TV OUTSIDE THE BOX

TV Outside the Box: Trailblazing in the Digital Television Revolution explores

the new and exploding universe of on-demand, OTT (Over the Top) networks:
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Crackle, CW Seed, Vimeo, AwesomenessTV, and many
more. Featuring in-depth conversations with game-changing content creators,
industry mavericks, and leading cultural influencers, TV Outside the Box is
essential reading for anyone interested in the dynamics of a global media
revolution—while it’s happening. Readers will discover:

• How the new “disruptors” of traditional television models are shaping

the future of the television and feature film business. You’ll hear directly
from the visionaries behind it all—from concept genesis to predictions
for the future of streaming platforms; their strategies for acquisitions and
development of new original content; and how the revolution is providing
unprecedented opportunities for both established and emerging talent.
• What’s different about storytelling for the progressive, risk-taking networks
who are delivering provocative, groundbreaking, binge-worthy content,
without the restraints of the traditional, advertiser-supported programming
model. Through interviews with the showrunners, content creators, and
producers of dozens of trailblazing series—including Orange Is the New
Black, House of Cards, Transparent, and many more—you’ll learn how and
why the best and the brightest TV content creators and filmmakers are
defining the new digital entertainment age—and how you can, too.

Neil Landau is a bestselling author, producer, and award-winning s­ creenwriter

who runs the Writing for Television program in the UCLA Department of Film,
Television and Digital Media (his alma mater). Credits include Don’t Tell Mom
the Babysitter’s Dead, Melrose Place, The Magnificent Seven, Doogie Howser,
M.D., The Secret World of Alex Mack, Twice in a Lifetime, MTV’s Undressed,
and one-hour drama pilots for CBS, ABC, ABC Family, Warner Bros., Disney,
Lifetime, and Fremantle. Neil has also served as Executive Script ­Consultant
for Sony Pictures Television and Columbia Pictures. His animated movie
­projects include Tad: The Lost Explorer, which earned him a Spanish Academy
“Goya” Award for Best Adapted Screenplay; Capture the Flag for Paramount;
and Sheep & Wolves for Wizart Animation. He’s the author of the bestselling
101 Things I Learned in Film School, The Screenwriter’s Roadmap, and The TV
Showrunner’s Roadmap.
This page intentionally left blank
TV OUTSIDE THE BOX
TRAILBLAZING IN THE
DIGITAL TELEVISION
REVOLUTION
NEIL LANDAU
First published 2016
by Focal Press
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Focal Press

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Focal Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2016 Neil Landau

The right of Neil Landau to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-63936-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-90526-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-69448-1 (ebk)

Typeset in Avenir
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
To my awesome sons, Noah and Zach,
who embody my hope for the future.
This page intentionally left blank
 CONTENTS
Forewordxiii

PART I   T H E N E W D IS R U P T OR S  1

1 Gamechangers 3
Tom Fontana
The Man in the HAZMAT Suit 3
Netflix
Ted Sarandos: The Ambassador 9
Amazon Studios
Roy Price: The Wild Card 16
Hulu
Beatrice Springborn: The Vanguard 23
Sony Crackle
Andy Kaplan: The Nimble Pragmatist 30
CW Seed
Rick Haskins: The Marketing Guru 36
Pivot
Jennie Morris: The Social Advocate 40
SEESO
Evan Shapiro: The Strategic Humorist 46
Sidebar—YouTube: Broadcast Yourself 51
Vimeo
Sam Toles: The Streaming Curator 53
Sidebar—Vice TV: Everything “News” is New Again 57
AwesomenessTV
Brian Robbins: The Forecaster 58
Geek & Sundry
Felicia Day: The Entrepreneur 62
Assembling the Dream Team 70

2 New Business Models and Platforms 73

Then . . . 73
Glossary of Anachronisms 73
viii Contents

Sidebar—What’s in an Algorithm? 80
. . . And Now 81
Acronyms in the New Age of TV 81
Peter Tortorici vs The Glossary of Anachronisms 85
Sidebar—Aggregating Viewers and the New Cultural Influencers 92
Finding Talent with a Built-in Fan Base 93
Varied Perspectives on New Business Models
Caryn Mandabach on the New Bi-Continental
Co-Production Model 94
Blumhouse Productions’ Jessica Rhoades on the New
Micro-Budget TV Series (It’s Not What You’re Thinking) 100
The WGAW’s Charles B. Slocum on the New Syndication 104

3 Comparing the Brands 112

Before the Revolution 112
After the Revolution 117
(subject to change at any minute) 117
From Here to Ubiquity 126
Current Mandates (and Demographics) at the Top Digital Networks  127
(subject to change any minute) 127
Amazon Studios: A Peek into Special Worlds 127
Crackle (aka Sony Crackle): Premium Cable Style,
Globally Minded 129
Hulu: Young and Fresh Provocative Programming 130
Netflix: Exclusivity and Variety 131
Vimeo: A Curated, Self-Uploading Storefront
for Creators 133

PART I I   T RA IL B L A Z IN G C O N T E N T C REATORS  135

4 Niche Is the New Mainstream 137

Specialized Worlds and Different Kinds of Families
Political Animals 138
Alpha House on Amazon 138 
House of Cards on Netflix—Beau Willimon:
Executive Producer/Showrunner 141
Ladies with Attitude
 Contents ix

Orange Is the New Black on Netflix—Jenji Kohan:

Creator/Showrunner/Executive Producer 155
Transparent on Amazon—Andrea Sperling:
Executive Producer 163
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt on Netflix—Robert Carlock:
Executive Producer/Co-Creator/Showrunner 172
Orphan Black on BBC America and Amazon Prime
Instant Video—Web interview 178
Musical Chairs and Artful Dodgers 178
Mozart in the Jungle on Amazon—John J. Strauss:
Executive Producer/Co-Showrunner, Season 1 178
The Art of More on Crackle—Chuck Rose: Creator/
Executive Producer 183
Warring Families and Wrestling Demons
Peaky Blinders on Netflix—Steven Knight: Creator/Writer/
Director/Executive Producer/Showrunner 188
Kingdom on Amazon Prime and DirecTV—Web interview 197 

5 Breaking Down Barriers 199

The New Diversity in the Digital Television Revolution 199
Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You 205
Authenticity, Unfiltered: Transcending Stereotypes
East Los High on Hulu—Carlos Portugal: Co-Creator/Head Writer/
Director/Executive Producer/Showrunner  213
Sidebar—A View From Katie Elmore Mota: Co-President
Wise Entertainment 218
The Mis-Adventures of Awkward Black Girl on YouTube and
I Am OTHER—Issa Rae: Creator/Head Writer/Showrunner/
Director/Star222
Run on Hulu—Web interview 227
Getting On: Exploring the Lives of Senior Citizens 228
Derek on Netflix—Ricky Gervais: Creator/Head Writer/Director/
Showrunner/Executive Producer/Star 230
Grace and Frankie on Netflix—Marta Kauffman: Co-Creator/
Executive Producer/Showrunner 241
Sidebar—Last Tango in Halifax on BBC 1, PBS and Netflix 249
Crossing Borders
Transcending Language Barriers 250
x Contents

Lilyhammer on Netflix 251

Anne Bjørnstad and Eilif Skodvin—Web interview 253

6 A New Spin on Established Genres 255

Existential Detectives . . .
True Detective, Luther, Broadchurch, The Fall and the Razor’s Edge256
. . . And the Monsters They Hunt 260
Bosch on Amazon 262
Eric Overmyer: Co-Creator/Executive Producer/
Showrunner262
Broadchurch and The Fall on Netflix and Amazon—Web interviews 270
Happy Valley on Netflix 270
Sally Wainwright: Creator/Writer/Director/
Executive Producer/Showrunner 270
The New Anthology: The Twilight Zone on Digital Crack 277
Black Mirror on Netflix 277
Charlie Brooker: Writer/Creator/Showrunner/Executive Producer
and Annabel Jones: Showrunner/Executive Producer 277
Alternative and Extraordinary Histories 291
The Man in the High Castle on Amazon—Frank Spotnitz:
Executive Producer/Showrunner/Creator/Developer 291
11/22/63 on Hulu—Bridget Carpenter: Executive Producer/
Showrunner299
Marco Polo on Netflix—Web interview 305
Borgia on Netflix—Web interview 305
Trouble in Paradise: Sunshine Can Be Murder 306
Bloodline on Netflix—Todd Kessler, Daniel Zelman and Glenn
Kessler: Creators/Showrunners/Executive Producers 306
Mad Dogs on Amazon 309
Shawn Ryan: Showrunner/Executive Producer 309

7 The Next Iteration of Adult Animation 318

Id Gone Wild 320
The Awesomes on Hulu 322
Digging Deeper 322
BoJack Horseman on Netflix—Raphael Bob-Waksberg: Creator/
Head Writer/Executive Producer/Showrunner 324
 Contents xi

8 Life after Broadcast 335

Community on Yahoo!—Dan Harmon: Creator/Showrunner/
Executive Producer 337
Evolution Is Integral to Revolution 345
Are We Living in a “Content Bubble”? 346
The Bottom Line 348

9 Webisodes 349
Commercials That Tell a Story 350
High Maintenance on Vimeo—Katja Blichfeld and Ben Sinclair:
Creators/Executive Producers/Showrunners/Director/Actor 352
Aim High on Crackle—Heath Corson and Richie Keen:
Writers/Creators360
Aim High with Heath Corson and Richie Keen—Web interview 361

10 Talk Is Cheap 362

A Moveable Talkfest: The Time-Shifting Late Night Talk Show 363
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee on Crackle 363
From on the Road to on the . . . 364
Park Bench with Steve Buscemi on AOL Originals 364

11 Beyond MTV, Food as Art, Digital Magazines 373

HitRecord on TV with Joseph Gordon-Levitt on Pivot 373
Revolt TV 375
Playing It Forward on Crackle 376
Food as Art 377
Chef’s Table on Netflix 377
Conde Nast Magazines Go Streaming 378
Digital Vogue, Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair 378
Michael L. Klein: Conde Nast Entertainment Group (CNEG) 378

PART I I I   ( R)E VOL U T IO N  383

12 The Impact of Digital Television on Cinema 385

The Slow Burn 385
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same 386
Netflix and the Marvel Universe 387
xii Contents

Marvel’s Daredevil on Netflix 388

Steven S. DeKnight: Executive Producer/Showrunner 388
The De-stigmatization of Digital Television 395
Never Underestimate the Emotional Tug of Nostalgia 399

13 Emerging Voices in the Digital Realm (and beyond) 400

Amazon Studios’ Open Submissions Policy 400
Gortimer Gibbon’s Life on Normal Street on Amazon—David
Anaxagoras: Creator/Co-Executive Producer 400
Casual on Hulu—Zander Lehmann: Creator/Executive Producer 410
Writers on the Rise in the Streaming Stratosphere 417

14 (Foregone) Conclusions 418

Side Effects and the Challenges Ahead 418
The Downside/Upside of Digital, Streaming Television 419
A New Digital Darwinism 422

Acknowledgments423
About the Author 425
About the Editors 426
Index427
 FOREWORD
I was a latchkey kid. To imply that I  was raised by television would be an
understatement. TV was my lifeline, my escape from a less than idyllic reality—
widowed, struggling single mom; degenerate stepfather; enterprising (­drug-
dealing) elder sibling. When my brother and I fought, it was for control of our
household’s sole color television, a 19-inch RCA with rabbit ears. Who got to
watch what and when was a big deal. Back in the early ‘70s, if you missed an
episode of your favorite TV show (on 1 of the only 3 broadcast networks—
ABC, CBS, NBC), you were devastated. Disconnected.

From the early ‘50s to the beginning of the 21st century, primetime TV was the
epicenter of American culture. Monday Night Football, episodes of M*A*S*H
and All in the Family attracted audiences of 20 million (a 33 overnight ratings
“share”). 40 million watched the All in the Family finale. In today’s multi-
platform, mega-channeled, social networking, Snapchatting, niche-defined
digital age, 40 million people watching the same program at the same time
boggles the mind.

Today, we see the proliferation of streaming, on-demand original series and it

all seems to have happened overnight, taking many network power players by
surprise. But, from the advent of HBO to the emergence of YouTube, it was
inevitable that TV had a digital future. What form it would take is still a matter
of debate. Certainly, HBO paved the way with Oz, The Wire, The Sopranos,
Sex and the City, Six Feet Under and Game of Thrones; followed by Netflix,
Amazon Studios, Hulu Originals, Sony Crackle, Vimeo, CW Seed and others;
at this writing, every broadcast and cable network is upping their game with
more inclusive streaming content; putting a fresh spin on classic genres and
formats; shaking up the status quo; embracing diversity; leaning in to
controversy; debunking stereotypes; transcending formulaic story tropes; and
increasing opportunities for new voices and long-marginalized fringe
perspectives.

Revolutions, of course, are led not by corporations but by visionaries. This

book is a conversation with the best of them—producers, storytellers, and
tech-savvy entrepreneurs who are venturing into the uncharted territory of the
digital Wild West, changing not only how TV is viewed, but also how it’s
created and distributed. These trailblazers are creating a world in which terms
like “new media” already sound old-fashioned; a world in which traditional
crime/medical/legal procedural dramas and 3 jokes per page multi-camera
xiv Foreword

sitcoms feel downright nostalgic; a world in which the best on-demand series
are akin to novelistic page-turners—daring us to binge view, challenging us to
unravel the mystery and excavate the truth while mining the complexities of
human nature.

And finally, we the audience command the medium, choosing when, where,
and how we watch everything from 6-second videos (“vines”) to serialized
streaming dramas that can occupy an entire weekend.

In this rapidly transforming new world, an actual television is irrelevant for

anyone under the age of 25. Forget the notion of cable “cord cutting.” For the
majority of Millennials and for Generation Z, there is no cord. CBS announced
in November 2015 that even their new series of Star Trek will be going
cordless—straight to their digital CBS All Access platform—instead of airing
on the broadcast network.

Since I began writing this book, the content gatekeepers, conceptual wizards,
producers and distributors have no doubt changed the TV landscape even
more. This is a fast-moving transformation and there’s no turning back or
going against the torrential, changing tide. But that also means that viewers
are more exhilarated—and more liberated. We are living in the midst of a
creative revolution, and I, like you, can’t wait to see what happens next.
PART I
THE NEW DISRUPTORS

“The business
models will catch
up, but the king,
as it has always
been, is content.”
CARYN MANDABACH, CEO,
CARYN MANDABACH PRODUCTIONS
(NURSE JACKIE, PEAKY BLINDERS)
This page intentionally left blank
 CHAPTER 1
GAMECHANGERS

TOM FONTANA
The Man in the HAZMAT Suit

T
he original trailblazer, Tom Fontana has spent much of his extraordinary 30-year career
writing about crime and punishment. Accordingly, I’d be committing a felony by not
starting the story of the digital television revolution with him. Not only did he create,
write, and produce Oz, the first-ever scripted drama for HBO and indeed premium cable, but
he also created the first show for BBC America (Copper), and the first Netflix Original (Borgia).

