Mexico and Calderón Double Down on Digital City in Guadalajara

During the week of January 30th, Méxican President Felipe Calderón made a special trip to that nation’s second largest city Guadalajara to launch a new program: the Digital Creative City Project (gobienofederal, 2011). This project estimated to be worth US$10 million dollars is looking to attract entertainment, design, and digital art companies to the Jalisco region of México.

As Calderón enters into the final months of his presidency; he is embarking on a major push to use the sizable numbers of multinational companies that exist in Guadalajara and the surrounding Jalisco area (which happens to be México's second-largest population center) to lure major media players like Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., the Walt Disney Company, and Sony Entertainment with the promise of sizable federal funding from the Méxican government. All of these moves will be made in order to try to put Guadalajara on the map as a major destination cog in digital media design and entertainment sector. This would enhance the region’s designation as the Silicon Valley of México.

In his 25 minute long address, Pres. Calderón touched on a wide area of initiatives, possibilities, and long-term goals in introducing the prospect of the Jalisco high-tech project (Walten and Doyle, 2012). As Calderón touched upon the various areas in his speech; the overreaching theme was the advancement of opportunities and the long reaching financial and social benefits of a successful project and what it would mean for the future of not just Guadalajara but for the entire Méxican nation. 

The entire speech can be heard at the link that I’m providing here on this blog piece. While the president mentioned international neighbor Canada often, the omission of possible partnerships with the government of the United States were clearly missing from his prepared text. This leaves one to wonder if this is another demarcation point for possible future strategic cooperation with other nations in the Western Hemisphere but not with the United States in particular.

In conclusion, Calderón's speech sets out some very interesting benchmarks in the terms of possible tremendous goals for not just the Méxican people; but for the emerging strength in terms of economics for Metropolitan Guadalajara. It will be truly interesting to see if these plans can take root and come to fruition in the policy of the next central government in México City. 

BBC. (2011, January 21). Profile: Felipe calderon. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12242685

gobienofederal. (2011). Presentation of the guadalajara digital city [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yqzySp0tLsM

TeamNAFTA. (2012). Guadalajara industrial profile[Web]. Retrieved from http://www.teamnafta.com/index.php/Market-Profiles/guadalajara.html

Walten, K., & Doyle, D. (2012, February 3). Ciudad creativa digital. Retrieved from http://www.mexipreneur.com/tag/ciudad-creativa-digital/

Life and Art imitate each other in the market place of humanity...

Understanding either the sociological, financial, or the psychological aspects of modern American consumerism can be a difficult task. No matter what one’s FICO score, past data mining information, or a litany of sociological testing background pervades to reveal; data is in other words the accumulation of information in the form of observation or estimation.  It is what drives the marketing and financial analysis fields to this very day.

In that light, no group of consumers has been studied in terms of their finances or consumable habits like Americans were during the 20^th century. While the specifics of the true analysis of the century (generally known as The American Century) have been studied in a very broad manner. These all centered on the single moments or the single large scale events (the Black Monday Wall Street Crash, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the triad of assassinations of the progressive icons of the 1960s, and ultimately last innocents-Those who would be defined by the events of 9/11.).

The perspective on such matters has been in retrospective form studied in Mass Media.  The rise of cable series like Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, House of Lies, Weeds, and The Wire are direct reflections of Hollywood’s vision of America in those terms.   The study of economic and sociological uniqueness of a group people like Generation X and the immediate demographic predecessors the Baby Boomers are vast. Outside of the children of the Great Depression (The Silent Generation) who roundly never knew any economic or sociological level of success over a period 20 years (1929-1949), these two generations cover the greatest expansion of personal wealth (the rise of home equity from the society of renters, the turn from a savers economy to investors economy). The generations that evolved from the hypocrisy of both post-wars (Prohibition and the rise of the modern American civil rights). The hidden peccadillos of the American suburbs of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s  (racial superiority, infidelity, sexual promiscuity, and misogyny), the social dilemmas aside, the great financial statements of the century were tied to these moments. Out of both World Wars after periods of intentional controlled economies, retooling from war time footing, and brief recessions came booms and eras of prosperity.

The overriding symbiotic relationship between the American way of life can be symbolized by the shows mentioned earlier. It is one matching which has generally matched the economic health of the nation. Of course as can be demonstrated by the leveraged speculation that typified the period leading to the crash of the 1929 market and subsequent decade long Great Financial Depression that followed. Eighty years later, after the passage of the ill timed Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 unintentionally had a cascade effect leading to many of the seismic collapses of great financial houses. A government in the Fall of 2008 reduced to picking “winners and losers” in the financial markets, economic engines, and watching helplessly as the markets punished excesses and scrambled to hoard cash when the cash and the equity markets shutdown and contracted to levels not seen since the beginning of the 1930s.

