so 750k per episode for a show that is 10 times less popular than Friends.. sounds like he's doing pretty well. Friends is not a industry standard... its the most lucrative serie deal with actors in history. Friends cast was paid 22k per episode the first year. Jeremy was paid 350k the first year of Bear. Friend was the most watched tv show every year for an entire decade. The bear is not even in the top 20 most watched shows of the year… its like saying players in the nba make more than in the European league… those two shows are not in the same league.
Also, the actor who played Ross, David Schwimmer was going to be paid a lot more than the rest of the cast. The lowest paid were the actors who played Joey and Phoebe. This was how all the cast were paid across TV networks. David fought to have all the main cast members paid the same or they would all collectively walk out. Most shows and their cast do not have that kind of bargaining power. Friends was a fluke in an industry that is not a fan of collective bargaining.
The other key number you're neglecting is that TV shows like Friends generated 20 or so episodes per season and would dependably renew every year. Modern streaming shows only produce 8-10 episodes per season and even if they're a hit aren't guaranteed to return right away. The previous standard provided steady employment for the cast and crew. This brave new world is more erratic and can't sustain careers the same way.
There is always that one guy that questions why people want to be paid more at work. “They got it good enough”- everyone should want to be paid more for their labor- the owning class gets endless money- god forbid the labor/ talent wants more
I always choose the ad-free tier because I've become highly sensitive to ads, which ruin my viewing experience. It's mind-boggling that the cast of "Friends" earned $17.5 million in residuals in 2023, even though the show ended 20 years ago. The syndication model of a generation ago wasn’t just a bonus for the casts and creators of hit shows; it was their lottery, guaranteeing life-changing wealth. For what it's worth, $1,000,000 in 2004, when "Friends" ended its run, is equivalent to $1,662,620.43 today.
Exactly, that puts all this in the realm of capitalizing on an opportunity at the right time rather than creating an expectation. If networks, studios and actors are treating this as the expectation then they are in for a rude awakening in today's fierce competition in the so called "attention economy."
if you wanted ad free Tv you paid outrageous amounts. The difference now is that all the streamers are subsidizing you watching experience, except for youtube - you still don’t pay for that are are happy to watch ads. Funny enough youtube has already won the streaming war, bc netflix should be 125$ pre month, no 16$. They are stupid for following the start up model(scale first, profit later).
You explained why shows are worth nothing now. People like you don’t want ads, so there’s no money to be made except for subscriptions which makes shows get way less money
Huge issue is production companies typically only use known actors when most people don’t care if it’s a certain actor they just want a good show. A easier example is games and anima. No one cares about someone famous voicing the characters. They just want good content. Stop going with safe overpriced actors and let new talent shoot their shot.
Viewers need to click on the show first before deciding if it's good or bad. That's why well known actors are chosen, to be clicked in the Sea of content.
@@hectorcastro8374 the show we're talking about proves that it's possible to get "clicks" based solely on quality though. The most well known if the main cast was Jeremy Allen White and he wasn't exactly a household name. I don't think Ebon Moss-Bacarach becomes The Thing without the exposure he got on the show. Marvel has taken chances in the past too. Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt. My point is that they could make these movies cheaper if they didn't have to pay an A list actor 20+ million per movie and find promising talent that will put everything they have into the role.
Using FRIENDS as a benchmark standard is a little ridiculous, because it was a mega hit......not just successful, but successful on a level that's like hitting the lottery.
In a way, the extra money would be going to the consumers, who are no longer paying $100-200 / mo. So that's billions of dollars back in their pockets.
Many people are paying that in streaming subs plus the cost of internet and some are still buying cable on top of that. In a way people are actually paying MORE money for entertainment than they were when Netflix was the only real option for streaming. Also, the amount of ads people are fed in their daily life has to be up from even 10 years ago for sure. It's real life Josie and the Pussycats! The model is very broken and everyone is getting screwed, except maybe the executives running these platforms. I see these platforms renting out their properties to each other, lining their pockets further and no one else (like the actual individual producers or the talent) sees a dime of that like they would with the classic model and in syndication.
Friends, Sienfield, The Office, Parks & Rec - many of those cast members have made more money since their TV shows wrapped than they ever made while making it.
It doesn't seem like network shows are as long as they used to be. I saw an ep of 90210 that was maybe s03ep30, and i couldn't remember a show having 30eps per season. But i remember a strike circa scandal in production, because the season was shortened, then kerry Washington had a baby. Then recently covid and another strike. It doesn't feel like im getting 20ish eps per season.
@@mason96575 Yeah, it's silly how short these seasons are on streaming. It's especially silly when they do this for sitcoms. Sitcoms need 22-24 episodes for their seasons. One of the reasons why sitcoms shouldn't be on streaming. They don't even thrive there.
I’m not in the entertainment industry but one of the up sides to the new business model is that it’s easier to get a start in the industry due to the increased demand from consumers and that there are much few gate keepers in Hollywoo than there used to be.
this is partially true - yes there are more shows and movies being produced but the gatekeeping in Hollywoo' remains the same. unfortunately it's a system dezigned for gatekeeping principles on the basis of job security - whether it's a working director who won't refer you to their agent in case you get a job over them, or an executive who won't greenlight your original project out of fear for losing their job if it were to fail. and because there are more movies and shows being produced, there's less of a chance your show will get another season because the studio is inclined to diversify their budgets by betting on one of the many shows they make, being a hit. so there's less money going around in the pockets of the filmmakers, but maybe more for shareholders if more people flock to the streaming service to watch said hit show.
I was literally just writing a whole thing about how and true this was and you've done a great job. I also would like to add that there was actually far less work. Not just 22 episodes now it's generally 8 to 10. Those episodes don't pay nearer is what they used to in residuals so you've got to try to get twice as much work. Add that with all the self tapes happening all over the world instead of the best 300 they could find that would be able to show up for the audition. Now they see thousands of tapes... If they even watch all of them. Much much harder to sustain now than it has been in the past.
Dang that’s unfortunate to hear. I wasn’t clear in my initial post but I was mostly think about how various minority groups (or just different social groups in general) have a easier time getting the industry then before because now that can make more targeted content. Again, thats just what I heard from podcast and stuff so not my personal experience.
Streaming is absolutely turning into traditional TV. They need to stop with the monthly charges if you watch with ads. It's expensive enough to pay for broadband that we don't need the extra charges. Makes me long for the old days.
Couldn't it also be that something like Friends was very cheap to produce, because you shoot it at a studio lot - which is the Friends apartment. And the street in LA at Universal Studios which mimics New York. Leaving all the budget for crew, talent and studio. While a lot of recent tv shows are essentially byte sized movies. The production quality of Netflix and Amazon Prime is not far away from a Cinema Blockbuster. Friends requires very little Post Production, it doesn't has a lot of effects - the only ones I can think of is when they are driving in a car which is done in greenscreen. While a lot of current shows are action shows that need a giant amount of CGI.
