It’s been announced that ABC has decided not to produce any new episodes of “Pushing Daisies”.  Despite critical acclaim and the love of their small yet fiercely devoted audience, ABC is going to pull the plug.  Is this the result of an inability to market the show properly?  Was the work-stoppage that resulted from the writer’s strike simply too much for the show’s creators to overcome?  Did the diminished returns not justify the show’s high budget?  Most likely, the answer lies in a combination of the three.  When the TV show first premiered, the initial advertising push was strong, as was the promotion for the second season, but any momentum gained last season was seemingly lost once the strike took hold of Hollywood.  

The vocal support from critics notwithstanding, the show faced a steep climb to reclaim the attention of its casual viewers (loyal viewers will always be there for a show they love – it’s the viewer who tunes in in passing who’s the hardest to grab).  In the aftermath of the writer’s strike, this is a perfect example of “the better the show, the harder the road”.  Any show can have problems following up a successful first year… yet battling those problems while also climbing back from a strike is even more daunting.  And although it was a procedural drama with relatively simple running storylines, the show apparently had problems creating a strong second-season push.  It debuted to numbers well below those of last season’s premiere, undoubtedly causing the executives at ABC to rethink their ties to the show.

As the audience, all of this is to our disadvantage.  We, too, are casualties of this strike.  A show like “Pushing Daisies” needs stability and time to grow, due to its own quirky nature and the unusual charm of its characters.  And we as the audience needed time to appreciate it.  But that’s what makes shows like this so much fun to watch, is that they accept their quirks, and in fact revel in them.  From episode one, “Pushing Daisies” knew itself and its characters; they trusted the idea that, with enough time, the audience would as well.  Unfortunately, the strike ruined that, and we are now left to mourn one of the more unfortunate victims of this television season.  

In other cancellation news…
On October 31, 2008, Fox announced its decision to cancel “King of the Hill” after its 13th season, and here’s guessing it goes quietly into the night, with little to no fanfare to celebrate its remarkable run.  And yet this is only fitting, considering that’s how the show has thrived all these years: by keeping below the radar, and plowing ahead slowly but surely.  Much like the main character Hank Hill, “King of the Hill” has been one of television’s steadiest performers, always managing to keep itself relevant despite being seemingly overshadowed by it’s more prolific brethren “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy”.  This television show had a broad appeal that few shows can match; the storylines covered a variety of topics, from a variety of perspectives, and yet it never lost sight of its true self.  The characters, though the lived in Texas, were more than just left or right, red state or blue state… they were real people with real morals, who never bowed to the pressure to change who or what they were.  And in some small way, it’s nice to know they never will.

Now that the fall television season has officially kicked off, it’s worth visiting this year’s slate of shows to see what lingering affects there are from the recent writer’s strike.  In many ways, this is a season of proving one’s self, as we find numerous shows returning from strong freshman debuts who are desperate to reclaim what momentum they had prior to the strike.

It’s safe to say the 2007-2008 television season was an unusual one.  The strike caused a work-stoppage that rushed season finales and left many shows (particularly those with serial narratives) in the lurch.  It’s also a safe assumption that heavyweights like “Lost” and “24” will come back in early 2009 at comfortable ratings levels despite the interruption to their respective narratives – both shows have tinkered before with their schedules and have not suffered greatly for it, thanks to their strong fan bases.  But other shows are facing riskier futures, as they had barely had time to establish themselves before being unceremoniously yanked from the small screen.

Look at three of these shows returning for their sophomore seasons: “Life”, “Private Practice”, and “Pushing Daisies”.  At first glance, these shows should see success, for a variety of reasons.  “Life” is a procedural police drama on NBC, which always seems a relatively simple formula of success.  “Practice” is a spin-off from ABC’s incredibly successful show “Grey’s Anatomy”.  And “Daisies” is a quirky ABC show that quickly found a receptive audience for its offbeat yet likeable characters.  Aside from the fact that all three are well-positioned on strong networks, these shows share something else in common: they’ve all been off the air since 2007.  That’s a long time away, yet all three are hoping to pick up where they left off.  Unfortunately, that’s easier said than done.  The fear is that audiences have forgotten these shows and their characters, and they’ll have a hard time reconnecting as a result.  And that’s what ABC and NBC are hoping to counter, with strong advertising and a gradual reintroduction to the lineups.

