Owen Wilson's alleged suicide attempt has left executives at Paramount and News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox in a bind. His health aside, the Wedding Crashers star has two films in production and another two to promote for their studios.
But there is one group that stands to benefit from the funnyman's troubles: the insurance companies. While it isn't the sexy story that sells tabloids, a star's downfall translates to higher premiums for the firms that agree to underwrite them.
In order for any film to be made, its stars--track record or not--must be insured. The rationale: With production costs on a typical feature film already at exorbitant sums, any delay--be it from weather, an injury or a star's poor health--can set movie makers back between $100,000 and $400,000 per day. The more likely a star is to cause that delay, the more costly he or she will be to insure.
But just how much more is a decision left up to insurance or underwriting companies. With only a handful in the business, including Fireman's Fund and the Chubb Group, these firms make it their business to understand the film industry and its players. Among other things, each has confidential files on every actor, which include everything from prior medical certificates to claims histories to newspaper or Web clippings pertaining to the star. With that information, and the medical exam and affidavit a star must complete some 30 days before the cameras roll, firms are able to assess the risk.
Advocating on behalf of the production companies are insurance brokerage firms, a similarly small cadre, which include AON/Albert G. Ruben Insurance Services and D.R. Reiff & Associates. Often brought on board before any actor is ever hired, the role of these companies is to compile a list of what they believe are necessary coverages associated with the film. After the insurance carriers quote their terms and conditions for those risks, the brokerage firm selects and recommends the best proposal to the production company.
So while Wilson's example may be garnering greater media attention than troubles past, his behavior, and the insurance implication it carries, is nothing new. From Robert Downey Jr. to Courtney Love to the more recent Lindsay Lohan, underwriting companies have long been feasting on Hollywood's wayward.
The way Ross Miller, a partner with New York-based insurance brokerage firm D.R. Reiff sees it, no actor is actually uninsurable. Or that's what he'd like to believe, since it's his job is to find underwriters to take on the risk that stars pose. "If a studio wants something, or somebody has enough money to throw at a project, then they will make it work," he says.
Brian Kingman, the director of strategic account management at AON/Albert G. Ruben Insurance, agrees: "If you've got enough time, talent and money, anything is insurable."
The reality is this: While the conditions for hiring errant stars may be unappealing--too expensive or too risky--it is almost always possible.
"Some people like to declare [trouble-prone stars] uninsurable, but I think that's way too easy an answer," says Joe Finnegan, vice president of entertainment at Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, the film industry's leading underwriter. Instead, he says it's companies like his that look to find solutions for the production companies. After all: no insurance, no film--or not with the star of choice, anyway.
More often than not, those solutions entail higher deductibles. Miller says production companies are often looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars as opposed to a typical deductible, which can range from $25,000 and $100,000, depending on the movie.
And while most underwriting experts hesitate to provide exact figures--they vary greatly depending on the picture's budget, a star's past, etc.--insurance rates for these troubled types can range from 85 cents to $3 for every $100 of a film's production budget.
The stars can also be asked to put their salary in escrow, making them personally accountable for any losses if their actions were to cause production delays. And if the troubles are drug-related, regular testing can also be required, and chaperones, or "minders," as they're called in the business, can be placed on set to ensure a star doesn't slip up.
Now, whether the star is worth all of this is a question the movie maker must weigh heavily. While that star's record is a critical piece to consider, the box-office potential of the film is worth factoring in as well. As in, are we dealing with The Life Aquatic or Wedding Crashers?
Everybody knows it's not a dog's life to be rich, but no one knows this better than a rich person's dog.
Leona Helmsley, dubbed the "Queen of Mean" for personifying the 1980s stereotype of greed and excess, made her pet Maltese Trouble her biggest heir, leaving a $12 million trust fund for the pet in a will that disinherits two grandchildren and doesn't even mention great-grandchildren.
Helmsley, who died last week, put contingencies on the inheritances of the two grandchildren who will actually get some money: They have to visit their father's grave site once a year. No such demands are made of Trouble.
In Pictures: Lifestyles Of The Pets Of The Rich And Famous
And her chauffeur got $100,000.
Sound wacky? It may be, but it isn't rare. Inheritances for pets are not uncommon among the wealthy, according to Russ Alan Prince, of Prince & Associates, who tracks the habits of the rich. That's especially true of people who tend to alienate all other humans in their lives.
"For some wealthy people, the only true love they get is from their pets," Prince says. "They're estranged from their children, they are at war with their business partners, but their pets are always there for them."