Some will see the exploitive nature of capitalism or the failure of the imposing any financial oligarchies saw their respective enterprises as their playgrounds or personal cash cows (Barbarians At The Gates) as a cautionary tale.  Meanwhile, there will be other individuals downstream of the carnage of governmental and financial mega powers choices that have been displayed as capitalism at its rawest form; shows like The Wire and Breaking Bad express what happens when a code of relativism becomes a way of life. The love of money and power are expressed in level of relative exploitation. The difference is that institutions with public sanction (Enron, Bear Stearns, and Country-wide Mortgage) are given a level of legal protection. Whereas, cartels of lawlessness and graft as exampled by the characters like Omar in The Wire, Walter White in Breaking Bad, or Nancy Botwin in Weeds are given to various degrees of government tenuous enforcement and prosecutorial pursuit. These are some of the great conundrums of American life. 

Facing the Music Industry's Blade Runner Moment

Clyde Smith relates a very interesting article on the changing role of artist management after the presumed death of the conventional record industry on his blog at hypebot.com. The rise of do-it-yourself (D I.Y.) approaches in terms of record promotion and distribution. This partnered with the rise of a “true partnership between the artist and the management in carving out a successful an enterprise in association with the group with the artists” (Smith, 2011)

In focusing on the experiences of James Barton and Brian Message, two London-based music managers and representatives; Smith shares their vision on the focus and perspective that the traditional business model, one where the artists are treated as “commodities" (Smith). On the other hand, “the artist-fan relationship” is treated as highly as any of the old traditional rights (Smith).

So in reality what did it all mean? In their (Barton and Message) estimation, it gives rise to “every artist is being treated as a standalone business that generates income from multiple revenue streams.” Such a series of concepts requires a great deal of change in mindset and action for the majority of artists and managers. It is a new paradigm for an industry that is already conflicted by the destruction of its old model (the record business). And in turn, is model of domineering monetary rights and in ultimate artist control has led the two industry veterans to champion a new emphasis in how roles are defined and money and power are distributed between the parties.

In conclusion it can be related that this change in how business is conducted and the redefining of collective roles gives all of the parties involved a new definitive place at the table in terms of Barton and Message’s vision. However in broader strokes, the industry in many situations is still looking at older and possibly antiquated positions and models to try to rescue their industry. Where the industry (artists and managers market) goes from here is truly the $64,000 question.

 References:

 Smith, C. (2011, November 27). The essential role of artist management in the post label world.. Retrieved from http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/10/the-changing-role-of-artist-management-after-death-of-the-record-business.html

Romney Wages War On PBS

At a recent campaign stop Republican presidential nomination front-runner Mitt Romney, told an enthusiastic collection of supporters that he'd like to end all public funding for the Public Broadcasting System. Mr. Romney would in turn demand that PBS sell advertisements on all of it shows in order to fund its production and transmission costs

Being that I'm quite older than most traditional college students having just turned 49 in early October I've always had a fond place in my heart for what has been known to most American Public Broadcasting System better known as PBS. Scary as it may seem, I'm old enough to remember PBS's predecessor, an entity which was known as the National Educational Television system better known as NET. Please use the link on the history of educational and public television to see a great timeline on its history.

For 16 years, what has started out as a public-private experiment funded by the Ford Foundation in 1952 morphed into the series of television stations broadcasting on the  on the  UHF band providing educational programming for most Americans. Across time as programmers began to see the possibilities for more creative noncommercial programs, documentaries, and social issue-based programming private funding from the Ford Foundation begin to be challenged. And much like today, more conservative marketplaces and areas objected to what was considered to be a perceived liberal bias or slant on programming especially in terms of race and the showing of poverty through NET programming. In the early 1960s, Congress made a number of moves which cleared the way for better reception of UHF stations and a level of concern started to be expressed in regards to children's programming and the amount of commercialization and marketing directed at young people. The introduction of satellite technology and microwaves fixed service and allow for the expansion of educational programming and the Kennedy and Johnson administrations quickly embraced sending both legislation and funding request to Congress. By 1967 buoyed by successful regional regular programming from stations like W ETA in Washington DC or WGBH in Boston Massachusetts as well as a chain of national educational radio stations in April of that year; following a report funded by the Carnegie Foundation original legislation was passed creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

It amuses me that individuals like Mr. Romney always promote that they are for smaller less interventionist government, however in order to make public broadcasting a private corporation will require the passing of a large series of laws and that the investments of large sums of money which can no longer be recouped by the federal government by statute and by law. So in undoing PBS, the Republicans are putting into motion another fiasco much like the U.S. Postal Service.

Watching the transition, with Eyes Wide Shut...

