Could Louis C.K. Make His TV Show Using The Direct-To-Fan Model?
from the yup,-probably dept
Last week, in one of their daily roundups, the folks at AVClub made a passing comment about Louis C.K.'s cable television show Louie:
you still have to subscribe to a cable package that features FX in order to watch the season premiere of Louie tonight—but the way things are going, he’ll eventually find a way around that as well.
It's half a joke, and not intended as a serious near-future prediction, but it nevertheless raises an interesting question: have we reached the point where a show of that caliber could be made independently? Louie is a fairly inexpensive show—the season two budget was $300,000 per episode, with an additional $200,000 spent on a particularly ambitious outing, so that season cost a little over $4-million. C.K. has leveraged his network of friends (and quasi-enemies) in the comedy industry, plus lots of production shortcuts and personal licensing deals for music, to accomplish some impressive feats with that cash—and the show is widely praised by critics and fans (though there are dissenters). Moreover, unlike some shows that arguably benefit from the design-by-committee nature of some TV networks, Louie is already helmed entirely by C.K., who has almost complete creative control.
So... We know Louis C.K. pulled $1 million in just a few days by selling a single comedy special directly to fans. We know he's made $6 million in a week selling tickets to his tour. We know creators can raise millions on Kickstarter. We've seen established Hollywood talent combine crowdfunding with private investment to escape the studio system. There's little doubt that, with some combination of these models and other innovative ideas, someone like Louis C.K. could put together a show like Louie without any network support and distribute it entirely through the internet (and any TV networks that wanted to license it—on his terms).
I'm not suggesting Louis C.K. has any particular desire or reason to do this with Louie right now—it's my understanding that FX has been extremely supportive and treated him really well. But, realistically, how long will it take before someone does this? All the mechanisms are in place, or nearly so, and the media buzz around things like Kickstarter and C.K.'s direct-sale experiments has inspired a lot of entertainers to start considering alternative business models. It could even be C.K. himself who eventually leads the way again: while Louie is going great right now, he frequently mentions in both his comedy and interviews that he knows the show and his current status won't last forever—and I can't help but assume that part of the reason he's been running these recent sales experiments is that he's a very smart guy who sees what's happening in the industry and is trying to future-proof his career. If something were to happen and Louie was cancelled prematurely, I wouldn't be surprised to see C.K. and his fans finding a way to keep it going on their own. Though he hasn't actually said as much, a recent interview suggests the possibility can't be far from his mind:
The show has been a precious thing to me, and it’s been something I’m horribly grateful for. It’s just such a big deal to me that I’m getting to do this. I’m aware of how fleeting it is. I’m aware that, at best, it’ll go eight years, and that a year after those eight years are over, it’ll feel like a distant memory. I’m aware of that.
That’s one reason that I’m working really hard on it. I’m physically pretty banged up from this season from shit that I did. I fucking jumped into a boat that was 10 feet off a dock, and I really hurt my knee. I’ve taken such a beating. But I do it because I know I’m not going to get an opportunity to do this for very long. This is going to feel like it was only a few years as soon as it’s over. I’m trying to really slow down time while it’s going on. And it’s really important to me that I earn it, that I earn what I’ve got in front of me by doing the show as well as possible. So that’s how I feel about it. It’s a big fucking deal. The web thing was a huge euphoria. It was a crazy feeling. It was like physically altering. Looking at my phone and watching the sales come, like a thousand per fucking minute, was insane. I was in a bathroom at LAX, looking at the sales for the web thing on my phone, and I started laughing. I couldn’t control it. And I realized I was laughing like Laurence Olivier when he’s getting his diamonds in the bank in Marathon Man. [Laughs.] He just starts giggling, like, “I can’t believe what’s happening here.” And I had a similar moment like that these last two days, because I put all these tickets on sale [for the upcoming tour] on the Internet in the same way, and it’s crazy. It’s gangbusters. I mean, half the tour is sold out, and we’ve added shows in like eight cities.
