Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
from the did-you-invest? dept
AdamR points us to yet another sickening example of the serious sense of entitlement held by entertainment industry execs. Steven Levitan, a Hollywood producer of various TV shows is apparently pissed off that Hulu might be going public. He apparently complained on Twitter about how unfair it was that the makers of the shows wouldn't get a cut of any IPO proceeds:"Some estimate Hulu IPO could bring in $2 billion. What do the content providers get? Zero. What is Hulu without content? An empty jukebox"Yes, and where are those TV shows without Hulu? Most of them are shared online via unauthorized means where the content providers get nothing. When they're on Hulu, at least they do make money. Hulu is going public because of the service it provides, not because of the content. If it does well in the IPO, then it has more money to invest in the service which, in theory (if they don't muck it up -- and there are signs that they are very much mucking it up), should help the content providers make more money. To claim that they shouldn't go public without giving some of those proceeds to the content providers is totally missing the point, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology and capital markets work (from a Hollywood producer? what a shock...).
But, really, this is yet another example of the entitlement mentality. Yes, the content producers made the content. That's great. But they didn't build Hulu. They didn't invest in Hulu. They didn't pay the bandwidth costs or develop the interface. They didn't pay the salaries or negotiate the licensing agreements. Yet now they just want money handed to them... even though the company already does, in fact, pay content providers for the content that it licenses? Pure entitlement. Levitan is asking for money he doesn't deserve. Anyway, if he really wants to feel better, he should be happy to note that Wall Street doesn't think much of the IPO idea.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: entitlement, ipos, steven levitan
Companies: hulu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just wait. Later on in this thread, you'll get some "U MEAN LIKE HOW PIRATES ARE ENTITLED?!!!1". Even if you calmly explain to these people not only that they are wrong, but fractally wrong, they still will not accept it because their minds are simply not configured for rational thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sigh
Of course, that's exactly why Hollywood won't survive the coming upheaval. Unless they can leverage their current status to get laws to prevent such a thing, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Empty jukebox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Empty jukebox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm,
...which is wholly used to fund BBC TV and radio. I know your point, but this is rather different to handing a tax over to a private corporation who may just use the money to line their own pockets. Hell, the lack of ads during movies & radio shows is worth the cost to many Brits (though the tide is changing as competition increases).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm,
I do like the BBC and a whole lot of the stuff they produce a lot, don't get me wrong. But with the tax "accounting" system we use in the U.S. (Social Security Taxes are routed to the nation's general general checking account), I hope we never import this notion.
Taxes paid to the government in the U.S. are technically easier to use "for the lining of pockets" than are grants and subsidies to a private corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Umm,
Capitalism works IF' the corps do it correctly, there is a point you have to STOP asking for pennies. After so many pennies to THIS/THAT/everyone else..its a $1. and they keep demanding more.
If the RIAA/MPAA/movie industry/music industry/Writers guild/Authors guild/.../.../... ALL want their pennies. Things just dont STOP.
there is a company NOW suing over the USE' of a chair in a recent movie. As they say its copyrighted TO THEIR SHOW. HOW deep can copyright go?
The national Library, CANT release 60+ year old Recordings to the public, because they cant know all the descendants of the creators of the music and contact them to get a release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm,
May not be in your area.
As in the USA we pay about $0.50 per DVD or LESS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Umm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm,
Commercial releases don't have the levy, true, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it appears that out of about 32 million people in this country 31.99999999 million of us are criminals, thieves and pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you read any of the article or comments?
Go away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://twitter.com/SteveLevitan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cha-Ching!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see why he's mad...
I could totally see this guy making the same demand of TV makers if he had been around when TV first caught on. My money says this guy is just crying sour grapes and is trying to grab all the money he can. Next he'll be asking for a cut of profits directly from every store that sales DVDs of the shows he's worked on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu has enough problems.
Just because HULU has the RIGHT IDEA, and the movie industry were IDIOTS. Then Another idiot wants money from his created shows, HE SOLD to the network.
For those that dont know..I QUIT using cable/sat. I get 20 channels from Broadcast TV..FREEE..in a RURAL AREA.
CBS/NBC 2 channels/FOX/PBS 4 channels/CW 2 channels/RTV/ and a few independent channels. And 1/2 of them are LOW power and analog.
WHO thinks they are getting TONS of money from this?
Cable TV started this PAY FOR CRAP IDEA..
Cable promised NO adverts..but NONE of the companies wanted to work WITH cable to do it..so cable made promises to PAY PER USER..
Cable TV promised to be CHEAP..well, since THEY were paying for the channels, they had to charge MORE.
Beginning cable WAS NEAT.. there was stuff on that even made ADULTS squirm. UNTIL regulations and GROUPS started stomping on them, ADULT channels were easy access.
Then came the BOXES..Scrambling..HIGH TECH..and total confusion. Sports channels were Easy to find and CHEAP, then 1-2 companies TOOK OVER the broadcasting and started CHARGING CABLE MORE. it was then $10 extra to get it...NOW they are forced on you and you get CHARGED anyway.
Cable pays out pennies to dollars(mostly pennies) per user NOW. for all those channels, its about $30.
Where MOST of the channels USED to be broadcast SOMEPLACE in the USA, you now have channels that are cable ONLY. And they get paid the most. EVERYONE wants their pennies.
