Why Is Paramount So Desperate?
The idea of a studio cable/satellite channel is a good one… I have been proposing it as the future for years now.
Bur reading this press release about Par/MGM/US/Lionsgate doing one channel all together just makes my head spin.
I completely understand by MGM and Lionsgate want to be in bed with Paramount. They have a different level of muscle. But what’s in this for Paramount?
Okay, so the two companies have really big libraries… way too big to limit to one channel of programming. But Paramount has a huge library of their own, of both TV and film.
Universal already has the Sleuth Channel, pumping out library mystery and cop shows. They also have Universal High Def Channel, which shows both film and TV in hi-def.
MGM, actually, already launched the MGM HD Channel, showing the studio’s library 24/7 in high-def.
Paramount is not only the studio, but a ton of classic TV that the studio made before they owned a network, plus MTV and VH-1 and Nick and other cable outlets that have been producing original product for years. If ever Paramount seemed in need of self-branding, it is now, in the face of the 98%-likely DreamWorks exit.
Variety reads this all as a slap at Showtime, which is owned by competing family company, CBS. (Another reason MGM needs this is that their Showtime pay-cable deal ends at the end of this year.) But while that may be cute and all… that’s an awfully petty way to walk the walk.
Maybe the strategy is to lock in the MGM/UA and Liosngate libraries, which are two of the biggest after WB. (Lionsgate’s library is huge… only its quality is in doubt… and not based on the Lionsgate release product, but on the kind of libraries the company has acquired over the years.) Maybe 3, 4, 5 or more channels is the longterm goal.
But keep in mind that another pay channel with its exclusives is not any kind of lock to be a hit. Showtime has forever been chasing HBO and others have been chasing Showtime.
What could be a “game changer” is branding The Paramount Channel, where 24/7 great Paramount product plays with a few select slots for originals.
This step feels… oddly careful.
Maybe they just really want the Saw franchise and Tyler Perry’s movies on the channel?
Are they aiming to do a premium channel or a basic cable channel? With the fight over getting NFL Network on basic cable, it seems like there’s a lot of money to be made on basic cable, what with both advertising and subscription money, and the cahnnel’d be on a par with FX, which is Fox’s equivalent.
The further we get into digital, with more and more streams of distribution available, the more the studios will try to cut the distributor out of the equation. If studios can own their own streaming sites (hulu) or cable channels like this, they no longer need to cut deals with other parties.
So much for that old school anti-trust legislation…
Seems like as good a time as any to ask:
Why does it take an average of 18 months for theatrical movies to premiere on Showtime? HBO/Cinemax and Starz! seem to get the big hits about 9-12 months after theatrical release; Showtime it’s like a year and a half, with special exemptions for the occasional thing like Crash and MI:III.
Casino Royale is just now about to hit Showtime networks, Failure to Launch was the big “new” movie recently, “Harsh Times” is nowhere to be found yet… By comparison, “Pan’s Labyrinth” has been on Cinemax for about six months now, and “Deja Vu” dropped on Starz last fall.
Hey, just what America needs: yet another cable channel to grind the Godfather, Indiana Jones, Jack Ryan and Star Trek movies non-stop. Woo-hoo!
Personally I haven’t watched a theatrical release on a premium channel in ages. In the past it always seemed like they screwed with the aspect ratio even on the HD HBO or Showtime (it might be just HBO I’m thinking of, not sure). And those non-premium HD channels that sometimes show movies like AMC, A&E and TnT – man it’s completely hit or miss on these too. Seems like half the time the image is some 4×3 picture that’s been stretched and distorted to fit the 16×9 screen. It looks HORRIBLE.
And even if they fixed these problems, Blu Ray has ruined it for me – they all pale in comparison. But for some of the exemplary original content on HBO and my love for Battlestar Galactica (finally, SCIFI went HD in Chicago!), I’d cancel my cable in a heartbeat.
I think the Godfather has been on at least once everyday for the past two months! Complete overkill. Still fun to watch a snippet of it here and there…
Showtime is such a shit network. Basic Instinct 2, Peaceful Warrior, and Flyboys on the main channel tonight. I mean wow!
USA seems to be showing all movies in their correct aspect ratio now. I saw Mission: Impossible in its 2.35:1, anamorphic glory the other day.
From what I have been reading, many of these studio output deals with pay networks are coming up for renewal. The new deals are expected to be at dramatically lower prices. Not surprising given the the development of home video markets since many of these deals were originally done. Starz for example publicly talks about how their operating profits will improve when the massively overpriced deals they negotiated in order to gain a foothold in the pay TV biz expire.
It is not surprising that the value of the rights is falling dramatically. Windows leave pay TV in a position that most folks have probably rented or purchased the film in the home video window. This is happening at the same time that pay TV increasingly has focused on original series.
I suspect that Showtime was offering very little to these studios thus improving the economics (or reducing the opportunity cost) of them going it alone. When you add in the ability of these studios to tweak the windows on their own product and integrate the channel/s with digital distribution/VOD, I can see why they decided to go it alone and bring it in house.
It also seems logical that HBO may have been stingy with the bucks and maybe Starz as well as they are looking more at their channels as distribution for their sister companies under the same parental umbrella. Remember that Starz is tied up with Liberty Media which now controls DirecTV. Starz is also going to increase sefl-production just as Showtime’s parent CBS is planning.
None of this explains why Paramount is not dominating this new venture. Dave makes a very good point there.
Of course, it is an open question as to whether there is demand for yet another pay TV network. There is also the question of whether cable will dedicate precious system capacity for this venture. OF course, they need the output for VOD, which their best competitive weapon against satellite. Satellite and Telco TV seems likely to support this venture as they are less capacity constrained (excepting that silly U-verse technology AT&T is employing).
Finally, I wonder what Showtime will do for programming. I believe they will have no movie output deals after 2008. They are on a roll with originals but that won’t program one channel let alone all their channels.
Dire – I have no issue with the studios going out on their own… it is an economic neccessity. But why 3 studios?
As for Showtime, they will make deals. But if Redstone was sane, he would be forcing this new business to be what exists as Showtime. This is yet another example of the split of the business being nothing but destructive.
Lex: Showtime has always been behind HBO/STARZ/MAX in terms of premiering movies in a timely fashion. Let us ignore that freakin Showtime does not make a big deal about movies premiering on their network. They simply drag their premieres out over months. While HBO/MAX/STARZ have gotten down to 10 months to a year. Showtime just sucks as a movie network. This leaves me wondering if the Viacom Network will suck as much as Showtime or more?
No David. This is just another example of how Howard Stern crippled an entire media empire. This is what they get when they mess with the KING.