The morning show Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon were making $2M per episode, so name recognition is still valued to some extent, also advertising is creeping into streaming slowly..
Jennifer Aniston had a connection to the industry through her father, who was a soap opera actor and she collectively bargained with studio executives, with the help of David Schwimmer, to have all the Friends cast be paid $1m per episode, a huge sum back in the 90s. Reese Witherspoon literally owns her own production company, that is valued at a billion dollars+, which creates her shows and then she stars in them. Both women are outliers in the industry, not the norm
Apple like Prime will pay through the nose for A-listers because they can. Remember, Apple is the only company on earth with $200 Billion in CASH. Even a movie star that has a $20 million per movie quote like Jennifer Lawrence is nothing to them.
I believe the cast of Stranger Things' main cast is making a million per episode. So some shows are making Friends' money. But its not going to be syndicated.
The biggest barrier to making Frends money is the number of episodes. The two ST adult stars are making $9 million for 8 episodes. Friends was 22 episodes per season.
This comment is the problem. Education is fucked. Did you not comprehend any of what you just heard? Friends cast earned 1 million per episode, then they earned two percent of the shows syndication profits which is till this day worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so the friends stars are still earning tens of millions of dollars a year. No one on Stranger things is earning that kind of money on that show currently or ever. Even if they earn one million dollars per episode. Friends was 24 episodes per season, Stranger things is 8 to 13 at most. The crazy thing is you wrote "But it's not going to be syndicated." Yes!! This means that they are NOT now or EVER going to make "Friends" money.
I work with kids, and a fair amount of them don't watch TV. And the ones that do, they either watch anime or older classics that have a huge catalogue with 20+ episode seasons. They're citing shows I watched when I was younger, it's so bizarre lol.
In the past we had a couple of channels and we all watched the same stuff...now it is the same thing as with music. There is so much we can choose from, which means that nothing I listen or watch is the stuff that even friends and family watch.
Yup, we're more disconnected because now nobody watches or listens to the same things because of all the choices we have. That makes everything have less value because nothing can gain a big audience. But hey, streaming's the best, right? smh
If these guys were really smart, they would be putting roots down elsewhere, not in California. It's beginning to squeeze the millionaire celebrity class now.
This is such a weird take because it only focuses on the top actors. If talent pay is decreasing for those at the top imagine what's happening for the majority of talent who aren't at the top level. What's happening to the production staff? Yes the big name actors may still be making millions but best believe the guys at the bottom are being short-changed
people used to have to tune in at a certain time to watch a show with ads, and they had to get home at that specific time to watch it. nowadays the entire culture around watching TV just not how it was back in the days.
It depends on the QUALITY of the show and how big of an AUDIENCE it can attract. If someone made a new Seinfeld or The Office today, they'd rake in money for decades.
obviously not. They sign a deal w a streaming service and get no residuals. And it would be basically impossible to attract that level of audience with so many streaming services and shows. It's pretty clear that the business model now is completely different.
No, they wouldn't. Viewership is completely split now because of all the options for entertainment. Even The Office, as popular as it was, coming on the heels of Friends and Frasier saw a way smaller audience and that was before streaming in like 2005. If a Seinfeld came out today, no matter where it was, it would be a critical darling with a small audience. Its pop cultural impact would be a footnote if it's lucky.
This is true, but it's not just Hollywood actors and filmmakers making crazy money. Look at professional athletes, billionaire CEO's and even "influencers" making the average person's annual salary for a single Instagram post. It's out of whack for sure.
the Bear has 28 episodes in total and the friends cast took 1M each per episode ony in the last three seasons. You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Yeah, but the reporter also said that there’s no incentive for the streaming service to order 10 seasons of a show. Networks sell ads on each episode, streamers make money by increasing their subscriber base.
The middleman has also been taken out of the equation which used to be 3rd party advertisers on the networks (eg: product commercials during the ad breaks) which helped fund the network's purchase investment to rent the show from the studio. Advertisers are now going elsewhere to reach eyeballs. (Eg: native digital advertising on websites, youtube etc). This is another reason why the money has dried up to produce these shows.
First time I ever heard of the bear, nor was I a Friends fan. I watched a few episodes to see what the fuss was; thought it was a bore. Not interested. It wasn't my Ge-Ge-Generation.
Would Friends have been as popular in 2024 with Google, Instagram, Tick Tock, TH-cam, dating apps etc. etc. etc. etc? I think I might’ve only watched it back then because there was nothing else to watch. The Networks had a captive audience.
Yeah, but the reason the main cast of friends earned millions of dollars in residuals in 2023 alone is not because of how popular the show used to be but because of how popular it is even now. Even in the age of Netflix and online piracy, friends is still one of the most demanded shows.
@@dutchess2121 When though? After BB was on Netflix after season 3? Breaking Bad didn’t top 2 million US viewers for any episode until season 4. And even the series finale - by far its highest viewership - was a little over 10 million. It was talked about a lot and was an awards darling but no one actually watched it so it didn’t make any money. That’s why they did the Netflix deal. For comparison Seinfeld was drawing 33 million its last three seasons or 12% of the population and 18 million/7% in its first three. BB in seasons 1-3 was 0.6%
How can investors be confident the studios are making good decisions when they claim they can’t even measure how much revenue is being driven by each show?
That is just what Netflix says to give themselves all the cards when negotiating with talent. It would take a supreme court decision to make them give up that information.
For most shows I hope we don't return to lower quality 20 episode seasons with lots of filler. I much prefer and rewatch 8 episode prestige tv, ideas where the show wraps up and is not canceled, stretched the plot to thin or jumps the shark.
Actors and other people within the field should 100% from day one be paid a living wage. But to expect and compare wage to friends is unrealistic. It's a low quality, low budget show aired at a time where option wasn't really a thing.
Oddly: myself, and all of my friends, don't watch "shows"- vintage or not. Film's once and a while- but everything now is tic/ or Instagram. Everyone. ☄️
Syndication Works for shows like sitcoms where you play reruns of episodes out of order and no one cares and they will hapilly rewatch them. Serialised show will not work on syndication.🙌🙌
No but people did buy DVD’s and Blu-Ray which generated a ton of revenue Family Guy did so well on the DVD market Fox brought it back after they cancelled it Game of Thrones season one sold 350k copies in the first week it was available. That’s probably $14 million
The Bear, in its 3 seasons, has accumulated a total of 28 episodes. That's just barely the first season of Friends. The cast weren't even earning 75k per episode at that point. 750k hardly sounds like a bad deal to me.
Gen Z cares less about scripted content than Millennials. This is why Hollywood is panicking. They are more interested in social media influencers than celebrities.
