Yahoo announced Wednesday that it acquired the exclusive rights to classic clips of "Saturday Night Live" from 1975 through 2012, effective in September. The clips will be removed from Hulu and NBC.com, where they currently reside, and be shown instead on Yahoo, which wants to share in the buzz the show creates, Brian Stelter reports Thursday in The New York Times.

The deal between Broadway Video and Yahoo highlights the jockeying among companies that want to have a library of online videos to call their own. A dizzying number of online video producers are pitching their programs to advertisers this month, ahead of the traditional television upfront sessions in May. While these Web programs' quantity and quality are increasing quickly, there are doubts about whether the advertising dollars are.

"On one hand, digital video advertising is growing fast and its prominence is increasing," said Clark Fredricksen of the research firm eMarketer. "On the other, compared to television, online video is an incredibly competitive market, where you have more companies fighting over far less." Mr. Fredricksen's company estimates that $4.1 billion will be spent on online video ads this year, in contrast to $66.4 billion on television ads.

"There are a handful of major conglomerates that split revenues from the huge TV-ad pie," Mr. Fredricksen said, "while the digital video world features hundreds of companies fighting, comparatively, for scraps from the TV table."

Attaching, barnacle-like, to television might be a way to stand out from the crowd. Yahoo, which is trying for a turnaround under its chief executive, Marissa Mayer, has content-sharing relationships with many major media companies, but its video hub, Yahoo Screen, has lagged rivals like Google, which owns YouTube.
                                                          Reprinted from New York Times, April 2013

If you owned a video, book, music or magazine retail store ten years ago – you are probably out of business today.
Likewise, television and film producers, book, magazine and music publishers are finding it harder and harder to keep their companies afloat.  And that has had a massive affect on the broadcasters, printers, duplicators and packaging companies that rely on the producers and publishers.

The problem is that the road turned so rapidly that many media creators and distributors missed the signs as their business dissolved right in front of their eyes.  That is not to say that they did not put up a fight by creating websites and introducing technological changes to their businesses.  They did.  They updated their computer systems and made their organizations more efficient.  But that could not protect their companies from the most fundamental and sweeping change to global business – the consumer changed!

Most businesses are still geared towards selling goods and services to Baby Boomers.  The problem is that Baby Boomers are not the predominant buyers of goods and services in America anymore, it’s the 15 to 35 year old children of the Baby Boomers that are consuming most of the music, books, games, movies, television shows and software.  And their lifestyles and buying patterns are very different than their parents.  If anyone still believes that the next generation is going to wait around to see a movie in the theater, and then run down to the store to buy the DVD, and watch it again on HBO, then they are just not paying attention.  This generation wants its entertainment when they what it, and where they want it.

So, what do you do about it?

Go digital.  You need to find new ways to monetize and disseminate your content that are radically different than you have in the past.  The road turned. So what.  Turn with it.  You need to get right into the consumer's mind via their iPhone, pad and notebook to satisfy their need for massive stimulation.  This generation grew up on video games, YouTube and reality TV.   They want entertainment -- and lots of it.  You know what you need to do.  If you don't, there is no shortage of social media and new media consultants to help show you the way. 

While there is still a market for books, DVDs, and in some cases, CD's, mostly when selling programming to an older demographic;  I'd put my money on digital platforms and on-demand entertainment.  That's where the road is taking you.

One of the most misused, misconstrued and generally confused words in Hollywood is the word “attached”.  As in I have (insert star’s name here) “attached” to this picture.  One might be lead to believe that the actor has actually read the script, talked it over with the producer/director, agreed to be in it and even signed a contract to appear in the film.  Well… not necessarily.

When a producer says that they have their lead actor or actress “attached” it could mean that they are indeed contracted (see play-or-play) to star in the movie and have scheduled their time to rehearse and play the part.  Or it could mean that they have read the script, like the role, and schedule permitting (and subject to negotiation), will be in the motion picture.  Or, it could mean that the actor’s agent has discussed the part over a cup of coffee with the casting director, no one’s read the script, but the actor might like the role.  Or, quite often, neither the actor nor their agent has ever heard of the film, never talked to anyone about it and are probably too busy to be in it anyway. 

“In filmmaking, a guarantee is a term of an actor’s contract that guarantees remuneration if, through no fault of their own, the artist is released from the contract. Such an arrangement is known informally as a “play-or-pay” contract”. http://bit.ly/114IrxD Wikipedia.

A “pay or play” offer is often backed up with at least 10% of the agreed upon shoot fee being placed in an escrow account.  If the film is not started by a specific date, the actor would be released from their obligation and can keep the money.  Think of it as a down payment on their services.

You have to be careful about who you talk to about your actor being “attached.”  I was down in Bogota, Colombia working on a two film slate and meeting with Colombian investors.  One of our films was a romantic comedy set to star Sophia Vergara, and was being produced and directed by Ron Shelton.  Shelton told me that he had contacted Ms. Vergara about the role, but I was not in on their conversation.  When I was pitching the investment to one of the Colombian businessmen, he said, “Sophia, has agreed to star in your picture? Wonderful, she is my niece.  I’ll have to call her and congratulate her”.  A moment of panic flooded my brain because I knew that Sophia Vergara had no pay-or-play offer, had not scheduled her time to be in our film and may or may not have read the script. 

Yeah, she was attached alright, somewhere between committed and “who are you?”

“Who’s on first.  What? What’s on second. I don’t know.  No. He’s on third”. 

Funding a movie seems a lot like that old Abbot and Costello routine.  Unintelligible answers to insolvable problems.

I hope you’re laughing… because that’s about the only thing that you can do.  “Do you have the $10 million to make your movie? No, my investors want to know that the film will get distributed first.  Well, we can’t commit to distributing your film until you have $10 million”.  See, it always comes back to “Who’s on first”. 

Every producer goes through this.  Investors are wise to the game.  They won’t commit to a film until you can prove to their satisfaction that the movie will be made and distributed as you say.  The theatrical film distributors get so many submissions, that they know that they can sit back and let the producers take all the risk of developing, financing, producing, editing and even pre-marketing the film without making any financial commitment to the project.  While they are taking a chance that you’ll make a big hit that another distributor might profit from… in the movie industry, that usually not a huge risk.

Do the math.  More than 15,000 films are made each year in the English language alone.  Fewer than 700 ever see the inside of a movie theater.  Maybe 100 of those make a significant profit.  To the distributors and exhibitors you represent nothing but risk.  They are in the business of taking a risk on distributing motion pictures to the public, but, if they have their druthers, they’d l limit that downside risk by making no commitment to a film until after it is made, edited and reviewed.   

Back when the studios ran things and made all the movies, they developed films from books and screen plays that they commissioned; financed, produced and then handled all distribution throughout the world.  I worked for Disney… I was once part of that system.  And, the system worked pretty well for the better part of 70 years.  Today, the studios turn out many fewer films and most of those are remakes and sequels.   Not much creativity there.  The really interesting films are being developed, financed and made by indy producers.  Those independents can either try to sell their projects to a studio (good luck with that), release through a “rent-a-studio”, model or chose their own path through the growing legions of independent domestic and foreign distributors like Millennium, Freestyle, Cinedigm or Inferno. 

It’s a tough road. But doable.

So, to answer the eternal question, “Who’s on first”?  Second and third…

You are!  Welcome to the world of independent film making.