The concept of streaming motion pictures instead of purchasing or renting physical DVDs has now reached the point of creating a conundrum for the producers of the media, providers of the service and the rental access alike. The uniqueness of the Netflix scenario is a clear example of the conflict between the future of streaming media, and a pull to protect the older forms of distribution and exhibition.

The push back from the motion picture studios has created a form of self-mutilation. This can only be illustrated in looking at how the Netflix is handled by said studios regarding the future of streaming videos. “That transformation — from a mail-order business to a technology company — is revolutionizing the way millions of people watch television, but it’s also proving to be a big headache for TV providers and movie studios, which increasingly see Netflix as a competitive threat, even as they sell Netflix their content.” (Aragon & Carr, 2010) As has been pointed out, the company is constrained by the major motion picture studios. And in some cases competed against by the studios own platforms as they tried to create separate rental models to enhance their revenues. However this seems to have just the opposite of affect upon consumers. The average end-user is resistant to having to use multiple subscriber base mediums or platforms to see product. Therefore all parties lose because the consumers tend to flow back and hire it cites or by simple when not watching films on one base or the other. If morning on the horizon is the possibility that producers would just completely started by passing all of these platforms including Netflix and a new hybrid version of media streaming may you ball at that point what will the movie studios do to counteract a low world of level of income or revenue streams be available to do

When you remove the aforementioned situations associated with the actual exhibition of product, the most perplexing aspects all center on the curtailing of access for a platform like Netflix.

Aragon, D., & Carr, (2010, November 24). Netflix’s move onto the web stirs rivalries. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/business/25netflix.html?src=mv

Modern Hollywood Mergers: The Shareholders’ Dance

Unlike the mergers that created the modern production studio model, the possible Lionsgate and Summit union brings a strong series of moneymaking franchises to the same plate. This side of Warner Brothers now concluded Harry Potter franchise (Nash, 2011) and New Line Cinema’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (Nash); modern studios have rarely seen a franchise like Summit’s Twilight Saga series (Nash). The profits produced by the latest film (the penultimate project) have been record breaking. Meanwhile, despite a lean year at the box office, Lionsgate is preparing for the release of what most Hollywood insiders believe might be the next breakout series of projects: The Hunger Games franchise. The first of these films premieres in March 2012. Then, whether this series will be on the par of the aforementioned franchises will go a long way to proving if the sustainability of such a merger is viable.

Mergers among production companies are as old as the industry itself. M-G-M (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) was once three separate production and distribution companies. In that light, the recent inference of a possible merger between production and distribution houses Summit Entertainment and Lionsgate Entertainment brings up a series of questions regarding the long-term financial aspects of these companies.

Still, as in all Hollywood mergers, control (financial and operational) seems to be the greatest stumbling block to the possible merger of the companies. Lionsgate is fresh off of the ejection of one of its major investors Carl Icahn from its shareholders at the cost of multi-millions of dollars. As in most deals based on leverage, there are other parties in terms of shareholders to consider in those terms. The dance between the two companies has taken place over the last three years.  In September 2008, a proposed merger between Summit and Lionsgate fell through. Since then, it has been the flavor of the day to speculate on the deal finally actually coming to fruition (Grover and White, 2011). The Summit Entertainment picture and history is clouded in large part by the Twilight Saga series. Before those films, the company was largely unsuccessful in its production record. Nevertheless, that current success is giving Summit a high level of the aforementioned leverage.

In closing, no matter if the reports are true or not, the greater question is whether this union can be successful and profitable. The modern Hollywood landscape is littered with bad marriages (Vivendi-Universal, Viacom, and AOL-Time Warner), the bottom line is not always a matter of break even analysis. It can be a matter of comparable vision and goals being attained.

Grover, R., & White, M. (2011, November 29). Lions gate said to be in merger talks with ‘twilight’ film producer summit. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/lions-gate-said-to-be-in-merger-talks-with-twilight-film-producer-summit.html
Nash, B. (2011, November 29). Harry potter box office.The Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/HarryPotter.php

Nash, B. (2011, November 29). Lions gate box office. The Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/LionsGate.php

Nash, B. (2011, November 29). Summit entertainment box office. The Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Distributors/SummitEntertainment.php

Turning the corner... Stu Dodge faces the future of Indy filmmaking...

Stu Dodge has spent 20 years in the motion picture industry. Starting as a production assistant at the beginning of the 1990’s. Dodge used those years to prepare himself for the big step to independent filmmaker.

Cheerleader Autopsy

Nerd of the Living Dead

‘Nerd of the Living Dead’ and ‘Cheerleader Autopsy’ are two independent gore-sexual innuendo fantasy motion pictures that came from the mind of my subject Stuart “Stu” Dodge. His approach to filmmaking has developed him an immense cult following for his movie and his company ‘Drive-in Pictures.’ Over the past decade, he has produced these two movies on a shoestring budget while maintaining relationships that have allowed him to get free services and performances from vendors and performers alike. What has been the key to his ability to accomplish these feats?