Honestly, don't really know what they are talking about: 7.5M Dollars per season for the lead in The Bear is life changing money. An episode is like a couple days of work for an actor, 750K is what I would call really well compensated. I'm actually quite surprised it's so close to Friends compensation, which is a show that was much, much bigger in global audience.
@@DerDudelino takes about a week to film an episode on average, but there's also prep, rehearsal, ADR, etc. $7.5M is the jackpot money if you get a hit show and you're at season 3. No one here is saying that $7.5M isn't good money it is - but will you get stock on something you put your life into and it works? It's unlikely. That's the difference between the current streaming model and previous television business. Also - you may never experience that kind of phenomenon again.
@@acidpandatv I understand that. The residual model was absolutely fantastic for any creative. Could imagine the studios are able to negotiate a yearly retainer for shows to be on Netflix for example.
Smaller pond of networks: Friends was simply a unicorn scenario. The cashed in big bc Seinfeld was leaving which was their Thursday Night Lead. With that show closing, Friends became sacred to NBC and therefore contract negotiations yielded big payouts. So friends was not really a great scenario to start with.
"Before you and I started filming I 'haven't watched the Bear' but I even knew the phrase yes chef (kudos girlfriend) from the show.........................................so does sweeping award season transfer to financial success? WHAT?? Matt, kudos to you for not snorting laughter after this
Living Single was the template for Friends, it was beating friends in ratings before friends took off and LS run was ended before friends signed off. I found that while it had some funny moments, most of it was bland. The popularity was due to a mostly bandwagon effect. Overall, I was unimpressed with it then and I am unimpressed now. I'm actually more of a fan of the post friends projects. #RipMatthewPerry
None of that is true. First LS had 9.3 million viewers (56th) it’s first season. Friends was 24.8 million (8th). It was never besting Friends in the ratings Second, Friends was already in production when Living Single aired. They are also completely different shows. Friends was always purely about found family (based on the creators lived experiences) whereas LS started as more of a workplace comedy and vehicle for Queen Latifah. It became an ensemble after. And in large part _because_ of the success of Friends. And both rip off Seinfeld by having multiple 20 something friends in New York anyway
You might want to check those ratings. Most of the things on FOX outside of the NFL and maybe The Simpsons was beating anything on the other networks. But yeah, Friends was a ripoff.
This whole conversation sounds like when you ask your boss for a raise and the boss tells you how the company doesn’t exactly make profits BUT if you try really hard your boss will get a bonus this quarter. Completely disingenuous conversation these two just had.
I'm sorry, did he just say $7.5 million isn't enough to retire on? Put that in an index fund and thats at least $300k per year forever without ever touching the principle. That's more than enough to retire on.
Famous is a bit of a stretch, He was a soap actor and he wasn't even on the show anymore. That's why he was bartending. Making a living as an actor is very hard.@benjamindover4337
for proving out your math you don't seem to understand business in any way. A huge chunk goes to taxes, then his agent and management. He's not getting close to 7 mil take home. This show could be the peak of his career so he's really not making much compared to the network days.
The Bear guy can’t live in a mansion in Malibu like Matthew Perry was doing, even though Matthew hadn’t worked in years. The point the reporter is trying to make is that being a movie or television star isn’t what it used to be. Nowadays, it’s basically upper-middle class.
Movie and TV studios have been overpaid in the past for creating movies and TV shows that nobody watched. Advertisers overpaid for these shows because the technology did not exist to accurately measure viewership. The studios could claim that "millions" were watching, and the advertisers had no way to verify this information. However, today, advertisers can track viewership down to the second and access a wide range of demographic data. This allows advertisers to focus their advertising budget where it is most effective, not just on television and movies, but also on numerous social media platforms. Madison Avenue is next.
it's pretty simple.. the audience for these shows became less and less, and that's lowered all the money for everyone. People arent watching linear TV like they used to, except for big sports events. they want to watch it whenever they want to at their leisure.
If TV is more popular than ever, more viewers than ever. Where is the money going? And why is Netflix slinging out TV shows and bad movies like it's going out of style? I understand streaming services are thinned out, but from a bird' s-eye view, the money should be as good as ever-for either the streaming services or the talent.
Someone riddle me this. If current streaming shows/premium cable shows are only averaging 8-12 episodes per season (whereas before shows were doing 22-24 episodes), why are we waiting 2-3 years in between seasons and most streaming is only running (at best) 3-5 seasons. You’d think with the shorter production time, we could churn out multiple seasons annually/bi-annually. Like they’re saying Euphoria is gonna start shouting its next season in a few months and they’re gonna do a time jump. How big of a time jump??! The characters were originally teenagers and now the actors that play them are pushing 30 years old because there were 2-3 years in between the seasons.
In the old model actors, writers and crew were under contract so they typically only did the one job. You might moonlight, shoot a movie over summer hiatus but that show was everyone’s main job Now, because it’s so short the writers and crew especially can’t survive on that one show. They basically work freelance year round and need to do multiple shows. And the actors are doing more stuff as well. They aren’t just working 12 weeks per year So it creates a situation where once it gets picked up for the next season you need to schedule it further out in order to get everyone back because everyone is on conflicting schedules Euphoria is a perfect example. Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney are legitimate movie stars and what they get paid for 8 episodes just isn’t worth it so it gets fit in where it gets fit in That movie star part happened on the network shows too but it was at least 2.5x more money because of 22 episodes.
So not only are there more shows and theres less money in total to split, for the most part the product is objectively worse. And they’re all ridiculously expensive to produce. For every amazing show there’s 10-20 trash ones. Not a great plan. Also, being critically acclaimed and getting all the awards is irrelevant if the audience simply isn’t watching your amazing tv show. Friends is watched and loved by pretty much everyone and will continue to be so, it’s about numbers. End of story.
They werent making a million dollars till the final couple of seasons. But they knew the show was very popular and they could make the money of it. The Hollywood system was to get 75 episodes for syndication and if you had over 200 and had syndication the actors were set for life
And because of streaming and the loss of revenue, you can expect less quality shows to be produced and done. People's drive for ad free streaming and being able to watch whenever they want is going to ruin the industry
We all agree CEOS, writers, actors and everyone involved with these shows are already making more money than 99% of the population? They should definitely earn less, together with football players
I wouldn’t say they need to earn less the barrier to entry just needs to be lower so actors are cheaper and it’s not so gate kept. Shoot chat gpt can replace writers for rough drafts aka why they are protesting against it.
Seriously? You "haven't watched The Bear prior to this interview - AND you admitted this on camera... Um, Forbes I'd like a job. Can we start the bidding at $250k?
19:47how is that possible? I’d think for the streaming services it would be the opposite, especially for a viewer who consumes a good amount of content. More views = more ad views = more $.
