Must the Show Go On?

Now that I'm moving to Baltimore, I'm faced with a very tough decision: what to do about Something to Be Desired, the web series I've been producing here in Pittsburgh since 2003.

If you've never seen STBD, you're not alone -- although we're the web's longest-running sitcom, we're also one of the smallest, due mostly to my own inability to properly promote the show WHILE producing it (WHILE also making a living). Because our extensive (and talented) cast all work for free, our only actual expenses for the show are equipment, hosting and time; otherwise -- and if we didn't enjoy it -- we never would have lasted 6+ years.

Now, since the cast can't relocate to Baltimore with me, continued production of STBD becomes nearly impossible without major restructuring. As I see it, I really only have three options:

* Keep producing the show in SOME format, which would require lots of advance planning, remote scheduling and copious amounts of driving (or flying) time -- which obviously inflates the cost of production.

* Let the cast (and whomever else would like to volunteer their camera services) continue to produce the show themselves, and I could advise / assist (within reason) from a distance.

* Cancel the show.

Still Ready for Their Close-Ups?

So far, most of the cast members I've heard from have fallen into 2 categories:

* The veteran cast members would like to see the show continue, but they don't particularly mind if it shuts down either. After 5 or 6 years, they can accept that this particular creative outlet may have reached its end. They would just prefer to see the show end on a high note, rather than as a mass of jumbled loose ends.

* The newer cast members are more vocal about wanting the show to continue, since they've only begun exploring the experience (and their characters). Then again, they also tend to be the cast members who are most actively pursuing stage and film work in Pittsburgh, so they admit this makes them even harder to schedule -- especially from a distance.

Ironically...

... this question of the show's future comes at a time when things have been going quite well for us.

* The fashionistas at Pittsburgh-based ModCloth have offered to outfit some of our cast members for next season's episodes.

* Last year, we were nominated as one of the Top Web Series on Yahoo's annual web video awards. (We lost to The Guild, but that's okay -- so did everyone else.)

* YouTube had begun promoting last season's episodes on the front page of their Entertainment section, resulting in thousands of new views we wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise.

* Web video press like TubeFilter and TilzyTV gave us some ink (or pixels, if you're a purist).

We'd even begun filming some scenes for Season 7 in HD, which would be a big format change for us (and would hopefully help highlight those new ModCloth outfits).

And Yet, in the End...

... it all comes down to me. Over the years, I've struggled annually with the decision of whether or not to keep the show going. Some days (or years) have been harder than others, but the fact that I was collaborating with a talented cast of actors to create something WE controlled was always enough to power me through the down times.

And now, just when it seems like the show may be finding its footing, all signs point toward how logical it would be to shut it down and start anew with something fresh in Baltimore. (Which I'm sure I'll explore regardless of the future of STBD -- there's something to be said for a local creative outlet.)

I know that as long as I have at least one actor and at least one viewer, I have at least one reason to keep producing STBD. And as long as I'm still interested in telling the ongoing story of this cast of characters -- and I am -- I also have a personal reason to continue.

The question I have to ask myself now is: Is it worth it?

Broadcasting to an Audience of... None?

Yesterday, I was invited to speak about Something to Be Desired (the web series I produce) at Point Park University. One of their broadcasting classes likes to invite local media creators to chat with the students during an informal luncheon, and help them understand what "working in the field" is really like. Since they thought STBD was a good example of a web success story, I was happy to share what I know (and admit what I don't).

The students were friendly and inquisitive, and lobbed several tough questions (beyond the obligatory "how do you make money" and "why are you still in Pittsburgh?"). I and STBD actor Will Guffey (Leo) gave them all the information we could, bored them with endless anecdotes about our "process," and did our best to demonstrate that our six year-old web media series is just as viable a communications option as... well, as a paying job...

Interestingly, when I asked the students what web TV shows they currently watch, or what podcasts they listen to, they told us they watch very little -- mostly existing TV shows that they didn't have time to watch during the week. None of them subscribed to any shows, and they didn't download them to watch on a mobile device, either -- even though several of them had video-enabled iPods.

Then one of the students asked if either of us blog, and then she asked why ANYONE would blog, or why anyone would take bloggers seriously. Admittedly, this is not an easily-answered question, especially in light of chicanery like the (false) CNN iReports of Steve Jobs's heart attack. But, more importantly, even asking this question proves that journalism and broadcast students (or their professors) are highly suspicious of "new" media -- and why shouldn't they be?

So... if the future broadcasters of America aren't watching web media... who is?

And... if web media is not being taught as a viable option in most broadcasting classes... why?

(I think I know, and it has to do with "credibility," "economy" and "job security." What are YOUR thoughts?)

Photo by digitalvisions.

Someone's in the Money

Fresh off the Yahoo! Videobloggers message board, here's a list of the AFTRA rates for film and television performers.

Notice that these are their rates for "interactive media." Which means an AFTRA actor who makes a web video is technically due several hundred dollars per day, at the very least. (NOTE: I've yet to see evidence that this pay structure is currently being adhered to, or that anyone in "interactive media" is earning these rates. But, for the sake of argument, there it is.)

Pretty cool, huh?

Not necessarily.

If / when AFTRA (and other unions) are granted jurisdiction over the internet, it could become a lot harder to launch something as simple as a videoblog. Granted, as long as none of your actors are AFTRA members, you don't have anything to worry about -- yet. But, as one member of the message board commented:

I am of the opinion that every time a videoblogger charges less than the rate card, they screw things up for people in AFTRA.

Thus, it's likely that, in the very near future, ALL videoblogs may qualify as AFTRA productions if they operate under a certain budget, accrue a certain amount of revenue, etc. (Unions tend to not appreciate non-unionized workers, even if it is just a kid from Ohio making movies with his webcam.)

And, for productions whose members are in AFTRA -- say, the cast of The Burg -- they'd presumably have to find funding to pay each actor their day rate. If it takes 3 days to shoot a 10 minute episode, that's over $10,000, just to cover the primary cast in one week's episode of The Burg. (This doesn't even cover extras, minor actors, and all other job functions -- director, producer, writer -- all of which, it follows, would need to earn their union's standard rates as well.)

So, forget about "monetizing your vlog." T-shirt sales and Revver clicks aren't going to cover AFTRA fees. The bigger question is: who's going to fund the future of web video?

(Enter: The studios ===> Hello, old media cycle, all over again...)

Thoughts?