Television executives are looking for a return to normalcy with popular shows as well, which will also have to reassert themselves with audiences.  And new shows are coming down the line (some retooled, like the newer version of “Life on Mars”, or remakes, like the new “Knight Rider”).  Networks are understandably cautious about green-lighting new shows (ABC had only one new scripted show this fall), and are finding new ways to deal with the changing landscape.  Many are unveiling new shows or episodes in the summer (such as TNT’s “The Closer”, or USA’s “In Plain Sight”), betting that audiences who are used to repeats will be more likely to embrace new fare.

In the end, all it’ll take is one hit show to make a network forget the hassles and uncertainty caused by the writer’s strike.  And so long as they can avoid an actor’s strike, all should be close to normal by the time February sweep’s week rolls around.

As we mentioned in part I, good product placement is based on a few simple tenets: keep it subtle, make the product look enticing, and create a lasting image.  Sometimes, however, you simply can’t be subtle, especially with certain products (or films, or television shows, etc.).  Paid branding in movies and TV shows rose to $1 billion in 2004; those kinds of figures can cause some business owners to salivate, and lose themselves in the idea of “more is better”.  But as we saw in the films named in the last posting, if you’re not careful, you can actually alienate the audience you’re trying to lure in.  That’s where advertisers need to think outside the box, to bring in the next-level dose of “cool”, so to speak.

One of the first to do so was BMW, a company that has often sought to reinvent itself with respect to advertising.  The minds behind BMW’s ad campaigns understand that they have a distinctly known product — consumers know to expect quality and efficiency with their cars, SUV’s, and motorcycles.  And yet for BMW, this was not enough.  That was why they pushed the creators of the Pierce Brosnan “007” films to switch James Bond’s gadget-filled car, from Aston Martin to BMW. 

With the short film series “The Hire”, however, the company went even further.  In a collection of unrelated short films, there were two constants: BMW, and the man who drove them, Clive Owen (known only as The Driver).  In an ingenious move, the marketers approached numerous successful directors at the time, and had them structure short films around his character – a mysterious man for hire, who drove BMW sedans and SUVs with amazing skill.  Not only did it highlight the power and beauty of BMW’s cars, it also showed just how cool they could operate under pressure (and gunfire, and oil spills, and car accidents).  Rather than wait for some filmmaker to come along and showcase this, BMW chose to do it themselves, and the results were phenomenal.  Beyond what any mere commercial could do, these short films turned the cars themselves into characters.

There’s one final example of product placement worth looking at, and that’s on the Sci-Fi channel original series “Eureka”.  The product is Degree antiperspirant, and the genesis of the branding in this instance is simple: the show is about a town called Eureka, which is chocked full of genius inventors and scientists.  One of the products they’ve supposedly created is an antiperspirant that is incredibly powerful against wetness and odor.  This, of course, is what eventually becomes the formula for Degree.  Seems simple enough, however the advertisers have taken this premise a step further: rather than merely showing the product in various scenes, they’ve actually shown it being created.  In two episodes so far, the product has been an integral part of the show’s storyline (in a not-so-tongue in cheek admission that the town of “Eureka” needs the sponsorship dollars).  In addition to the placement, the advertisers also run “Infomercials” during the ad time, that show various products created in Eureka.  The first of these miracle products is, of course, Degree antiperspirant.  All in all, a very clever way of pushing a product; the only problem is that, despite the crossover, these two episodes were simply inundated with all things Degree, and it became obvious and a little tiresome.

Such is the state of advertising these days.  Branding will continue, in newer and better (and sometimes worse) ways.