It would not be a stretch to put Helmsley in that camp, if tabloid tales of her terrorizing employees and executives of her husband's real estate empire are to be believed. She is perhaps most infamous for telling a housekeeper that "only the little people pay taxes," a comment that came out during her trial for tax evasion in the late 1980s.
Trouble once appeared in ads for Helmsley hotels and no doubt led a pampered life. The dog is to be buried alongside Helmsley and her husband, Harry Helmsley, in their $1.4 million mausoleum in suburban New York.
According to Prince, rich people who love to lavish money on their pets (a category he calls "pet-focused") spend $328,000 on their pets annually. His survey, released this year, included 304 affluent families who describe themselves as pet lovers, 46% of whom say their love is singularly focused on their own pets and the rest who are animal lovers in general. The survey group was 58% female with a mean age of 56 and a mean net worth of $46.7 million.
The biggest spending area is in "life enrichment" services.
This includes everything from deep-muscle massage (pet masseuses can make up to $2,000 an hour, Prince says) and psychic readings to life coaching and "cosmic sensitivity."
One-third of pet-focused owners paid for special diets for their pets, not for medical purposes, mind you, but because it was seen as being good for the animals. This includes meals prepared by famous chefs.
More than a fourth of pet-focused owners surveyed said they spend $25,000 or more on wardrobes for their pets. Yes, 25 thousand.
Even better, 16% of pet-focused owners recently surveyed by Prince & Associates spend $25,000 or more on a birthday party for a pet.
Several pets regularly fly around on private aircraft, alone (except for flight crew).
But pet inheritances really raise the bar. More than a quarter of so-called pet-focused owners surveyed had established trusts for their pets in their wills before their deaths. This makes it harder for surviving family members to fight the will, Prince says, and ensures the owner will have at least some say in what happens to the pet after the owner's death.
Seventy-eight percent of pet-focused owners leave money to pets in their wills, to the tune of $526,000, according to Prince. Mostly, the money is to ensure a quality of life for the pet.
Pet trusts are increasingly popular, so much so that 39 states now have statutes outlining them, says Frances Carlisle, a New York estate lawyer who specializes in pet trusts. In most cases, the trusts left behind are small, in the $30,000 range, and meant to ensure that the pet left behind has adequate care and won't be dumped on the street or sent to a shelter.
Because pets are pets, money cannot be left to them directly in a will, so trusts are the next best thing to leaving money to a designated guardian, Carlisle says. The stigma of the kooky old rich lady, present company excluded, is gone. "This sort of thing used to be laughed at," Carlisle says. "But a lot of animals really do end up on the street."
Sometimes the arrangements are punitive, however, and directed at getting revenge on family members.
Prince says he knows of an ostrich that stands to inherit $4 million, all because the owner's children once threatened to cut the ostrich up into food. Somewhere out there a parrot stands between his owner and the owner's children, who stand to lose tens of millions of inheritance money if they fail to follow specific instructions about the parrot's safekeeping and well-being after the owner's death.
"True pet lovers can be off-the-wall already, and what you're doing here is adding money to it," Prince says. So true.
Leona Helmsley, dubbed the "Queen of Mean" for personifying the 1980s stereotype of greed and excess, made her pet Maltese Trouble her biggest heir, leaving a $12 million trust fund for the pet in a will that disinherits two grandchildren and doesn't even mention great-grandchildren.
Helmsley, who died last week, put contingencies on the inheritances of the two grandchildren who will actually get some money: They have to visit their father's grave site once a year. No such demands are made of Trouble.
In Pictures: Lifestyles Of The Pets Of The Rich And Famous
And her chauffeur got $100,000.
Sound wacky? It may be, but it isn't rare. Inheritances for pets are not uncommon among the wealthy, according to Russ Alan Prince, of Prince & Associates, who tracks the habits of the rich. That's especially true of people who tend to alienate all other humans in their lives.
"For some wealthy people, the only true love they get is from their pets," Prince says. "They're estranged from their children, they are at war with their business partners, but their pets are always there for them."
It would not be a stretch to put Helmsley in that camp, if tabloid tales of her terrorizing employees and executives of her husband's real estate empire are to be believed. She is perhaps most infamous for telling a housekeeper that "only the little people pay taxes," a comment that came out during her trial for tax evasion in the late 1980s.
Trouble once appeared in ads for Helmsley hotels and no doubt led a pampered life. The dog is to be buried alongside Helmsley and her husband, Harry Helmsley, in their $1.4 million mausoleum in suburban New York.