The content deals are based on a flat fee for a period of time. Not a share of advertising dollars. Additionally, many of the plans are priced without advertising so those subscribers wouldn't have to see ads.
@@KK-pm7ud how does that not make more money for the streaming services? He previously mentioned these are digital ads which essentially operate like all other digital ads.
@@MangosInTrees I don't want to get into all of the details and write a long response. But I will say that one reason is because advertising is tracked more efficiently today while in the past companies like auto manufacturers spent a percentage of their advertising budgets on television advertising without knowing how many people were actually watching. It was all estimated.
@@KK-pm7ud that’s literally the point I’m making. It’s CPMs, they know how many impressions they’re getting. It does not make sense that Netflix wouldn’t benefit from more views on more ads.
@@bnwoI can name on show with blk female that was interracial. There are plenty of shows that start and have blk males in interracial relationships. Stop spreading this false narrative.
Actors and directors getting paid less is a good thing. They have been getting severely overpaid for decades. Pay the people who do necessary jobs (fire, trash, farming, janitor, cashier) more and pay people who do unnecessary jobs less.
I love watching videos on why overpaid actors are getting overpaid more than they used to. I understand that actors can be assets that generate revenue therefore can justify it from a business standpoint, but no one should have any moral dilemma's about them getting paid less as teachers are making pennies.
That is incredible I had no idea even re: Friends payments-that is a huge amount per year for an old show. Yes it is around the world. The whole video this is dying- oh now it's happening in another way. The end.
Today, most viewers don't know, maybe don't care where to find streaming shows. Paying monthly per app creates walls. Previously, when cable was the only option, people were aware where to find shows. And except premium channels like HBO and Showtime, subscribers had to pay for all other channels. By their advertising and recognition, non-subscribers still knew what shows were on the premium channels.
Ok, it could be me not noticing, but do/did they address how people usually like to talk about stuff around the lunch table? If everyone had access to the same tv channels and a colleague talked about something fun, we would check it out, most of what i have been watching are from recommendations, but now, i never hear anyone talked about films or tv-series at all, and i don't subscribe to yet another streaming service just because someone said something at the lunch table
Eyeballs. 👀 👀 👀 👀 Shows generate income via advertising revenues during commercial breaks. Less eyeballs➡️ less purchases ➡️ less revenue ➡️ less 💵 for the shows producers.
I mean there is some incentive for a show to be a hit as that in turn does drive new subscription or renewal if a streaming provider ( Netflix, Hulu, etc) has those hit shows (especially original content).
so 750k per episode for a show that is 10 times less popular than Friends.. sounds like he's doing pretty well. Friends is not a industry standard... its the most lucrative serie deal with actors in history. Friends cast was paid 22k per episode the first year. Jeremy was paid 350k the first year of Bear.
Friend was the most watched tv show every year for an entire decade. The bear is not even in the top 20 most watched shows of the year… its like saying players in the nba make more than in the European league… those two shows are not in the same league.
"Friends" is from the 90's
Also, the actor who played Ross, David Schwimmer was going to be paid a lot more than the rest of the cast.
The lowest paid were the actors who played Joey and Phoebe.
This was how all the cast were paid across TV networks.
David fought to have all the main cast members paid the same or they would all collectively walk out.
Most shows and their cast do not have that kind of bargaining power.
Friends was a fluke in an industry that is not a fan of collective bargaining.
That's interesting! Also if you can't retire on 7 million dollars.. well maybe your standards are a bit high 😂
The other key number you're neglecting is that TV shows like Friends generated 20 or so episodes per season and would dependably renew every year. Modern streaming shows only produce 8-10 episodes per season and even if they're a hit aren't guaranteed to return right away. The previous standard provided steady employment for the cast and crew. This brave new world is more erratic and can't sustain careers the same way.
There is always that one guy that questions why people want to be paid more at work. “They got it good enough”- everyone should want to be paid more for their labor- the owning class gets endless money- god forbid the labor/ talent wants more
There's exponentially more shows being produced compared to decades ago so there's a significantly smaller share of the pie to go around.
It's about the same actually, the more indie stuff wasn't as accessible as it is now. The internet is the great equalizer.
Plus other forms of entertainment like TH-cam and Tik Tok.
imagine having about 6 channels, forced TV commercials, and you had to watch a program only when it was on at that time.
@@Spawny500 And stations used to shut down between midnight and 5 AM.
@@Spawny500 sorry dude, starting a sentence with “imagine” makes you sound unintelligent. you’ll thank me later.
I always choose the ad-free tier because I've become highly sensitive to ads, which ruin my viewing experience. It's mind-boggling that the cast of "Friends" earned $17.5 million in residuals in 2023, even though the show ended 20 years ago. The syndication model of a generation ago wasn’t just a bonus for the casts and creators of hit shows; it was their lottery, guaranteeing life-changing wealth. For what it's worth, $1,000,000 in 2004, when "Friends" ended its run, is equivalent to $1,662,620.43 today.
Exactly, that puts all this in the realm of capitalizing on an opportunity at the right time rather than creating an expectation. If networks, studios and actors are treating this as the expectation then they are in for a rude awakening in today's fierce competition in the so called "attention economy."
if you wanted ad free Tv you paid outrageous amounts. The difference now is that all the streamers are subsidizing you watching experience, except for youtube - you still don’t pay for that are are happy to watch ads. Funny enough youtube has already won the streaming war, bc netflix should be 125$ pre month, no 16$. They are stupid for following the start up model(scale first, profit later).
You explained why shows are worth nothing now. People like you don’t want ads, so there’s no money to be made except for subscriptions which makes shows get way less money
999
No not the cast $17.5m was just Jennifer Anniston. so x 6
Huge issue is production companies typically only use known actors when most people don’t care if it’s a certain actor they just want a good show. A easier example is games and anima. No one cares about someone famous voicing the characters. They just want good content. Stop going with safe overpriced actors and let new talent shoot their shot.
Wish Marvel would do this. Make stars, instead of leaning on them.
Viewers need to click on the show first before deciding if it's good or bad. That's why well known actors are chosen, to be clicked in the Sea of content.
@@hectorcastro8374 the show we're talking about proves that it's possible to get "clicks" based solely on quality though. The most well known if the main cast was Jeremy Allen White and he wasn't exactly a household name. I don't think Ebon Moss-Bacarach becomes The Thing without the exposure he got on the show. Marvel has taken chances in the past too. Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt. My point is that they could make these movies cheaper if they didn't have to pay an A list actor 20+ million per movie and find promising talent that will put everything they have into the role.
You're underestimating the "brand loyalty" mentality that was prevalent these past couple decades before the 2010s and 2020s
Wow, the Friends cast hit the jackpot. Quite literally!
Same with Modern Family and Big Bang.