Critics of new entertainment business models like to suggest that quality content can't be produced without the financial backing that can only come from studios, networks, record labels and other big businesses, and they tend to dismiss every counter-example as somehow inferior art—but that's an increasingly untenable position. Not only is quality content already being produced in new ways, but the stage is set for even bigger and more expensive projects. And considering how new some of these models are and how rapidly they've grown, if we're already at the point where a show like Louie could probably be made outside the traditional ecosystem, is it really so inconceivable that one day in the near future even things like Game of Thrones and the red-herring of the $200 million movie could break free as well? A Kickstarter for a movie that hits the hundreds of millions sounds impossible now—but it wasn't that long ago that $10-million for a watch, $3 million for a video game or $1 million for an album were considered just as unrealistic. And that's just Kickstarter, not direct sales of the finished product or any of the other moneymaking opportunities that a piece of entertainment creates. When you think about it that way, it seems like it's only a matter of time.
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: crowdfunding, direct to fan, louie, louis ck
Companies: fx, kickstarter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's amusing to think about, but it would seem that this type of payment system would work in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People would pay for another season of Firefly and when that is finished, they'd pay for another, and another. Enough? Maybe not....yet.
The fact is most people have never even heard of kickstarter. Watch that change the first time a tv show with a cult following is cancelled by a network and resurected by crowd sourcing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At some point, the business model fails because the consumers can consumer without supporting, so they may stop doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy catatonia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about a moronic attempt to hijack a thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"At some point, the business model fails because the consumers can consumer without supporting, so they may stop doing it."
He's looking at actual concrete success stories and dismissing them just because piracy is still out there and he's sure it will eventually cripple them. Translation: "I'm not interested in any new business models until piracy is stopped."
(p.s. I don't think it's possible for me to "hijack" the thread on my own post)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Specifically, they may pay today to support the L-CK show, but will they pay for the next episode? What happens if they miss paying for an episode, watch it anyway, and realize that "hey, I don't have to pay for this, someone else will"?
What you have is a system that depends on consumers to tip, and nothing more. Will enough of them keep tipping in the long run to make it really work?
Look, I can run across an interstate blindly, and perhaps make it to the other side. If I do, would you consider it enough of a success to install a crosswalk there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand how Kickstarter works. Projects are financed ahead of time (e.g., JourneyQuest). So, if they don't meet their goal, it doesn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ask a career waitress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let me get this straight. Giving content away for free and selling other stuff won't work -- you always mock that idea. But actually selling content won't work unless there is no free alternative, because you "can't compete with free" apparently. And combining those models won't work either because... ?
Certainly sounds to me like you have only ONE point to make: that you aren't interested in any new business models until piracy is stopped.
What else could you possibly be talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always mock that idea? Do you have any clue?
Giving stuff away and selling other stuff works, provided that (a) what you are giving away isn't your main product, and (b) what you are trying to sell is desirable enough in itself to sell anyway - which to a certain extent negates A.
"Certainly sounds to me like you have only ONE point to make: that you aren't interested in any new business models until piracy is stopped."
Nobody mention piracy except you. Perhaps you should stop trying to paint your own views on to others and grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay - so then please explain to me what you mean when you talk about your concern that people can still get stuff for free. If it's not piracy, I would very much like to know - where's the site where I can get everything for free legally?
Oh right, you were talking about piracy all along. Nice attempt at evasion though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If people are paying to be patrons of a sort, to pay for CK to make his TV series, do you think he would limit it onto to them? Or would it be something that is widely distributed, under the concept of crowd sourced funding rather than sale before production.
It's more likely that the product would be distributed in some manner of public viewing, free and legally. Perhaps over the air TV or on YouTube. You know about those things, don't you?
You have no imagination at all.
You are the only one talking about piracy. Get a clue, moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, you were clearly talking about piracy. Keep trying to worm out of it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one who needs some imagination!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How large is the crystal ball in your world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"At some point, the business model fails because the consumers can consumer without supporting, so they may stop doing it"
This happens now, yet you don't question the viability of the business model. I wonder why you apply different standards to the new business models that are making piracy irrelevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Will you people start agreeing in a few years when some artists have leveraged new models into ongoing bodies of work? I doubt it, but you're running out of excuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's start with the basics. There is no "moving closer to acceptance". There is still plenty of proof that few people will pay (effectively that nobody will pay). Many of the business models put forth on Techdirt are built on finding one person to pay a higher price, in order to support the rest of the people who don't pay - but who still get the product.
"this won't work for established artists" - Nobody has said this. You are just making crap up.