According to Prince, rich people who love to lavish money on their pets (a category he calls "pet-focused") spend $328,000 on their pets annually. His survey, released this year, included 304 affluent families who describe themselves as pet lovers, 46% of whom say their love is singularly focused on their own pets and the rest who are animal lovers in general. The survey group was 58% female with a mean age of 56 and a mean net worth of $46.7 million.
The biggest spending area is in "life enrichment" services.
This includes everything from deep-muscle massage (pet masseuses can make up to $2,000 an hour, Prince says) and psychic readings to life coaching and "cosmic sensitivity."
One-third of pet-focused owners paid for special diets for their pets, not for medical purposes, mind you, but because it was seen as being good for the animals. This includes meals prepared by famous chefs.
More than a fourth of pet-focused owners surveyed said they spend $25,000 or more on wardrobes for their pets. Yes, 25 thousand.
Even better, 16% of pet-focused owners recently surveyed by Prince & Associates spend $25,000 or more on a birthday party for a pet.
Several pets regularly fly around on private aircraft, alone (except for flight crew).
But pet inheritances really raise the bar. More than a quarter of so-called pet-focused owners surveyed had established trusts for their pets in their wills before their deaths. This makes it harder for surviving family members to fight the will, Prince says, and ensures the owner will have at least some say in what happens to the pet after the owner's death.
Seventy-eight percent of pet-focused owners leave money to pets in their wills, to the tune of $526,000, according to Prince. Mostly, the money is to ensure a quality of life for the pet.
Pet trusts are increasingly popular, so much so that 39 states now have statutes outlining them, says Frances Carlisle, a New York estate lawyer who specializes in pet trusts. In most cases, the trusts left behind are small, in the $30,000 range, and meant to ensure that the pet left behind has adequate care and won't be dumped on the street or sent to a shelter.
Because pets are pets, money cannot be left to them directly in a will, so trusts are the next best thing to leaving money to a designated guardian, Carlisle says. The stigma of the kooky old rich lady, present company excluded, is gone. "This sort of thing used to be laughed at," Carlisle says. "But a lot of animals really do end up on the street."
Sometimes the arrangements are punitive, however, and directed at getting revenge on family members.
Prince says he knows of an ostrich that stands to inherit $4 million, all because the owner's children once threatened to cut the ostrich up into food. Somewhere out there a parrot stands between his owner and the owner's children, who stand to lose tens of millions of inheritance money if they fail to follow specific instructions about the parrot's safekeeping and well-being after the owner's death.
"True pet lovers can be off-the-wall already, and what you're doing here is adding money to it," Prince says. So true.
U.S. Internet advertising spending is poised to overtake radio advertising for the first time, providing a reminder that broadcasters need to be more aggressive in their embrace of online opportunities.
U.S. radio ad spending is expected to inch up 1.5% in 2007, to $20.4 billion, short of online ad expenditures of $21.7 billion, which will be up 22% from last year, eMarketer senior analyst Ben Macklin said in a report.
Over the next several years, radio station Web sites and online audio advertising "will be the principal drivers for radio advertising growth,'' Macklin said.
But he doesn't think that growth will add up to much. He expects the sluggish radio advertising market to continue experiencing slow growth, climbing to an estimated $22.6 billion in 2011, when online ad spending is expected to surge to $44 billion.
Terrestrial radio companies like Clear Channel Communications (nyse: CCU - news - people ), CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people ) and Cox Radio (nyse: CXR - news - people ) still retain massive audiences, but consumers are spending less time listening to radio than they do surfing the Web or watching TV.
In addition, only 17% of U.S. consumers consider radio the "most" essential medium, down from 26% five years ago, according to a study released earlier this year by Arbitron and Edison Media Research.
For many advertisers, the choice between radio and non-radio online ads won't be an either-or proposition, Macklin said, pointing to studies showing that consumers often listen to the radio while consuming other media and that a mix of terrestrial radio and online ads can be far more effective than online ads alone.
"There are many synergies between radio and the Internet and, for the most part, they complement rather than compete with each other,'' he said. "Advertisers should not abandon radio in favor of the Web but combine the two media to take advantage of the unique attributes of each."
Those might sound like encouraging words for the radio industry. But as Macklin's estimates show, these new opportunities don't appear likely to kick-start the radio industry out of its doldrums.
