Hollywood’s China Conundrum

Karate Kid

Hollywood is intent on breaching the lucrative Chinese film market.  In order to circumvent the Chinese government’s restrictions on foreign films in its domestic market, Hollywood players have been teaming up with local production companies.  U.S. studios get a bigger cut of the box-office and the Chinese gain valuable insight on crafting films with a global appeal.  But there are stumbling blocks.  According to an article in the WSJ yesterday:

[Dan] Mintz [chief executive of DMG Entertainment] has been operating in China for many years.  ”Back home, you’re really only concerned with one group of people—the consumer,” he explained in a recent interview. “In China you have to be good at handling the government and the consumer.”

Sounds like the Rules of the Game can be different in China, particularly when it comes to dealing with government censors.  Though, I wonder if the experience in China similarly compares to how many U.S. filmmakers must contend with the MPAA ratings.  For instance, the documentary “Bully” recently petitioned to have its “R” rating lowered arguing that it would otherwise restrict access to the film by its intended audience of school-aged children. I think in many respects, the story of Hollywood’s success has been defined by the restrictions put upon it and its ability to creatively push the limits of social and political censorship.   

Also noted in the article was the uneven success of jointly produced films in the Chinese and American markets.  There has been very little cross-over appeal.  Movies that do well in China often don’t often find success in the U.S. and vice versa.  Case in point, the Christian Bale headliner “The Flowers of War” which grossed $95M in China, but eked out $300K in the U.S.:

The film was picked up by distributor Wrekin Hill Entertainment, released in the U.S. in January and grossed roughly $300,000 in American theaters. Wrekin Hill Chief Executive Chris Ball says the film sold out during its one-week Academy Award-qualifying run last December, but “fell flat” after opening in January. He attributes the falloff to piracy, mixed reviews and the film’s powerful, but difficult story.

“People are trying to design projects for success globally, but producers today really have to make a judgment call about if their films can really appeal to both the Chinese- and English-speaking markets,” says Stephen Saltzman, a Hollywood lawyer who has handled several Chinese film deals.

Disney’s Dreamworks is partnering with the Beijing-based DMG entertainment to produce “Iron Man 3”.  As noted in an article in The Washington Examiner:

The DreamWorks’ deal, announced in February, is for a joint venture studio based in Shanghai that is 45 percent owned by DreamWorks and 55 percent owned by its Chinese partners, capitalized at $330 million.

There is a sense of uncertainty that seems to pervade all this deal-making.  In reference to the spate of recent joint ventures, Jeffrey Katzenberg was quoted as saying:

“The goal lines are moving all the time. Everyone is wondering how it plays out.” 

The quandaries that U.S. studios are grappling with in China sound similar to those that their contemporaries in other industries have been dealing with for decades.  China offers an alluring and lucrative marketplace, but not without significant risks particularly to Hollywood’s long-term hold over the global film market.  From the Examiner article, the following observation was made:

Entertainment lawyer Schuyler Moore says he has warned clients not to be overly optimistic in dealing with the country, and says it will take a year to see how China implements its new movie policy. Moore believes China’s new openness is aimed mainly at boosting its own cultural industries.

“In the long term, it’s no different than China trying to make aircraft and cars and everything else. Their goal is to have the expertise so they can displace Hollywood,” he says. 

A True Home-Theater Experience

A new movie service is proposing to bring Hollywood movies into subscribers homes the same day they hit theaters.  The price tag for this ultimate home theater experience?  $20,000 for a digital delivery system, plus $500 per film.  While this may be at the extreme high end, it does seem to indicate the direction that film distribution is heading - a narrowing of the gap between when a film plays the big screen until it’s available on the small screen via DVD and the internet.  

From the Wall Street Journal article “Movies at Home, for $20,000”:

The proposed system represents a twist in an ongoing debate over the future of “release windows,” the practice of staggering the distribution of movies through different channels to maximize profits in each. Traditionally, that has meant a movie hits theaters first, followed several months later by DVDs, video-on-demand, subscription-cable channels, and so on.

The windowing system has already come under pressure amid plummeting DVD sales and rising digital piracy. And consumers have grown accustomed to receiving entertainment content more readily than they used to.

One hot-button issue in that debate has been an early, “premium” video-on-demand window, in which cable subscribers could pay $30 or so to watch a movie a month or two after its debut in theaters.

Studios no longer make as much from DVDs. U.S. consumer spending on DVDs is down about 20% in 2010 from 2009, to $7.8 billion, according to media-tracking firm IHS Screen Digest. DVD spending is down 43% from its 2006 peak of $13.7 billion.

At the same time, consumer spending on video-on-demand services rose 17% in 2010 from 2009, to $1.4 billion, according to IHS.

Netflix Price Increase, Streaming Only Plan

Interesting to note the shift in consumer habits in Netflix as reported in an article in today’s WSJ:

The company, which says its customers now use its Web-streaming service more than its by-mail rentals, will charge $7.99 a month for customers that only want to watch films and TV shows delivered over the Internet.
 
“We are now primarily a streaming video company delivering a wide selection of TV shows and films over the Internet,” Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings said.

Netflix has said the costs of distributing DVDs—-including the roughly $600 million it will pay to the U.S. Postal Service in 2010—can ultimately be diverted into paying for content rights for online streaming.
 
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630441038304032.html#ixzz162bgsklD

It seems like Netflix is following a model similar to premium cable channels:  revenue is generated through subscriptions versus ads.  But to keep its audience it will need to create a more compelling reason for them to use its services.  Watch for more original fare created by Netflix as it moves away from its mail-based business towards online streaming. 

TV - Here, There, and Everywhere?

The WSJ posted in yesterday’s Opinion Page excerpts from a speech by Jeff Bewkes - chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, Inc. He foresees a new era of TV watching, augmented by 21st digital technologies, communications, and devices:

But now television is at a critical moment in its evolution. Whether audiences continue to enjoy this golden era of TV will depend largely on whether content creators continue to stay apace of consumer needs and make strategic decisions that favor long-term sustainability over short-term dollars.

I believe the best path for TV’s next phase is clear. For the past 15 months, Time Warner, along with a growing number of content and distribution companies, has been implementing a new strategy called TV Everywhere. It operates on a simple but powerful premise: If you have access to television in your home—whether through rabbit ears or a paid cable, satellite or telco subscription—you should be able to view all the channels you receive on demand on whatever broadband device you wish.

That means on-demand access to your favorite shows not only on the TV in your living room but also on your laptop or tablet wherever you might take it—all at no extra cost.

It’s interesting to note the business model that he cites as one of the reasons that TV has endured better than its other media brethren:

One of the reasons why television has performed well while other media industries have struggled is that TV has developed a system of dual revenues from subscribers and advertisers that has served viewers successfully in digital formats for three decades now, leading to an explosion of choice for consumers at a reasonable value and programming that is ever more original, diverse and daring.

A subscription/advertising model…hmmm, seems like several other internet content providers - like Hulu and Netflix - are also adopting this model.  I wonder if this portends a time in the near future when internet and TV will mesh to form a new type of content delivery service?

Screenshot of HSX.com, site of proposed Hollywood Stock Exchange.  Note the title of the Leonardo DiCaprio film - Oh, the irony!