Roll the Credits (Out the Door)

Having already endured being crunched, sped up and shoved to the side of the screen, the next indignity for television credits could be near-elimination.

That’s the plan, at least, being proposed by the Discovery Networks, which is pursuing a “credit initiative” that seeks to delete or significantly reduce credits at the end of programs, limiting a producer to a five-second card identifying the production company and other mandatory credits.

Several producers of documentary and nonfiction programming are upset about the proposal as well as worried that the practice will spread to other cable channels. Unlike the major networks, which in some instances are obligated to run credits under guild contracts, most cable channels are not signatories to those agreements, although some of their program suppliers are.

Discovery has been discussing the proposal at a series of meetings with producers in recent weeks, citing proprietary research that indicates that viewers see credits as an invitation to begin channel-surfing. Producers attending those events were asked to sign nondisclosure agreements, fueling anxiety among them that openly criticizing the plan would risk alienating Discovery, which, with its various channels, is a major purchaser of nonfiction programs.

In addition to the flagship Discovery Channel, holdings of the company based in Bethesda, Md., include Animal Planet, TLC and the Travel Channel.

John Ford, president of the content group for Discovery Networks U.S., stressed that the initiative is a work in progress and that feedback from producers is being taken into account. He added, however, that “a solid majority” of producers recognizes the logic behind the shift, citing a test of the truncated credits on Discovery in the fall in which viewer retention from program to program improved by 30%.

“Viewers do not clamor for credits,” Ford said, noting that they are, rather, “leaving in droves” during the time credits are rolling.

Behind the proposal is the assumption that, other than those who work within the TV industry, viewers don’t care about credits, especially for so-called “below-the-line” jobs in technical areas such as sound or editing. Discovery has told producers it would make full credits available on its Web site and link to the producers’ sites.

“What is the value to the production company of a viewer in Kansas knowing the head writer of the show is Jim Smith?” Ford asked, adding, “If the show gets [higher ratings], there’s more money, we’ll make more of them, and everybody wins.”

Discovery nevertheless appears concerned that a shift will fray relations with some in the production community. Because of that, channel representatives volunteered to provide The Times names of producers working for the channel who don’t object to the proposal.

Still, Dave Bell, a veteran producer who does not have any shows on Discovery, said people deserve to be credited for their work.

“It would be like a newspaper saying, ‘No more bylines,’” he said. “People want to know who’s responsible.”

As it is, the major networks have already adopted strategies that include squeezing credits and making them share the screen with program content, as NBC does with its “Must-See TV” sitcoms, in an effort to prevent viewers from clicking away at the close of shows.

Credits have also been accelerated, Ford pointed out, to the point that they are difficult to read on screen. Other networks, including ESPN and the cable news channels, do not provide credits at the conclusion of certain programs.

Cheryl Rhoden, assistant director of the Writers Guild of America, said the obligation to run credits on programs produced under guild contracts is tied to the license, meaning the producers’ obligation flows to the network buying it. Failing to run credits on fare subject to those agreements could result in arbitration or legal action by the guild. The guilds have no jurisdiction over nonunion programming.

“Credits are a very important part of the rights of creators,” Rhoden said. “It’s also an economic right, since they help in [securing] work in the future.”

Ford said Discovery had no intention of violating any of its existing contracts but would seek to revise its agreements in future negotiations. Various schemes are still being considered, he noted, among them featuring some credits coming into and out of commercial breaks. Discovery has not set a firm deadline on formalizing the policy and is scheduled to meet later this month with officials at Britain’s BBC--a major supplier of documentaries to Discovery--at an international TV festival in Cannes, France.

“We’re trying to say what has always been for the last 50 years doesn’t have to be going forward,” Ford said.

Eric Schotz, whose LMNO Productions is responsible for several series on Discovery-owned networks as well as such prime-time programs as Fox’s “Boot Camp,” acknowledged that the policy would bruise egos but said he understands the impetus behind it in terms of attempting to retain viewers.

“Hollywood hates change, but it’s part of the world we live in,” he said. “On a practical level, you have to get over it.”

Critics acknowledge that there is little recourse if they object, though some have discussed raising the issue with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, which presents the Emmy Awards.

Some producers have joked that the obscure names affixed to many production companies might be replaced by actual names, as in “John Smith Productions,” if the credit-elimination drive takes hold. Schotz said that he has no plans to change the logo for his company, whose initials--chosen more than a decade ago--stand for Leave My Name Off.