U.S. radio ad spending is expected to inch up 1.5% in 2007, to $20.4 billion, short of online ad expenditures of $21.7 billion, which will be up 22% from last year, eMarketer senior analyst Ben Macklin said in a report.
Over the next several years, radio station Web sites and online audio advertising "will be the principal drivers for radio advertising growth,'' Macklin said.
But he doesn't think that growth will add up to much. He expects the sluggish radio advertising market to continue experiencing slow growth, climbing to an estimated $22.6 billion in 2011, when online ad spending is expected to surge to $44 billion.
Terrestrial radio companies like Clear Channel Communications (nyse: CCU - news - people ), CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people ) and Cox Radio (nyse: CXR - news - people ) still retain massive audiences, but consumers are spending less time listening to radio than they do surfing the Web or watching TV.
In addition, only 17% of U.S. consumers consider radio the "most" essential medium, down from 26% five years ago, according to a study released earlier this year by Arbitron and Edison Media Research.
For many advertisers, the choice between radio and non-radio online ads won't be an either-or proposition, Macklin said, pointing to studies showing that consumers often listen to the radio while consuming other media and that a mix of terrestrial radio and online ads can be far more effective than online ads alone.
"There are many synergies between radio and the Internet and, for the most part, they complement rather than compete with each other,'' he said. "Advertisers should not abandon radio in favor of the Web but combine the two media to take advantage of the unique attributes of each."
Those might sound like encouraging words for the radio industry. But as Macklin's estimates show, these new opportunities don't appear likely to kick-start the radio industry out of its doldrums.
Sony can't seem to keep its hands off its customers' hard drives. Earlier this week, two security companies found that fingerprint-scanning USB drives sold by the company install hidden software on users' computers, just two years after a similar tactic led to mass recalls of another Sony product and a string of lawsuits.
In this case, the hidden program, known as a "rootkit," was used to enable a security feature on Sony's (nyse: SNE - news - people ) Microvault USB drives, which verify the identity of the user by reading his or her fingerprint. Paradoxically, security researchers say, it instead creates a gaping security vulnerability; the rootkit creates an invisible folder that allows cybercriminals to install their own malicious software where it can operate undetected, potentially stealing passwords or sending spam e-mail.
Sony spokesman Tom Di Nome points out that the three Microvault models that employ the fingerprint-scanning technology are no longer being manufactured. He also says the company is currently investigating the source of the problem and "taking the issue very seriously," though no security problems have yet been reported by the USB drives' users.
The rootkit's discovery, originally made by the Finnish company F-Secure and later verified by McAfee (nyse: MFE - news - people ), opens a barely healed wound for Sony. In 2005, digital rights management software on Sony BMG music CDs, designed to control users' attempts to distribute and copy music, was found to install an invisible rootkit folder when customers played the CDs on their computers.
Consumers soon protested Sony's aggressive restrictions on copying music and disregard for security. Sony's executives were initially unresponsive; the company's global digital business president Thomas Hesse infamously told NPR's Morning Edition in November 2005 that "most customers don't even know what a rootkit is. So why should they worry about it?"
But as viruses and malicious software exploiting the rootkit began to surface, Sony issued a recall of all affected CDs later that month. Not soon enough, however, to avoid lawsuits from the Federal Trade Commission, multiple state attorney generals, and several class actions, alleging that Sony's CDs violated state laws defining fair business practice and prohibiting spyware. The company eventually paid around $6 million in settlements; the negative publicity surrounding one of the country's first commercial spyware scandals likely cost Sony much more.
Given that history, it's hard to imagine why the company would repeat its careless coding, says Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "I can't see why any company would use this kind of software after the legal action taken against Sony," he says. "The fact that this is actually another Sony subsidiary is especially shocking."
In fact, the timing of the discovery is especially ironic, given that Sony just last month filed a lawsuit against one of the developers of DRM software that led to the company's 2005 blowup. Sony is demanding $12 million in damages, arguing that The Amergence Group breached the terms of its licensing agreement by delivering software that was negligently designed.
Sony's newest instance of the rootkit coding, which again invites exploitation from malicious software writers, is a symptom of the software industry's general inattention to security issues, says Dave Marcus, a spokesman for McAfee. "It's a huge problem," he says. "This is reflective of the fact that software vendors simply aren't thinking from the perspective of malicious coders."