Fontana was also showrunner on the groundbreaking police series, Homicide: Life on the
Street. He and longtime producing partner, Academy Award winner Barry Levinson, together
with credited creator Paul Attanasio, adapted the series from the book Homicide: A Year on
the Killing Streets by Baltimore Sun reporter, David Simon. Simon wrote for Homicide, and
then went on to create one of the greatest series of all time: The Wire.

Both Fontana and Levinson felt that Simon’s gripping, nonfiction book, rich and expansive,
would work better as a TV series than a movie. The only catch was, Levinson had no interest
in making a traditional network procedural, in which a crime is committed in the teaser, and
by the end of the episode the perp is brought to justice. Problem solved. Neither Fontana nor
Levinson wanted formulaic. Both wanted to explore the gray areas, where there are no easy
answers. There was a caveat: in order for Levinson to commit to a series, he wanted to make
the first-ever police procedural with no gunplay, no car chases, no pat resolutions. Fontana
told him: “That’s impossible. Let’s do it!”

Years later, in the series finale of Oz, when a mysterious package arrives at Oswald Penitentiary
containing the deadly chemical anthrax, chaos ensues. Everyone is evacuated. Even death
row inmates are loaded onto buses. Free at last, at least temporarily. Then the hazardous
4 Gamechangers

materials task force enters the prison to mitigate the disaster. If you look closely at the first
responder, the man in the HAZMAT suit, that’s Tom Fontana, making his first and last cameo.
It was a fitting grace note for such a landmark series, emblematic of Fontana’s entire career:
an artist not afraid to take risks.

Whether he was battling network censors for permission to use the word “testicle”—in an
episode about a patient battling testicular cancer on St.  Elsewhere; depicting a severely
homophobic inmate showing mercy to a suffering terminal AIDS patient through euthanasia;
or injecting a surreal, Greek chorus-like, omniscient, wheelchair-bound narrator on Oz,
Fontana is always a courageous, inspirational, provocative storyteller.

Neil Landau: You made the first-ever drama series for HBO, BBC America, and Netflix. You’re
going to be the lead interview in my book. Another first. How about that?

Tom Fontana: It should also be noted that Barry Levinson and I did a series on the WB1 [The
Bedford Diaries] and we were the last drama series on the WB. So we don’t just start networks,
we also get networks canceled.

NL: [laughs] Well, yes, rarely. But it points to your willingness to take risks and break new
ground.

TF: I  appreciate your saying that. I  think part of it is, I  get these sort of crazy, half-assed
notions in my head about trying something that I’ve never done before. I pitched variations
on prison shows to all 4 of the broadcast networks, and they looked at me like I had gone
completely insane.

❝
I would like to pretend that I have some incredible far-
sighted vision of the future of our business and all that
stuff. The reality is, I have been incredibly lucky and
managed to walk up to a door and open it at exactly the
moment that I needed the door opened, and they
needed someone to open the door.
❞

NL: You also bring your game. If the door opened and you weren’t able to create such high
quality programming that sustains, that would be the end of that.

TF: You’re absolutely right. I do think that if someone is going to take a risk on me, I have an
obligation to do the very best that I can and really cause as much trouble as I can.
 Gamechangers 5

NL: Chris Albrecht took a chance green-lighting Oz as the first scripted drama for HBO and if
it didn’t work—who knows? Maybe they wouldn’t have continued making original series.
TF: I carried the weight of that the whole first season, because I kept thinking to myself, “If
I fuck this up Chris is going to say to the next guy in the door, ‘I trusted Fontana and I got
screwed for it, so I’m not trusting you.’ ” I feel good about the fact that I didn’t screw it up and
David Chase [The Sopranos] was the next one through the door.
NL: He didn’t screw it up either.
TF: Neither did Alan Ball [Six Feet Under].
NL: You were ahead of your time, not afraid to disrupt conventional expectation. In Oz, for
example, as soon as things calmed down in prison, as soon as a character became comfortable,
your instinct, which proved right, was to kill somebody off, or throw a curveball which
replicated the feeling of a real prison. Dangerous, claustrophobic, unpredictable. You liked to
continually shake things up and keep your audience on edge. You always challenged us,
when for the longest time TV existed to reassure us.
TF: That’s right. In the past, the goal was to reinforce the sensibilities that we were all hoping
were true, but obviously both turned out to be more fictional than any TV series we watched.
As more and more sort of lies in society got exposed, the writers were allowed to have more
freedom.
NL: We’re experiencing a wave of diversity on TV. From Empire, Fresh Off the Boat and
Black-ish to East Los High and Shonda Rhimes’ How To Get Away with Murder and Scandal.
You’ve always had diversity on your shows, both on screen and behind the scenes: a
trailblazer on that front, too. Yet, if we look back to the 1970s, we had diversity on TV.
Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin’s shows (All in the Family, Maude, Good Times, The Jeffersons,
Sanford and Son, One Day at a Time) offered healthy debate on what were controversial
topics (divorce, abortion, interracial marriage, gay rights, addiction, rape) and all managed to
thrive on primetime network television . . . then the TV business regressed. What happened?
TF: It’s not only the television industry that’s cyclical, it’s American society. What happens is
that we have moments of incredible intensity, like the chaos in Baltimore, and we all talk
about it. Or a kid goes into a school and shoots a bunch of kids and we talk about guns. We
go through these intense conversations about what’s going on with the moral fabric of
American society. Then we all just kind of settle back and get into the rhythm of our lives and
stop thinking about the negative aspects. During the 1970s the other part of television, which
is dangerous happened: the success of one thing becomes the thing that is copied and
imitated, by all others.
NL: So true.
TF: If you look at the phenomenal popularity of Friends, for example, all we were seeing
were shows about young people who were friends and lived in apartments. They all were
white, and they were all sort of middle class. I think a show comes along that breaks the
6 Gamechangers

mold, like All in the Family, then there’s a rush to imitate it because people go, “Oh, that’s
successful.” Because that’s the nature of Hollywood. Dorothy Parker once said the ugliest
word in Hollywood is, “Another.” Let’s make another. Anytime you see a Roman numeral
after a movie, it’s a cause for unhappiness rather than celebration, you know? So I  don’t
think television leads, I think television follows for the most part—certainly in drama and
comedy. I think we just sort of follow whatever is popular. It’s unfortunate, but that’s what
happens.

NL: I think audiences are getting more comfortable not watching commercials, which is going
to have a significant impact on advertisers—who traditionally rely on broadcast network
Standards and Practices to protect their brands. That’s one of the main reasons the broadcast
networks have played it safe, and endeavor not to offend anybody. With the emergence of
subscription-based digital networks, we’re seeing niche worlds and once marginalized
“fringe” characters, such as Jeffrey Tambor’s transgender Maura, front and center. Instead of
sticking with the tried, true and safe, newer content providers are seeking out what’s different
and breaks the mold. You have been witnessing it all as it’s been evolving. What’s your
perspective on the new normal?

TF: I do think it’s incredibly exciting, but I think it’s impossible to predict. You know, old idiots like
me will hang around watching TV even on the broadcast networks, until we’re too feeble to push
the remote. I think a child, somebody who was born in the last 10 years, has such a capacity and
a different understanding of the universe—the media universe too—than anybody my age. The
demand they are going to make for their content is mind boggling, but it is truly exciting because
you say, “Who knows, who knows what this is going to end up being?” When William Paley
started CBS Radio and Sarnoff started NBC Red and NBC Blue, they had no idea how long radio
would last, and what the new technology of television was going to do to this thing they had
brought to life. So it’s fantastic. I wish I was going to be here.

NL: No matter what, your legacy, your place in history, is forever. Let’s talk about Borgia on
Netflix. I have to confess, even being such a big fan of your work, I previously only knew about
The Borgias on Showtime.

TF: It’s interesting because both shows were being developed simultaneously, and we went
over to Showtime to pitch it to [then Showtime President] Bob Greenblatt, who said, “Well,
we’re developing our own Borgias, so maybe we should do the 2 together.” I flew to Dublin
to have a meeting with Neil Jordan, and within about 5 minutes we both realized that we
wanted to make completely different television shows. Then it went into this sort of, “OK,
they’re on cable,” and fortunately, at that moment Netflix was looking for something, and my
agent Peter Benedek arranged for them to buy the series. And, in fact the second season they
even upped the amount so they could own more territory.

At that point I remember Peter asking the head guy at Netflix, “What kind of advertising you
going to do for Borgia? and he said, “None. All of our advertising is going to be through our
subscribers.” That’s why it wasn’t widely known, unless you were already a Netflix subscriber
 Gamechangers 7

and unless it triggered their recommendation algorithm. That being said, from my
understanding and I  don’t know how they measure these things, Borgia did very well for
them. It was in like the top 10 for them.

The reality is, I got to make the TV series about the Borgia family that I wanted to make. Canal
Plus and Netflix and all the other international partners were extraordinary in letting me;
almost like the way it was when we started doing Oz on HBO. It was like, “You’re the creative
person; we’re going to let you do it the way you want to do it.”

NL: With both Copper (for BBC America) set in 1860s New York during the Civil War, and
Borgia that begins in 1492, does your creative process differ on an historical series versus
present day?

TF: I love history. I’m obsessive about history. But there is no reason to do a show in the past
unless it has parallels to what’s going on now. For me, the problem with doing a show about
the Pope is that people assume it’s about attacking the Catholic Church, which was never my
intention. I had 2 goals. 1, to examine the 3 main characters’, Rodrigo, Cesare and Lucrezia’s
different approaches to faith—Rodrigo being old school, Lucrezia being very progressive and
Renaissance oriented, and Cesare being an atheist.

Another element that I  wanted to explore was, at that time and to this day, the Catholic
Church was a business that sells probably the greatest product that one can sell: salvation.
I wanted to use Borgia not so much about the machinations of the Catholic Church, than what
it’s like to be in a corporation, let’s say the Murdochs [News Corp] or any family that has a
major stake in one company, and see how that plays out. What’s great is, when you are doing
something historical you can make it less a polemic and more of an adventure for the
audience, so they’re not feeling preached to, which I despise. When I watch a television show
that is basically lecturing me on something, especially social issues, I get very irritated. On
every show I’ve done, I’ve only tried to raise questions. I’ve never tried to prove how smart
I was, because I don’t have the answers.

NL: Which is consistent with your upbringing as a Jesuit, and the principles of “question,
judge, think, and argue”—which are reflected in all your work.

TF: Yes, and the truth of it is, I don’t think TV’s job is to preach. I think it’s our job to make
people decide for themselves, by giving them 2 or 3 sides of an issue.

NL: In Borgia, how much dramatic license did you allow yourself in telling this well-documented
story, especially when so much of the documentation was embellished for better and for
worse? Isn’t history almost always written by the winners?

TF: I decided that these main 3 characters would each be going on an individual journey over
the life of the series. And what I had to work with were a number of facts that were spread out
over the course of all the years that they were in the public light. So, I felt my job was to be
accurate, but never let the facts get in the way of the truth. Obviously I had to fill in a lot of
blanks, because there were big gaps of information. Or, as you said, there was conflicting
8 Gamechangers

information. Like a good reporter, I tried to get 2 or 3 sources in order to try to figure out what
might have been the truth, and the rest of the time, I trusted my own gut to say, “Well this is
the journey I want Cesare to go on, so I’m going to focus the story on these elements.” The
other thing about writing historical stuff, for someone who is obsessive about research as
I am, is that you find out so much stuff that is completely, utterly useless. A fact that is really
not dramatic, but you obsess on it because you go, “Oh my God, that’s so interesting.” But
it’s only interesting to about 5 people. You have to differentiate between fact that is dramatic
and fact that is simply informational. On the other hand, every once in a while I  find out
something that was staggeringly wonderful. At one point, Cesare had panthers and he would
go hunting with them. Of course, I  immediately wrote the panther into an episode just
because I was like, “Cesare is so cool that he had panthers.”

NL: How do you structure such an epic series, and was your writing process markedly
different given historical events as signposts?

TF: Right, but other than that aspect, which was a significant difference, if you look at
Homicide or Oz, the main characters are going through a journey. So, the stories we chose to
do in both series were to push that character through his or her journey. The same was true
with Borgia. You say to yourself, “Lucrezia is going to be married to these 3 men,” and so the
plotting out of her story and her journey was anchored, in a large part, by the 3 men she was
married to and how she dealt with each one separately.

NL: One of the things that often happens with historical series is dramatic license in playing
with the timelines, because things don’t often line up the way you need them to, especially if
you’re doing a braided narrative, where you’re cutting between 3 different stories. Did you
collapse time and try to align it?

TF: I tried to stay as accurate as possible, but every once in a while I needed something
to happen before it actually happened, for the impact to be fully felt. To me, the way that
an historical character reacts to an event tells you about who he or she is, and so that
does give you more of a freedom to move that event around, or make assumptions of my
entire career I’ve always understood who they were.

NL: The Daily Kos essay, A Tale Of Two Borgia TV Shows compared your Borgia to Showtime’s
The Borgias. The blogger (screen name Troubadour) wrote, “As usual, Americans get the
inferior TV show,” and goes on about how superior Borgia is. He rails against what happens
when a foreign TV show is a spectacular success internationally, US channels acquire it and
tend to ruin it. In general, do you think today’s broadcasters and media gatekeepers
underestimate the taste of the American public, or overestimate it?

TF: I think the people in power tend to underestimate the capacity of the American public to
open themselves up to a story or characters that they have not seen before. That being said,
I also think it is the responsibility of people, who write, produce and make television, to take
advantage of the fact that this generation coming up has access to so much information, and
 Gamechangers 9

are exposed to so many different kinds of experiences that it should make us less afraid to
challenge them. Because if we don’t, I  think we will become inconsequential. The hardest
thing about drama now is that there is so much out there, from the so-called reality shows to
the stuff that’s on YouTube, that you almost have to be more real than real. If you were just
real—if we tried to do Homicide today—I think it would seem sort of tame. Andre Braugher
[who portrayed Detective Frank Pembleton] would now either have superpowers or be a
zombie for the show to really get people’s attention. It puts drama writers in a difficult
position because we have to find that balance, between what is genuine and what is
captivating.

NETFLIX
Ted Sarandos: The Ambassador

S
ince joining Netflix as its Chief Content Officer in 2000, Ted Sarandos has become one
of the most powerful entertainment executives in the world. He has taken the company
to the far corners of the globe (including Cuba) and, like his wife, Nicole Avant (who
served as US Ambassador to the Bahamas), he is both diplomatic and persuasive. For these
reasons and more, I’ve designated him: The Ambassador.

Ted Sarandos began honing his command of television when he was a young boy. He
nostalgically recalls his childhood, when he watched marathon reruns of Mary Hartman, Mary
Hartman with his family and remembers how, back in the day (and without a cable subscription),
he caught up on episodes of The Sopranos on VHS. It isn’t surprising that Netflix’s “binge
viewing” model is what most distinguishes the company from its closest SVOD (subscription
video on demand) competitor, HBO.

In the early 1980s, Sarandos worked part-time in a strip mall video store and the experience
helped him develop a keen awareness of how customers consume content. Checking out
videos and restocking shelves, he became an informal curator—and began to recommend
titles on the basis of, “If you liked that, you’ll probably enjoy this.”