Literally 🤡
Using FRIENDS as a benchmark standard is a little ridiculous, because it was a mega hit......not just successful, but successful on a level that's like hitting the lottery.
Yeah they should have used Seinfeld
In a way, the extra money would be going to the consumers, who are no longer paying $100-200 / mo. So that's billions of dollars back in their pockets.
Many people are paying that in streaming subs plus the cost of internet and some are still buying cable on top of that.
In a way people are actually paying MORE money for entertainment than they were when Netflix was the only real option for streaming. Also, the amount of ads people are fed in their daily life has to be up from even 10 years ago for sure. It's real life Josie and the Pussycats!
The model is very broken and everyone is getting screwed, except maybe the executives running these platforms. I see these platforms renting out their properties to each other, lining their pockets further and no one else (like the actual individual producers or the talent) sees a dime of that like they would with the classic model and in syndication.
Jeremy allen White also has 'Shameless'. Main Cast, 11 seasons, 134 episodes. He IS FINE ! 😂
11:00 "Yes chef" isn't from the show though... it's pretty common in restaurant kitchens.
It feels like she asked questions that were poorly prepared. She didn’t listen to the answers at all either.
it was pretty common 30 + years ago.
it's said like every 5 minutes in hell's kitchen too. so not even original to the bear within TV. Not sure what that was about
We need to do something fast to make these rich actors even richer. Please double my subscription price so I can do my part.
Times are changing. Good actors is not enough in todays cinema. People want good art and u ique story telling such as Arcane.
Friends, Sienfield, The Office, Parks & Rec - many of those cast members have made more money since their TV shows wrapped than they ever made while making it.
That's crazy
I miss longer seasons 😭. I don't care where I watch just give me longer episodes even if it's 16. 8 is way too little
Contrary to popular belief, network tv still exists. 22-24 episode seasons still exist.
@@osaji922not enough of em.
It doesn't seem like network shows are as long as they used to be. I saw an ep of 90210 that was maybe s03ep30, and i couldn't remember a show having 30eps per season.
But i remember a strike circa scandal in production, because the season was shortened, then kerry Washington had a baby.
Then recently covid and another strike. It doesn't feel like im getting 20ish eps per season.
House of the Dragon has six… SIX 😭
@@mason96575 Yeah, it's silly how short these seasons are on streaming. It's especially silly when they do this for sitcoms. Sitcoms need 22-24 episodes for their seasons. One of the reasons why sitcoms shouldn't be on streaming. They don't even thrive there.
I’m not in the entertainment industry but one of the up sides to the new business model is that it’s easier to get a start in the industry due to the increased demand from consumers and that there are much few gate keepers in Hollywoo than there used to be.
this is partially true - yes there are more shows and movies being produced but the gatekeeping in Hollywoo' remains the same. unfortunately it's a system dezigned for gatekeeping principles on the basis of job security - whether it's a working director who won't refer you to their agent in case you get a job over them, or an executive who won't greenlight your original project out of fear for losing their job if it were to fail. and because there are more movies and shows being produced, there's less of a chance your show will get another season because the studio is inclined to diversify their budgets by betting on one of the many shows they make, being a hit. so there's less money going around in the pockets of the filmmakers, but maybe more for shareholders if more people flock to the streaming service to watch said hit show.
I was literally just writing a whole thing about how and true this was and you've done a great job. I also would like to add that there was actually far less work. Not just 22 episodes now it's generally 8 to 10. Those episodes don't pay nearer is what they used to in residuals so you've got to try to get twice as much work. Add that with all the self tapes happening all over the world instead of the best 300 they could find that would be able to show up for the audition. Now they see thousands of tapes... If they even watch all of them. Much much harder to sustain now than it has been in the past.
Dang that’s unfortunate to hear. I wasn’t clear in my initial post but I was mostly think about how various minority groups (or just different social groups in general) have a easier time getting the industry then before because now that can make more targeted content. Again, thats just what I heard from podcast and stuff so not my personal experience.
Actually there are more gatekeepers and more gates. The difference is that the gatekeepers don’t have the same standards. More people can get through.
Streaming is absolutely turning into traditional TV. They need to stop with the monthly charges if you watch with ads. It's expensive enough to pay for broadband that we don't need the extra charges. Makes me long for the old days.
That literally doesn't make sense. If you can't afford it then don't pay for it.
Couldn't it also be that something like Friends was very cheap to produce, because you shoot it at a studio lot - which is the Friends apartment. And the street in LA at Universal Studios which mimics New York. Leaving all the budget for crew, talent and studio. While a lot of recent tv shows are essentially byte sized movies. The production quality of Netflix and Amazon Prime is not far away from a Cinema Blockbuster.
Friends requires very little Post Production, it doesn't has a lot of effects - the only ones I can think of is when they are driving in a car which is done in greenscreen. While a lot of current shows are action shows that need a giant amount of CGI.
Friends - cheap? That whole cast was making $1 million/episode each in the last few seasons. NBC lost money on the show, believe it or not.
What the guy says in the video is broadly correct. And, no, Friends wasn't cheap to produce as the seasons progressed.
Sure, Friends was cheap (relatively) to produce. But you're missing the point - it's about revenue.
True, Friends was always inside that apt.
True. The first seasons of Cheers never left the bar.
The morning show Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon were making $2M per episode, so name recognition is still valued to some extent, also advertising is creeping into streaming slowly..
Jennifer Aniston had a connection to the industry through her father, who was a soap opera actor and she collectively bargained with studio executives, with the help of David Schwimmer, to have all the Friends cast be paid $1m per episode, a huge sum back in the 90s.
Reese Witherspoon literally owns her own production company, that is valued at a billion dollars+, which creates her shows and then she stars in them.
Both women are outliers in the industry, not the norm
Apple like Prime will pay through the nose for A-listers because they can. Remember, Apple is the only company on earth with $200 Billion in CASH. Even a movie star that has a $20 million per movie quote like Jennifer Lawrence is nothing to them.
@@savioblancWhat does her father have to do with anything? You all are so misinformed it's hilarious.
The way things are going actors will have to pack a lunch box and thermos
Streaming has significantly deluded the market.
You mean diluted?
Gives more people opportunity though…
I believe the cast of Stranger Things' main cast is making a million per episode. So some shows are making Friends' money. But its not going to be syndicated.
NO THEY ARE NOT..
"i believe" is my favorite TH-cam source citation
Add in inflation and they arent
The biggest barrier to making Frends money is the number of episodes. The two ST adult stars are making $9 million for 8 episodes.
Friends was 22 episodes per season.
This comment is the problem. Education is fucked. Did you not comprehend any of what you just heard? Friends cast earned 1 million per episode, then they earned two percent of the shows syndication profits which is till this day worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so the friends stars are still earning tens of millions of dollars a year. No one on Stranger things is earning that kind of money on that show currently or ever. Even if they earn one million dollars per episode. Friends was 24 episodes per season, Stranger things is 8 to 13 at most. The crazy thing is you wrote "But it's not going to be syndicated." Yes!! This means that they are NOT now or EVER going to make "Friends" money.