In this case, the hidden program, known as a "rootkit," was used to enable a security feature on Sony's (nyse: SNE - news - people ) Microvault USB drives, which verify the identity of the user by reading his or her fingerprint. Paradoxically, security researchers say, it instead creates a gaping security vulnerability; the rootkit creates an invisible folder that allows cybercriminals to install their own malicious software where it can operate undetected, potentially stealing passwords or sending spam e-mail.
Sony spokesman Tom Di Nome points out that the three Microvault models that employ the fingerprint-scanning technology are no longer being manufactured. He also says the company is currently investigating the source of the problem and "taking the issue very seriously," though no security problems have yet been reported by the USB drives' users.
The rootkit's discovery, originally made by the Finnish company F-Secure and later verified by McAfee (nyse: MFE - news - people ), opens a barely healed wound for Sony. In 2005, digital rights management software on Sony BMG music CDs, designed to control users' attempts to distribute and copy music, was found to install an invisible rootkit folder when customers played the CDs on their computers.
Consumers soon protested Sony's aggressive restrictions on copying music and disregard for security. Sony's executives were initially unresponsive; the company's global digital business president Thomas Hesse infamously told NPR's Morning Edition in November 2005 that "most customers don't even know what a rootkit is. So why should they worry about it?"
But as viruses and malicious software exploiting the rootkit began to surface, Sony issued a recall of all affected CDs later that month. Not soon enough, however, to avoid lawsuits from the Federal Trade Commission, multiple state attorney generals, and several class actions, alleging that Sony's CDs violated state laws defining fair business practice and prohibiting spyware. The company eventually paid around $6 million in settlements; the negative publicity surrounding one of the country's first commercial spyware scandals likely cost Sony much more.
Given that history, it's hard to imagine why the company would repeat its careless coding, says Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "I can't see why any company would use this kind of software after the legal action taken against Sony," he says. "The fact that this is actually another Sony subsidiary is especially shocking."
In fact, the timing of the discovery is especially ironic, given that Sony just last month filed a lawsuit against one of the developers of DRM software that led to the company's 2005 blowup. Sony is demanding $12 million in damages, arguing that The Amergence Group breached the terms of its licensing agreement by delivering software that was negligently designed.
Sony's newest instance of the rootkit coding, which again invites exploitation from malicious software writers, is a symptom of the software industry's general inattention to security issues, says Dave Marcus, a spokesman for McAfee. "It's a huge problem," he says. "This is reflective of the fact that software vendors simply aren't thinking from the perspective of malicious coders."
Siemens Public Communication Networks has moved the Supreme Court challenging the defence ministry's decision to award a contract for supply of telecommunication software to rival Selex Communications SpA.
Challenging the Delhi High Court order that dismissed its petition, Siemens sought to restrain the ministry and Bharat Electronics (BEL) from negotiating with any other bidder contending that it was the lowest bidder for the tender.
The high court while refusing to stall the entire project had rejected its plea on the ground that it did not deserve interference as the decision making process adopted by BEL was not malafide or intended to favour any of the vendors.
BEL was the prime contractor for the Indian Army's modernisation plan for its technical communication system (TCS) and had invited bids on behalf of the ministry of defence. The bids were for supply and transfer of technology of 80 Digital Radio Trunking System, also known as Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), a major component in the TCS programme of the army.
An Empowered Technical Committee had recommended three vendors - Siemens, Selex and Thales Land and Joint Systems. However, the army in January this year informed the government that it required 1,200 vehicle mobile terminals (VMTs).
The contract was later awarded to Selex. The high court had also held that Siemens itself was responsible for the inadequacy in its bid and cannot blame BEL under the garb of saving revenue.
Challenging the Delhi High Court order that dismissed its petition, Siemens sought to restrain the ministry and Bharat Electronics (BEL) from negotiating with any other bidder contending that it was the lowest bidder for the tender.
The high court while refusing to stall the entire project had rejected its plea on the ground that it did not deserve interference as the decision making process adopted by BEL was not malafide or intended to favour any of the vendors.
BEL was the prime contractor for the Indian Army's modernisation plan for its technical communication system (TCS) and had invited bids on behalf of the ministry of defence. The bids were for supply and transfer of technology of 80 Digital Radio Trunking System, also known as Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), a major component in the TCS programme of the army.
An Empowered Technical Committee had recommended three vendors - Siemens, Selex and Thales Land and Joint Systems. However, the army in January this year informed the government that it required 1,200 vehicle mobile terminals (VMTs).
The contract was later awarded to Selex. The high court had also held that Siemens itself was responsible for the inadequacy in its bid and cannot blame BEL under the garb of saving revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
