One Strike, You're Out
I was playing video games last night around 11:30. I
usually watch The Tonight Show on Monday nights, but I knew it was a
rerun, so I just kept doing what I was doing. To me, that is the main
weakness of the latest writer's strike.
There are lots of little details to the strike, most of which turn my brain to pudding, but the gist is that television and film writers want a piece of the pie when their creations are rebroadcast over the internet and all sorts of other digital avenues that are developing as we speak. As for which side has the strongest case, well, let's just say there are plenty of valid points and greed to go around. The nuances of the strike aren't really the point of this little article.
Because the movie studios have plenty of stockpiled scripts, the immediate effects will be felt more strongly in the television industry. Late-night programming was brought to a stand-still almost immediately. The last time the writers had a strike of this magnitude was 1988. Nearly a decade later, they've decided that this is still the best way to resolve their differences. The irony is, the main reason for this strike is the same issue that makes me wonder if it will backfire for the Writers Guild of America. The internet wasn't a threat to television in 1988. In fact, I dare say there are more alternatives to television than ever before. In the short run, that may seem like a good thing for the writers - in theory, people will stop watching more quickly, and the quicker people stop watching television the quicker the studios will do whatever it takes to get the shows, and subsequently the viewers, back. The problem is, we may not care anymore when, in fact, those shows do come back. The popularity of digital video recorders shows that our current culture is making television fit its schedule instead of the old-style way of appointment viewing. No new programs on the TiVo means more time for other things. Aside from that, the current season has done little more than tie up last season's cliffhangers or set-up the premises of the new shows. There's a reason seasons end with cliffhangers - to keep people interested over the hiatus. If the strike drags on as long or longer than the 1988 strike (22 weeks), we'll be asked to return to shows, characters, and/or storylines we barely got familiar with. Hollywood is like an angry spouse that walks out on its family, then returns months later expecting everything to be the way it was before. That's not the way life works.
In today's world, there is a lot of competition for our time and attention. Television is not the go-to source for entertainment it once was. Even those of us who love TV don't watch it the same way we did nine years ago. That leads me to the aforementioned digital video recorders. I would guess that there are many people with a TiVo backlog that can get them through the first week or two of the strike. There's also video on demand. In 1988, viewers didn't have complete seasons of TV shows at their fingertips. If we want to watch TV and the networks will just be showing reruns anyway, we might as well watch the DVDs with bonus content and no commercials. Though cable was very present in 1988, it didn't pose nearly the same threat it does today. Cable will also see a lot of its original programming on indefinite hiatus, but without the competition from first-run network programs, the reruns may find new life. Let's not forget the channels that pretty much survive on the replaying of beloved shows that people may enjoy getting reacquainted with. The sheer ratio of cable channels to network channels suggests that if the networks get mired in reruns, television-hungry viewers will be able to find something to watch that they haven't seen before, or a sentimental favorite they haven't seen in years.
Younger viewers will probably just tune out altogether. In a world where every college student with a webcam views himself as a "filmmaker", the web is chock full of free content. Granted, a lot of it is mediocre at best, but there are a few diamonds hiding in the rough, and they'll have plenty of time to find them. I'll even go so far as to suggest that the networks could start filling time with viewer-submitted content. With current home video equipment producing footage equivalent to broadcast standards of the not-so-distant past, that's a very real possibility. There will also be plenty who'll just use the time to get better acquainted with their computers and video game consoles. Why not schedule an all-night session of Halo 3? There's nothing good on TV anyway.
Older viewers may also opt to tune out, but those that don't will pose a different threat to the WGA. You see, the networks have another tool at their disposal that wasn't around in 1988 - reality TV. Sure, there were news programs and true life stories back then, but today there are also endless competition shows that consistently top the ratings, and that's with first-run scripted shows vying for the same viewers. In the beginning, many people will watch the shows because they're there, but then they'll get hooked in. That's the way these things go.
As viewers stay tuned in, and the networks continue to survive without the help of a single television writer, the bargaining power of the WGA gets weakened. I won't suggest that scripted television is obsolete or even that the major networks can survive long term without it, but the strike may prove just how well the networks can get along without writers when necessary, something that may be more damaging to the WGA in the long run than the actual issues for which they're striking.