I work with kids, and a fair amount of them don't watch TV. And the ones that do, they either watch anime or older classics that have a huge catalogue with 20+ episode seasons. They're citing shows I watched when I was younger, it's so bizarre lol.
What shows are they watching with 20+ episode seasons? I'm curious because I've always been into sitcoms.
@@osaji922 The Office, Friends, Gilmore Girls, Gossip Girl. Breaking Bad is popular too, but I guess that's technically less than 20 episodes.
They be watching the Andy Griffith show!!
Such nativity. The model is not broken. The model is working exactly what it is designed to do. Take money from creators and pay it to investors.
Yep
Goes to the “you know who’s”
Did you mean "Such naivete?"
@@Jasmine215100 its all racial for him lol
In the past we had a couple of channels and we all watched the same stuff...now it is the same thing as with music. There is so much we can choose from, which means that nothing I listen or watch is the stuff that even friends and family watch.
Yup, we're more disconnected because now nobody watches or listens to the same things because of all the choices we have. That makes everything have less value because nothing can gain a big audience. But hey, streaming's the best, right? smh
omg they said ‘yes chef’ was a saying from the bear. yikes.
Popularized in pop culture
This worries me. How will rich Hollywood actors and executives make enough money to own multiples houses that they'll rarely ever occupy?
It’s almost like they will have to do it because they are creative and not just greedy. It’s nice their wages are coming down to reality.
the execs will still be paid a lot lmfao
If these guys were really smart, they would be putting roots down elsewhere, not in California. It's beginning to squeeze the millionaire celebrity class now.
This is such a weird take because it only focuses on the top actors. If talent pay is decreasing for those at the top imagine what's happening for the majority of talent who aren't at the top level. What's happening to the production staff? Yes the big name actors may still be making millions but best believe the guys at the bottom are being short-changed
@@Motshwane.Letsoaloexactly
people used to have to tune in at a certain time to watch a show with ads, and they had to get home at that specific time to watch it. nowadays the entire culture around watching TV just not how it was back in the days.
It depends on the QUALITY of the show and how big of an AUDIENCE it can attract. If someone made a new Seinfeld or The Office today, they'd rake in money for decades.
It’s hard to get to syndication and when they do the money is different now, upfront but later there’s money, or should be
obviously not. They sign a deal w a streaming service and get no residuals. And it would be basically impossible to attract that level of audience with so many streaming services and shows. It's pretty clear that the business model now is completely different.
What year did residual stop?
No, they wouldn't. Viewership is completely split now because of all the options for entertainment. Even The Office, as popular as it was, coming on the heels of Friends and Frasier saw a way smaller audience and that was before streaming in like 2005. If a Seinfeld came out today, no matter where it was, it would be a critical darling with a small audience. Its pop cultural impact would be a footnote if it's lucky.
@@osaji922 Netflix used to pay $100 million a year to license The Office, then NBC put it on their own streaming service exclusively.
How’s he going to get by on only 750k an episode??? He’ll starve!!!
Most actors get paid $200 per day and are only hired for a couple of days per month.
Delusional day players but could you still get that call from Steven Spielberg?
@@marclynch8059 it's like saying "lottery players are making millions per ticket".. yeah, one of them did.
I find it difficult to feel bad for The Bear cast earning 15x what the Average American makes
But I will feel bad for other smaller shows
That’s not the cast just the lead actor. Everyone else makes way less, especially the writers
@@michaelahurtthat's depressing.
For the average person it’s hard to empathize with $ issues made by Hits shows and the people around them.
This is true, but it's not just Hollywood actors and filmmakers making crazy money. Look at professional athletes, billionaire CEO's and even "influencers" making the average person's annual salary for a single Instagram post. It's out of whack for sure.
the Bear has 28 episodes in total and the friends cast took 1M each per episode ony in the last three seasons. You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Yeah, but the reporter also said that there’s no incentive for the streaming service to order 10 seasons of a show. Networks sell ads on each episode, streamers make money by increasing their subscriber base.
The middleman has also been taken out of the equation which used to be 3rd party advertisers on the networks (eg: product commercials during the ad breaks) which helped fund the network's purchase investment to rent the show from the studio. Advertisers are now going elsewhere to reach eyeballs. (Eg: native digital advertising on websites, youtube etc). This is another reason why the money has dried up to produce these shows.
Finally someone with sense lol.
Simple answer: Cost of production and expensive actors
I only pay $1 to $2 per month for Hulu for at least 5 years now. So how could actors on a Hulu show expect to be highly paid?
No one paid for NBC and the cast of Friends were making a million per episode.
I have never even heard of the bear nor ever seen those actors.
First time I ever heard of the bear, nor was I a Friends fan. I watched a few episodes to see what the fuss was; thought it was a bore. Not interested. It wasn't my Ge-Ge-Generation.
Would Friends have been as popular in 2024 with Google, Instagram, Tick Tock, TH-cam, dating apps etc. etc. etc. etc? I think I might’ve only watched it back then because there was nothing else to watch. The Networks had a captive audience.
Yeah, but the reason the main cast of friends earned millions of dollars in residuals in 2023 alone is not because of how popular the show used to be but because of how popular it is even now. Even in the age of Netflix and online piracy, friends is still one of the most demanded shows.
@bestmoments1344 It's popular _now_ because it made a name for itself back _then._
Yeah, I'd imagine it'd be less pop. than Breaking Bad.
It seems like comparing Friends to something more widely successful like Stranger Things, would be a better comparison.
Yeah The Bear is probably closer to something like Breaking Bad which was critically acclaimed but wasn’t commercially successful or widely viewed
@@michaelahurtnoooo... Breaking Bad was EVERYWHERE and I'm in Europe. No one has ever mentioned watching the Bear here so never heard of it
@@dutchess2121 When though? After BB was on Netflix after season 3?
Breaking Bad didn’t top 2 million US viewers for any episode until season 4. And even the series finale - by far its highest viewership - was a little over 10 million.
It was talked about a lot and was an awards darling but no one actually watched it so it didn’t make any money. That’s why they did the Netflix deal.
For comparison Seinfeld was drawing 33 million its last three seasons or 12% of the population and 18 million/7% in its first three.
BB in seasons 1-3 was 0.6%
The is the same length as watching a television show episode. Should’ve been 5 minutes instead.
How can investors be confident the studios are making good decisions when they claim they can’t even measure how much revenue is being driven by each show?
That is just what Netflix says to give themselves all the cards when negotiating with talent. It would take a supreme court decision to make them give up that information.