After becoming an executive at Netflix, Sarandos started noticing that subscribers would
return rentals of TV series faster than they returned movies. He saw that serialized TV has an
addictive quality, unlike movies where closure is reached at the end. Which is why, when you
finish a TV episode on Netflix, the countdown automatically—and immediately—begins.
Sarandos knows you’re hooked and waiting for your next fix. (In our household, we call Netflix
NextFix).

His intuition and experience continued to help Sarandos gauge consumer needs and viewing
behavior but, as Netflix grew, he understood the need for a more sophisticated approach. As
he tells it, “During the early days of the Internet, when everybody else was spending big money
10 Gamechangers

on Super Bowl ads, we were investing in technology, on taste-based algorithms, to make sure
every single user had a personalized, highly effective matching tool to use when they visit our
site [. . .] In our DVD mail order business, all we knew was what was shipped to customers and
when DVDs were returned. We had no way of determining if the DVD was viewed 20 times or
not at all. But with streaming, we had insight into every second of the viewing experience. We
knew what you tried, we knew at what point you turned it off, and why.”2

Netflix was definitely ahead-of-the-digital-curve, but by that same year (2010), competitors
were aggressively playing catch-up and that led the company to enter the arena of original
content. Their mission was literally, “to become more like HBO before HBO becomes more
like us.”

In 2012, Sarandos screened early episodes of the fish-out-of-water mobster dramedy,

Lilyhammer (co-created by and starring The Sopranos’ Steven Van Zandt) and the opportunity
to acquire the series was an offer too good to refuse. Lilyhammer became Netflix’s first
“original” series,3 followed in 2013 by the one-two punch of the two most buzz-worthy series
of that year: House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (OITNB).4

Algorithms aside, Sarandos and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings understood that all movies and
TV series are creative experiments with no guarantee of success, either critically or
commercially. They knew they needed to swing for the fences or risk losing their market
advantage. Hastings had already learned the painful lesson of trying to split the DVD mail
order and the emerging SVOD businesses (many subscribers bolted), and House of Cards
and OITNB were expensive plays. But putting the money on A-list talent not only helped
strengthen their hand, it also sent a powerful message to the television establishment: Netflix
has joined the major leagues. And with binge-viewing capabilities and no bundled cable-
subscription required, they soon disrupted cable and television networks and rapidly
transcended them. Their marketing strategy from the get-go was, “We produce something
special. We set the expectation high.”

Today, competitors like FX and AMC may offer comparable, high quality content, but they’re
burdened with commercial interruptions and the limitations of Standards and Practices (aka,
no nudity or cursing). There are other competitive advantages. Without fixed time slots and
overnight ratings, Netflix is free to produce as much content as they choose (and the
creators know that content is going to air). They also have the option to alter program
lengths; if a show runs 68 minutes, it doesn’t cause a programming avalanche. What’s more,
studio licensing deals have given many series a “second window” on Netflix, such as
Breaking Bad.

Without question, Netflix is transforming the entertainment landscape and the contributions
of Ted Sarandos are legion. His thoughts on the digital revolution are provocative, insightful
and often entertaining. What follows is a conversation with The Ambassador in March 2015.
 Gamechangers 11

Neil Landau: I discovered The Hour, Happy Valley, Broadchurch, The Fall, Black Mirror and
the first season of Orphan Black on Netflix. They’re dark, complex, mysterious thrillers. All
are utterly addictive—and completely worth the time investment. But some of your critics
say that the “binge viewing” experience offered by Netflix is ruining the communal
experience of everyone watching the same show at exactly the same time. How do you
respond?

Ted Sarandos: Other than sports and some live events, does anyone watch TV series in their
time slots anymore? I’d argue that we still have the communal experience; it’s still happening,
but not exactly at the same time. And with social media, it’s even more communal. That’s the
global equivalent of the water cooler moment TV.

NL: I’d like to compliment you on your global reach, and praise you for importing so many
brilliant shows from abroad, especially from the UK. And they’re all unadulterated—which
tells me that you don’t underestimate your audience.

TS: When they brought in the idea to remake Broadchurch I said, “You know it’s in English,
right?”

NL: [laughs] With such a high volume of content to oversee, as well as a vast development
slate and rigorous travel schedule, how do you stay on top of everything? And your office is
so neat and orderly!

TS: I have a great staff. I delegate. But the truth is I love what I do. If I didn’t love it, if it wasn’t
also my hobby, I wouldn’t be able to.

NL: So walk me through a typical day.

TS: There’s no real typical day. Before mid-day I will have watched a couple episodes of a
show that’s in production, or a submission. The hardest thing to do is read scripts,
subsequent versions of scripts, and provide notes. Reading is professionally a real art.
Professionals read for content, clarity, plausibility and do it quickly. When I  read a script
I can tell you something is broken, but it’ll take me a while to tell you why I think it’s broken.
And I’ll obsess about it.

NL: All the showrunner/creators I’ve interviewed greatly value the creative freedom and
autonomy at Netflix. Many have told me it’s the opposite of working at a broadcast network
where they were micromanaged.

TS: That’s part of the Netflix culture. Freedom of responsibility extends to our creators. We
hire the smartest people, and the brightest writers, and we don’t want to write for them.
That’s what they do. There’s a different decision-making pattern when you know you’re going
to yield to the creator. It has to be a big red flag for us to intervene.

NL: You guys have also eschewed and circumvented the traditional network pilot process—

TS: Because it’s the dumbest thing in the whole business. Of all the things wrong with the
creative process, that’s the most broken.
12 Gamechangers

NL: Look at the number of shows that don’t go forward, and the millions spent.

TS: The only thing worse than using a survey is to use it to create; or to use an unscientific
methodology to make decisions on people’s lives. What people get to see; whether a show
will work or not based on 17 people in a focus group; it’s crazy.

NL: And many shows don’t find themselves until several episodes in.

TS: Seinfeld took 4 years. In today’s landscape it wouldn’t last.

NL: Because you’re circumventing the pilot process and going straight to series, how much
do you have to read to make a decision?

TS: It depends. Orange Is the New Black was a pitch—it was Jenji’s [showrunner/creator
Jenji Kohan] track record and unique voice, and the success of the book [a memoir written
by former inmate Piper Kerman]. Jenji came in and said, “Here is what I’m going to do
with the source material and how it’s not going to be a typical prison show.” House of
Cards was 3 scripts, a bible that laid the show out for 5 or 6 seasons, and a very
strong package—from directors to producers and writers—it was a fully formed package.
Hemlock Grove was a book. Lilyhammer we acquired after we watched the produced
pilot.

NL: And yet they’re all called “Netflix Originals”?

TS: We use the word “original” to indicate the territory, where it originates. “Netflix Originals”
is used in the US, because you can’t see them anywhere else. For us, the word “exclusive”
doesn’t ring true to people. And “created by” doesn’t either.

NL: With so many a la carte and OTT content offerings, is it inevitable that viewers are going
to become less loyal to 1 brand?

TS: At its peak, Teen Wolf on MTV was the only show that my son and daughter (then 14 and
16) watched together. They’d watch it live on Sundays, and if I asked what they were watching
they’d say Teen Wolf, not MTV. Everything else they’d watch on-demand.

NL: So as viewers become more agnostic around networks and platforms, will the main
challenge be to continually raise the bar of quality programs?

TS: We prefer to say we’re offering “shows you love.” We have to be careful with the word
“quality.” We debate internally about that because quality is different for each viewer.

❝
Our brand is personalization. If our network is solely
House of Cards, even in great success that’s too limiting.
❞
 Gamechangers 13

NL: You need a lot of variety. Like at a broadcast network, no?

TS: We offer much greater choice and flexibility without all the limitations. Even so, we can’t
let the brand define the show, or the show define the brand. In practice it turns out to be
quality. 45 Emmy nominations in 2 years, that’s a definition of quality for sure, but it’s one that
doesn’t touch Jackass [on MTV]—and people love Jackass.

NL: You have the awards, the subscribers, and yet don’t report audience ratings. How do you
get away with that?

TS: I’m always assuming that creators will say, “I’m glad you don’t make it public, but please
tell me.” But we have no discussions about it. Creators just want to create.

NL: And Les Moonves [President and CEO of CBS Corporation] has publicly said, “Overnight
ratings are dead.”

TS: That was me 3 years ago and everyone said, “What’s he hiding?” And now everyone says,
“Overnight ratings are dead.” I think overnight ratings killed the quality of television.

NL: As the overnight ratings (and +3 and +7) system continues to implode, do you anticipate
commercial breaks also becoming extinct?

TS: If people are not watching and reacting to those ads then they won’t work.

NL: But ads pay for “free” programming. Not everyone can afford a cable or Netflix
subscription.

TS: True, but Netflix is much cheaper than a cable bundle, and commercial free. You only have
to pay once. There was a time when MTV meant something to people and an MTV subscription
could be valuable. It’s probably still true of the Disney Channel. But there are very few. You
have to be a niche in the way that you have a deeply passionate relationship with the brand.
You have to be big enough to have scale but as passionate as the smallest niche.

NL: Your current mandate is to make 20 originals a year. Currently, Netflix develops and
distributes, but doesn’t have a production entity to make the content. So you guys outsource
at studios, like Lionsgate for OITNB and MRC [Media Rights Capital] for House of Cards? Will
you continue to have studios as the middleman, or can you foresee your own Netflix Productions?

TS: We produced in house. It’s nascent. But we have to. It’s inevitable. It’s where we’re headed.
But we also want the best programming so we’ll continue to buy from studios because they
own intellectual property and talent deals. For example, we’re doing 3 shows with Sony. When
they produce for Netflix, they produce in profit mode. No one loses money making shows for
Netflix, ever. It’s a different paradigm for production. It enables more flexibility for exclusivity
and distribution. The downside of doing a show with a studio is that if they keep DVD and
home entertainment rights; a year after being on Netflix you can buy it on iTunes and it
becomes less attractive being on subscription. That’s HBO’s problem. Everything on HBO you
14 Gamechangers

can buy on DVD or iTunes, so there’s no reason to have HBO. Unless you want to watch it right
now. It seems at odds with consumer behavior of watching everything on-demand.

NL: Pretty soon everyone will follow your model, hence your mandate to keep creating
original content in order to compete with HBO, Showtime, Hulu, etc. Will there be a point
where there’s an over-saturation of subscriptions?

TS: There are 25 million HBO subscribers in the US. We need to know how many are actual
HBO subscribers versus having it in a bundle. I think they’re going to answer that question in
a way that is interesting.

NL: How do you manage to recoup costs when there are very few syndication deals? Does
Netflix’s growth depend on deficit financing?

TS: Our revenue stream from our subscriber base enables us to keep fueling production.

NL: But isn’t there a “second window” opportunity with Netflix Originals?

TS: There is, but I think there’s more value in exclusivity, than the revenue you’d make back
on the content today. There was a time when the home video window was so valuable you’d
be crazy not to put content on home video. When you look at ancillary revenue streams
others enjoy that we don’t—we’re looking forward. If you want to bet on the bundle, home
video sales, and broadcast revenue from advertising, they aren’t long for this world.

NL: Netflix does not offer back-end deals—at all?

TS: We pay up front as if the show is going to be successful. The value of potential syndication
is built into the deal.

NL: There’s never been a higher demand for original content, which generates more jobs. And
yet the revenue stream for creators is decreasing because there isn’t backend and ownership—
or residuals. How will writers and directors continue to make a living? Will the trade unions
(WGA, DGA, SAG) negotiate higher minimums for “new media” when it’s not so new anymore?

TS: I think you should think about it like sports. There are only a handful of guys in the NFL
and NBA who make fortunes. Most people think, “If I create this show I should get rich.” Yes,
of course you should—the people who financed it should; the ones who created it should.
Louie is probably the best model. Louis writes it, cuts it, and now he wants to sell it too—and
he can; but it’s certainly not manageable and not scalable every year. So he does the HBO
special to make money to do his own show for FX. It was a no-risk deal for FX, and Louis could
make the show because he does everything. That show couldn’t have made it on the air under
normal economics. But it turns out to be a big success and he renegotiates for a lot of money.
If he’d asked for a million dollars an episode to write the show it would have never gotten on
the air.

NL: What gets you to say “yes”? How much of your green-light power is based on algorithm,
staff picks, and/or the creative auspices? Ultimately, does it come down to your gut?
 Gamechangers 15

TS: You have to be convinced that the world you’re creating is infinitely interesting, a place
you want to spend a lot of time. And filled with people you want to spend time with.

NL: So sustainability is key?

TS: It also helps if it isn’t already on television or would be difficult to put on television. Who
would have put Orange Is The New Black on television? I don’t think anyone would have. I’m
not looking for something that could easily be made somewhere else. Look at Unbreakable
Kimmy Schmidt. It’s in between. It was an NBC show, but they knew it couldn’t live on NBC.
We did the preemptive save. They could have put it on the air and it might have surprised.
Last Man on Earth with Will Forte—we wanted that show badly. We fell in love with the pitch.
It was fresh. Ultimately Fox wanted it for the network, which is why they held on to it. They
turned down our full season order in favor of piloting. Everyone’s reaction was it probably
wouldn’t do well on network, but it’s doing well.

NL: In addition to your deal with Marvel for 4 new series, and the forthcoming original series
which is a prequel to the cult movie Wet Hot American Summer, I hear you’ve got a slate of
Netflix original movies?

TS: Yes, we have 4 Adam Sandler movies. One is currently in production. We have a finished
feature that we purchased called Beasts of No Nation that Cary Fukunaga directed. Idris Elba
stars in it. It’s on the opposite end of the spectrum. It’s like City of God. I love Cary’s work. True
Detective is the one that got away. We wanted it, and that’s one of the rare ones where the
whole show was written. Judd Apatow is producing a reboot of Peewee Herman. We’re also
very excited about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 and Brad Pitt’s War Machine.

NL: What’s your rational for producing movies?

TS: For us it’s the pay television windows—because we’re a subscription service, that’s where we
have to live. It’s a year behind the theaters, 4–6 months after DVD and VOD. A lot of people
watch movies on Netflix, but it’s dispassionate. A lot of our movie watching is repeat viewing.
Movies were dispassionate, not brand enhancing and not unique. So this is a way to collapse the
windows between the theaters and home video that’s unique to Netflix and brand enhancing. It’s
a different form of expression. The benefit of time compression to do a 2-hour movie creates a
different art form. It’s like acrylic versus watercolor. They’re both beautiful, but very different.
Even with all the great TV available on Netflix, people still spend a third of their hours watching
movies.

NL: And with you guys, it’s not just talk, it’s action. Not to bash Amazon, but they’ve been
trying to make a movie for years, and still haven’t.

TS: From the time we did the deal for House of Cards, it was almost 2 years before the show
went on. Had we waited and been really conservative, it would have been another 2 years
before we launched another show. But it was a risk we knew we had to take. If House of Cards
didn’t work, we would have overpaid dramatically for 1 show on Netflix. And if it did work, it
could completely transform the brand.
16 Gamechangers

NL: What, to you, is the most important aspect of the Netflix brand?