If there’s one topic related to film and television that can promote both high praise and scathing vitriol, it’s that of product placement – or branding, as it’s called.  When done right, branding can (and should) be innocuous — a glimpse of a product here, or a mere reference there.  Truly masterful branding, of course, goes beyond simple product recognition, and actually instills in the audience a desire to possess the item in question as soon as possible.  Branding has, after all, always been an extension of advertising.  But there are those unique individuals who are able to embrace both the business aspect of product placement, and the creative side as well.  It is these people we applaud, because the contrast is often too glaring, and ends up deserving of our criticism.  Obvious instances of branding can actually end up turning an audience against a product.  Certain films and television shows have been guilty of this throughout the years, and have paid the price in the court of public opinion.  That’s because, at the end of the day, audiences respect creativity and ingenuity; what they don’t like are “sell-outs”.  They don’t mind being sold products, they just don’t like it when the intent is so blatantly obvious.  And that is why proper product placement in films and television is such a fine line to walk.

One of the first (and seemingly most innocent) branding opportunities came in the film “ET”, when Reese’s Pieces were used to entice a cute little alien out of hiding.  In the hands of a filmmaker like Steven Spielberg, the simplistic use of candy as a device in the film propelled the brand into new levels of popularity.  The importance of that one scene cannot be overstated: in the back of the audience’s minds, then and now, it is firmly rooted that Reese’s Pieces can transcend time and even space (if an alien ET likes them, then surely all of us will).  All these years later, and the candy is a part of the film’s lasting impression; like the film itself, it is a part of our childhood, intertwined in one large mess of products (the film itself, and the countless toys and stuffed animals and movie posters that came after).  Ask children of the 80s, and it’s almost as if the candy were created for the film (or because of it).

Again, that was simply a type of candy, used in the hands of a very talented director.  That was advertising done outside the box.  Advertising executives are a creative lot in their own right… they know that in order to sell a product in an increasingly saturated marketplace, there are times when one must think bigger, and times when one must think outside the box.  Bigger, however, is not necessarily better, as seen in the films “I, Robot” and “The Island” – two movies that were so blatantly saturated with product placements that they at times distracted from the actual plots (such as they were).  The best branding, as mentioned before, uses subtlety; these films did not.  And while the films themselves didn’t particularly suffer, the products that were placed in the films will always be remembered for “trying too hard” (during “I, Robot”, there was actually a scene in which the film’s main character is complimented on his Chuck Taylors; as the movie is set in the future, the sneakers were referred to as vintage – though in real life, they are available right down the street at your local store).

“I, Robot” serves as an example of what not to do.  However, in the next part of this examination, we’ll look at two companies that have re-thought the idea of product placement…

We’re approaching the 70^th anniversary of the “War of the Worlds”, the infamous radio broadcast that instilled panic in a nation. We’re also coming up on the 7^th anniversary of September 11^th, another fear-inducing event. Two separate and distinct points in American history, yet both examples of the role that media plays in shaping our society.

Most people know the story of Orson Wells’ infamous radio broadcast. On October of 1938, Wells perpetrated one of the greatest hoaxes in American history. He was able to convince the general public that an alien invasion was taking place in rural New Jersey. The ensuing panic was widespread, unlike anything most police and government officials had ever seen. By the time the “Martians” landed in Jersey, all hell had broken loose. Because most people only tuned in once they’d heard about the “news” from friends, they missed the announcement that the broadcast was a fake (and to be fair, Wells didn’t try overly hard to convince them otherwise once the program was in full swing). Many joined in just in time to hear how a group of aliens were destroying homes and entire towns, many using some horrific type of Martian gas on the unsuspecting populace. When the broadcast was finished, and Wells came on to explain how the story was akin to dressing up on Halloween, the damage had been done: tens (if not hundreds) of thousands believed the broadcast to be real, and many of them were genuinely terrified.