“Flexibility” is key according to Dodge. "Flexibility during the production of a motion picture is an absolute necessity, but I'm not a big fan of having to use it...." With the high level of volunteers and the commitment of time, the problems and difficulties of the leader of small independents, the two films from Dodge show the need for leadership and even more importantly for growth in how one approaches their projects.

By the time Dodge rolled out ‘Nerd of the Living Dead,’ his approach was totally different. He had adapted to the new market place and even more importantly the change in the playing field. He knew the exhibition window was now extremely short. He had a project that he needed to maximize his pay-per-view window (on Amazon and using a lock-key purchase system) that allowed him to at least get some revenue before the film could be pirated on the market.

Filmmakers like Dodge are living with the changing face of movie making in the 21^st century. Each new project leads to opportunities and challenges revolving around the management of people and situations.   


Here are Stu's direct answers to my questions:
1. Best alternative negotiating tactics (re: financing) used when making films.

"As I self financed both Cheerleader Autopsy and Nerd of the Living Dead, I didn't make use of any negotiating tactics, other than convincing my own dumb ass to self finance both pictures (see question 2 below)."


2. Financing the films; how was the first one made? What did you learn from the first, that you changed or amended for the second?

"A little back story (not that you want to hear it). I began working in the "real" film business in 1989, and for the first 10 years I worked a lot. As you know, Mr. Skinner, working in this industry can be quite lucrative for a single person with few bills. During those years I was able to put aside a pretty substantial pile of cash; cash that I planned to use to purchase either a houseboat or a pony (suffice to say I didn't have any particular plans for the cash)."

"As "film biz" years 11 and 12 came and went, I began to face the truth that "working" on other people's big budget movies was a living, but was world's away from my lifelong dream of "making" movies! So, I wrote my first script, broke it down (those Asst. Director days paying dividends here), crewed up and shot Cheerleader in 14 days."

"My desire to either "do it right" OR act like a big shot led me to involve the Screen Actor's Guild (NEVER AGAIN) and actually PAY and feed my cast and crew, and I came in about 72 bucks under budget. I won't mention what that budget was, as it was embarrassingly large for a project of this caliber...."


"The film screened theatrically Sept. 10th, 2001. Assholes attacked our country the following morning. A couple of years later, I signed the picture over to a distributor, got screwed out of my share of profits, including a Netflix deal and my little money pit has since been pirated and distributed worldwide."

"Estimates suggest Cheerleader Autopsy has been downloaded over a half a million times, and that's conservative. I've only been able to make back a few hundred dollars selling it myself on Amazon. Failure."

"When it came time to make Nerd of the Living Dead, I essentially repeated the steps above (excluding SAG and Distributor). My cast and crew made money. I've made a few hundred dollars selling it myself on Amazon. Failure (do we see a pattern here?). BTW, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result."

"A very successful L.A. Producer once told me (regarding financing an independent), "1. get investors to give you X to make the movie. 2. make the picture for 1/2 of X, and pay yourself 1/4 of X. 3. Return 1/4 of X to investors as budget underage (they love that). 4. Find other investors and repeat. Whether the picture flops or not doesn't matter, and you can continue to make movies...Oh, and don't pay your cast or crew if you can get away with it." I should have listened..."

3. Separate people from problems (drama?) during prep and production?

"Again, I'll illustrate using Cheerleader (A) and Nerd (B).
Movie A: Shot in the Summer, motivated crew of 18, no cast Divas, lots of wrap beer...no drama."

"Movie B. Shot in the Winter, lackluster crew of 3, huge Diva in title role, no booze...drama and misery."

4. Since you use so many volunteers and vendors, can talk about flexibility some?

"As you know, Sir, we schedule movies out of necessity. Only a reasonable number of pages can be shot in a day; there's actor and location availability to consider, allowances have to be made for "turning" sets; the list goes on and on (and on)."


"I scheduled both films for 14 shoot days (5 on, 2 off) and for the most part kept to the schedule in both cases. I had one big "extra" day on both pictures (involving volunteers) and thankfully things work out each time, partly because I'd taken the time during prep to confirm people's availability (and partly due to accommodating weather)."

"Actually, the only issues that significantly affected either shoot were the failure of a picture car guy (and car) to show up on set on Cheerleader, which necessitated a quick (and if I do say so, shitty) rewrite...and my vegan, Diva actor's sinuses during Nerd, which...well...I don't want to even talk about that."

"Flexibility during the production of a motion picture is an absolute necessity, but I'm not a big fan of having to use it...."

That's enough from me... 

I thank my old friend Stu Dodge for being so open about his experiences. I look forward to his next film...