TS: In a word: Exclusivity. Our strategy is to ensure the rest of the world gets the best content
as quickly as possible. With Breaking Bad, we streamed the final series’ episodes in the UK
1 day after their US broadcast. We also strive to make original content that people love and
that they can’t watch anyplace else. We want to restore a sense of emotional connection
between consumers and content so that it matches their current lifestyles. That connection is
the biggest shift in the economy of entertainment.

AMAZON STUDIOS
Roy Price: The Wild Card

V
ice-President of Amazon Studios, Roy Price was born into Hollywood legacy. His father,
Frank Price, was the chairman of Columbia Pictures and Universal Pictures; grandfather
Roy Huggins created the iconic TV series Maverick, The Fugitive and The Rockford
Files. Roy Price graduated from Harvard College with a degree in English Literature, and from
USC in Law. Before joining Amazon in 2004, he served as VP of Creative Affairs for Disney TV
Animation, supervising series including Recess, Pepper Ann, Hercules, Timon and Pumbaa,
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, The Weekenders, Emmy and BAFTA (British Academy of
Film and Television Arts Award) winner Teacher’s Pet, and Annie Award winner House of
Mouse. He also supervised/developed the animated features and direct to videos Recess:
School’s Out, Tarzan & Jane, and Mickey’s House of Villains.

Amazon Studios and Roy Price are our designated “Wild Card” for a number of reasons. First,
while Price is amiable and good-natured, he’s laconic and plays his cards close to the vest.
Unlike many studios and networks keen to tout their programs, and over-share information
about every possible project in active development and/or pre-production/post-production,
Amazon Studios’ promotional push tends to be more laidback, casual, and far less urgent.
There’s no sense of ramping up the buzz, or a desperate publicity blitz to assure the biggest,
widest overnight rating or opening weekend. You get the sense that they know—and, trust
me, they do know—their online shoppers will find their shows. If you’ve ever purchased
anything on Amazon.com (and who hasn’t?) they already know everything about what/when/
where/why/how you’ve bought a product from them, and what you’re likely to buy—or read
or watch—in the future. While Netflix and HBO may dominate the subscription TV realm,
Amazon has a (virtual) monopoly on everything else.

Here is the biggest differentiator between Amazon Studios and its closest digital TV
competitors: while Netflix and Hulu are media companies, Amazon is, first and foremost, a
retail company. As its chief of content, Roy Price has taken a page out of the Hollywood
studio playbook and hired many former TV and movie network and studio executives to join
 Gamechangers 17

his team. But Amazon Studios plays by its own rules. For the price of an annual subscription
(currently $99.00) to their “Amazon Prime” service, e-shoppers get two awesome perks:
1) free shipping; 2) unlimited streaming access to Amazon’s Prime Instant Video of original
TV series and library of content. This is the literal nexus between shopping and consuming
TV content. And it’s disruptive to both the traditional TV industry and the retail business.
Today, not only can you buy stuff online without ever leaving the house, side by side you can
watch an unlimited number of entertaining series and movies on-demand. The shopping
mall used to be the magnet to aggregate shoppers and moviegoers. Today, the mall is at
your fingertips via computer monitor, laptop, tablet, smartphone, device. Oh yeah, it’s also
available on TV.

Amazon functions within the Hollywood studio system of agents, managers, and established
talent, but they simultaneously operate out of the Hollywood studio ethos. They create (either
deliberately or inadvertently) a combination of derision, awe, mystery and disorientation
among many of the more entrenched, less nimble Hollywood elite, among whom several
producers and executives interviewed regarded Amazon Studios with suspicion, bordering on
contempt for being such a disruptive, rebellious force. They fault Roy Price for not reporting
ratings and revenue for his relatively new entertainment unit. Ironically, the studio responsible
for Transparent is considered the most opaque outfit in town. It’s easy to understand how the
competition would object to playing against a company that doesn’t follow the conventional
rules and formulas for success—at a time when the entire TV business finds itself at a critical
crossroads, with viewer erosion in the double digits each year, and the specter of advertising
dollars diminishing or disappearing for the broadcast and basic cable networks.

There is also the paradox of Amazon the e-commerce giant, with the deepest of pockets to
spend on premium cable (and Netflix) level content, and yet all its studio executives (including
Price) operate under corporate austerity. They may earn large salaries and bonuses, but they
all fly in economy class, even on long overseas flights; their office space is more warehouse
than penthouse; they prefer efficient email correspondence to time-sucking (schmoozing)
phone calls; and you’re much more likely to catch even the top brass eating takeout at their
cubicles than dining at The Ivy. The message they’re sending out to the entertainment
industry establishment is: we may be producing Hollywood product, but our corporate
culture is still rooted in Silicon Valley; we’ve got money to spend, not money to burn; we’re
not trying to impress anyone but our viewers. The prestige is in the quality of the product.

And prestige they’ve earned. From the first-ever Golden Globes awarded to a streaming
series—for transgender dramedy Transparent, to the well-deserved huzzahs for its alternative
history 1-hour sci-fi thriller pilot (and subsequent full series order) The Man in the High Castle,
based upon the Philip K. Dick novel and Executive Produced by Frank Spotnitz (see interview
in Chapter 6) and Ridley Scott (The X-Files and Blade Runner respectively—and their lists of
credits go on). Amazon has attracted such top-notch talent, from iconoclast Garry Trudeau’s
half-hour political dramedy Alpha House (think Veep with dudes—Amazon’s first scripted
18 Gamechangers

series ever); to Executive Producer Steven Soderbergh’s period 1-hour dramedy, Red Oaks
(green-lit to series last year); to The Shield creator/showrunner Shawn Ryan’s new series Mad
Dogs (full season order now in pre-production); to existential detective series Bosch based
upon Michael Connelly’s bestselling series of books (available to buy or download on your
Amazon Kindle, by the way); to securing legendary movie writer/director Woody Allen into TV
series development.

Like Netflix, Amazon Studios intends to produce original movies—up to 10 titles per year,
with a modest (by Hollywood standards) budget of $5–25 million per picture. Roy Price has
cited that he’d like to make distinctive indie-style fare akin to Whiplash, Birdman, Boyhood,
and character-driven period pieces in the ilk of Shakespeare in Love and The King’s Speech.
That would be the sweet spot for them. High quality, distinctive, fresh, most certainly outside
the box. And their movies may warrant a theatrical run in a theater, or land directly on Amazon
Prime. Their goal is not to upend the movie business with tentpole $100 million blockbuster
event movies that audiences love to see on the big screen and IMAX. Their goal, like Netflix,
is to shorten the wait time between the movie cineplex and home screen. Price’s belief is that
audiences will rush out and see the movies they’re most excited to see, and wait to see other
movies, often more intimate character-driven stories, when they become available on-demand.

A personal favorite quote comes from a remarkably revealing interview that Price did in early
2015, with Entertainment Weekly’s James Hibberd. Roy Price mused, “It occurred to me that
it’s actually very common for really interesting new shows to come from either a new network
or one that is not doing very well. I would put us [Amazon Studios] in the category of ‘new,’
not in the latter category. You have that hunger and that desire to do something interesting.
I think the key is to preserve that mentality and keep your goal the same. To take chances, not
do the obvious thing. To do the interesting thing. That’s what we’re going to keep trying to
do both in TV and in movies.”

That was then, this is now.

Neil Landau: Amazon has reinvented the traditional network pilot season. You have your
audience rate and vote on the finalists, in different categories of your shows. What’s the
process prior to putting those shows on the audience ballot? And at what point are you
personally involved, in narrowing it down to those finalists?

Roy Price: Over the course of the year, we have a look at a lot of ideas and a lot of scripts,
and so the most important thing that we do, prior to the pilots going up, is picking the pilots.
That begins with which deals to make in the first place, and which projects warrant further
script development. And then we have to decide ultimately which ones we’re going to make.
Most of the year, when we’re not producing pilots, we are focusing on pitches, and scripts,
and so on. Then we get to the point where we want to pick pilots. We pick them by taking
 Gamechangers 19

into account the strength of the script or scripts, who the team is, what the show’s about. And
then we just go into production on pilots.

NL: The mandate at FX, AMC, HBO and Showtime is to not make shows that could be considered
too conventionally broadcast network-y in form and style. . . . Is that an important distinction/
consideration in Amazon’s development/decision process, too—to think “outside the box”?

RP: We don’t have a formal mandate regarding the shows we should or should not make—we
just focus on finding interesting, unique shows with dynamic characters that we think our
customers will love.

NL: Are any of those cast-contingent? How often is casting a factor in green-lighting a pilot
into production?

RP: It’s always a factor—in the sense that if you don’t get someone who you think is going to
make it great, then there’s really no point in making it. And, so when you say you’re green-
lighting a pilot, you’re just doing that on the assumption that you’re not going to be
disappointed in the casting process. Because if that doesn’t work out right, you’re not going
to shooting the pilot.

NL: So without Gael Garcia Bernal’s extraordinary central performance in your delightful
series Mozart in the Jungle, one of my personal favorites, you’re not making that show
at all.

RP: Right. So far, to date, we’ve never had the experience of saying we are going to make the
pilot and then being unhappy with casting and cancelling it. It’s theoretically something that
I could imagine, but it hasn’t actually happened.

NL: One of the main reasons I believe the broadcast network pilot model is defective is that
they’re all on the same schedule, and everybody’s chasing after all of the same actors, all at
the same time; it creates gridlock and diminishes choice. But with your model, you guys are
not on that timeline, you can make as many pilots as you want, when you want, and you’re
not going to the ‘Upfronts’ in New York to cajole and shill for network affiliates. Your affiliates
are your e-commerce shoppers. You already have our eyeballs and credit cards at the ready;
we get to vote and chime in on the process, and we may or may not be a factor in a series
going forward. And then it’s not a 22-episode commitment. I would imagine that freedom
helps enormously in securing talent both in front of and behind the camera.

RP: Yes, it does help to steer clear of that gridlock situation. So, we try to go a little before
then, or a little after.

NL: The resurgence of the limited series—American Horror Story, True Detective, Fargo—has
also proved that theory of making content off the traditional grid. And look at the quality, and
cultural impact those shows have made. I  feel Amazon also benefits by not having
commercials—which necessitate scripts with perfunctory act breaks and rigid time slots and
20 Gamechangers

all of those . . . I’ll call them old school things. And the new generation is growing up with kind
of an agnostic sense of TV networks and branding. The idea of watching a show when it’s on
is completely alien to them. So when I see a digital streaming network that’s AVOD, I feel
that’s behind the curve. And Amazon and Netflix seem to be so far ahead of it. To me, you
guys are the future.

RP: Good, me too! Thank you.

NL: Do you foresee Amazon stepping up its production of original content, or taking a step
back and acquiring content from other sources (via YouTube, TV studios, pods) and becoming
more of a distributor of content than a developer and producer?

RP: You know, I  suspect that it will be helpful and somewhat important for us to produce
original content, to play a very direct role in managing our flagship content, for a while.
I mean, I think that the problem’s going to be content from third parties. But I don’t anticipate
not doing original content, things are going to have to change quite a bit—and I  don’t
anticipate that.

NL: Since you’re not programming based on fixed timeslots, can you foresee TV episodes,
like books, being of varying lengths on Amazon?

RP: In theory, we could do kind of any length we want. However, there is an incentive to
standard lengths, which is, to the extent that you want to increase your investment by
licensing out to other people; ultimately, syndicating the show wherever. If you have it at a
standard length that makes it more doable, than if you have it some weird length that no one
can fit into their TV schedule. Then it’s going to be hard to sell the show. So, there is an
incentive to stick with more or less standard length. We could always decide that we’re not
going to do that, in a particular case, but if it’s otherwise all the same, then you might as well
do it as a normal, or a normalish length.

NL: Are foreign sales (how will a given series will play or franchise internationally) a
consideration for you in green-lighting shows?

RP: No, we don’t pick shows that way. If it has strong, international demand, that would be a
bonus, but it’s very important to be able to focus on just getting the greatest possible show.
And not trying to bear in mind 7 factors you’re trying to predict, you know, be it this will
happen or that will happen. We just focus on one factor, like, “Is this going to be a great
show?”

NL: That’s very refreshing. I love hearing that. As Jill Soloway [showrunner/creator, Transparent]
has proven, when somebody has a vision, and you don’t kind of mess with it too much, you
get something very special and unique, and then, the audience and the accolades follow. It’s
an interesting contradiction, in a way. You’re driving traffic to your shopping site, and yet what
you’re saying is quality trumps algorithm; creativity trumps calculating demographics?
 Gamechangers 21

RP: Yes. I think there was a way of thinking about television maybe at an earlier time, when
it was more about trying to produce a comedy, or trying to produce a cop show, or whatever
it was . . . and the network has some ideas about how to do that effectively based on their
audience research data and their career experience. And so, to some extent, the studio and
the network might be doing their jobs to ensure that a show is going to be a success based
on what’s been successful in the past, and if it fits their brand and audience. But in our case,
we feel a little differently in that we really want the show to be unique. I don’t want to sound
like I’m disparaging anyone, or making it sound like other people don’t want their show to
be unique or don’t want their show to be great; I‘m not saying that. From our point of view,
we’re looking for a show that people will recognize as being unique, have a unique voice,
and be somebody’s favorite show. That means it’s going to have to come from a specific
place. And that’s going to be the artist’s voice. So, for us, doing a show is not about telling
someone how to make a TV show, it’s really like trying to, if anything, help them realize their
vision.

NL: Now that you’re making deals with people like Woody Allen, can you foresee your online
audience voting pilot process being circumvented in certain instances?

RP: Of course, there could be exceptions—and obviously the exception with Woody Allen’s
case. But by and large we’re pretty happy with where we are on that part of the process.

NL: There’s a rumor that Transparent didn’t garner high levels of viewer sampling or high
votes, but that the quality was so high that internally you guys decided to do it anyway, versus
something like The Man in the High Castle, which received huge amounts of attention from
the voters and very high marks. Was Transparent an exception because it was so unique and
different?

RP: There are a lot of different metrics that we look at. You get a lot of different flavors of
feedback and we take them all into account. We’ve always picked the show that we thought
has had the best chance of really breaking ground and breaking out. And that may not be the
show that has the most views, that has the most positive reviews, or anything like that.

NL: The only problem that I can see with some of your content is that we have to wait a long
time for it, a year or two for all new episodes of something as ambitious as The Man in the
High Castle.

RP: Yeah!

NL: But you have all this interest and buzz right now!

RP: It will make it that much easier to promote the series when all the episodes come.

NL: At the same time, there’s a difference to a Netflix show, which just releases them all—
including the pilot—immediately, as they don’t have the pilot process. And that gives them
(and Crackle and Hulu) the ability to save money on production, because they can shoot out
22 Gamechangers

all their locations. But once Amazon decides they want to order a season of the series, you
guys have to gear up the whole production machine again . . . and figure out how to make
the show beyond the pilot, with a delay to re-launch. In a sense, you have to start back not
quite at square one, but go back and reset everything. Can that production/business model
be a challenge to making the subsequent episode up to the same quality as the pilot?

RP: I don’t think that would be a problem, in terms of making the same quality. I don’t know
why it wouldn’t be the same quality.

