FT: A Sex and the City guide to media

A Sex and the City guide to media

By John Gapper

Published: May 15 2008 03:00 | Last updated: May 15 2008 03:00

It may not take a lot to make the New York Post, Rupert Murdoch's city tabloid, grumpy but the four actresses of Sex and the City , the new film of the television series, certainly provoked it this week.

The Post was dubious about the hat worn to the film's premiere by Sara Jessica Parker, who plays the lead character Carrie Bradshaw in the drama about the lives of four Manhattan women. Even worse than this faux-pas, she wore the hat in London, where the film's world premiere was held.

After London, which the Post dismissed as "the wrong city", the quartet is hitting Berlin tonight before returning to New York for yet another glitzy launch event in two weeks. New Yorkers must make do for now with posters of Carrie and her friends plastered around the city.

Even in its absence, however, Sex and the City is part of the Zeitgeist. Both the drama itself and the way it is being marketed say a lot about the future of film and television. In fact, here is my Sex and the City guide to the entertainment industry.

First, the world is bigger than the US. Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha are jetting around Europe for the same reason that the Cannes film festival, which opened yesterday, includes the premiere of the planned summer blockbuster Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That is where the money is.

US films earned $17bn at the international box office last year, compared with $9.6bn at home. As a result, studios are becoming loath to invest in films that do not travel, such as dramas based on baseball. Because SATC is heavily identified with New York, the producer New Line Cinema hedged its bets with European premieres.

Second, paid-for is bigger than free. That sounds strange in the era of the internet, but entertainment for which consumers rather than advertisers pay is growing more powerful. Americans used to spend many more hours with media such as radio and broadcast television than with DVDs and video games but they are switching.

SATC is a prime example because it was a subscription cable television series made by Time Warner's Home Box Office. Indeed, along with The Sopranos , it was part of the Sunday night line-up of original programmes that turned HBO into one of the most powerful forces in entertainment, with annual revenues of about $4bn.

HBO's formula, which has since been mimicked by pay channels such as Showtime and even free cable channels such as AMC, the maker of Mad Men , was to make expensive and intelligent dramas that viewers could not find on broadcast television. SATC was too raunchy, The Sopranos was too dark and violent, Six Feet Under was too morbid etc.

It did not care about decency, or whether there was a broad enough audience to draw advertisers, because it was funded by 29m subscribers. Meanwhile, broadcasters switched to reality shows that were cheap to make - far cheaper than the $2.5m per hour a top-rank drama can cost - and reached big audiences.

That made sense in the moment but it means that HBO and Showtime, which makes Dexter and Weeds , hold more valuable long-term properties. The deal struck by HBO with Apple this week to charge $2.99 for episodes of The Sopranos and Rome on iTunes (and the standard $1.99 for SATC ) shows its pricing power.

Third, the small screen is bigger than the big screen. Box office receipts of $9.6bn in the US last year were easily outstripped by the $23.4bn of DVD rentals and sales. Digital technology allows studios to exploit new forms of distribution, including iTunes and video-on-demand. Some 20 per cent of HBO's revenues come from reselling its dramas.

Furthermore, the power of pay television is not only biting into broadcast networks but is posing a challenge to Hollywood. Subscription channels used to rely almost wholly on re-running Hollywood films and, even now, 70 per cent of HBO's output consists of studio films. The transfer of SATC from the small to the big screen is a symbol of a shift in the power balance.

A decade ago, actors, directors and scriptwriters far preferred to work in film. Complex and sophisticated dramas were found in cinemas while television was a forum for soap operas and bland drama. The rise of HBO and Hollywood's switch to making blockbusters for the 12-24 year-olds who comprise 41 per cent of frequent film-goers is changing that.

The rise of pay television as an artistic force is matched by a decline in the value of run-of-the-mill films in the secondary market. Three Hollywood studios broke away from a deal with Showtime last month to form their own pay television channel after the latter complained that it was paying too much for films and could make its own dramas.

Fourth, adults are bigger than teenagers. Young people have held sway over Hollywood in recent years because they can be relied upon to go to the cinema. But pay television has tapped an adult audience that has been under-served by film studios and can now watch dramas at home on high-definition televisions.

That is breathing life into dramas made for adult niche audiences rather than big teenage and college-student cohorts. Hollywood studios are responding to this. "Studios are being much more deliberate about choosing demographic targets and developing films for them," says Geoff Sands, a consultant at McKinsey & Company.

As adult targets go, you do not get much better than SATC . It started out as a quintessentially American television series and has ended up as a film seen first by Londoners and Berliners. Romance, promiscuity, fashion and all, it is the very model of a modern media enterprise.

john.gapper@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008