 "David Haslingden")
Successful global media companies will morph into local media companies, David Haslingden tells Vanita Kohli-Khandekar
Fiction seems to be making a huge comeback in most of the rich markets of the world. Please comment.
What is happening in the US is fascinating. A decade ago, the only channels spending a large amount of money on programming were broadcast networks (the equivalent of the general entertainment channels in India). Then HBO started spending on original programming and taking more risks with subject matter and storyline - The Sopranos, Six Feet Under. And the market took off.
There is now a proliferation of channels with the money to attract writers and directors to do long stories. They (the writers and directors) realised that TV is a more potent medium to exercise their art and to bring their characters to life - having 36 hours or more allows for a lot more than can be achieved in one feature length film.
Is it Hollywood's failing that the best writers are finding TV more interesting?
It is not so much a case of Hollywood's failing. More a case of there being enough money in television to make it an attractive place for even the very best to work.
How do the developed markets compare with, say, the larger markets in Asia such as China and Indonesia?
The business imperatives are the same everywhere. But there is a limit to how successful a TV show from one market will be in another market. A good story adapted to another market can do well - like The Bridge, which is adapted from a Scandinavian drama or Homeland, which is an Israeli show's recreation (for the US market). One exception to this rule is natural history content. Children in particular are fascinated by animals. While the wave of programming is flowing toward local, the exception are subjects that are truly universal.
How does a broadcasting firm balance the fundamental logic of going global or scaling up for economies of scale with the need to localise, which is expensive?
Scale doesn't ipso facto translate into an ability to make better content. TV is not a widget business. Successful global media companies will morph into local media companies. Star India is the best example. Star gains synergy from being part of the Fox Group, but that is not the reason for its popularity.
In the online world, content gets the smallest share of the pie - aggregators or telecom firms get the best chunks. For a company that does high quality, high cost programming, how do you see this revenue stream panning out?
Today online classifieds are making more money than the newspapers ever made from them. Huge amount of money is being spent on content globally. TV networks will continue to fund the production of good shows and monetise them. The overall money available for audio visual content will go up.
What difference does the ownership of IPR make to how a production firm does? (In the context of India being a market for commissioned programming where the rights of most shows are owned by broadcasters not production firms).
If by not owning the IPR you are just doing a work for hire with a small margin then yes the business isn't that attractive. But there are still plenty of ways to make a good return without having the IP. For example, you may be able to agree on a sufficient margin that ends up being well in excess of the net present value of the future income from exploiting the IP outside the initial license to the broadcaster. There are benefits for the broadcaster in retaining the IP - they ensure they control the show and can avoid paying large premiums on subsequent seasons.
There are disadvantages too, a producer with IP is incentivised to ensure the show performs and has a long and valuable life - something that is, of course, to the benefit of the broadcaster too.
