Michael Eisner's Internet Play: Vuguru

With the premiere of Michael Eisner's second web series The All-For-Nots, here's a quick review of the new media world according to Eisner. 

His company's first series was Prom Queen.  According the Eisner, it cost $3,000 per 90 second episode, was seen by 20 million people and made, "a couple thousand dollars."

Though it had more shots of girls in bikinis than the original, Prom Queen's sequel, PQ: Summer Heat, was seen by fewer people and "lost money."

Despite this (and his view that the writers strike was insane because "it [was] over a business and a marketplace that is not evolved enough to even know if there is a business or a marketplace there"), Eisner is determined to make Vuguru "the leader in high-quality, story driven content produced for new media platforms."

He premiered The All-For-Nots with sponsorships from Chrysler and Expedia, distribution on Bebo and Verizon's V-CAST (not sure who paid who for what) and a simple strategy: produce cheap content that makes people laugh and cry. 

With little deference to Eisner's experience producing content that is professional, tear-jerking, and cheap, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington paid Eisner what must be high praise in Silicon Valley when he wrote that Prom Queen was, "as good as much of the user generated content out there."

And though Arrington predicted the show could be "very profitable", he doubted the need for Eisner's lavish $100k production budget for the 80-episode series: "the audience can easily create their own content and distribute it to millions on YouTube. Some of that content will be better than anything Hollywood produces. And it won’t cost even $100k to create."

No word yet on the budget, revenue, the fees paid to talent or the likely profitability of The All-For-Nots.  But if the Lonely Girl people can make millions off their Bebo show, Kate Modern, one hopes the former King of the Mouse House can figure out how to do the same.

Comments

[VDOVault]

"TechCrunch's Michael Arrington paid Eisner what must be high praise in Silicon Valley when he wrote that Prom Queen was, "as good as much of the user generated content out there.""

TES I think the actual sentence should be changed to read TechCrunch's Michael Arrington damned Eisner with faint praise when he wrote that Prom Queen was, "as good as much of the user generated content out there.""

If you're a pro, you need to do BETTER than much of user-generated content out there. Seriously, people aren't going to watch in droves and sponsors and venture capitalists aren't going to throw wads of cash at you if you're simply AS GOOD AS the UGC...they can throw smaller sums at the best UGC and still reach people and/or make money.

I figure if I can do the same thing with my $100 RCA Small Wonder (or the slightly pricier $150 Flip) camera and no union actors or writers or directors or crew, why would I care that Eisner was associated with a piece of content?

Give me what I *can't* do for my self please.

----------------

VDO -

I agree. My modest attempt at sarcasm.

Tom

[Scott Ellington]

I hope you'll forgive me for being a biggoted SOB, but if "branding" works at all, Michael Eisner's stamp on an entertainment product stinks until there's substantial proof that it doesn't.
Conversely, anyone who posts here at UH (with a name I can search at IMDb or Google) generally winds up on my Amazon wishlist.

[Michael Morris]

sorry I know this is in the wrong place but does anyone know where I can get a copy of the new deal. (not the fdr one but you know the new contract)

[Scott Ellington]

Michael,
If you don't know where to look, then you probably don't have a right to a copy of that document.
On the other hand, I think you do deserve an honest answer. The Guild's site is at wga.org, and the Minimum Basic Agreement for 2007 is available to members from a pull-down menu there that's entitled, "if you're a member". Several comprehensive .pdf documents are available on that page that seems to expect you not to read them if you don't belong to the guild.
On the third hand, they all (even the summary) read like the hopes and dreams of working people passed through the digestive system of a team of corporate lawyers.
On the fourth hand; we, the people can't seriously be expected to fight in behalf of writers who are constrained and protected by documents we, the people can neither access or understand.

[oakling]

Eisner's the one who's insane. He clearly doesn't understand what the strike was really about, the years of abuse behind it (some people just don't listen....) or the money that has already been made off of these new technologies.

[timing]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983987.html?categoryid=14&cs=1