SAN FRANCISCO, 9:05 PM, SUN JUL 6 | 0 POSTS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS | tips@valleywag.com | RSS

Hollywood talent leery of stock-option deals, but agencies enthusiastic

cash_money.jpgCash money, not equity, is what powers the entertainment industry. Especially when it comes to talent. In a possibly apocryphal but illustrative anecdote, legendary bluesman Albert King reportedly refused to leave the stage until he had cash in hand from the concert promoter, presumably because he'd been cheated out of so many deals in the past. Studio accounting has an only slightly better reputation than that of the music industry when it comes to being, ahem, creative. Hence it's no surprise that when negotiating venture funding for Funny Or Die, Will Ferrell reportedly wanted to know what his upfront payout would be, according to Sequoia Capital's Mark Kvamme in comments to the New York Times. Which is one reason why private equity efforts to fund traditional film and television production have yet to pan out. Better to get your money upfront and walk away in case the project is a disaster. So how is Valley money changing Hollywood business models?

Primarily through new ventures that not only go around the studios, but around traditional distribution entirely. While the networks and studios all have subsidiaries producing content strictly for online distribution, the talent contracts are still typical pay-as-you-go deals (and meager at that). Agencies have been most enthusiastic about new busines models — probably because they're already realizing efficiencies in terms of talent discovery using the Internet, which allows them to get around scouts and managers and reach new faces easily and cheaply.

A number of agencies have begun embracing new models. 60frames, an online video startup, took $3.5 million in venture funding and was incubated by the United Talent Agency. Creative Artists Agency is assembling a $200 million venture fund with partner Draper Fisher Jurvetson. International Creative Management is reportedly talking to Qualcomm about raising their own cash. And William Morris has helped back a $500 million SPAC to fund M&A deals, with Ashton Kutcher serving on the board. The draw for the agencies is the ability to own a piece of the company that distributes work from their own talent stables.

The only problem is, that gives them a conflict of interest when negotiating with the studios. Why pitch deals to the studio for the standard 10 percent cut when in-house deals would result in agency fees and back-end profits? And no one knows how this will shake out for talent. As LivePlanet producer Sean Bailey pointed out to reporter Laura M. Holson, "People in Silicon Valley too want their pound of flesh."

(Photo by Getty/Sharon Dominick)

Feature

5:00 PM on Wed Apr 16 2008
By Jackson West
1,958 views
9 comments

Comments

  • You mean "leery", right?

  • Ferrell is just a freelancer who knows he could be a footnote in history at any moment.

    As for the conflict of interest query re Morris and other agencies, forget it. Their current moves are just an extension of the "packaging" they've done for years.

    Besides, dude, when was the last time you wrote something on a promise.

    Get to La-La Land more often.

  • I would like you guys to get a Mac so you have a system-wide spell check that would catch things like...oh..."leary".

  • Image of raincoaster raincoaster at 12:11 AM on 04/17/08 *

    @CaliforniaCajun: It's anti-Irish bias.

  • Image of Jackson West Jackson West at 01:04 AM on 04/17/08 *

    @bbucy: Actually, I write on a promise pretty much every day. Have you read the 'Wag recently?

  • Well, I was hoping you'd notice yourself, but since you haven't, the word "business" is also spelled incorrectly in the post. Just to let you know...

  • This sounds like a good paper topic for my Alternative Capital Investment seminar next semester.

  • Image of WagCurious WagCurious at 08:20 AM on 04/17/08 *

    "While the networks and studios all have subsidiaries producing content strictly for online distribution"... This content is almost 100% dedicated to selling the traditional studio offerings. Why in the world would agencies want to work around the studios to create content like this (as your paragraph goes on to suggest)? There is no comparison to what the studios are doing and what an agency would potentially want to do on their own (in regard to online content). The fact that studio produce online content does not mean there is anything in it for a ten-percentary. Jackson, have you actually been to an agency? They feed off the studios, they will never do anything to upset the master. I really wish my $13 bought actual news about the industry. This speculation is amateurish at best.

  • @bbucy: A la Ben Stiller? Well, I guess he still directs (a lot of crap)...Sandler too. Seeing a big SNL trend here. Is Chase directing these days?

    Harry "wonders what Ackroyd is up to" Wang

Start a discussion:

Reply by Email

Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.