Extra! ONE LIFE TO LIVE & ALL MY CHILDREN Cut to 2 Eps Weekly

Already? Is this an “Uh-oh…” or a “Good thing?” Check out the press release:

all_my_children_castby Team TVWriter™

For close to two years we have been working passionately to bring first run premium content to an online platform with the creation of brand-new versions of the two iconic series, All My Children and One Life To Live. There was no precedent for this effort- we had no history-no barometer for how our fans would respond. We always knew there would quickly be new insights into how audiences would respond to our shows and this new platform, and that our ability to adapt quickly to audience needs would ultimately determine the long-term success of the shows and our mission. This is a new medium, a new time and we have always planned to make changes quickly by listening to you, our fans and customers.

Today it is clear these shows have resonated, as many millions of views have been logged since our April 29th debut, a mere two and a half weeks ago. We’ve consistently been in the top ten shows viewed on Hulu and viewers and critics alike have told us how impressed they are with the quality of both programs. The past two weeks have been invaluable in terms of learning about how you watch and when you watch our shows on this new platform. We have gained enormous insight through our actual viewing data and our research. And our research has revealed the following:

·         In the past these shows had their vast majority of views within the first 24 hours. Instead, our shows are primarily consumed on different days then when they originally air. Primarily, fans have been binge viewing or watching on demand, and as a result, we feel we have been expecting our audience to dedicate what has turned out to be an excessive amount of time to viewing these shows. (As an example, for the substantial audience only watching on the weekends, we are currently asking them to watch five hours of programming to keep pace with our release schedule).

·         On ABC the shows shared a large percentage of their viewers with each other. Yet, the majority of our viewers are watching one show or the other, not both, and they aren’t viewing the shows when they did before. Part of the reason for choosing between the shows may be that the largest viewing takes place either between 12PM and 1PM (when people generally can only fit one episode during lunch time) or between 5PM and 7PM (when the vast majority of competing shows are a half hour long). We are finding that asking most people to regularly watch more than a half hour per day online seems to be too much.

·         During their ABC runs, viewers watched only 2-3 episodes on average a week and picked up with whichever day’s episode it was. Our viewers seem to primarily start with the first episode and then continue forward episode by episode. Like with primetime serialized dramas as opposed to the traditional slower pacing of daytime, people feel lost if they miss an episode. People are starting from the beginning; the shows are designed for complete viewing from episode one. Yet starting from the beginning with the amount of episodes we are releasing is asking too much for viewers who need to catch up.

The clear conclusion is that while somewhat mixed, these viewing patterns resemble more closely the typical patterns of online viewing rather than how one would watch traditional television. This leads us to believe we are posting too many episodes and making it far too challenging for viewers to keep up. When it comes to online viewing, most of us are just trying to find time to watch series comprised of 13 to 22 episodes a season-so asking viewers to assign time for over 100 episodes per show is a daunting task.

Therefore, we have chosen to revise our scheduling model beginning this Monday, May 20th by introducing two new episodes from OLTL and AMC each week- new episodes of AMC will now run on Mondays and Wednesdays, and fresh episodes of OLTL will post Tuesdays and Thursdays. MORE, our behind the scenes series, will run as a single show on Fridays. This allows us to introduce a new episode of quality television every Monday through Friday and gives the audience a chance to catch up as we continue to build awareness and excitement around these new shows.   Because Hulu agrees with our findings, for the meantime they will keep all of our episodes on Hulu.com for free to give viewers the opportunity to find us and catch up.

We know our most dedicated viewers will be upset as they would probably prefer more shows to less (we personally wish there were more episodes of our favorite shows; we would love 50 episodes a year of Homeland, Mad Men or The Simpsons). We apologize to these viewers and ask them to please understand we are trying to ensure our shows succeed and not meet the fate they experienced previously. We need to devise a model that works for all viewers and follows how they want, and are actually watching, online. When it comes to online, as with all new technology, it’s adapt or fail.  We feel fortunate to be an online company and to have such an opportunity to adapt. Of course, we will continue to evaluate all the data that comes in and will be vigilant about revising our strategy as needed.

We want to be clear that this will in no way impact our feverish pace of production – we will be filming new episodes through mid-June, continue editing throughout July and until we go back into production in August. It’s a frenetic schedule but all of us are up for the challenge and excited to continue to deliver great shows.

As a new venture we felt obligated to address the needs of our viewers head on and to make adjustments that we think will work for our viewers. And as always, we thank you for your continued support and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Rich Frank and Jeff Kwatinetz

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit

Speaking of Intellectual Property Rights

We’re doing our absolute best here to follow the guidelines for re-posting web content put forth in the article below. Gah! it would be screwed up, wouldn’t it, if we failed?

Advice Mallard Image

Copyright, Memes and the Perils of Viral Content
by Jonathan Bailey

The definition of the world “meme”, in the broadest sense, is “An idea, behavior, style or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture”. Internet memes are a subset of that behavior that takes place online, where people spread a cultural touchstone from person to person, often referred to as going “viral”.

