Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...
Celebrating 17 Years of Film.Biz.Fans.
by Dana Harris
October 9, 2012 1:42 PM
  • |

EDITORIAL: Why Nikki Finke Got Variety (And It's a Happy Ending)

So when the trade mag industry went into nosedive in 2008 and Reed Elsevier put all of RBI up for sale for $2 billion, Variety was screwed: That outsized sense of importance meant no one could or would meet the sale price. And when Variety couldn't/wouldn't be sold, individually or as part of the RBI package, the hard numbers of online publishing froze Variety in amber: How do you make a $50 CPM a more appealing business than, say, a $30,000 print ad? You can't -- unless you accept the fact that radical change is better than the alternative (i.e., death).

Internally, there was a lot of talk about change, and a lot of talk about how people didn't give Variety enough credit for having changed. But if those are common topics of conversation, it's all but assured that you aren't even close to change. Real change is exhilarating, exhausting, and all consuming; if you're really doing it, the last thing you'll want is to talk about it or complain how others aren't noticing it.

And here's the real story, albeit one that everyone in publishing knows already: Variety not only failed to change, or to change to a sufficient degree, but to accept the painful fact that change, both seismic and small, must be embraced as a permanent condition. That means, there is no showbiz bible. That boasting about creating showbiz lingo will only make you look old -- language itself is an agent of change and never more so in the age of (Not to mention all that slanguage is gobbledygook for SEO.)

And -- I think this was the hardest idea for Variety to accept -- remaining relevant in the 21st century means constantly acknowledging, if not actually seeking confirmation, that your approach might be wrong. That mindset can be painful, both on the pocketbook and on the ego, and neither Reed Elsevier nor RBI nor Variety wanted to hear it.

Now that the Variety deal is closed, the attention will shift to Nikki herself. She's yet to weigh in, although it's hard to imagine she won't -- and easy to imagine that when she does, the tone will largely be determined by whether she's allowed to have a voice in Variety's future. (Also easy to imagine: A duck-and-cover civil war at Penske until it's resolved.)

Could this have ended any differently? Sure. You can imagine a world where, five or 10 years ago, decisions were made to analyze the Variety business in the current environment rather than the one it formerly occupied, envision the cost structure and resources it would demand, then either take action to meet those goals or to exit the business with a realistic price tag (one that certainly would have been a lot higher than the $25 million-$30 million that's been reported). But that vision requires a lot of fantasy, not to mention the clarity of hindsight.

However, the underlying lesson -- change, die or risk being owned by the National Enquirer -- is one that should have currency for every publication, including Deadline. No one, not even Nikki, can afford to claim or believe in their unfailing dominance.


  • Page | October 10, 2012 4:17 PMReply

    Both fantastically observed and written. Inevitably, dinosaurs will disagree with its conclusions and tone, but that -- of course -- is why they're dinosaurs.

  • Dana Harris | October 10, 2012 12:55 PMReply

    Hey, Bill. The article was written by a gal who isn't denying -- just the opposite -- the fact that Nikki's approach won the day. However, the overriding point is it's too simple to say "she won." For all publications, it's hubris to believe that victory is permanent. Winning is a daily act; Variety's biggest foes were internal because the publication believed its dominance was a fact, like gravity.

  • James | October 9, 2012 7:19 PMReply

    Hope it won't be turned into a print version of the vile , totally trashy and always inaccurate Hollywoodlife.

  • Bill | October 9, 2012 5:04 PMReply

    This article sounded like it was written by a guy who won't acknowledge that Nikki won. David vs Goliath too reductive? What else do you call it when a bloated paper gets less respect and readers than an online blog?

  • EK | October 9, 2012 4:07 PMReply

    You win for most misleading headline of the year! Nikki will NOT have a voice in VARIETY, at least according to Penske. The paper was indeed "The Bible Of Show Business" back in the day but it certainly lost a lot of its supremacy over the years. Clinging to the Daily/Weekly print formats, hiding behind a paywall and ineffectiveness in posting spot news (although many Deadline bulletins are more annoying that essential) certainly hurt. Times change and it's a move with (or get ahead) the curve or die world. But Nikki Finke is not the answer and Penske knows it. The brand needs to be revived, not trashed by an egomanical wanna be media mogul. "Sweet Smell of Success" anyone?