"nothing of quality can be produced" - We aren't seeing huge increases in quality content, but we are seeing huge increases in content. Therefore, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that LITTLE (not nothing) of quality is being produced. Try not to work in absolutes there Paul, and you might understand better.
"this won't work long term" - this is a key question, one that remains unanswered. What happens when the majority of content is paid for not through group / bulk means (commercial ads, subscription fees, retail sales) and rather is paid for if the end consumer feels like it, even after they have consumed the product (or can consume it without charge)?
Could a company like HBO produce the level of content they produce and get the distribution for it on the basis of people paying what they want? Could they support a business model that requires them to finance each TV show (and perhaps even each episode) with the public? Will the public deal with this on an ongoing basis, or will they get a version of donor fatigue, and just stop paying attention?
Will the public want to spend a certain percentage of their potential relaxation time going through proposals and financing them?
Remember, between movies, tv, music, and all those other arts you are looking at tens if not hundreds of thousands of proposals. Do you think the general public has the time or the desire to do this?
Now, you can you open you mind up, and grok some of this stuff, you may understand why it's not exactly a given. It's called the other side, away from the wishful thinking and into the dull, boring, crappy reality of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a sad, sad world you live in. Having heard this statement, I genuinely pity you. You think there are no increases in quality content? Sad, sad, sad... Good luck living a fulfilling life with that mentality.
Could a company like HBO produce the level of content they produce and get the distribution for it on the basis of people paying what they want? Could they support a business model that requires them to finance each TV show (and perhaps even each episode) with the public?
Yes. Don't believe it? Shame. That means you'll be left behind (and embarrassed) when it happens. That makes me sad - just like I'm sad that T-Rex's and Brachyosaurs don't roam the countryside, because that would be awesome. Goodbye dinosaur - I promise to shed a single, profound tear.
Now, you can you open you mind up, and grok some of this stuff, you may understand why it's not exactly a given. It's called the other side, away from the wishful thinking and into the dull, boring, crappy reality of things.
Sorry, no. I like "wishful thinking" - because it's amazing how often the wishes come true. Our cultural commons never ceases to appall me, but it never ceases to amaze me either. You go ahead and enjoy your pessimism - I'll stay over here on the side of pragmatism+optimism, where things are both brighter and more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm so surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/58936338/space-command
Not perhaps as high-profile as will eventually occur, but another domino to fall.
When this sort of thing starts happening regularly, it's going to be in the "nerdsphere" -- fan-driven properties are in their natural habitat there. We geeks are tired of our favorite shows being cancelled because they don't appeal to Mom & Pop Nielsen Family in Lower Stumblebum, Iowa. Give the community the chance to directly fund it, and we'll never worry about cancellation again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed vs Convenience
The only real reason for Louie CK to DIY the show would be to make more money for himself. FX doesn't treat him well because they are just all around nice and love his company. They are parasites that offer him convenience. All Louis CK is proving to the world is that people do want to pay artists, they just don't give a shit about gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greed vs Convenience
I'm thinking largely of Louie, Archer and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia -- the people behind all those shows have nothing but kind words for FX, and it doesn't sound like they're just buttering up the bosses. All three of those shows are fucking weird and never would have made it past the pitch meeting at most other networks.
All I'm saying is: FX doesn't seem too bad as gatekeepers go. In fact it seems like they really want to be enablers as much as possible, and they actually do display some genuine respect for the integrity of the creators they work with. CK certainly doesn't have any problem with them - as he said in the same recent interview linked in the post, his direct sale experiments have nothing to do with "sticking it to the man" and are all about "providing an alternative"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, they're owned by one fo the biggest asshats in the business who doesn't grok (via intent or otherwise) the promotional value of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Dare You Say That!
Wrong.
They're (ultimately) owned by one of the most evil anti-human fascist sob bastards on the planet and enemy of all mankind (even those to effing g-d stupid to realize it).
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Critics of new entertainment business models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They wouldn't be paying per-episode, they'd be asked to fund an entire season, in advance -- with perks (depending on buy-in level) beyond just the episodes (behind-the-scenes access, limited merch, etc.). If the funding is successful, everybody gets the extras they purchased, PLUS an entire season of a show.
When it's time to do the next season, you do it again.
Given the non-big-name successes where THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING, you cannot sit back and say "it wouldn't work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]