Does Steven Levitan Also Want A Cut Every Time You Buy A TV?
from the let's-get-this-straight-now... dept
The more he argues, the deeper a hole Levitan seems to dig in his reasoning. He complains that if we don't figure out a way to make his shows profitable, the only thing left to watch will be "sneezing pandas." This is a version of the movie industry's "$200 million myth." It's the "well, it costs me $x to make this, so if we can't make that back, no one else could possibly make quality content for less." It's incredibly elitist and wrong. Not only is there good content made for less money out there (beyond the sneezing pandas), but if there's really demand for his shows (and there appears to be), then there are smart business models you can pursue that don't involve pissing off your fans or demanding an equity pay out from a company you didn't actually invest in.
Of course, the Hollywood Reporter doesn't help when it asks silly questions like:
Rupert Murdoch also has been an advocate of content creators getting paid for use of copyrighted content online. Has he reached out?This assumes, falsely, that folks who are working on things like Hulu or who support alternative business models don't want to get content creators paid. Look, we all want content creators to get paid, we just think they should do it with smart business models, rather than by restricting content, pissing off fans and running to the government for greater protectionism.
In the meantime, since Levitan still seems to think he deserves a cut of Hulu's eventual IPO take, I have to ask if he also thinks he deserves a cut from every TV sold, or from whatever money TV companies raise from the capital markets?