NL: I’m thinking about the bumpy history of The Walking Dead. Frank Darabont [series
creator/original showrunner] made a pilot that was movie quality. And then he ran into
problems with AMC because they wanted something that was going to be easier (and
cheaper) to produce. And we all know how that turned out [Darabont got fired; protracted
lawsuits; new showrunners every other year]. But it seems like you guys have such a strong
in-house production team in place that you have been able to transcend those kind of
problems?

RP: We haven’t had any problems to date doing any of the pilots, doing the show. So it seems
to be working pretty smoothly.

NL: I know Amazon Studios eschews any kind of advertising, embedded advertising, product
placement other than Kindles. In the future, can you envision a time in which a viewer could
watch an Amazon show, see a character wearing a particular jacket, for example, and be able
with 1 click to purchase that item of clothing? Could there be an interactive component to
your shows, where there’s an interface between scripted and purchased?

RP: I  don’t think we would do that with a show like Transparent, or something like that.
Maybe there would be a universe where you could have that kind of show that might just be
its own thing, rather than trying to combine it with a regular show. People have talked about
that kind of thing for, I don’t know, 15–20 years. I don’t think that’s ever going to be a real
thing where that’s a big deal, where you’ll watch particular shows and you can click on
somebody’s sweater and then you buy it. Maybe there’s another format that is really optimized
for that, that could work. But, I wouldn’t see it as being an important part for our traditional
shows.

NL: Does Amazon Studios have a “Standards and Practices” department? Besides outright
pornography, are there any limitations in terms of language and nudity?

RP: No.

NL: Will the Open Submission Policy continue in 2016 and beyond? David Anaxagoras (see
interview in Chapter  13) was a student of mine at UCLA many years ago. I’m so proud of
David and I love Gortimer Gibbons—so congrats on its success, too!

RP: Yes, open submission policy will continue. That’s fantastic, we love working with David.
 Gamechangers 23

NL: What about a situation where audiences could participate in the direction of the show, in
plot points? Not just via message boards, but where there could actually be an interactive
component of the show, where the audience could decide, even from the pilot, different story
choices or different forks in the road for your characters? Not for all of your shows, but has
that ever been something that might be desirable to create interactive programming, almost
like somewhere between a scripted show and a gaming kind of experience?

RP: Maybe! That could be cool. Never say never. But games exist: which are video based,
where you make choices. In a way it already exists, people like it, and it’s a thing. [AUTHOR’S
NOTE: Amazon acquired Twitch, the video gaming streaming service where users are able to
watch other players’ video games, in August  2014.] But maybe there’s another version?
I mean, I think we would be interested in experimenting.

NL: Last, can you share any specifics about your slate of original movies?

RP: We’ll definitely have movies in 2016. Up to 12 movies a year.

NL: But no titles announced yes . . . unless I’m wrong?

RP: No, no. No titles yet.

NL: You don’t want to put something out there for when this book hits the shelves, generate
some advance buzz?

[crickets]

See what I mean? The Wild Card.

HULU
Beatrice Springborn: The Vanguard

S
ince joining Hulu as Head of Original Programming in 2014, Beatrice Springborn has
been instrumental in significantly upping its game.

Launched in 2008 as a joint venture between Fox, Disney, and NBCUniversal Television
Group (Comcast), Hulu was originally intended as an AVOD (advertising-supported video on
demand) “second window” (a fancy millennial term for reruns) for their collective libraries of
content, along with short videos and movies. So if you missed an episode of Parks and
Recreation, Grey’s Anatomy or Family Guy, for example, you could catch up on Hulu for free,
but with limited commercial interruptions (although fewer breaks than on broadcast network,
and more targeted, often high quality ads). In Mandarin, the word “hulu” is used in an ancient
Chinese proverb, that describes the Hulu as the “holder of precious things.” Its literal
translation in English is “gourd.”
24 Gamechangers

In 2010, Hulu launched its SVOD alternative Hulu “Plus” whose subscribers gain access to
episodes in HD (when available) from ABC, Fox, NBC and The CW the day after they air. At
its Upfront presentation in April  2015, Hulu streamlined and dropped the “Plus” from its
name, though offering the same service. A  few months later, the platform launched a No
Commercials plan for an additional $4 per month. Hulu in fact leads the industry in
engagement among the ad-supported, online video sites and is first when it comes to the
market share of premium online video providers—it delivers 1 in 3 of all premium video ads
in the US. For subscribers on its Limited Commercials plan, the company is introducing
custom integrated commercials for marketers: 30 second ad spots that bring a marketer’s
brand values together with Hulu’s, in a shared, branded story. Currently, Hulu is only available
to users in the US and its overseas territories. International expansion may happen in the
future; at the moment they are blocked by IP address. Right now, Hulu’s priority is the growth
of its US business.

In 2011, Hulu began its foray into long-form original content with the documentary series, A
Day in the Life, from Morgan Spurlock (Academy Award Nominated Director of Super Size Me);
each episode followed a leading edge person around for 24 hours, including Richard Branson,
will.i.am and Russell Peters. Hulu’s first scripted series was 2012’s Battleground, a mockumentary
half-hour comedy about an inept group of campaign staffers working to elect a dark horse
candidate to the US Senate in the ‘battleground’ state of Wisconsin. In 2012, Hulu premiered
Up to Speed, the history/travel series from Academy Award nominated Richard Linklater.

Hulu’s subsequent original offerings included: the ever-popular, controversial, life-affirming,

half-hour teen drama, East Los High (which is the first show on a streaming network with an
all-Latino cast, see Chapter 5); the comic western Quick Draw; edgy animated with-inferiority-
complexes series The Awesomes (from Seth Meyers and Mike Shoemaker); half-hour
paranormal comedy Deadbeat starring Tyler Labine; the dramedy action-adventure British
import The Wrong Mans starring James Corden and Mathew Baynton; docu-series Behind
the Mask, which chronicles the trials and tribulations of sports mascots; The Hotwives of
Orlando (parody of The Real Housewives), and more.

Beatrice Springborn earned her MFA at UCLA in the Department of Film, Television and
Digital Media’s illustrious Producers Program. Springborn started her career in development
at Pixar on such films as Finding Nemo and Ratatouille; she was Executive Vice-President of
TV and Film Production at Gale Ann Hurd’s Valhalla Motion Pictures (producer of The Walking
Dead); she subsequently served as Senior VP at Caryn Mandabach Productions (Nurse Jackie,
Peaky Blinders); and later at Storyline Entertainment (for producers Craig Zadan and Neil
Meron: Chicago, Drop Dead Diva, MTV’s Happyland).

During Springborn’s relatively short tenure at Hulu, she’s guided several, high profile original
series to fruition: event series 11/22/63 from Stephen King and J.J. Abrams starring James
Franco; comedy series Difficult People, a half-hour cringe-inducing—in a good way—dramedy
produced by Amy Poehler and Dave Becky (Louie), created by and starring Julie Klausner,
 Gamechangers 25

co-starring Billy Eichner (Funny or Die/Fuse TV’s Billy on the Street); Casual, the first SVOD
comedy series from Zander Lehmann (see Chapter  13) and Academy Award-nominated
director Jason Reitman (Juno, Up in the Air); The Way, a 1-hour drama about a family at the
center of a faith-based (cult?) movement, created by A-list showrunner Jason Katims (Friday
Night Lights, Parenthood) from Universal Television/Katims’ True Jack Productions; The
Hotwives of Las Vegas—follow up to The Hotwives of Orlando, which presents a fresh crop of
the botoxed spouses, this time in Sin City; the first long-form project from Freddie Wong and
the RocketJump team; and Season 4 of The Mindy Project.

Between 2014 and 2015, Hulu also announced Season 3 pick-ups for its hit original series
Deadbeat, East Los High and The Awesomes. Hulu’s first big bona fide buzz came from the
announcement of 11/22/63, based upon the bestselling (aren’t they all?) novel by Stephen
King, and starring the ubiquitous—in a good way—James Franco as a present-day English
teacher who finds a time portal and goes back to prevent the assassination of JFK; the limited
series hails from J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot Productions, under showrunner/series creator
Bridget Carpenter (Parenthood, Friday Night Lights, see Chapter 6).

On the acquisition side, Hulu has made big buys for reruns of recent juggernauts Fargo,
Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Empire, along with the entire collection of Seinfeld, and all 18
seasons of South Park. Hulu has also acquired wide swaths of programming from Fox and FX
(including The Strain and Wayward Pines), AMC (including The Walking Dead companion
series, Fear the Walking Dead), TNT, TBS, Adult Swim, BBC, and Cartoon Network (including
The Last Ship, Robot Chicken and Aqua Teen Hunger Force). Also exciting is Hulu’s agreement
with Showtime, which from July  2015 brought all Showtime series to the platform for an
additional monthly $8.99, including hit movies and documentaries.

Springborn’s boss, former Warner Bros Television and Fox Broadcasting Network veteran
exec Craig Erwich, Hulu’s SVP Head of Content, summed it up best in Adweek (4/26/155):
“We have a lot of momentum and we plan to capitalize on it.”

The Vanguard and my fellow UCLA alum, Beatrice Springborn, couldn’t agree more.

Neil Landau: How is Hulu different than other digital streaming networks?

Beatrice Springborn: From the beginning, we’ve been focused on last night’s TV. But, unlike
Netflix and Amazon, we’ve always been in the TV business. Our audience is very aware of
television and the landscape, and specifically on broadcast network television. That’s changing
for us. We’re moving more in the direction of adding premium cable level, acquisitions and
originals.

Neil: Right now, you are on the low side of a subscription fee, but there are commercials. As
you move into the premium realm, will you still offer a Limited Commercials plan?
26 Gamechangers

Beatrice: We’ll continue to have both the Limited Commercials and No Commercials options,
at least in the foreseeable future.

Neil: As a forward-thinking company that skews to a young, diverse audience, aren’t

commercial breaks becoming anachronisms?

Beatrice: I don’t think so. Our audience values having easy access to last night’s TV [on Hulu
Plus’ subscription service], and the last 4 or 5 episodes of their favorite shows [free on Hulu.
com]. I think people recognize that costs something. We pay a high premium and our users
recognize we’re providing a service and are OK having a few ads to have that luxury.

I also think there are other ways to look at commercials. You can have sponsors in the way that
Mad Men did with Lincoln, that made that experience more enjoyable. You could watch the
premiere of Mad Men and only have 1 commercial at the beginning and the end. That gives
some brands value, because who doesn’t want fewer ads? It really depends on the audience
too. I look at my 16-year-old cousin who watches YouTube and considers those ads part of the
programming. They’re entertaining and geared towards him. Something Hulu is trying to do
is to make sure that our ads are serving the audience and are targeted enough that it’s
something they’d like. Ad technology is changing where we can have it not be annoying. It has
been surprising to me how the YouTube generation has embraced that as part of the
experience.

Neil: Amazon doesn’t do product placement except for their Kindle. Crackle does embrace
product placement and embedded advertising to defray costs. It sounds like they’ll go to
a 1-sponsor model in the future. Assuming that commercial breaks every 10–15 minutes
will change, do you think that will change how content creators structure their scripts? The
training for the longest time was: you needed act breaks. In 1-hour drama, it used to be 4
acts [commercial breaks], now most broadcast and basic cable networks have 5 acts;
Shonda Rhimes’ shows have 6. Will story telling without commercials and geared toward
‘binge viewing’ change how content is created? How are you approaching your Originals
now?

Beatrice: We’ve had our writers write to the natural act breaks. We’re looking at run times for
dramas that vary from 40–62 minutes. On the comedy side, we’re looking at 15–25 minutes.
We’re open to both the advertising model and the run time, and the structure and the
number of ad breaks. The great thing is that it’s been a case-by-case, show-by-show decision,
which is another big benefit to streaming. I remember when I first started this job, going to
my boss [Craig Erwich], and I said, “It’s short. What should our run time be?” I had all these
typical television questions. And we both come from more traditional backgrounds. Craig
said, “We can do whatever works for the show.” And that was a new thing for me. It was never
what works for the show, but this is what we do at Hulu—make the show fit. I think there’s a
lot more room for tailoring to the quality of the show, versus tailoring to the network’s rigid
timeslot.
 Gamechangers 27

Neil: That’s liberating for creators. Another thing that’s liberating is not being beholden to
overnight ratings. What is the pilot to series process like at Hulu Originals? Netflix goes to
production order; Amazon has its audience testing. What’s your model?

Beatrice: In regards to Netflix, someone told me that the pilot straight-to-series process is
deceptive, because they are also developing a lot that may never get ordered straight to
series. So there’s this “in between” a pilot and a straight-to-series order.

Neil: With House of Cards, it was straight to series, 2 full seasons ordered from the get-go;
I  suppose it depends on the auspices and how badly a network wants a new project.
Obviously everyone develops pilot scripts, but do you shoot a pilot first then have a test?

Beatrice: No, we’ve been doing straight to series. With 11/22/63, which came to us as a
book, and a pitch or a show bible, we went straight to series because it was J.J. Abrams and
Stephen King. With the Jason Reitman project [Casual] what was really interesting was that
came to us with 2 scripts.

❝
It’s much easier to go straight to series if you have a
second script. The pilot’s one thing, but the second
script shows you that they can deliver. It’s not a magic
8-ball that predicts what the series will be, but shows
you they can carry on the arcs.
❞
So we went straight to series after seeing a second episode with a first-time writer, and Jason
overseeing. On Difficult People, we got that as a rough pilot, that came out of turnaround
from USA Network because they stopped doing comedies. It’s always good to see that proof
of concept. But if there are auspices who can deliver and bring in an audience, that’s essential.
Another piece is that there is huge competition for high-end showrunners and creators. So
with those, we’ll typically go straight to series. We do have a development process. We
haven’t shot a [traditional] singular pilot yet. If we did, it would be for a variety show, which
we’ve been talking about, something where we’d need to tweak the format before we
launched it. And I don’t know that we’d call it a pilot. It would be shooting some episodes to
get the format right and then go.

Neil: For some, it’s part of their production model to go straight to series, because they can
block shoot and it’s more cost effective.

Beatrice: It’s hard when someone doesn’t come from the TV machine even on the streaming
side. You have to maintain a schedule and you’re working with huge budgets. You still have
to maintain a very grueling schedule. Jason Reitman hadn’t worked in TV before but he really
28 Gamechangers

adjusted quickly; he’s great. He was very deferential, which we didn’t expect from someone
at that level.

Neil: Is there a brand to a Hulu Original in terms of demographic; is there a certain DNA that
a Hulu Original needs to have?

Beatrice: If you look at our current shows, Difficult People and Casual—I’d say on our comedy
side we are looking for very singular points of view. In this case, for Casual, it was a relative
newcomer, Zander Lehmann, who has an amazing, unique voice. Same with Difficult People,
which is Billy Eichner and Julie Klausner. Billy did Billy on the Street and Julie was the creator.
Again, the two of them together were voices we hadn’t heard or seen before. I think Hulu skews
younger, 18–34 is our largest demographic. But we still have to appeal to a broad audience.
We don’t want to be super niche. I  think something like 11/22/63 will appeal to a wide
audience; my father will watch, and with James Franco, we’ll pull in the 18–34 audience, too.

