Is MTV’s Movie Move a Conflict or Just Good Business?

Now that MTV is headed into the film business, can charges of conflict of interest be far behind?

MTV Networks Chairman Tom Freston confirmed last week that the channel is close to a deal with an unnamed major studio to executive-produce a movie based on its offbeat feature “Joe’s Apartment.”

The channel is also known to be entertaining offers from several studios for film rights to “Beavis and Butt-head,” the hot animated series.

The question: Would the channel--whose use of video clips from films has proven a major promotional weapon for Hollywood--give preferential treatment to video clips from its own films?

“Conflict of interest is not a valid point,” says Carole Robinson, MTV’s senior vice president of public relations. “Obviously, we’re not going to play anything that the audience does not want to hear and see.”

But others disagree.

“The situation is ripe for conflict of interest,” said one noted music industry executive, who like all others questioned asked not to be identified--a sign of the importance of courting that MTV exposure.

Added the executive: “If MTV is executive producer of a film and stands to directly profit from that film’s success, it’s safe to assume clips associated with the film will be given heavy rotation.”

But Les Garland, the vice president of Video Jukebox Network/The Box, a rival music video channel, doesn’t see MTV’s planned move as a possible conflict of interest.

“I think it’s more of a ‘90s version of vertical integration,” says Garland, a former MTV executive. “I don’t find much difference in that and them inventing a very successful show called ‘Unplugged’ where MTV produces a show that may ultimately became a very successful CD and cassette.”

Indeed, industry observers looking to scream “conflict of interest” over MTV’s film involvement might be hard-pressed to explain their silence over the “Unplugged” situation.

Insiders claim that when an artist releases an “Unplugged” album--like the multi-platinum ones from Eric Clapton and Mariah Carey--the network receives 25% of the artist royalties on each album sold.

In addition, MTV--which reportedly pays no money to the artist for appearing on “Unplugged”--guarantees broadcast of the show at least 18 times a year, though it is not limited to that number. Obviously, the more the network airs a specific “Unplugged” segment, the greater the potential for sales of an accompanying album.

So why haven’t people complained about the possible conflict of interest over the constant showing of “Unplugged” segments and videos?

“MTV is a bully,” said another industry executive who insisted on anonymity. “Nobody in the industry is (tough enough) to take out an elephant gun and shoot them. Besides, everyone’s making money (with “Unplugged”). It’s a win-win situation. And everyone in the music industry knows that as long as you are making money, nobody wants to rock the boat.”