For most shows I hope we don't return to lower quality 20 episode seasons with lots of filler. I much prefer and rewatch 8 episode prestige tv, ideas where the show wraps up and is not canceled, stretched the plot to thin or jumps the shark.
Streaming and just the massive abundance of options have shrunk the size of the pie per show.
I have cable. They pay the studio BUT shows such as Blue Bloods are no longer accessible unless you now subscribe to Peacock (which I don't).
Well as an actor… this was definitely kind of depressing. But at the same time, we must adapt. Game on
“Yes, chef” is being attributed to The Bear? 🤨
Actors and other people within the field should 100% from day one be paid a living wage. But to expect and compare wage to friends is unrealistic. It's a low quality, low budget show aired at a time where option wasn't really a thing.
Walter, Donny and The Dude in the picture behind him!
Oddly: myself, and all of my friends, don't watch "shows"- vintage or not. Film's once and a while- but everything now is tic/ or Instagram. Everyone. ☄️
A real case of "when everyone is super, no one will be"
“Can’t retire off 7 and a half million” 😂
Syndication Works for shows like sitcoms where you play reruns of episodes out of order and no one cares and they will hapilly rewatch them. Serialised show will not work on syndication.🙌🙌
No but people did buy DVD’s and Blu-Ray which generated a ton of revenue
Family Guy did so well on the DVD market Fox brought it back after they cancelled it
Game of Thrones season one sold 350k copies in the first week it was available. That’s probably $14 million
I don’t watch many new TV series, and I never watch any until they’ve been put on a streaming platform.
The Bear, in its 3 seasons, has accumulated a total of 28 episodes. That's just barely the first season of Friends. The cast weren't even earning 75k per episode at that point. 750k hardly sounds like a bad deal to me.
17:39 It's too early to tell. There might be a resurgence from the newer generation for all we know.
Gen Z cares less about scripted content than Millennials. This is why Hollywood is panicking. They are more interested in social media influencers than celebrities.
Honestly, don't really know what they are talking about: 7.5M Dollars per season for the lead in The Bear is life changing money. An episode is like a couple days of work for an actor, 750K is what I would call really well compensated. I'm actually quite surprised it's so close to Friends compensation, which is a show that was much, much bigger in global audience.
@@DerDudelino takes about a week to film an episode on average, but there's also prep, rehearsal, ADR, etc. $7.5M is the jackpot money if you get a hit show and you're at season 3. No one here is saying that $7.5M isn't good money it is - but will you get stock on something you put your life into and it works? It's unlikely. That's the difference between the current streaming model and previous television business.
Also - you may never experience that kind of phenomenon again.
@@acidpandatv I understand that. The residual model was absolutely fantastic for any creative. Could imagine the studios are able to negotiate a yearly retainer for shows to be on Netflix for example.
@DerDudelino Friend’s actors made 1,6 million per episode in todays money. That’s significantly more.
Ironically i got TH-camTV to DVR all my favorite dyndicated shows without needing a bunch of different streaming services.
Bohooo he’s making 750 thousand instead of a million. I’m sick to my stomach
For real, these people are so out of touch it's disgusting.
Because...
1.Piracy(Telegram, Dark Web)..
2.More competition
3.Less Story driven (Copy Cat)
4.Content
5.Focused more on Money than Cinema....
Very informative. Thank you!
Smaller pond of networks: Friends was simply a unicorn scenario. The cashed in big bc Seinfeld was leaving which was their Thursday Night Lead. With that show closing, Friends became sacred to NBC and therefore contract negotiations yielded big payouts. So friends was not really a great scenario to start with.
You completely missed the point of the video.
Oh geez how are these people ever going to survive not making 10 million plus from work done 20 years ago??? Oh the horror!
"Before you and I started filming I 'haven't watched the Bear' but I even knew the phrase yes chef (kudos girlfriend) from the show.........................................so does sweeping award season transfer to financial success? WHAT?? Matt, kudos to you for not snorting laughter after this
Living Single was the template for Friends, it was beating friends in ratings before friends took off and LS run was ended before friends signed off. I found that while it had some funny moments, most of it was bland. The popularity was due to a mostly bandwagon effect.
Overall, I was unimpressed with it then and I am unimpressed now.
I'm actually more of a fan of the post friends projects.
#RipMatthewPerry
None of that is true. First LS had 9.3 million viewers (56th) it’s first season. Friends was 24.8 million (8th). It was never besting Friends in the ratings
Second, Friends was already in production when Living Single aired.
They are also completely different shows. Friends was always purely about found family (based on the creators lived experiences) whereas LS started as more of a workplace comedy and vehicle for Queen Latifah. It became an ensemble after. And in large part _because_ of the success of Friends.
And both rip off Seinfeld by having multiple 20 something friends in New York anyway
You might want to check those ratings. Most of the things on FOX outside of the NFL and maybe The Simpsons was beating anything on the other networks. But yeah, Friends was a ripoff.
This whole conversation sounds like when you ask your boss for a raise and the boss tells you how the company doesn’t exactly make profits BUT if you try really hard your boss will get a bonus this quarter. Completely disingenuous conversation these two just had.
damn, entourage had 96 episodes total. 4 episodes away from being syndication lmao
HBO didn’t syndicate shows so it didn’t matter
You had to buy the DVD’s to watch them again or just catch them randomly on HBO
@@michaelahurt they did syndicate shows. I live outside the US where we don't have HBO and the episodes were on TV here. Not all of them but some
I'm sorry, did he just say $7.5 million isn't enough to retire on? Put that in an index fund and thats at least $300k per year forever without ever touching the principle. That's more than enough to retire on.
Nobody makes that much. A famous actor got shot last month after getting off work at his 2nd job bartending. This video is full of bs.
Famous is a bit of a stretch, He was a soap actor and he wasn't even on the show anymore. That's why he was bartending. Making a living as an actor is very hard.@benjamindover4337
for proving out your math you don't seem to understand business in any way. A huge chunk goes to taxes, then his agent and management. He's not getting close to 7 mil take home. This show could be the peak of his career so he's really not making much compared to the network days.
The Bear guy can’t live in a mansion in Malibu like Matthew Perry was doing, even though Matthew hadn’t worked in years. The point the reporter is trying to make is that being a movie or television star isn’t what it used to be. Nowadays, it’s basically upper-middle class.
Movie and TV studios have been overpaid in the past for creating movies and TV shows that nobody watched. Advertisers overpaid for these shows because the technology did not exist to accurately measure viewership. The studios could claim that "millions" were watching, and the advertisers had no way to verify this information. However, today, advertisers can track viewership down to the second and access a wide range of demographic data.
This allows advertisers to focus their advertising budget where it is most effective, not just on television and movies, but also on numerous social media platforms.