There are lots of little details to the strike, most of which turn my brain to pudding, but the gist is that television and film writers want a piece of the pie when their creations are rebroadcast over the internet and all sorts of other digital avenues that are developing as we speak. As for which side has the strongest case, well, let's just say there are plenty of valid points and greed to go around. The nuances of the strike aren't really the point of this little article.
Because the movie studios have plenty of stockpiled scripts, the immediate effects will be felt more strongly in the television industry. Late-night programming was brought to a stand-still almost immediately. The last time the writers had a strike of this magnitude was 1988. Nearly a decade later, they've decided that this is still the best way to resolve their differences. The irony is, the main reason for this strike is the same issue that makes me wonder if it will backfire for the Writers Guild of America. The internet wasn't a threat to television in 1988. In fact, I dare say there are more alternatives to television than ever before. In the short run, that may seem like a good thing for the writers - in theory, people will stop watching more quickly, and the quicker people stop watching television the quicker the studios will do whatever it takes to get the shows, and subsequently the viewers, back. The problem is, we may not care anymore when, in fact, those shows do come back. The popularity of digital video recorders shows that our current culture is making television fit its schedule instead of the old-style way of appointment viewing. No new programs on the TiVo means more time for other things. Aside from that, the current season has done little more than tie up last season's cliffhangers or set-up the premises of the new shows. There's a reason seasons end with cliffhangers - to keep people interested over the hiatus. If the strike drags on as long or longer than the 1988 strike (22 weeks), we'll be asked to return to shows, characters, and/or storylines we barely got familiar with. Hollywood is like an angry spouse that walks out on its family, then returns months later expecting everything to be the way it was before. That's not the way life works.
In today's world, there is a lot of competition for our time and attention. Television is not the go-to source for entertainment it once was. Even those of us who love TV don't watch it the same way we did nine years ago. That leads me to the aforementioned digital video recorders. I would guess that there are many people with a TiVo backlog that can get them through the first week or two of the strike. There's also video on demand. In 1988, viewers didn't have complete seasons of TV shows at their fingertips. If we want to watch TV and the networks will just be showing reruns anyway, we might as well watch the DVDs with bonus content and no commercials. Though cable was very present in 1988, it didn't pose nearly the same threat it does today. Cable will also see a lot of its original programming on indefinite hiatus, but without the competition from first-run network programs, the reruns may find new life. Let's not forget the channels that pretty much survive on the replaying of beloved shows that people may enjoy getting reacquainted with. The sheer ratio of cable channels to network channels suggests that if the networks get mired in reruns, television-hungry viewers will be able to find something to watch that they haven't seen before, or a sentimental favorite they haven't seen in years.
Younger viewers will probably just tune out altogether. In a world where every college student with a webcam views himself as a "filmmaker", the web is chock full of free content. Granted, a lot of it is mediocre at best, but there are a few diamonds hiding in the rough, and they'll have plenty of time to find them. I'll even go so far as to suggest that the networks could start filling time with viewer-submitted content. With current home video equipment producing footage equivalent to broadcast standards of the not-so-distant past, that's a very real possibility. There will also be plenty who'll just use the time to get better acquainted with their computers and video game consoles. Why not schedule an all-night session of Halo 3? There's nothing good on TV anyway.
Older viewers may also opt to tune out, but those that don't will pose a different threat to the WGA. You see, the networks have another tool at their disposal that wasn't around in 1988 - reality TV. Sure, there were news programs and true life stories back then, but today there are also endless competition shows that consistently top the ratings, and that's with first-run scripted shows vying for the same viewers. In the beginning, many people will watch the shows because they're there, but then they'll get hooked in. That's the way these things go.
As viewers stay tuned in, and the networks continue to survive without the help of a single television writer, the bargaining power of the WGA gets weakened. I won't suggest that scripted television is obsolete or even that the major networks can survive long term without it, but the strike may prove just how well the networks can get along without writers when necessary, something that may be more damaging to the WGA in the long run than the actual issues for which they're striking.
Comments