3 ms·

I love the fact that Louis CK disintermediated like a star. However, there is a reason it worked: The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars

I love the fact that Louis CK disintermediated like a star. However, there is a reason it worked: The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars to cause his name recognition. (Most likely, they profited handsomely too.) But now he has taken that name recognition and cut them out of the deal. So it is very predictable what happens next: Future studio contracts will return to the days where the studios own all of your output for a period of time in return for promoting you.

kalleboo 15y ago
I see the kickstartr model as something very similar to this, and it has worked well for people without any Hollywood backing or outside advertising. James Rolfe (the angry video game nerd) has raised over $180,000 for his movie http://www.indiegogo.com/Angry-Video-Game-Nerd-The-Movie http://www.indiegogo.com/Angry-Video-Game-Nerd-The-Movie Jason Scott raised over $100,000 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scott-documentary-three-pack http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot... Even though these projects will probably only break even, these are no small sums of money that people who have never been on broadcast TV are raising.
dasil003 15y ago
This doesn't make sense unless all the top talent rolls over like they did 70 years ago because they didn't know any better. Why do you think studios stopped owning talent decades ago? Because talent wised up. The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent, but that's what they'll get if they don't negotiate fairly. In short, they don't have the leverage.
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  > The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent Combine: 1. There is always a pipeline of new talent, 2. Businesses do not invest without a return. So either the studios are going to lock in a return, or the studios are going to go away and the entertainment industry is going to fragment into a million pieces. As much as I'd like to see the second case, my guess is that there are enough starving actors that they will sign up for long-term owned-output contracts.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    And they got their return. Are you trying to say they spent more than they made off Louis CK? This is a weak argument for how they're going to turn back the clock.
viscanti 15y ago
He was pretty smart about his TV deal. He took less money to have more creative control and to have more flexibility. I don't think his "success" changes anything for the TV industry.
naner 15y ago
The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars to cause his name recognition. What does this mean specifically? He has a few standup specials, has been on the talk shows, and he has a TV show but the guy hasn't really been in any huge titles: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0127373/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0127373/

kalleboo 15y ago

I see the kickstartr model as something very similar to this, and it has worked well for people without any Hollywood backing or outside advertising. James Rolfe (the angry video game nerd) has raised over $180,000 for his movie http://www.indiegogo.com/Angry-Video-Game-Nerd-The-Movie http://www.indiegogo.com/Angry-Video-Game-Nerd-The-Movie Jason Scott raised over $100,000 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scott-documentary-three-pack http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot... Even though these projects will probably only break even, these are no small sums of money that people who have never been on broadcast TV are raising.

dasil003 15y ago

This doesn't make sense unless all the top talent rolls over like they did 70 years ago because they didn't know any better. Why do you think studios stopped owning talent decades ago? Because talent wised up. The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent, but that's what they'll get if they don't negotiate fairly. In short, they don't have the leverage.

jpdoctor 15y ago
> The studios can't be the studios with second-rate talent Combine: 1. There is always a pipeline of new talent, 2. Businesses do not invest without a return. So either the studios are going to lock in a return, or the studios are going to go away and the entertainment industry is going to fragment into a million pieces. As much as I'd like to see the second case, my guess is that there are enough starving actors that they will sign up for long-term owned-output contracts.
- dasil003 15y ago
  And they got their return. Are you trying to say they spent more than they made off Louis CK? This is a weak argument for how they're going to turn back the clock.

viscanti 15y ago

He was pretty smart about his TV deal. He took less money to have more creative control and to have more flexibility. I don't think his "success" changes anything for the TV industry.

naner 15y ago

The Hollywood/NYC advertising machine spent a lot of dollars to cause his name recognition. What does this mean specifically? He has a few standup specials, has been on the talk shows, and he has a TV show but the guy hasn't really been in any huge titles: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0127373/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0127373/