Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger
News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) Fox network recently settled a snag with the talent behind The Simpsons. According to The Hollywood Reporter, fresh deals were struck that will keep the show on for a 20th season. That's pretty darn long to be on television, and it's a testament to the iconic quality that the animated series possesses.
Negotiations reportedly went on for months. In fact, next season will only see 20 episodes instead of 22 (they better still do a Halloween episode!). Some of the talent will be receiving $400,000 per show, representing a 33% raise (the cast actually wanted more than that). The Reporter article did not say who was getting what. I have to ask the following question: considering how long the show has been on, and considering that media companies are trying to discourage rampant increases in above-the-line costs (at least, that's what they should be doing, as far as I'm concerned), should News Corp. execs have demanded that Fox just end the negotiations and refuse to give in to a 33% raise?
I've got to be honest, a big part of me says "yes." However, there is incentive to keep The Simpsons on the air. Last summer, a movie version of the long-running show made a successful leap to the silver screen. The film grossed over $180 million at domestic theaters, and its worldwide total stands at more than $525 million, according to Boxofficemojo.
It would stand to reason that having the series remain active can fuel even more synergies between a Simpsons film franchise and a TV/merchandising phenomenon. Plus, it is something that differentiates Fox from the other networks. After all, you can't find Homer and Bart on Disney's (NYSE: DIS) ABC, CBS (NYSE: CBS), or General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC.
Yet, on the other hand, does Fox really need the series to be on the air to propel a hit string of cinematic sequels to the first Simpsons big-screen adventure? Consider that 20 seasons is not only a long time to be on the air, but it's a time period that certainly has given rise to a lot of changes in both taste and relevance. Let's be honest, Seth MacFarlane and his Family Guy series makes The Simpsons look totally grown up and completely without edge. I like The Simpsons too, but it's the truth, I'm sorry, Stewie and the gang simply have more of a buzz these days. And, adding to the mix the fact that MacFarlane recently scribed a new, lucrative pact (subscription required) with Fox only makes raises for the Simpsons cast seem like a weird investment. Why not just axe the show and let MacFarlane do the heavy lifting in terms of supplying all of Fox's animation needs? Heck, they're paying him enough.
I'm not sure how much longer Fox will keep The Simpsons on the air, but the company should do some serious thinking. Shareholders might be better served by moving on from an aging show, even though it is well-loved and well-written, and just making investments in movie sequels. At some point, things become too expensive to justify.
I own shares of Disney and General Electric; positions can change at any time.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-04-2008 @ 10:38AM
Dan Barnett said...
Don't have a cow, man.
The Simpsons is a successful show & although Fox might make more money on "Dancing with Idol wannabes", the network needs some programming to keep an audience.
I'm surprised that Murcoch has kept such an obviously anti-establishment show sa long as he has.
6-04-2008 @ 11:08AM
Kent said...
Where have I been these last 20 years? I have yet to watch the show.
6-04-2008 @ 1:10PM
Steve in Denver said...
The Simpsons has been successful because it reaches and jibes with the facets of the human condition. It is extremely well written, poignant and incissive. The people I know who enjoy the show the most have a commonality about them that includes above average intelligence, and a much broader perspective of thing than the average person. These are the people who the Simpson sponsors are trying to reach; above average in intelligence and income. It would be foolish the cancel the show. There's simply too much entertainment value for the audience, and too much money to be mined from the viewers. On the other hand, Murdoch does have a big ego, and has done some things in his career worthy of Homer Simpson.
7-29-2008 @ 6:02PM
lincberns said...
What a sad day for TV it will be when the Simpson's are canceled. Without the Simpson's the Fox Network will eventually lose what ever share of the market it has, after all it is the Network the Simpson's built. Fox with out the Simpson's will be like the Chicago Bull's with out Micheal Jordan, a waste of time to watch. I have been watching The Simpsons from their initial debut appearences on the Tracy (whatever her name was) show and even then that was the only reason I watched her show. Now the only time I watch the network is when a Simpson's episode on. At one time Fox was all I watched. Satelite and Cable companies would call and want my business, they would ask if I had the other. I would say all I watch is Fox. Then reality TV started, I think it was the premeire of Temptation Island and Marry a Millionaire when I decided there had to be something better on TV. I have watched the animation domination programming that airs after the Simpson episodes I find it boring and brainless; Family Guy and American Dad go after the cheap and easy laughs, with no thinking required. You can be as dumb as a rock and still find that crap funny, but the smarter you are the "edgy" goes dull, and Mcfarlane is about as sharp as a spork.
The real crime is that 20 years of truely the best satire should speak for its self. 20 years of anything should speak for it self. Rupert, if it isn't broke dont fix it, Just shut up and pay the people who made you the money in the first place.