In the end, the broadcast caused an important shift in public perception concerning news and its delivery. CBS, though it did not face public censure, promised in the future not to use the phrase “We interrupt this program—” for anything other than real news bulletins. But beyond that, an even more important aspect of the hoax was revealed: the power of radio (and, later, television) to reach a vast audience. At that time, even phones were not available to the entire public. Many still relied on word of mouth to receive (and confirm or disprove) breaking news, along with their trusty radios. Lost, perhaps, in the anger at being duped by a radio show was the fact that so many had heard it to begin with.

Flash-forward to today. We live in a multi-media age, where news is broken in real time. When the events of September 11^th happened, many of us (myself included) watched the news on television while also streaming news feeds online from Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. It was an unprecedented amount of information available on a 24-hour feed, and it fit with the idea that audiences have become more discerning, if not more demanding. Unlike that night in October of 1938, the horrors of 9-11 were witnessed first-hand, in living color, by most of the nation. We didn’t need word-of-mouth to tell us whether what we were seeing was real – we could see for ourselves. Like those in 1938, we huddled together, barely able to comprehend what we were hearing. But unlike Wells’ hoax, our tragedy was much too real.

The Olympics begin tomorrow in Beijing, and with that comes the inevitable question: should the athletes use this very public forum to deride China on its human rights violations (including jailing dissidents and violently suppressing protests), or should they remain silent?  It is an issue that has dogged these Olympics since it was announced that Beijing would host the games, and the fervor has only intensified as we’ve neared the starting date.  For the athletes, it’s a sensitive question: to some, the Olympics are a place of competition, the one venue where every country involved can unite in the quest for athletic glory; to others, though, it provides them with a chance to voice their opinions to countless millions, one they may never have again.  It’s a question every athlete will wrestle with, one that depends on which way his or her own moral compass swings.  And it’s a question that will play out every day, with every medal ceremony and interview, across television and computer screens around the world. 

The television aspect is nothing new.  While the Olympics have reached a worldwide audience in the past, this year will see a virtual TV saturation (NBC will provide an unprecedented 1,400 hours of coverage across six of its networks, according to the Associated Press – “more that all previous Summer Olympics combined”; it will also present 2,200 hours of live web coverage and 3,000 additional hours of clips available online).  But what truly makes this Olympics different is that the potential to reach people is even greater, and surpasses mere television exposure.  That’s because, since the last Olympics in 2004, we have seen the advent (and subsequent explosions in popularity) of sites like myspace, facebook, and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube.

For the first time ever, we will be given an almost real-time glimpse into the Olympics – everything from videos to blogs to photos, all created and uploaded instantly.  People at these games will shoot videos from the stands, on the streets, in hotels, and at restaurants…they will have their cameras and computers with them at all times (oftentimes both in one), and you can bet that everything they capture will be uploaded immediately to YouTube (or Liveleak, etc.).  Countless more people will be documenting their experiences on myspace or facebook, writing about what they’ve seen and heard.

The television coverage will be limited by its own rigidly structured design – and for all things sports, there’s no better place to turn.  But this means that the true heart of the games will be found online, on those sites that China and NBC can’t control.  There, we will see the real athletes, unbound and unprocessed.  Throughout their time in Beijing, they will be presented with a sea of people capturing their every move.  What’s more, the athletes themselves will have access to all of these sites; they will add messages to their myspace sites, or perhaps will upload their own videos – documenting everything from the opening day festivities, to the sidelines at the events, even their own medal ceremonies.  Simply put, we are looking at an extraordinary amount of access to this year’s games, the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Which brings us back to the original question of just how much (if anything) the athletes should say about the way China conducts its affairs.  Because the reality is, they may be unable to avoid it.  If an athlete uses any of the above-mentioned media, they will be opening themselves to scrutiny.  Even a casual remark can be read as making some kind of statement – whether it’s a comment on the friendliness of the host country, or an expression of surprise at the seeming openness of a Communist regime.  The majority of what we will see on television will be about the sports… what we see in the other media will be about the people.  And if the athletes aren’t careful, they could be taking a stand whether they realize it or not.  Which, at the end of the day, might not be such a bad thing – after all, a heartfelt opinion is the best kind.