Something else we discovered, which goes to your question about the way television is
heading in terms of a diverse angle and the Empires of the world. We have a show called
East Los High. It’s a small show that broke out for us in a huge way. Not just how it did on the
site, but it brought in a completely new audience, who then discovered other shows on Hulu.
We want to look at audiences that we aren’t serving, who will then stay because a huge part
of Hulu is discovery. We have Korean dramas, and shows you probably have never heard of.

Neil: I  discovered the Channel 4 show Run on Hulu (see interview with Daniel Fajemisin-
Duncan and Marlon Smith at www.routledge.com/cw/landau). I’ve heard it’s ending its run;
it’s dark and depressing, but multicultural, gritty, and extremely well produced. Each episode
focuses on a different character from a different ethnic group and socioeconomic stratum.
They’re stand-alone, individual episodes. Meanwhile, Crackle is still in the business of trying
to do hybrids or procedurals because of Sony’s international business. Netflix and Amazon
have proven that serialized is fine. Is there a mandate at Hulu Originals for closed-ended
episodes versus heavily serialized?

Beatrice: For our Originals, we’ve been trying to focus more on open-ended, although on the
acquisitions side we offer a lot of procedurals. We’re complementing that on the Originals
side. One of the reasons we are focusing on variety shows is that they are clippable. So many
people got into Hulu through SNL, The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. So we want
something like that, which we own. We can clip it and drive people to Hulu.

Neil: Despite the omnipresent challenges of combating piracy, Netflix is rapidly expanding
into other countries. For Sony Crackle, content with international appeal is important. What
about for Hulu?

Beatrice: It’s less important, because we are completely domestic. But we are trying to find a
balance because we take on studios for projects and they always have an international
interest. It’s about finding projects that we can exploit in the US. We certainly don’t want to
do shows that don’t have any international component, but it’s not the driver for us.
 Gamechangers 29

Neil: It’s the same for Amazon Studios, and they have a huge advantage with Originals due
to a steady retail revenue stream; consequently, they don’t necessarily care about ratings.
They’re just driving traffic to their e-commerce site.

Beatrice: On the negative side, they made how many shows before Transparent—maybe 30
pilots? But on the positive side for us, looking at the next phase of our Originals: it only takes
one. It’s encouraging. It only took one Transparent for them to become the talk of the town.
It’s interesting that, after you have one, everything before it becomes irrelevant.

Neil: “Second windows” used to be called syndication, and Hulu has become a dominant
destination for catch up/repeat viewing. Now that you’re making Originals, will you become
your own second window? But with the huge syndication deals that people were accustomed
to, how will that work with a Hulu Original?

Beatrice: On the Originals side, we are just starting to get into how we’ll structure deals.
There are a couple of different models. Some will take a piece of foreign and we won’t. We
don’t have the capability to sell foreign. That’s one way. It depends on the deal. It’s a hard
question because we’re only on 3 Original productions at this point. Right out of the gate,
so much of our focus has been on establishing the Originals brand. Second, I’d say driving
subscriptions is a huge part of the business to monetize in other ways, besides just
content.

Neil: But if one of your Originals becomes a monster hit, ad time rates will go up exponentially,
and then you’d get to double-dip ad sales and subscription revenue, right?

Beatrice: I think the other flip side of that is how much value second windows are having.
A show like The Blacklist sold for $2 million an episode, which was a record-breaking sale. We
had a call on a show where they were on the fence about ordering a second season and they
said, “We’ll order a second season, if Hulu picks up the second season’s second window,
because that will drive 60% of the budget on that show.” If you’re looking at a $2 million
budget and we pay $1.2 million—that’s huge. That’s going to be interesting, seeing people
competing for those rights.

Before Hulu was seen as, “Why have them there and on linear?” But they’ve seen with Empire
that we are just another marketing tool for the show. And they’re still seeing the benefits.
Same with a show like MANH(A)TTAN. That show found a huge audience on Hulu, and it
helped drive ordering a second season. Not only were they getting the marketing, but the
revenue for that second window to finance the second season.

I think on the acquisitions side, it’s more apparent how you’re advertising and marketing. On
the Originals side there are so many different ways to go and it’ll take experimentation.
Especially on the deal side, where every other week we’re seeing a deal that’s different.

Neil: It totally makes sense that Hulu would want to make Originals.

Beatrice: Beyond just working with studios, we want to have ownership.

30 Gamechangers

Neil: You’ve always been in the TV business, but Netflix, Amazon, and Crackle are making
original movies now. How about Hulu?

Beatrice: 11/22/63 is like a 9-hour movie; even though a limited series is typically not the
most financially savvy way, it’s a big event series. But we have definitely talked about
doing movies and more miniseries. We have the Criterion collection, which is huge for us
and our subscribers. We’ve looked to that and talked about it. But it hasn’t been our
primary focus. We want our audience to fall in love with our ongoing series and develop
long-term relationships with characters. That’s how Hulu started. That’s how we’ll evolve,
and sustain.

SONY CRACKLE
Andy Kaplan: The Nimble Pragmatist

A
ndy Kaplan is President, Worldwide Networks, for Sony Pictures Television (SPT),
head of the company’s global cable and satellite television networks and investments,
including linear, video-on-demand and subscription VOD services. Kaplan has a long
career with the company. He was Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Executive Vice-President of
the worldwide television group, having joined in 1987 as Vice-President. From 2000–2002,
Kaplan was chairman and CEO of digital media company Hollywood Stock Exchange. He
previously served in executive positions at Hal Roach Studios and Embassy Pictures.

Kaplan’s global purview includes oversight of branded networks, including AXN, Sony
Entertainment Television, Sony Channel, ANIMAX, GEM, and ONE, as well as a portfolio of
channels in India. SPT’s branded networks have 148 channel feeds in 178 countries, reaching
an astonishing 1.2 billion cumulative households throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East,
Latin America and Africa. Kaplan oversees Crackle, the studio’s multi-platform video
entertainment network, available in 21 countries across multiple connected devices.

Under Kaplan’s guidance, Crackle recently unveiled its ‘Always On’ programming, a linear
TV-like experience in addition to its on-demand offerings. In the US, Kaplan’s oversight
includes Sony Movie Channel (SPT’s first US multi-platform television network), as well as Cine
Sony Television and the broadcast digi-net, getTV. He is responsible for SPT’s majority equity
interest in multimedia entertainment company GSN, which offers original and classic game
programming, and competitive entertainment via its 80-million subscriber television network
and online game sites. Kaplan is Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of NATPE and
chairman of the Board of Governors of the USC Annenberg School’s Center for the Digital
Future.
 Gamechangers 31

Neil Landau: I’d like to talk to you about Crackle. Was it your creation?

Andy Kaplan: Crackle came into the Network’s group a few years ago, and we integrated it
as part of our global network portfolio.

NL: As a Japanese-owned company, in accordance with FCC rules, Sony Pictures Television
doesn’t operate a broadcast network. With the repeal of Fin-Syn6 in the 1990s, all US-owned
networks are now vertically integrated and linked to studios (e.g., ABC/Disney, CBS/Paramount,
NBC/Universal). Sony doesn’t have that sweetheart deal arrangement. However, now that
content distribution is moving to the digital/streaming space, is Crackle TV a path to Sony’s
network de facto ownership?

AK: In a way, yes. Sony doesn’t own a US broadcast network as traditionally identified by
owning local television stations, or network affiliates, or a general entertainment channel.
What we do have is the Game Show Network, and niche movie networks. Certainly in the US
we do not have the same level of assets that our competitors do. Internationally we are
competitive, but in the US, no. So Crackle represents an alternative and a hedge strategy.
What’s different about Crackle than everything else you read about in the nonlinear space is
all those guys are subscriber-based channels. Crackle is advertiser supported, so it’s a little in
the middle of it all. It’s akin to a broadcast network in the sense that it’s one revenue stream.
It’s like Hulu or Netflix in that it’s an environment to choose content on-demand on a nonlinear
platform. It’s somewhere in between. A lot of advertiser money is moving to digital.

NL: Why is being advertiser-supported the best model for Crackle—despite the limitations of
Standards and Practices, which necessitate tamer content?

AK: It’s true, we are beholden to what advertisers want advertised. So if some of our content
goes too far, then we’re not going to sell advertising. But we can push the boundaries. I think
our model works because our core business for our media networks group is essentially your
traditional cable network, which is a dual revenue stream business—subscriber fees and
advertising. In most cases we don’t play in the premium subscriber world, like an HBO, which
is about paying $15 and getting premium, original content. We view Crackle as a nonlinear
cable network as opposed to an on-demand place. It’s curated, it’s programmed. The thought
process is more along the lines of a network. We feel it is an alternative. Originally it was
about library movies and TV shows, and then you evolve. The natural evolution is better, more
current movies and TV, and we see advertising dollars moving from traditional linear television
and we want to grab some of those dollars. And we’ll look to have a second revenue stream
down the road.

The thing that distinguishes us, both for the consumers and advertisers, is the original
programming. It was always going to be over a period of years—better movies and series
and ultimately originals. At some point you get to a pie chart where you’ve hit your sweet
spot, which will be as many current movies as you can afford, some exclusivity, and a certain
percentage of original programs. That’s the model. The thing you wait for is timing. You
32 Gamechangers

wait for the audience to find you, and advertising dollars to shift enough from television to
this world. More dollars get allocated to it, such that there’s a business to be made from
bringing in that kind of advertising against your cost. We’re probably in the third inning of
that conversation. And it seems to be the only conversation anyone wants to have these
days.

NL: In today’s world of so many choices, in which the audience doesn’t care how much
content costs, just that it’s good, and Netflix, HBO, and Amazon are spending bundles of
money, what would you say of Crackle’s current strategy of keeping production costs down?

AK: We’re evolving and so each round of programming will inevitably be a little more
expensive and ambitious. It’s not a mission statement to make lower cost shows, it’s just what
we’ve been able to afford. As we compete more, and as our revenues grow, it’s time to be a
more significant producer. There are so many places for a producer to sell your show. We
need to be on the list.

How are we different? We never do a pilot. We go direct to series. In that respect, we can
make that commitment. What’s important for producers and talent is that so far, we don’t
make 22 or long orders, which in this case, is a positive for actors who want to drop in and do
something for 4 months and then a movie, it gives them flexibility. We are all working under
the new media union rules that give you a break on cost. We started in Los Angeles, and now
we are going all over the world—tax breaks and so forth—the usual tricks of the trade to keep
costs down. We are not encumbered by history and legacy; in other words, we produce our
shows and we don’t have a whole lot of “We’ve done it this way” history. We’ve only been
around for “5 minutes,” so we aren’t burdened by comps. We can make up our own rules as
we go along. It’s refreshing.

You could never produce Sequestered [a Crackle Original Series] the way we did, for the
money we did, out of the traditional network television production division, because you
couldn’t sit side by side with the Blacklist [on NBC]. I think it’s important to remember the
Netflix model is different from the Amazon model and different from ours. Netflix is very
much like HBO. HBO can go out and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and you say,
“How can they do that?” It’s either a vehicle to get subscribers; a retention vehicle to keep
subscribers; or it’s an affiliate vehicle to keep them interested; or it’s marketing. If your
marketing budget is hundreds of millions of dollars a year, you take $100m production and
call it Rome. That’s marketing, because everybody sees it. And everyone knows it’s only on
HBO. And who can say what the right thing is? That’s an advantage they have over a
traditional network that has to be more responsive to a different set of rules and economics.
If Netflix spends millions of dollars an episode on a show like Marco Polo, but as a result
they get or keep a million subscribers at 8 bucks a month, that’s good business. Their job
is to gain and keep subscribers. At the end of the day, if not a lot of people are watching
Marco Polo, it doesn’t really matter, unless the audience decides to cancel their
subscriptions.
 Gamechangers 33

Amazon is a totally different model. People talk about Amazon and Netflix in the same
breath, but they’re different. Amazon is an e-commerce site that is in the video business
as a way to get people in their store, and to retain and keep them in the store. Their
economic model is different than anybody else. Amazon just needs you to buy Amazon
Prime so you get free shipping and shop in their store. I don’t know how they measure the
video part, in terms of the benefit of it. As a result of that, they can make up their own
rules, making multiple pilots and having their audience vote on and pick them. These are
the things scaring the traditional companies who usually have to play by the traditional
rules.

NL: Given that Crackle circumvents the traditional network pilot process and goes directly to
series order, I would imagine you can save quite a bit on production costs if you know you’re
going to shoot a whole season, block shooting, etc.?

AK: You can do it like they used to. You can be smart about it and be well planned, and more
efficient. And not get caught in the same traps, like “This actor is only available in 3 weeks,
and he’s the only actor in the world for this part.” That’s the human nature of the production
business. But that hasn’t happened to us too badly. Also, we are able to do something
innovative, like Joe Dirt 2. We have enough data about who is watching what on Crackle and
the old Joe Dirt movie was one of the most watched on Crackle. The audience loved it. It’s a
cult favorite. And it was a strong home entertainment title. So the idea of doing a sequel was
a natural. It started out over in development in the feature company, and was going to be a
$30–40  million movie. It never happened and we said, “We want to do it.” The budget
became slightly less, and everybody wanted to make the movie, so they did it for less. It’s
going to look like a $20 million movie, and I think it’ll do well. I think you’d be hard pressed
to do that at one of the networks.

NL: Your first Crackle Original movie was The Throwaways. Did that movie originate within
the movie division?

AK: No, it wasn’t a studio project. It was brought in by the producers. Part of it was our desire
to do a few original movies, but also a backdoor pilot with potential for a series. Our model
is, because we are part of the studio, we pay for a certain amount of a production out of the
Crackle budget. We also sell it internationally, to television and home entertainment globally.
We utilize those more traditional windows and revenue streams to supplement and contribute
a large part of the budget. I think what [senior Crackle executives] John [Orlando] and Eric
[Berger] are looking for, aside from economics, are exciting projects that will appeal to
Crackle’s core demographic, which is men 18–34, but also not to the exclusion of women.

NL: Do you foresee that demographic widening, changing? Or is that your target
demographic?

AK: We sort of fell into our demographic. In large part it was who was watching anyway, and
we built on that. We didn’t design Crackle to be a network for men aged 18–34. The traffic
34 Gamechangers

was coming in and we fished where the fish were biting. It just so happens that we landed in
a demographic of great demand to the advertisers, that is hard to reach. We were fortunate.
What will happen inevitably is you’ll plateau. You’ll have reached as much of that demographic
as you can and then you’ll say, “We need to be broader to bring in a wider variety of
advertisers.” And then you’ll try for 18–49. It’s the trap that many niche networks fall into. At
some point you limit yourself by the universe of a niche audience, and you need a wider
audience to grow. So you start to stretch the definition of what you are; you have to change
the definition or you box yourself in. I can see that happening to Crackle, but hopefully we’ll
be disciplined enough not to stretch the definitions too badly.

NL: With SVOD, where the audience is in charge of when and where and how they watch,
‘serialized’ isn’t a bad word anymore. Audiences can catch up or binge watch, and yet
Crackle’s current mandate is for scripted episodes with a closed-ended component. What’s
the philosophy behind that, international sales?

