.

“All My Children” and “One Life to Live” have regularly ranked among the top 10 most-watched series on Hulu since their premieres on April 29. But no specific viewing data is available for that site or for iTunes.

The Prospect Park statement hinted at the challenges associated with marketing shows, even those with storied pasts, on the Internet. While television is a mostly passive medium, lending itself to viewing of multiple shows in one sitting as dictated by the schedule, the Internet is more active: viewers choose what to watch, when, in what order. (With the rise of on-demand options, television viewing is slowly becoming more active, as well.) Many fans have been binge-viewing the soaps, Mr. Frank and Mr. Kwatinetz said Thursday, and they felt overwhelmed by the number of new episodes a week.

“We need to devise a model that works for all viewers,” one that follows how they want to watch online, the statement said. “When it comes to online, as with all new technology, it’s adapt or fail. We feel fortunate to be an online company and to have such an opportunity to adapt.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/business/media/less-all-my-children-and-one-life-to-live-on-web.html?partner=rss&emc=rss