All of this, of course, will be a moot point if China decides to block access to YouTube and the like, as they did earlier this year during the Tibet protests.  But hey, if that happens, we still have almost 7,000 hours of NBC coverage to look forward to.

I’ll admit it: checking the box office numbers of “The Dark Knight” has become a habit with me.  I keep going to www.boxofficemojo.com, and staring at the total domestic take (over $363 million in just 15 days); I read various articles wondering if the film is poised to make a run at Titanic’s epic $600 million domestic haul.  And I find myself theorizing exactly why this film is generating as much noise as it is.  The answer, I believe, lies beyond mere filmmaking.  What we’re seeing is truly a small phenomenon – a perfect storm of a film.  This is what happens when an excellent sequel (even better than its predecessor), rave critical reviews, a magnetic performance by a recently-deceased actor, and incessant word of mouth come together.

It starts, of course, with the movie itself: wonderfully written and directed, with a haunting yet moving score to accompany the great action and suspense.  Even when the first feedback was trickling in from sources close to the production, before any trailer was complete, there were raves about the dark story and the actors bringing it to life (everyone from Christian Bale, to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart).  And the early reviews were dead on:  every major actor in this picture is worthy of recognition.  They add complexity to the story, as well as to their characters’ development within that framework.  I feel I can watch this film again and again, if only to see each actor so skillfully inhabit their role, wondering in the back of my mind what’s not being said – the stories behind the stories.  Take the Joker, for instance, who proclaims himself an agent of chaos, and yet so meticulously plans his schemes he’s almost like a deranged mathematician.  Ledger plays both sides so well, and so believably, that one can’t help but sit back and marvel at the odd duality of this character, the way he can be almost two distinct psychotics in one.

People like to point to the death of Ledger as the main reason to the film’s success, but that is merely simplifying the issue.  Rather, his passing is one of the cogs in a greater machine.  Critics were already raving about his performance prior to his death; they will talk about it for months to come.  And yes, there are some out there who will see the film only to watch the last performance of a young actor.  But there are so many more who will be pulled in for the other reasons mentioned above. 

Look at the overwhelmingly positive collection of reviews.  It is so rare to see critics getting behind a summer comic book movie, usually because they are so lean on story or character development.  Not so in this case: out of 247 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, only 14 are negative.  Read those reviews, and they’re less analytical assessments of the film, and more excited examinations of why the film is so good. 

The best part is, the film actually manages to live up to the intense hype.  What you read in the reviews is the same thing you hear from the average filmgoer; you can feel a breathless kind of enjoyment, can see a “there are so many reasons this film was good I can’t even pick one” gleam in the eye. 

Which, in the end, might be the best explanation for why this film continues to do so well: seeing it once (or twice) is simply not enough.

**Note:  I have to say, I’ll be amazed if the film passes “Titanic” for the domestic box office record. Think about it this way: let’s say at best that “The Dark Knight” grosses approximately $18 million tomorrow and another $12 million on Sunday (at BEST!!!)…  that would put the total box office at just under the $400 million mark.  That would mean that the film would have to earn another $200 million just to tie “Titanic”’s record.  To put it in perspective, that’s almost the entire domestic box office take of ‘Batman Begins’!  It’s a staggering figure when you think of it on those terms.

The one silver lining in all of this is that ‘The Dark Knight’ is on pace to reach the $400 million mark within 20 days (maybe 25)– obliterating the old record of 43 days set by ‘Shrek 2′.

The Emmy nominations for 2008 were released, and while premium cable and the broadcast networks are still dominant forces in television, we are clearly seeing a growth of basic cable programming, both in terms of quality and recognition.  Shows like ‘Breaking Bad’, ‘Mad Men’, and ‘Damages’ have all garnered attention this year, and their nominations in various categories reflect that.  For these shows’ networks, AMC and FX, it is validation that ad-supported niche cable shows can appeal to voters and audiences alike.

Every year, the Hollywood community inevitably complains about the shows that didn’t get nominated (I would include myself in that list, seeing as how ‘Battlestar Galactica’ was not nominated for best drama series, while ‘Lost’ was overlooked in the writing and directing categories; however, since the former received a writing nod, and the latter is once again in the running for best drama, I really can’t complain).  But this year is different, and should be remembered as such, for the fact that two basic cable networks have shows that are being considered for best drama.  That is not to take anything away from what the broadcast networks have done; shows like ‘House’ and the aforementioned ‘Lost’ not only withstand the test of time, they actually reinvent themselves to remain fresh and interesting.  The cable networks, too, have remained viable, with shows like ‘Dexter’ and ‘The Wire’ receiving nothing but praise from fans and critics both. 

But the emergence of networks like AMC is notable for the fact that they have come seemingly out of nowhere to challenge convention.  They have presented us with small, character-driven shows dominated by great acting and compelling writing, and as a result have found steadily growing audiences.  They even seem to come up with ways to deal with some of the challenges facing television as a whole, such as the growing worry that people with DVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials: while watching ‘Mad Men’, a show about ad executives in the 1960’s, each first-half commercial break features title cards that give interesting tidbits about the sponsor or product in the ensuing commercials (who knew the first Orkin ad dates way back to 1954?)  Simple yet informative, these commercial teasers, for lack of a better description, keep you interested – they actually make you want to watch the commercial!  It’s creativity like this that illustrates, in a small way, what networks like AMC bring to the mix. 

Basic cable networks in general have been upping the ante in recent years.  It’s fitting that FX has recently changed its slogan to “There is No Box”, because that is how the network approaches its programming.  By thinking beyond what’s safe and what works, they have risen the level of quality; in doing so, they have also questioned many of Hollywood’s beliefs, including what, exactly, a hero should look and act like.  FX (along with TNT and USA) has also helped to dispel the notion that there are no primetime, desirable roles for women over 40 – just ask Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, or Kyra Sedgwick.

Here’s hoping that the broadcast networks take a look at what their basic cable counterparts are doing, and realize that there are in fact lessons to be learned. 

As Comic-Con prepares to descend on San Diego on July 24^th, it’s worth taking a quick look to see just how this small gathering of comic book aficionados became such an annual powerhouse.  Some will say things really took off when the “Harry Potter”, “Lord of the Rings”, and “X-Men” franchises were all released – three enormously popular (and successful) science-fiction/fantasy film series that had a home at the convention; it was there that fans could find the actors, the stories, and all the additional merchandise they could want.  Yet it is simplistic to say that Hollywood has only recently taken notice of the event; it has had a presence there almost since the beginning, after all, with Lucasfilm setting up a booth at the 1976 convention to promote “Star Wars”.  Even Mark Hamill – Luke Skywalker himself – was once a young comic book fan; he recently set his film “Comic Book: The Movie” at the convention, knowing what it’s like to both be on the stage and in the audience.

Beyond merely the industry taking notice, the growth of Comic-Con lies with those actually attending the event.  What we’re seeing is a growing trend of quality.  Comic fans have always been passionate about story; they’ve always had an exacting stance on what the characters can and cannot do.  And they now have the power to demand that quality from the studios and the filmmakers.  As films like “Iron Man” and the new “Star Trek” and “The Incredible Hulk” are brought to the big screen, their fans scrutinize every detail for authenticity… they discuss rumors, dig for advance copies of the script, and theorize to no end.  Some filmmakers find this intrusive, feeling it hinders the creative process.  Others, though, have taken notice, and have in fact embraced these fans (called “fanboys” for their devotion).  For these filmmakers, it makes sense to use this resource.  These directors and writers understand full well that any work based on an existing product will have to get these people’s stamp of approval… an advance thumbs-up can do wonders; conversely, early bad press can be hard to overcome.

