JMS on Usenet

Message

Subject: Re: attn. JMS: A TV writing question...
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:20:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated

>I meant that only as the difference between potential and reality.  
>Potential would have had B5 only 4 seasons long and maybe syndicated 
>scattershot across the countries various TV station.  The reality had it 
>being 5 seasons long and continually syndicated since 1998 on an 
>individual superstation that is seen by a wider audience.
>
>The critics would latch on to the "potential" revenue lost to actors 
>residuals by B5 only having exclusive rights to one station.  The reality 
>means B5 has had continual exposure with occasional efforts to add in new 
>blood.  This could mean when it is given to the open market, more 
>stations will latch onto it for broadcast.
>
>Of course, this was my interpretation of the matter.  The writers and 
>actors have a better position to form an opinion on the matter since the 
>results affect their livelyhoods.

It doesn't really work that way.

You're paid on the rerun qua rerun, not on the number of stations carrying it. 
WB makes a deal with whomever...a syndicator, a cable network, somebody...and
that organization pays X-dollars per episode for the right to show it for the
length of that contract (usually about 3-5 years).

There's a slightly different residual formula for cable vs. syndication, but
rather than get bogged down in that, let me get to the point.

If an episode runs on a thousand stations or twenty, the residual is the same,
a percentage of the purchase price of the episode.  So the number of stations
really doesn't matter.

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)