But what is and is not a meme can be tough to define. After all, a meme can be almost anything including a hashtag on Twitter, a photo with changing user-generated captions and even a short video a cat pretending to play a keyboard.

All that’s required is that a cultural item be spread from person to person rather than some soft of central source.

However, this spread of content creates a series of difficult questions with regards to copyright. Though it’s easy to think of memes as being owned by no one, rather a creation shared by the Internet, the law often thinks different as many memes do qualify for copyright protection and were, at some point, created by someone who holds that copyright.

These issues are likely going to grow as memes grow in importance commercially. This was illustrated recently by a lawsuit filed against Warner Brothers and game developer 5th Cell. In the lawsuit, Charles Schmidt, the creator of the Keyboard Cat meme and Christopher Orlando Torres, creator of the Nyan Cat meme, claim that their works were unlawfully used in various Scribblenauts games and are seeking damages for trademark and copyright infringement.

Read it all

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit

‘Worst’ File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than ‘Honest’ Consumers

There Are No Easy Answers Dept:

This Article Uses Many Charts But We Think This is the Most Important

This Article Uses Many Charts But We Think This is the Most Important

by Andy

Telecoms regulator Ofcom has just published a study into the state of online copyright infringement in the UK, with some very interesting conclusions. The researchers found that 10% of the country’s most prolific infringers are responsible for almost 80% of all infringements carried out online, but with a bonus. These plus an additional 10% of infringers spend 300% more than ‘honest’ consumers who don’t infringe copyright at all.

Early 2012 UK telecoms regulator Ofcom commissioned research designed to track consumer behavior and attitudes towards the legal and illegal consumption of copyrighted material.

The research targeted Internet users over 12 years old with the aim of gathering information on the way they consume movies, music, TV shows, video games, software and books to assist with copyright enforcement policy making. The results are now in and they interesting to say the least.

Read it all

Definitely food for thought.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit

G.I. JOE Writers Sue Paramount & MGM for Copyright Infringement

…which seems odd because TV and film writers don’t own the copyright to their work. Looks to us like their lawyers are trying to collect more than the statutory plagiarism damages via this route. Wonder if it’ll fly…

GIJOEby Lucas Shaw

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra” script co-writers David Elliot and Paul Lovett have sued Paramount, Hasbro, MGM and producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, seeking $23 million for copyright infringement. In the suit, filed in California federal court May 3, the writers allege that the studios and producers stole many of their ideas for the sequel to “Cobra,” “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.”

That film, which opened March 28, has grossed $355 million at the worldwide box office. The defendants have engaged Elliot and Lovett to contribute to the sequel, assuring they would get the job if their work was satisfactory. The studios and producers did not hire Elliott or Lovett, but in a 113-page suit, the writers detail all of the ways in which they feel their work was used without any credit.

“Even the most cursory review of the Joe Retaliation Movie and the Plaintiffs’ Work reveals that they are substantially similar in every material way,” the suit claims.

Read it all

Yours in solidarity, brothas!

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit

munchman: TNT Boots MONDAY MORNINGS

monday_mornings

Do you suppose that David E. Kelly knows how badly his work sucks now? I mean, this show, which Hollywood Reporter.Com reports is history, was so boring that I couldn’t even bring myself to write a review about how bad Ving Rhames was. (But then he’s always bad, no?)

A munchman prediction: Wifey Michelle Pfeiffer will be bailing soon. Mark my words.

I mean, let’s face it, the dood’s not exactly Mr. Studly, you know? And if he can’t write anymore, or do the satisfy-the-network thing, what’s he got that a hot lady could possibly want?

Especially a hot lady who used to be Catwoman.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit

YouTube Wants Our Hard-Earned Moolah

Don’t shoot the messenger. They announced it the other day on the official YouTube blog:

henson

New ways to support great content on YouTube

We’ve been building a YouTube partner program since 2007 that enables content creators to earn revenue for their creativity. We’ve watched them build amazing channels that have made YouTube into a news, education and entertainment destination 1 billion people around the world cannot do without.

Today, there are more than 1 million channels generating revenue on YouTube, and one of the most frequent requests we hear from these creators behind them is for more flexibility in monetizing and distributing content. We’ve been working on that and wanted to fill you in on what to expect.

Starting today, we’re launching a pilot program for a small group of partners that will offer paid channels on YouTube with subscription fees starting at $0.99 per month. Every channel has a 14-day free trial, and many offer discounted yearly rates. For example, Sesame Street will be offering full episodes on their paid channel when it launches. And UFC fans can see classic fights, like a full version of their first event from UFC’s new channel. You might run into more of these channels across YouTube, or look here for a list of pilot channels. Once you subscribe from a computer, you’ll be able to watch paid channels on your computer, phone, tablet and TV, and soon you’ll be able to subscribe to them from more devices.

The blog post also points out that “this is just the beginning.” YouTube will be rolling out more paid channels till, we dunno, maybe till the end of time. If you’re interested in learning more, you can direct your questions here.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter+1Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg ThisSubmit to reddit