Less than three years after opening up its website for free, Hollywood trade paper Variety is closing it back down to admit subscribers only.
Starting early next year, most content on Variety.com will be available only to those who subscribe to the Daily Variety newspaper or weekly Variety magazine, or those who pay for a digital subscription. Variety's iPhone application and other means of digital access with also cost money.
Publisher Brian Gott said executives are still considering whether some content will still be free or if the entire website will put behind a so-called pay wall. Discussions are also ongoing about whether online pricing will be lower than or equivalent to the print edition.
Variety.com was available only to subscribers until February of 2007, when the paper made access to its entire site free. Since the recession set in and online advertising rates began to decline, executives have been considering when and whether to go back to a paid strategy.
"Everyone thought then that if you got more traffic, you could sell more ads and make a ton of money, so we made a real effort to open up to consumers," Gott said. "We thought about our business strategy and decided we want to focus on serving the professional entertainment community."
Variety.com will continue to carry advertising and Gott said members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who don't already subscribe will likely receive a complimentary pass to access the site because advertising geared toward awards voters are such an important part of the paper's business.
As online advertising rates have failed to grow as many executives predicted, many newspapers have been considering charging for some or all of their digital content in an effort to boost revenue and drive more print subscriptions. News Corp is attempting to put together a consortium of newspapers that would charge a joint subscription rate, as is a start-up called Journalism Online.
Papers that cater to a business audience with unique content, such as Variety, are generally considered to have a better chance of making a pay system work than those that serve a general interest audience. News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal has been the most successful national newspaper to charge for its website.
The news of Variety's plans was first reported on Deadline.com. The site also reported that Variety's primary competitor, the Hollywood Reporter, is planning to cease publication of its daily print edition by the end of the year. However, a spokesperson for Nielsen, owner of the Reporter, said there are no such plans, as did the paper's editor, Elizabeth Guider.
"We are considering what will be the best way as a paper and a brand to go forward and what will be the mix between print, online and events," she said.If the advertising market doesn't improve, both the Hollywood Reporter and Variety will likely be considering changes to their print publication schedule at the end of awards season (the Academy Awards are scheduled for March 7, 2010), according to people familiar with the situation.
-- Ben Fritz
Rant alert: Oh, just stop it already with the 'Will they or won't they'!
I'm going to try an experiment. I was ranting on Twitter about the season premiere of "Bones." Below is a summary of those Twitter statements, altered to be a bit more readable, and a small selection of the interesting comments/replies I got in return.
This whole dialogue is much more about whether shows should constantly tease a couple possibly getting together and never actually do it. So "Bones" was the spark that set things off, but what follows is more about a TV trend that I find pretty annoying. I also ranted about that situation in an "NCIS" story you can find here.
A summary of Mo's "Bones" comments/TV Couples With Tension rant on Twitter:
Have fun, "Bones" fans. I'm out.
I was never a big "Bones" fan, though I can see the appeal. It's a slight slice of fun. But it appears set on working that "will they or won't they" thing forever.
In my opinion, that "will they or won't they" thing is overused on TV. Showrunners and networks way too afraid to put couples together. It's tiresome.
So, is Thursday's "Bones" season premiere "bad"? No. But I refuse to watch a show that is set on teasing something it will never resolve. I'm over it.
"Bones" is preaching to the converted at this point--those who stick with it are OK with the constant "will they or won't they" tease. If you enjoy that, by all means, enjoy the show.
But I'm not going to watch it again. It was never a huge favorite of mine and I'm tired of tease and the lack of resolution between Booth and Brennan.
Now, take all that with a grain of salt because, as noted, I was never huge "Bones" fan anyway. So if you were a fan, you may still be in Season 5.
But here's the crux of my rant (and this doesn't just apply to "Bones"): It drives me mental that TV writers take the "lesson" of "Moonlighting' (which may not apply at all) and apply it to every show. Be more creative than that!
Update: Please read Linda Holmes' piece on what killed "Moonlighting" -- it was not the fact that the lead characters got together. This truism of TV -- that getting David and Maddie together killed the show -- is completely wrong because it is based on a complete failure to recall what actually happened on "Moonlighting."
Do I think all couples with tension should get together? No. But it's lazy or fear-based thinking to constantly avoid putting a couple together, especially if that couple's sexual tension has been constantly exploited on the show.
Yes, I'm still bitter that we saw very little of Luke and Lorelai together on "Gilmore Girls." How many great stories could have come from that? What so many shows miss out on is this: Once the "will they or won't they" couple is together, there are so many cool stories that can arise!
I should note, at times, networks executives are probably pressuring writers not to get "will they or won't they" couples together. Network fear, blergh! A curse upon it!
Some replies from people on Twitter:
@stayingin: If you're going to have a "will they or won't they" couple at the center, at least let the other couple [i.e. Angela and Hodges] be together.
@eris404: And actually, why do they have to be attracted to each other anyway? Why not just have them as good friends?
@theonetruebix: It's very tough to do well, and too often is hackish shorthand for "tension."
@monkeyseeblog: Agreed, and also: That wasn't "Moonlighting's" problem anyway. "Moonlighting" died for other reasons, in my opinion. Furthermore, REFUSING to put them together can ruin it just as easily. Neither route is safe; you have to WRITE WELL either way.
@sepinwall: And that shouldn't be Moonlighting lesson.
@jason1749: I assume you saw this inventory at The AV Club [of shows that were not ruined when characters got together].
@kateaurthur: I totally agree with this rant. And when I watch pilots, think it's a TERRIBLE sign when there's a will they/won't they right away. (Here's an article Kate wrote for Slate called "Do It, Already.")
@madismylife: In trying to be "creative themselves", they often pass up great chemistry.
@televisionary: Will-they-won't-they couples usually become a who-cares for me after a while.
@ackeryO: One would hope sufficiently complex characters would be just as compelling once together; seems like lazy writing if they aren't.
@dark_victory: My big problem with will they/won't they is the "won't" gets to be forced after a while. The reasons for not going forward [seem] contrived.
@subtlelikebrick: You assume that these writers have ever been with a woman for an extended amount of time. Oh, wait, is that cynical?
@witchyflickchic: You'd think "The Office" would have cured some of that fear.
@chuckmemondays: The greatest lie TV people ever told was that MOONLIGHTING lost ratings when the leads got together. Complete horsepoop!
@lalisa: "The X-Files" waited way too long and then blew it entirely.
New music director Nicola Luisotti brings excitement about music's mysteries to S.F. Opera
Only the third music director in the company's 87-year history, the Tuscany-born Luisotti speaks, in heavily accented English, like a mystic: 'Music is an expression of love! It is the voice of God, transformed!'
'Disgrace' Exposes A Divided Country's Despair
Based on J.M. Coetzee's best-selling novel, Disgrace explores the racial landscape of South Africa through the exploits and exploitations of a deeply flawed poetry professor. John Malkovich stars in this elegant and disturbing portrait of race and power.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar