Posted by: anneghormley | September 10, 2007

Media Feeds Media

The TV show Undeclared has made its way to the top of my Netflix queue, so I’ve been watching it this month. Today, the disc with all the bonus features arrived at my house, and I was interested to watch a panel interview that took place while the show was still being aired in 2001-02 (before Fox decided to cancel it after its first season). The panel included most of the cast, as well as several members of the creative team.

One member of the audience asked the show’s creator, Judd Apatow, if his previous TV effort, Freaks and Geeks, would ever make it to DVD. Thankfully, Freaks and Geeks does exist on DVD now, but at the time of the panel interview it was still kind of a question mark. Apatow answered the audience member by explaining that it was in process, but they had yet to pay for rights to all of the songs they used in the show’s soundtrack… and that’s not exactly cheap.

This was a large problem for WKRP in Cincinnati, and the producers of those DVDs decided to substitute cheaper replacements for the original songs from the show’s soundtrack. There has been much negative feedback as a result.

I understand that rights and royalties exist for a reason, but it seems unreasonable to me that the companies involved insist on charging such an exorbitant amount of money. Several years ago, I heard my brother ranting (probably about music/movie/TV downloads, or something), and he included the phrase “media feeds media.” That phrase rang true to me then as it does today. I wish the companies who control the rights would realize that giving permission to use these songs means they would reach a wider audience and may inspire something like… increased sales of records, maybe.

Unfortunately, I have little hope that they’ll change their tune. If it means less money for them right now, why would they bother with thinking about long-term benefits?

A similar problem is reflected in TV networks’ choice of programming. During the panel interview, Apatow also talked about why Freaks and Geeks was cancelled (and, though he didn’t know at the time, why Undeclared *would* be cancelled). He commented that networks pretty much just care about ratings, they don’t care about the quality of a show. This is why shows like Fear Factor air for years, and Judd Apatow projects are cancelled after just one season. I guess the networks would rather have good shows that get ratings, but the bottom line is that a show will get the axe if the ratings aren’t there. I would think that especially now, with the ability to sell DVDs, networks would want a show that will be marketable for years to come, not just something that people will turn on for a one-time moment of horror and awe. I mean, who would buy Fear Factor DVDs?

Responses

I said that? Man, you make me sound smart or something. I’m sure I was just regurgitating something I’d heard somewhere else, but yes, this is a problem and an annoying one at that.

My favorite Sam rant/quote regarding media is with reference to Disney’s annoying habit of releasing their animated stuff in small quantities, for a limited time, before locking them back up in “the Vault”:

“MAKE YOUR FREAKING PRODUCT AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUY IT!”

It’s the same principle, kind of. Rather than trusting that ready availability will fuel the popularity of a quality product, the marketing folks decide that artificial scarcity will allow them to charge more for their product, and create a perception of rarity/value. I don’t buy it–literally, I guess.

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories