Next week, we’ll have a few meetings with “channel” distributors so I’m just writing this all down to see if I understand it:  the distribution of an entertainment product, in one sense, is not that different from any other kind of distribution.  If you manufacture one product, let’s say it’s a hair brush (a really great brush, the best of its kind) and you want to sell it, you could, theoretically, open up your own retail store with nothing but your brush in it.   That would be something like the old Saturday Night Live Scotch Tape store sketch, where a couple dedicates an entire retail space to nothing but Scotch Tape.  Nothing but Scotch tape.

Oddly enough, because of the Internet, there are websites dedicated to “everything tape related,” and there may even be a Scotch tape only outlet, but that would be possible because the Internet makes one virtual space capable of selling to the whole world, and that’s where the conventional distribution models start to show signs of stress.

When you sell your really great hair brush to, say, Safeway, you sacrifice the retail price of the product, but you get the advantage of all of Safeway’s established customers, with their life-long habit of walking down Safeway’s non-food aisle.   The retailer may ask you to provide all kinds of extra service.   They may even have you stock their shelves for them, and pay for slotting allowances, and every other fee they think they can tack on for the privilege of selling in their store.    They may even ask you to change your packaging or your product itself, because they bring all the customers to the table.

Networks and Cable channels are the same way.   Channels like “Discovery” or “BBC” or “History” have spent years, and millions of dollars, getting an audience hooked on their shows, so when they purchase a new show, theoretically, the show is adding to their credibility but it’s also building up the trustworthiness of the show as well.   (“I love Safeway, so I bought this brush,” and, even, “I love Safeway because they sell brushes like this one.”)

Theoretically, you could avoid all of that by selling your entertainment product directly to the customer on the Internet, but just because you don’t have to by a satellite and a studio, doesn’t mean you’ve replaced the network.   People may be angry at the network, but they still trust it.   They trust it to filter out really poorly produced material and to provide some base level of entertainment value.    (This process also filters out a lot of well written, challenging material as well, but you get the point.)

The point is that when you self-distribute, you have to be both a content provider and a content marketer.    You have to do what it takes to make people believe your small start-up channel is worth clicking, worth swiping the card for $3.95 a show or $8.95 a DVD or $17.76 a membership.   In our first round of media criticism, a lot of the stories clucked “straight to DVD” or “no distribution partner.”   This criticism came mostly from the left, because Jonathan Wilson and I happen to have committed the sin of believing in limited Constitutional government, and mostly from people who have never even seen the first episode.   I guess I find it ironic that people who would claim to be fighting “the man” and corporate oligarchy, see a problem with both independent production and distribution.  (“Please!  We’re artists!   We’ll produce it, but we won’t sell it!”)

As near as I can tell, these days, a major cable channel will pay anywhere from $50,000 to $800,000 for a show (a show without a mega-celebrity) and depending on the negotiation, they may retain longer term rights, international rights, merchandising rights, and DVD sales.  When you are largely unproven (like us), they may take just about everything in return for giving you an audience and increasing your leverage on the next sale.

Here’s the problem.  I’m biased, obviously, but I think we’ve produced one of the best shows, and show ideas, on television in the last 5-10 years.   Seriously.   Of course, it won’t be for everyone.   If the Kardashians or Jersey Shore or the Tudors are popcorn, we’re a home-cooked meal, but isn’t it about time for something that tastes good?  And if it is, shouldn’t we be selling it?

Now, if someone gave us the right deal, maybe, but they would have to agree not to change the ingredients.