In the end, the fans just want to see the best product they can, and while it’s not possible to satisfy all of them all the time, one can still get close. With the growth of the internet – a realm dominated initially by those who love computers – we’ve seen an influx of fan sites like “Ain’t It Cool News”, whose sole purpose was to analyze, discuss, and review their favorite films and television shows.  Now, this site has grown so much since its inception that its founder, Harry Knowles, is now being invited by directors like J.J. Abrams to view a clip of his newest “Star Trek” film – months before its release – in the hopes that he’ll relate something positive to his readers.  This kind of buzz is vital to a film’s success, especially those in the science-fiction and fantasy realms, and guys like Abrams are smart enough to realize it.  That’s why he also uses Comic-con to promote his hit show “Lost”, drawing in the audience with mysteries and teasers well after the show has hit its summer break. 

Comic-Con’s growth can also be attributed to the development of its truest fans.  Back in the 70’s, the convention started with only a few hundred people; one of the first notable guests was not a filmmaker but the sci-fi author, Ray Bradbury.  As the convention grew, it attracted kids of all ages, whose love of comics and films brought them together.  Now, these children are adults, and are themselves responsible for many of the films and TV shows that screen there.  The kids have grown up, yet they still have the same exacting standards as when they were young.  It is this dedication to quality that keeps the convention going, and it will continue to thrive so long as it stays true to this vision.

That, and it also doesn’t hurt that Ray Bradbury will be there again this year…

More than three months after the Writers Guild of America’s strike, Hollywood is facing a new round of labor negotiations that, should they fail, could spell another potentially long strike for the city (and California as a whole).  As the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) negotiate with AMPTP (the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers), the state is still trying to right itself after the WGA shutdown last November.

Anyone who watches television can clearly see the surface effects of the WGA strike – everything from shows cancelled outright, to production schedules that have been pushed back by months – some even until next year (film production also suffered, but that was mostly in rushed scripts and a lack of rewrites on set).  But in order to appreciate the full magnitude of the three months of work-stoppage, one has to dig deeper, specifically into the economic impact the strike has had on all forms of industry-related professions, and on the state’s fiscal health in general.  A report by the Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank, details the numerous ways in which the strike has had (and will continue to have) a lingering effect.  The information contained in this report is all a result of the strike, and shows the roll it played in harming the already struggling state and local economies.

“Substantial”.  This is the word the report uses to describe the strike’s effect on Los Angeles and California, specifically in job loss and overall economic health.  “The state is projected to show a total loss of 37,700 jobs and $2.1 billion in lost output from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the end of 2008. Total personal income and total wages and salaries are projected to decline by $3.1 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.”  All of these figures, attributable to the strike.  What’s most amazing about these facts is the vast reach of the strike, hitting not just actors and writers and everyone involved in production (hair and makeup artists, lighting technicians, camera operators, set designers, etc.), but also those peripheral to the industry, such as caterers and hotel staff.  The rippling effect of so many people having to tighten their belts has even caused finance, insurance, construction, and health-care to suffer.

According to the report, the strike was one of many factors that helped push California into a recession this year.  As a result, the strike “will continue to resonate over time, causing direct impact on employment, output, and wages and salaries, in turn affecting retail sales and causing ripples through other industries.”  There are also other lingering concerns, for instance a decline in television viewership; people had three months to kill, after all, and ended up turning to alternate sources of entertainment.  Bringing these viewers back into the fold is imperative, for the studios as well as for the advertisers who provide their revenue; however, as mentioned above, television executives are still having difficulties arranging their schedules to bring them back to normal levels.  Until they do, advertisers will remain wary.

This is just a basic overview on the negative effects the strike has had on our economy.  The good news, however, is that “[these effects] will gradually diminish over time; by the beginning of 2009, its effect on most industries will finally drop to a barely noticeable level.”  Unfortunately, this will happen only if SAG and AFTRA can settle their differences and coordinate their negotiations with AMPTP; otherwise, their current contract will expire today, and the unions may call a strike.  If that happens, the impact of the WGA strike will not be replaced, it will in fact be magnified.  We will then be faced with two distinct work-stoppages in less than a year, a frightening prospect for a state that thrives on the entertainment industry flowing smoothly.