AK: That’s part of it. I grew up in the Norman Lear age; it was about syndication, getting
to 100 episodes, and each episode standing on its own so you could watch One Day at a
Time in any order and still follow the storyline. The syndication guys had a rule: when a
show was coming to an end and producers wanted to wrap it up with a nice bow, the
syndication sales guys wouldn’t let them do it. It was against the rules to have any kind of
closure. They wanted those shows recycled. It’s one of the reasons shows like CSI and
Law & Order are so successful and have such perennial lives. You can pick up an episode
and just watch it.

Creatively though, that’s not as interesting to some of the talent, or the HBOs and Showtimes
of the world. The answer is simply, it’s a different programming and economic model. It’s not
the business of taking a show with a 13-episode arc that completes. Those shows don’t
syndicate. The Sopranos, as great as it was, is not a perennial where you can just drop in to
episode 42, unless you’re a big fan. The whole backend has shifted in a lot of ways, and has
been replaced by SVOD. Breaking Bad [produced by Sony Pictures Television] was huge for
Netflix because you can binge watch it. So as the money from Netflix, Amazon or Hulu is able
to complement the syndication money, then creatively you can make shows like that. The kind
of shows that are being made—the creative issues, like arcs or episodic, who you’re making
them for, what your backend is, what the ultimate value is—how everybody’s thinking about
those things has changed dramatically.

An important part of Crackle’s revenue model is being able to sell internationally. You have to
have both. And if it were more of a 75-episode organic model, the international value would
potentially be more. We’ll do okay internationally. But the primary reason for doing a
13-episode Crackle Original series with a closed-ended plotline is that we believe it will bring
in a lot of viewership and advertising money and that will be the most important part of the
revenue stream. That’s why a lot of the networks have gone to these kinds of series as
opposed to 22 or multi-season, because that is what’s working right now and what audiences
 Gamechangers 35

want. They seem to like the closure. “It’s wrapped up and I can move on to my next thing.”
And then, maybe, we’ll see if they come back for another season.

NL: At the moment, one advantage that AVOD digital networks have over broadcast and
cable is that viewers are unable to skip over the commercials. But as the technology shifts,
and audiences can choose to fast-forward through the commercials on Crackle (and Hulu and
Yahoo), it seems inevitable that ad buys are going to decrease—then what?

AK: Advertising will need to become more nimble. You’ll have to do 5 minutes of commercials
ahead of the show that you can’t skip. You’ll have wraparounds, embedded advertising, and
product placement.

NL: Do you think we are going to still have advertiser-supported television in the next 5 years,
10 years?

AK: I do, no question. Companies need to spend money on marketing and advertising, so
you’ll know about their products and buy them. They have to find places to put them. Video
ads seem to be the most effective form of advertising for these companies. It’s not going to
go away. But I  will dispute one theory—that production costs have to go down for these
models to be sustainable. I  have been doing this for a long time and I’ve never seen
production costs go down. Production costs tend to defy gravity. Now, we are starting at a
slightly lower model, but I  don’t think Crackle’s shows are going to get less expensive to
produce. We’ll get more ambitious and want to do more. The shows will get bigger, with
bigger stars, and the costs will continue to go up. And network production isn’t going to get
cheaper. Now there’s so much television production. Thus the supply and demand curve
certainly favors the talent. You want to go find the best showrunners and they have options.
They have a lot of choice now.

NL: Are they going to trade autonomy for a lower paycheck?

AK: That assumes that these other buyers aren’t going to start managing their commissions
more closely. It’s easy to say, “Come to Netflix or Amazon and do whatever you want.” But
when Netflix is spending a billion dollars on production and they are staffing their departments,
why are they any different than NBC? If I’m Netflix and spending a billion dollars on content,
I want to make sure you are producing what I want you to produce, for the Netflix subscriber.

NL: But as of now, the Netflix and Amazon content creators are gleefully enjoying their
autonomy, and calling it a creative liberation.

AK: I’m sure that’s true right now, but I think that’ll shift. As the tens of millions of dollars
allocated get spent, those content distributors will inevitably start being more vigilant and
protective of their brands.

NL: Part of my thesis for the book is, because there is such an overwhelming amount of
choice—it seems like the quality will go up; with so many choices, only the highest quality,
provocative, buzz-worthy shows can survive. Do you agree?
36 Gamechangers

AK: ‘Quality’ means different things to different people. In my business, ‘success’ is defined
in many ways, mostly by the audience. Crackle doesn’t sell advertising unless people watch
the shows.

NL: What is Sony Crackle’s strategy in introducing the ‘Always On’ concept, which replicates
the experience of viewing TV, regardless of what type of device you are watching it on?

AK: One of our competitive advantages is that the Crackle product works, is easy to navigate,
is convenient, it’s intuitive and it can move from device to device seamlessly. People are used
to watching television in a particular way. The easier and more comfortable we make it for
them, technologically, coupled with great content, makes Crackle the place to come to, over
and over again.

CW SEED
Rick Haskins: The Marketing Guru

R
ick Haskins is Executive Vice-President of Marketing and Digital Programs at The CW
where he’s in charge of the network’s marketing, digital media strategies, and
development slate for The CW’s digital and emerging platforms, including CW Seed,
CW’s digital studio, and mobile/social media.

Haskins joined The CW in 2006, galvanizing its social media space and maximizing the niche
network’s online social media platforms on Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, and Twitter. Today,
The CW reaches more than 60  million Facebook fans of its content and almost 700,000
Twitter followers. The CW personalizes its marketing directly to their viewers’ ‘likes’ and
interests (courtesy of an algorithm). Haskins also oversaw the launch of the network’s mobile
and tablet app, featuring next-day, full-episode streaming of the network’s top content.

In 2012, Haskins spearheaded the launch of the network’s digital-only studio with original,
exclusively online content. Re-launching in the summer of 2013 as CW Seed, its first digital
series include Husbands, a satirical half-hour web series, created/executive produced by
Jane Espenson (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Once Upon a Time) and Brad Bell (Pop Up Video)
that explores a gay couple who inadvertently gets married while partying in Vegas—the
occasion being the legalization of gay marriage.

And speaking of inadvertent: Jane the Virgin, a 1-hour dramedy, centering on a virgin who
finds herself inadvertently pregnant, has received broad critical acclaim; based upon a
Venezuelan telenovela, The CW received its first ever major awards recognition this year for
the series, including an AFI Award, a Peabody Award, and its first ever Golden Globe
nominations, for best comedy series, and win, with Gina Rodriguez awarded best actress in a
television comedy. This also speaks to both The CW and Seed’s synergistic relationship to
 Gamechangers 37

their viewers’ appetites, akin to Netflix’s algorithmic “If you liked that, then there’s an
excellent chance that you’ll watch this.”

Case study: Play It Again, Dick. As evidenced by a record-breaking Kickstarter campaign by

legions of fans of former CW hit series, Veronica Mars, to fund a movie reboot; it was a
no-brainer for Seed to green-light a spinoff web series based on one of the series’ most
popular supporting characters: Dick Casablancas, played by Ryan Hansen, who also plays a
meta version of himself. Rose McIver appears as a guest star, as does Kristen Bell, who played
Veronica Mars, in this endearing, often wildly entertaining show.
Also on CW Seed’s original content roster is The P.E.T. Squad Files (an acronym for Paranormal
and Extra-Terrestrial activity); this mockumentary, originally inspired by Syfy’s Ghost Hunters,
is executive produced by Heroes alum Milo Ventimiglia—who has blazed the trail into digital
content as Executive Producer and star of the Sony Crackle half-hour action-thriller web
series, Chosen.

As a masterful marketer, Rick Haskins has been responsible for some of the industry’s most
notable and notorious campaigns, including The CW’s launch campaign and initial brand
image, the current ‘TV to Talk/Text/Blog/IM About’ campaign, the ‘OMFG’ and quote
campaigns for Gossip Girl, and my personal favorite: the ‘Catch VD’ campaign for The
Vampire Diaries (thankfully, the campaign didn’t go literally viral).

Prior to The CW, Haskins served as Executive Vice-President/General Manager for Lifetime
Television, where he helped the network become the highest-rated cable entity on television.
Previously, Haskins held a variety of positions for The Walt Disney Company, including Vice-
President, Marketing, Buena Vista Television and Director of Development, Reality
Programming, Buena Vista Television. Haskins’ roots were in brand management for Procter &
Gamble.

Neil Landau: Do you think that being at a small, niche network made it easier for The CW to
pivot and experiment more into the digital space sooner than the big broadcast networks?

Rick Haskins: Because our target audience is 18–34-year-olds, and they were already
exploring the digital space, we felt that it was necessary to be there for our consumer. So very
early on we started attacking that area. And because we’re small, we’re incredibly nimble and
didn’t have to go up a long line of different levels to get approval on anything. We pretty
much decided to do things with 2 or 3 of us in the room and then we were able to execute it.

NL: You were able to launch quickly. So your initial brand image was—“TV to Talk/ Text/ Blog/
IM About,” right?

RH: That’s right. In my entire career I’ve always understood that filling the needs of the
consumer is integral. And one of the things we did—we did these fun focus groups, but rather
38 Gamechangers

than being in traditional focus group rooms, we went around into people’s living rooms,
watching them watch TV.

❝
My “Aha!” moment came on a Monday night when I was
in someone’s house in the Midwest and there were these
2 young women sitting next to each other on a couch
and they were texting each other about Gossip Girl. And
I was going: “Wait a minute, you guys are next to each
other and yet you’re texting each other. What’s that all
about?”
❞

It was just their way of communicating and that is where we kind of did the LOLs and the
OMGs because that is the way they were talking about their favorite shows to each other.

NL: Well it’s also a way for them to comment on the action without talking over it.

RH: That’s exactly right. And we said we have a special brand that people are embracing and
really talking about in a very different way.

NL: Originally there was a dedicated cwtv.com site to check out missed CW shows. And then
you added bonus content around the most popular CW shows. How did you transition to
making original content specifically for Seed? One thing I read was that it was to fill the niche
underserved by the CW because all the shows were drama and you wanted comedy, and it
didn’t necessarily fit into the CW schedule?

RH: You’ve done your research well. Yeah, one of the things we really wanted to do was fulfill
the full CW brand and we knew that our target audience liked to laugh as well as have a good
cry when they watched dramas. Yet with our 10  hours only of product a week, we had
hour-long dramas and didn’t have any place for comedy. We felt that to truly fulfill the entire
CW brand we needed to provide a space where they could have comedy that had the brand
stamp of CW on it. And that was our initial charge for CW Seed.

NL: Was there ever talk of making it SVOD versus AVOD? How did you decide on the model
of how to fund it and to attract advertisers?

RH: Right now we are still happy with the AVOD model but that could change. It’s a question
we continually ask ourselves. What I do is I let the consumer be my North Star and really try
and give them what they want. And some of the things we learned early on are that to them
a screen is a screen is a screen, whether it’s a TV set, a computer, a tablet, or mobile phone.
If they can get the program that they want on it, they will be happy and to me that means that
convenience trumps quality.
 Gamechangers 39

NL: Why did The CW opt to see streaming rights to Jane the Virgin go to Hulu instead of
Seed or cwtv.com? I  would assume you’d want to control second windows on your own
exclusive platforms. Isn’t that going to cannibalize and pull away some of the viewers?

RH: Actually, Jane the Virgin is also available to stream on cwtv.com and on our mobile apps,
along with all our other primetime shows. Rather than exclusivity, in this instance our strategy
is ubiquity—which enables us to get the word out across multiple platforms.

NL: That’s been my biggest discovery in my research. In today’s media landscape, wherever
people see a show is beneficial because your branding is still part of it. They are going to
watch it and that will send them back over to the CW and to Seed and I guess it just creates
noise which is what any show wants.

RH: Yeah, I figured out that that is true, and one of the things that I can share with you is that
when we did the Hulu deal there was concern that we would be cannibalizing cwtv.com to an
extent that it would no longer be in existence, and just the opposite happened. What
happened is that cwtv.com streaming actually grew.

NL: Fascinating.

RH: I think the reason why it did is because we expanded our universe. It brought in new users
that we didn’t have before who toggled back and forth from Hulu to cwtv.com. Keep in mind that
we are on Hulu as well as Hulu Plus. On Hulu, you can watch our shows 8 days delayed; Hulu Plus
you can watch it the next day for a subscription fee; cwtv.com you can watch our shows for free.

NL: But with commercials.

RH: Right. So I do believe that people will kind of rotate from platform to platform depending
on what their available time is, how desperately they want to see a show and whether they
can afford subscription or not.

NL: A lot of people in the big cities that have much more discretionary income are much more
open to SVODs than the majority of the people, not only in the US but in different parts of the
world where having something free still has enormous value even over convenience.

RH: I agree. This is just my opinion, but I feel like in many ways we are SVODing ourselves to
death right now.

NL: Yeah, I  think so. I  talked to Evan Shapiro who’s starting up an NBCUniversal Digital
network—another SVOD. His model is going to be niche, for less than half the price of Hulu
Plus or CBS All Access; it’s being offered a la carte as “add-on” to, say, Netflix and HBO—with
unique live events, standup comedy, and improv. If they can establish some hits and bring in
some YouTube stars and people who have a following, then their strategy makes sense.

RH: I agree. Another kind of “Aha” moment from years ago was, I believe there is a rule of
thumb that the depth of channels TV consumers actually use is about 13. And I  was at a
conference and it was reported that the average number of apps consumers actually use is
also 13. Even though there are what—2 billion apps out there now? People kind of regulate
40 Gamechangers

themselves to the use of 13, just like the number of TV stations. And I think that you can get
to a point where you have so many things that you could go crazy and you need that finite
number to feel comfortable.

NL: I totally agree. Researching this book and viewing all the new digital content is essentially
a full-time job, and I can hardly keep up with it! Meanwhile, every single digital network is
expanding and investing billions in more original content. What are CW Seed’s plans for
expansion?

RH: I  could be totally on crack right now but I  can share with you our strategy and our
strategy is that we are going to be continuing to provide new fresh programming. We do
about 8 new shows a year. From the last year we pick up 2 or 3 of those shows and then add
5 new. What we are also doing is that we are going after a girth play of buying old catalogue
and library product to satisfy our audience’s appetite for binge viewing. If we can offer a
movie exclusive on our site, then hopefully that audience will also catch some of our other
content as well.

So that’s our strategy going forward: girth through catalog product and new comedy through
producing our own.

PIVOT
Jennie Morris: The Social Advocate

A
s Executive Vice-President, Acquisitions and Operations, Jennie Morris is tasked with
expanding Pivot’s slate of on-brand acquisitions, including series, films, documentaries
and specials. She is a seasoned television executive, with over 16 years of experience
in domestic and international programming and marketing. Prior to Pivot, Morris held the
position of Vice-President of Affiliate Marketing for AMC/Sundance Channel Global,
supervising trade, consumer and affiliate marketing activities. She was previously Senior
Director of Program Planning and Scheduling for Sundance Channel, and also spent 6 years
at Showtime Networks in roles including Senior Manager of New Media, Senior Manager of
International Business Development and Supervisor of Scheduling.

Launched in August 2013 by Participant Media,7 Pivot was formed through the acquisition of
2 channels, Halogen TV and the Documentary Channel, which provided Pivot with a base of
about 40 million TV subscribers, right out of the gate. Part of Pivot’s launch day included a
marathon of the first season of its critically acclaimed comedy series Please Like Me.