Then an interesting thing happened, Cable found out that the only Adverts that sell are for companies that are National. Local adverts never hit many people, except on local channels WHICH you can get on broadcast TV(which is free). Now if you If you count all the local advertisers you will find they are missing out on LOADS of money. SO, the local channels START charging for RE-broadcast of THEIR SIGNAL on cable Locally. EVEN tho its FREE on broadcast.
Now the fun part. Over the last 15 years the FCC has been TRYING to get cable to be Ala-carte.. SELECT the channels and groups you WISH to watch. IF' you really count, 90% of the customers only watch about 20 channels. NOT the 200+ they want you to watch. CUT the sections you dont want, and HOW CHEAP can you go? Even at $1 per channel, MOST want local channels(free) which means for about $15-20 you GET the channels you WANT to watch. AND if those channels ARNT the high priced ones, it COULD be allot CHEAPER. As most channels charge PENNIES for RE-broadcasting their signal.
In the end..Everyone wants their PENNIES.
NOW even MORE fun.
What if'. Cable QUIT paying? Which channels would suffer.
REQUIRE your customers to contact those IDIOTS that wants MONEY to tell them to BROADCAST for free. The only money they would be getting would be from Adverts on the channels. ESPN charges cable about $3 per person per month.
MOST of the channels would be FREE! And the only charge you would have is paying cable $20-25 per month to watch ALL the channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hulu has enough problems.
The home shopping stations will continue to be on the channel list because they pay the cable company to be on the system. The Religious stations will either get a free ride or pay a pittance to be on the system.
My old Cable company used to charge less for internet and cable if I agreed to accept cable than if I only paid for internet. I took the cable and saved a couple of bucks per month. I rarely used it because I was already paying for a better satellite service. But the cable company used my existence to charge more for local advertising since they could claim me as a subscriber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hulu has enough problems.
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ 20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/
Thats the list.
And price, I think, went up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hulu has enough problems.
WE arent paying $20..WE are paying $50-100 per month to watch shows/channels WE DONT WATCH.
EVEn if you are on the DISH network, READ YOUR 2 year contract...Idiot. After the 6 months HBO isnt free, after 12 months DISH goes up to $45 PLUS any options you added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hulu has enough problems.
If we had real competition the operating costs would be way less than that $40. Right now I've got Verizon FIOS and COX serving in the area. But I don't think they are really trying to compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of context?
From a good write up at NewTeeVee (http://bit.ly/9CUPy8):
Levitan’s beef seems to be mainly focused on how Hulu streams are measured — or not — as part of a show’s total audience. In a series of follow-up tweets, he wrote:
“To be clear, I value every single one of our viewers, no matter how you watch, I just want you to be counted… …That’s how we’ll ensure the future of quality television. We need a ratings system that counts all viewers on every format: TV, DVR, Hulu, iTunes, iPad Player, network websites, etc.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of context?
Slingbox has that answer, but then it's on top of ANOTHER bill that we already pay (cable/satellite/FIOS).
I'd love to have one bill and be able to watch whatever my local provider has available on whatever device I choose for say $50 month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of context?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Mucking it up"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Mucking it up"
Love Hulu.
they Bulked when the Corps wanted them to change the format to a proprietary one as NBC has.
If you want to hit everyone, you NEVER use the latest tech.
there should be a few changes, as they could/would gain at least another million or more viewers..OPEN up to the WORLD.. the problem is adverts cant be aimed EASILY for location. Another problem will be bandwidth..they would/will need More bandwidth and probably Extra locations around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look, he's also stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human Nature
Everyone who goes to work does so for an agreed upon dollar amount. No one "has to work" for company XYZ for $x.xx dollars / hour.
Revisit those workers (union or otherwise) at 10 years on the job, 15, 20.... What do you find? Comments like "the company is making a mint on the backs of the workers"
Never mind that the worker at $40k/year has now been paid half a million dollars since he first signed the offer letter. Somehow because the company is making money, the worker is getting screwed (?)
I call it "I agreed to work for you before I knew you where going to make money off of me" syndrome. Or in the case of producers "I agreed to syndicate my shows that were collecting dust because I didn't think you were going to turn it into a Billion dollar idea".
Too bad. You got the money you demanded upfront. You're not entitled to renegotiate the past.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human Nature
Kurt Cobain did it with Nirvana (and managed to retro-actively take money from his own bandmates), Shania Twain did it and Danny Goldberg wrote a whole essay about it ("The Ballad of the Mid-Level Artist", look it up). Lots of people do it. Execs have to meet quarterly projections, and all a profitable (key word) creator has to do is threaten to drag their feet on new material. The artists aren't going anywhere, but those execs won't survive the quarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its getting stupid out there.
Think of what could be done IF this was not required.
Use a DIVX format, and input your own video tot he drive to play from the net, or copy those videos you would like to keep.
They want their pennies..
NOW the BBC learned a BAD lesson. The Series Doc. Who, is missing over 300 shows. They had to run around the planet and look for COPIES..There were a few. Even a few from the original. STILL 300+ episodes are gone.
These corps and companies are using MOVIES as money. and the contracts for WHO gets Copyright on WHAT, is getting even worse. The copyrights on 1 movie takes 7-10 different copyrights, from MOVIE/People in the movie/music played/.. and thats the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without the new technologies and services of the 20th/21st centuries most of today's wealthy artists would have lived and died in relative poverty like Mozart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]