Charles de Ribeau
AH enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 552
- Media
- 1
- Member of
- NRA Life
- Hunted
- Namibia, RSA, Canada (Sask, BC, NWT, Nunavut), US (NY, PA, TX, CO, NE, SD, ID, AK)
A few years back, I approached a well-known outdoor writer and occasional TV figure about collaborating on a new TV series that I had in mind. My idea was for a show about hunting in Africa, with a twist to make it unique. He quickly took the opportunity to tell me the facts-of-life a hunting show style.
First, you have to pay for air time. Outdoor Channel and Sportsman's Channel have similar business models and will charge you around $250,000 to get a show on the air for a season. Next, you have to hire the production crew (at least 2 cameramen and a sound guy). That's bare bones minimum. Higher quality means more people and more people means more expense. There is also the cost of post-production. In addition to paying them, you also have to fly them to wherever you are going hunt, put them up in hotels along the way and most of them expect to be fed.
Next comes the thorny question of whether you pay for your hunt or get an outfitter to give you a free hunt. Some say it's unethical to take a free pass for the hunt. Others have no problem with that. I don't have an opinion
Now you have to line up sponsors to pay for advertising. Unless you are a known entity in the industry, they are most likely want to see an example of at least one show before they will commit. That means you have to invest the money up front to produce at least one show before you can attract sponsors. It's a risky proposition.
The bottom line is that producing and airing a show is very expensive and comes with a high degree of risk. That is part of the reason why there are fewer shows about hunting in Africa. They are simply a lot more expensive to produce than ones about hunting whitetails or waterfowl.
Last edited:
