3 ms·

while i agree the article is fairly off the mark, i also do not agree with your assumption that a traditional market will emerge. producing the pilot of Game o

by jtoeman 14y ago

while i agree the article is fairly off the mark, i also do not agree with your assumption that a traditional market will emerge. producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever. in the efficient market scenario, we'll end up with a lot more reality TV and mediocre sitcoms/drama. the reality check is - the current system ain't so bad, and while I want "independent content" as much as you, I think we have a lot more of it in the current system than you outline... Workaholics? Portlandia? etc.

ahupp 14y ago
Avatar cost $200-300m dollars to produce and promote, all before they knew it was going to be a hit. $10m for a TV show is of course beyond the abilities of most independents, but there's no reason to believe that only small independents would be players in a new TV market.
edanm 14y ago
"producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever" Why is that? Isn't it just like any other kind of investment that regularly gets made in an efficient market?
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Right. Plenty of market mechanisms exist for gauging risk, investing on it, and being rewarded for it. People invest in most things without being a bit. We're on a forum hosted by an institution whose very raison d'etre is investing in things before they know they'll be a hit.
  - jtoeman 14y ago
    but neither of you are taking the existing industry into account. you just want them to lay over and die and do it your way. they make FIVE HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year, and you guys think they should just change because you want them to. market testing in TV and movies is exactly what produces mediocre crap. if you'd like to spend some more time getting up to speed on how the industry works before deciding it sucks, i'm happy to oblige.
richardjordan 14y ago
The current system IS so bad. You like that stuff I don't. For the NFL Network, local baseball and BBC that I watch (literally nothing else is watched on my TV) I have to pay for a huge cable subscription that's over a thousand dollars per year. That's not a system that's working well.
001sky 14y ago
you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever This is not true. Look at silicon valley. $10MM is nothing. The issue is that markets are human. Humans are bad at predicting what will be successful art, untill its successful. Technology on the whole, is much easier landscape in which to invest in standalone projects (ie, startups). That is why movies are financed on a portfolio basis, and why you see so many sequels in large ticket entertainment (both games and Films). Its also why you see other projects financed in-house (ie, via hierarchy) as opposed to independently (ie, in a market).

by jtoeman 14y ago

ahupp 14y ago

Avatar cost $200-300m dollars to produce and promote, all before they knew it was going to be a hit. $10m for a TV show is of course beyond the abilities of most independents, but there's no reason to believe that only small independents would be players in a new TV market.

edanm 14y ago

"producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever" Why is that? Isn't it just like any other kind of investment that regularly gets made in an efficient market?

richardjordan 14y ago
Right. Plenty of market mechanisms exist for gauging risk, investing on it, and being rewarded for it. People invest in most things without being a bit. We're on a forum hosted by an institution whose very raison d'etre is investing in things before they know they'll be a hit.
- jtoeman 14y ago
  but neither of you are taking the existing industry into account. you just want them to lay over and die and do it your way. they make FIVE HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year, and you guys think they should just change because you want them to. market testing in TV and movies is exactly what produces mediocre crap. if you'd like to spend some more time getting up to speed on how the industry works before deciding it sucks, i'm happy to oblige.

richardjordan 14y ago

The current system IS so bad. You like that stuff I don't. For the NFL Network, local baseball and BBC that I watch (literally nothing else is watched on my TV) I have to pay for a huge cable subscription that's over a thousand dollars per year. That's not a system that's working well.

001sky 14y ago

you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever This is not true. Look at silicon valley. $10MM is nothing. The issue is that markets are human. Humans are bad at predicting what will be successful art, untill its successful. Technology on the whole, is much easier landscape in which to invest in standalone projects (ie, startups). That is why movies are financed on a portfolio basis, and why you see so many sequels in large ticket entertainment (both games and Films). Its also why you see other projects financed in-house (ie, via hierarchy) as opposed to independently (ie, in a market).