Madison Avenue is next.
it's pretty simple.. the audience for these shows became less and less, and that's lowered all the money for everyone. People arent watching linear TV like they used to, except for big sports events. they want to watch it whenever they want to at their leisure.
If TV is more popular than ever, more viewers than ever. Where is the money going?
And why is Netflix slinging out TV shows and bad movies like it's going out of style?
I understand streaming services are thinned out, but from a bird' s-eye view, the money should be as good as ever-for either the streaming services or the talent.
Jennifer Aniston is getting 2 million an episode now from the Apple TV she’s doing now.
Jesus Christ
Someone riddle me this. If current streaming shows/premium cable shows are only averaging 8-12 episodes per season (whereas before shows were doing 22-24 episodes), why are we waiting 2-3 years in between seasons and most streaming is only running (at best) 3-5 seasons.
You’d think with the shorter production time, we could churn out multiple seasons annually/bi-annually. Like they’re saying Euphoria is gonna start shouting its next season in a few months and they’re gonna do a time jump. How big of a time jump??! The characters were originally teenagers and now the actors that play them are pushing 30 years old because there were 2-3 years in between the seasons.
In the old model actors, writers and crew were under contract so they typically only did the one job. You might moonlight, shoot a movie over summer hiatus but that show was everyone’s main job
Now, because it’s so short the writers and crew especially can’t survive on that one show. They basically work freelance year round and need to do multiple shows. And the actors are doing more stuff as well. They aren’t just working 12 weeks per year
So it creates a situation where once it gets picked up for the next season you need to schedule it further out in order to get everyone back because everyone is on conflicting schedules
Euphoria is a perfect example. Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney are legitimate movie stars and what they get paid for 8 episodes just isn’t worth it so it gets fit in where it gets fit in
That movie star part happened on the network shows too but it was at least 2.5x more money because of 22 episodes.
So not only are there more shows and theres less money in total to split, for the most part the product is objectively worse. And they’re all ridiculously expensive to produce. For every amazing show there’s 10-20 trash ones.
Not a great plan.
Also, being critically acclaimed and getting all the awards is irrelevant if the audience simply isn’t watching your amazing tv show. Friends is watched and loved by pretty much everyone and will continue to be so, it’s about numbers. End of story.
Showrunners and producers make all the profit.
They werent making a million dollars till the final couple of seasons. But they knew the show was very popular and they could make the money of it. The Hollywood system was to get 75 episodes for syndication and if you had over 200 and had syndication the actors were set for life
I wish seasons had a standard of 14 or 16 episodes per season
And because of streaming and the loss of revenue, you can expect less quality shows to be produced and done. People's drive for ad free streaming and being able to watch whenever they want is going to ruin the industry
The lack of true comparative economics is astounding. Especially coming from Fortune
They keep raving about "the Bear"... I have never heard of it. It can't be that popular.
It's because TV show aren't as long as they use to be and the wait between seasons is now too long.
The spotification of screen entertainment.
What about Britbox? They have 26 seasons of some series’.
Traditional Hollywood is done.
We all agree CEOS, writers, actors and everyone involved with these shows are already making more money than 99% of the population? They should definitely earn less, together with football players
I wouldn’t say they need to earn less the barrier to entry just needs to be lower so actors are cheaper and it’s not so gate kept. Shoot chat gpt can replace writers for rough drafts aka why they are protesting against it.
Seriously? You "haven't watched The Bear prior to this interview - AND you admitted this on camera... Um, Forbes I'd like a job. Can we start the bidding at $250k?
Is it just supply and demand? More shows=less value?
Enjoyed the video, very thorough and interesting. Thankyou.
19:47how is that possible? I’d think for the streaming services it would be the opposite, especially for a viewer who consumes a good amount of content. More views = more ad views = more $.
The content deals are based on a flat fee for a period of time. Not a share of advertising dollars. Additionally, many of the plans are priced without advertising so those subscribers wouldn't have to see ads.
@@KK-pm7ud how does that not make more money for the streaming services? He previously mentioned these are digital ads which essentially operate like all other digital ads.
@@MangosInTrees I don't want to get into all of the details and write a long response. But I will say that one reason is because advertising is tracked more efficiently today while in the past companies like auto manufacturers spent a percentage of their advertising budgets on television advertising without knowing how many people were actually watching. It was all estimated.
@@KK-pm7ud that’s literally the point I’m making. It’s CPMs, they know how many impressions they’re getting. It does not make sense that Netflix wouldn’t benefit from more views on more ads.
@@MangosInTrees fix your timestamp then. It doesn't align.
Forget TV, it's all about online now.
That's the problem.
I wish more black producers, show runner, filmmakers, etc would listen to this conversation, you would learn so much!!!
What's a black show runner going to do? Hollywood is not in the business of black. Black female interracial? yes. Black? no.
@@bnwoI can name on show with blk female that was interracial. There are plenty of shows that start and have blk males in interracial relationships. Stop spreading this false narrative.
@@gafam7251 simply false.
@@gafam7251 you are delusional.
Thanks for the video
Excellent interview and analysis.
Actors and directors getting paid less is a good thing. They have been getting severely overpaid for decades. Pay the people who do necessary jobs (fire, trash, farming, janitor, cashier) more and pay people who do unnecessary jobs less.
I love watching videos on why overpaid actors are getting overpaid more than they used to. I understand that actors can be assets that generate revenue therefore can justify it from a business standpoint, but no one should have any moral dilemma's about them getting paid less as teachers are making pennies.
Very good presentation of the issue
Quality T&A is the real issue.
That is incredible I had no idea even re: Friends payments-that is a huge amount per year for an old show. Yes it is around the world. The whole video this is dying- oh now it's happening in another way. The end.
HD over the air tv is free 🆓
Today, most viewers don't know, maybe don't care where to find streaming shows. Paying monthly per app creates walls.
Previously, when cable was the only option, people were aware where to find shows. And except premium channels like HBO and Showtime, subscribers had to pay for all other channels. By their advertising and recognition, non-subscribers still knew what shows were on the premium channels.
She thinks the line "Yes, Chef!" is from The Bear? 😐
Ok, it could be me not noticing, but do/did they address how people usually like to talk about stuff around the lunch table? If everyone had access to the same tv channels and a colleague talked about something fun, we would check it out, most of what i have been watching are from recommendations, but now, i never hear anyone talked about films or tv-series at all, and i don't subscribe to yet another streaming service just because someone said something at the lunch table
loved him in that show
Eyeballs. 👀 👀 👀 👀
Shows generate income via advertising revenues during commercial breaks.
Less eyeballs➡️ less purchases ➡️ less revenue ➡️ less 💵 for the shows producers.
I mean there is some incentive for a show to be a hit as that in turn does drive new subscription or renewal if a streaming provider ( Netflix, Hulu, etc) has those hit shows (especially original content).