Original programming on Pivot now includes Hit Record on TV, the Emmy Award winning
variety show which co-creator Joseph Gordon-Levitt hosts; the Australian comedy-drama
Please Like Me, created, written by and starring Josh Thomas (which Pivot co-produces with
 Gamechangers 41

the Australian Broadcasting Corporation); and from the UK, the Sky Atlantic production,
Fortitude, a 1-hour murder-mystery series set in the Arctic, created by Simon Donald (AMC’s
Low Winter Sun), and starring Academy Award nominated and Emmy Award winning actor
Stanley Tucci.

Pivot TV is an ad-supported network that can be accessed either by set-top box, or online via
the Pivot TV app or the TV Everywhere apps of television providers (but only via a paid
television subscription). I strongly feel that Pivot’s unique mission statement and outside-the-
box programming are gamechangers in the digital television revolution. Historically, watching
TV has been a passive pastime, rendering viewers “coach potatoes” and “remote control
zombies.” Pivot not only aims to educate and entertain, it rouses its viewers to get involved
in social activism. It’s not just TV; it’s a call to action.

Neil Landau: Pivot has branded itself as a “disruptive TV service that focuses on social
advocacy.” Does that mission statement still hold true?

Jennie Morris: Like Participant Media, we focus on socially relevant content that inspires
social change, and has good storytelling at its core. That is really what we are looking for, and
focused on. We highlight socially relevant issues through media.

NL: When you first started in this space, there were far fewer digital networks and competition.
Has anything shifted in your strategy for programming to attract and “make noise”?

JM: The landscape is changing every minute of every day, but we are still full speed ahead on
our core goals of building viewership and distribution, around a cable television network that
will drive viewers to engage in content that is socially relevant, and take action around it. So,
we really are committed to this space. We’re sticking with it, and we’re trying to grow what
we’ve seen take traction, over the past less than 2 years.

NL: What percentage of what you do is developed, versus acquisition?

JM: My purview here at Pivot is that I  head up all acquisitions, research, scheduling, and
network operations. I don’t actually oversee original programming, but I work very closely
with Belisa Balaban, who does. We acquire approximately 70% of our scheduling and about
30% of our schedule is original programming.

NL: Do you primarily develop original content from in-house ideas, or does Belisa also buy
pitches and spec pilots?

JM: It’s a big mix. One of the things that’s so cool about Pivot is that we are able to develop.
We are able to take pitches and to acquire and build toward this one goal of socially relevant
content. So, it’s a unique environment. When you fall into the linear feed, you really know
where you are because of that; because of our ability to take what’s very traditional and
entertaining—and spin it on its head.
42 Gamechangers

NL: You’re a basic cable network that can also be watched online, right?

JM: We have an authenticated app, and you have to authenticate through your own television
provider. We offer both a linear feed, as well as a VOD offering. Certain providers also make
our linear channel and VOD content available via their own TV Everywhere apps. But currently
Pivot is not a direct-to-consumer or OTT (over-the-top) offering.

NL: How did Hit Record on TV with Joseph Gordon-Levitt come about, and end up on Pivot?

JM: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brian Graden and Jared Geller were shopping the show, and
when they came here, everyone was just enamored of it and jumped on it. So, we were very
lucky to launch with Hit Record on TV, which was huge for us. Obviously just having someone
like Joseph Gordon-Levitt attached to the project, when you’re building up to launch a new
network was and remains a tremendous opportunity.

NL: Could you talk about your trans-media strategy for the show?

JM: Yes, we actually first launched with a social action campaign around digital media literacy,
that led to some interesting social action work. That really spoke to something that was at the
forefront of what we were interested in when we launched, so that made it really special for
us, too.

NL: My initiation into Pivot’s programming was via Please Like Me—which is, more or less, a
gay (or bi) coming of age show, but even more about a uniquely dysfunctional family. Now I’m
assuming that was an acquisition. Josh Thomas had made at least a pilot?

JM: Yes, he was shopping the first season as a format, so the idea was to make an American
version of it. But when everyone at Pivot saw it, we thought it was beautiful as it is. So we
acquired the first season; we now produce Please Like Me as an original series, and we are
launching Season 3 in October 2015.

NL: It’s such a great show. Every aspect is idiosyncratic, and always surprising to me. It has
that feeling of like, Transparent, which is another show I  love. When I  interviewed Ted
Sarandos at Netflix, we were talking about companies that acquire formats and then remake
them in the local language. They came to him with the British format for Broadchurch and he
said, “You know it’s in English, right?” And then NBC remade it as Gracepoint and it didn’t
work, even with one of the original actors. Maybe Please Like Me could have been adapted
and succeeded (a la The Office), but I feel the charm and the specificity of where it’s set are
so integral to what makes the show work.

JM: It’s so special because he’s such a great talent and you don’t lose anything in translation.
We are so excited to have him because he really is authentic. The show also gives us the
ability to speak to some deeper issues around mental illness.

NL: Now that you’re heading into Season 3 of Please Like Me, how involved is Pivot with
reading outlines, and the direction of the series?
 Gamechangers 43

JM: It’s truly a Pivot original series now. We are the lead network so our executives are very
involved in the script notes, the production and the show itself, and Josh is wonderful to work with.

NL: Fortitude is a co-production with Sky Atlantic in the UK, correct?

JM: Yes, Fortitude is a co-production with Sky. We came on board early in the production of
Season 1 when another US network dropped out, and we’re working on Season 2 now. We all
jumped on it because again—it’s great storytelling.

❝
Fortitude is a dark murder-mystery, but it gives us the
ability to delve into deeper, meaningful issues, like
climate change, so it just felt like the perfect fit.
❞

It’s such a great thriller just on its own, but the idea that it touches on real issues, in a truthful,
meaningful way, was very important to us. The science behind Fortitude is real and we were
not only able to premiere the show to really good success for us, but also build out ancillary
content around the show, that speaks to the actual science behind it.

NL: Yes, I’ve clicked on the links to get further involved; those added features are the reason
Pivot is particularly exciting to me. So, when you are deciding on projects, social advocacy
must be an integral component?

JM: Most definitely. Every piece of content that we consider for our network is evaluated by
many metrics, but a core one of those is the social relevance. Not only the social relevance,
but does it fit into something that we are really interested in speaking to? And how do we
plan on addressing the issues that are in the content?

NL: How do you measure what’s successful? Do you use algorithms; are there any kinds of
ratings? What’s the metric here for success of the show?

JM: Truthfully, one of the biggest metrics is social impact, and how we specifically measure
that—we’re still figuring out our way. But obviously through the website and through actions
that people take online, we can see what content is resonating and which people feel strongly
about, whether it’s donating, or volunteering, or signing a petition. We can delve into what’s
really speaking to the audience; that’s very important to us and we do our own evaluation on
that—on everything that we air. And we also look at our distribution as a network, and see
that the shows that have been successful have driven additional distribution, so that’s also
important for us. In terms of viewership metrics—it’s still the really early days, so we haven’t
gone down that traditional path yet. But we’re looking at where we are and by all of our
means we see our reach growing; we see sampling growing, so we know we’re moving in the
44 Gamechangers

right direction. It’s just putting everything together in a holistic point-of-view, in terms of
whether or not we’re succeeding.

NL: Is the reach global?

JM: Pivot—the network—is currently just in the US, and some Caribbean territories.

NL: Do you deficit-finance your shows?

JM: We have a wide range of financing models with our original productions. Obviously, we
don’t have that many (yet), so we are still kind of evaluating and again it’s all part of the mix
of so many new platforms and international; we have an international sales agent, so
obviously that’s part of the evaluation. So I think it’s too early to say, “we do this and we don’t
do that.” We’re still figuring it all out and considering all options, as they develop.

NL: Yes—but a show like Fortitude is ambitious—and expensive.

JM: And that’s why having a co-producer like Sky is key for us on that series.

NL: If someone wants to watch it on a second window, is it going to be available on Netflix

or Amazon or iTunes?

JM: Fortitude is available on iTunes at the moment, and I promise you—Fortitude will live on
in multiple places!

NL: Yes, it’s not going to melt! What is your process for original content in terms of testing?
Do you make pilots, versus places like Netflix, Hulu and Crackle, who go right to series?

JM: We do both; we do have a green-light process that involves an evaluation from a variety
of departments, particularly social action, as I mentioned earlier. And then we do test some
of the content in some of those big series—it really depends on the show and other factors.

NL: Hulu has an original web series for teens called East Los High. It’s surprisingly good,
always provocative, and the reason I bring it up is that it’s informing people about addiction,
birth control and all kinds of social issues. When I talked to the creators, I asked, “What comes
first, the drama or the social impact issue?” And they said the drama of the story always
comes first, and if we can get some of those messages in, we do.

JM: All of our content has a social issue, but we’re certainly prioritizing an entertaining story
that will drive people to watch—and if they don’t watch, they won’t get the message at all.
That’s a priority for us with all our content, originals and acquisitions.

NL: In terms of your specific needs for expansion in the future, do you plan to have a split
between scripted and unscripted shows? And what about format? I keep feeling like program
lengths will start to vary, like books, over time. Especially in SVOD, where they don’t have
time slots, so who cares if it’s an hour and a half, or 15 minutes? For Pivot, what kind of format
structure do you foresee?

JM: We look at the breadth of types of programming—scripted, unscripted. . . . The unique

thing about our acquisition strategy, and what I  love about what I  do is that we acquire
 Gamechangers 45

theatrical documentaries; we acquire second windows from studio films; we acquire short-
form programming, and webisodes. We are just all over the place—scouring the Earth for
essentially relevant content. So, it’s really a wide range of types of programming.

In terms of lengths of content, we don’t air TV versions of films; we always air the theatrical cut
and we don’t cut to time—ever. So, we have a lot of flexibility. And though we are an
ad-supported network, we have given ourselves the flexibility in the schedule to build different
programming blocks, and allow the content to really speak for itself the way it does best, in
whatever format that is. So we are already sort of there. We also acquire a lot of foreign
content, which, by its nature, isn’t cut to a 22-minute clock, or a 44-minute, or an hour. So, we
have content that is already long in the clock from a traditional perspective. We buy 15 minute
shows and put them together as one program. We are already very creative in that space and
it’s emblematic to me of what is wonderful about Pivot. Because while we are a linear television
network, we find a way to do everything in a more innovative way, that sort of twists it up.

The way we air our content: everything from the format of the content to the actual
programming and I  think specifically a show like Human Resources—which is a workplace
comedy about a company that helps clients to recycle or upcycle everything—it’s very much
a 22-minute unscripted show, but has the clear social angle, and it speaks so well to what we
are all about. Shows like that, and Please Like Me also comes in long on the clock, traditionally
speaking. But it’s a wonderful show and it allows us to address issues of the LGBTQ
community and mental illness. And we have a new show that just premiered called Secret
Lives of Americans.

NL: I know about that—where people basically confess something very personal.

JM: Right, it’s somewhat traditional in that revealing secrets or stories isn’t necessarily
groundbreaking in and of itself. The way it’s shot is very interesting and well done, but more
importantly for us, everyone on the show reveals an issue that we can then dig into more
deeply on air and online: immigration and food security and other issues that are really deep
and meaningful. We kind of take the traditional and put a twist on it.

NL: What about audience aggregation, and retention?

JM: There are so many ways. We have a really great relationship with our cable, satellite and
telco providers. And we do a lot of great work based on our content that we offer, particularly
around Fortitude, which allows the television providers to reach out on our behalf, and make
a big deal of some of the things we are doing, and that’s really important for us.

We also harness the power of our other platforms and folks that are already engaged in
takepart.com, our website around social issues, and we market to them specifically in terms
of the content that we are offering on air that will align with something that they have already
signed up for. We have a ton of people that have signed up for information around food
issues, based on Food, Inc., which is a Participant film. So we are able to harness those
people and drive them to content on air that will speak to them, whether it’s about food or
environmental issues.
46 Gamechangers

Our research around viewers has allowed us to [pun intended] pivot. We also did a big
ethnography at the beginning of 2015, that helped us identify the people who are already
watching and interested in taking social action, or are looking for this kind of content. So we
broadened the demo to include not just Millennials, but every socially conscious person on
the planet. Anything that we glean as we move forward to allow us to reach more of them,
that’s what we’ll continue to do. That’s our focus.

SEESO
Evan Shapiro: The Strategic Humorist

F
ormer President of Pivot TV, Evan Shapiro is currently Executive Vice-President of
Digital  Enterprises, NBCUniversal, and has been instrumental in its new, subscription
on-demand (SVOD) all-comedy digital network: SEESO. It’s a play on “Say So”—and it
speaks to the platform’s curation. See it so you get it; here’s great stuff on our See So.

Perhaps the best shorthand for describing SEESO is: Netflix for Comedy. Although SEESO is
not intended to be a multi-genre, grab bag, something-for-everyone network, nor does it
aspire to simply be the SVOD alternative to Comedy Central. Rather, by “mapping the
comedy genome,” Shapiro and his team have created a hybrid of time-slotted comedy
programs that are also available on-demand. An all-comedy, all the time destination channel.
The curated, streaming network offers a selection of comedy, with an emphasis on New and
Exclusive live standup, provocative shorts, edgy cartoons, sketch comedy, standup comedy
specials and funny movies stemming mostly, but not only, from NBCUniversal’s vast library of
content.

SEESO means there’s no need for hunting down the latest buzz-worthy funny clips on
YouTube, Vimeo, Comedy Central, Hulu and via other sites and links. Viewers looking for fresh
doses of laughter can buy a low-cost monthly subscription “for about the price of a latte”—or
$3.99 per month—and satisfy their thirst for comedy all in one place. Shapiro refers to this as
a “low brainer” proposition. That lower subscription fee is a big differentiator from its main
competitors (Netflix, Hulu and HBONow). SEESO’s strategy is not to challenge the mainstream
status quo, but is intended as a complementary “add-on” service for those who already
subscribe to 1 or more of the other SVOD networks. For cord cutters and the younger “cord
nots” (those who never had cable or satellite TV in the first place), SEESO can be accessed
online as a stand-alone SVOD, with 2–3 hours of new, original content on offer every week—
another significant differentiator.

While SEESO is not an all-genre network, its menu offers comedic content to every taste, so
if standup isn’t your thing, you can watch digitally (for the first time!) remastered, classic
episodes of Monty Python’s Flying Circus or The Kids in the Hall. If you’re not into animation,
 Gamechangers 47

for example, you can watch your favorite moments from NBC’s Saturday Night Live or The
Office instead. SEESO also offers hits from across the pond, including Alan Partridge, the
British series about a tactless, inept television and radio presenter (brilliantly played by
comedian Steve Coogan). Then there’s The IT Crowd, the cult office ensemble sitcom,
featuring Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, Moone Boy, Family Tree), that centers on the 3 staff
members of the IT department of the fictional Reynholm Industries in London: one a cyber
genius, another work shy and their supervisor—who knows nothing about IT.

Curation, exclusivity and authenticity are the keywords at all SVOD networks, and SEESO is
specifically targeting 18–35 male and female comedy geeks who like smart and audacious
humor. Shapiro refers to their curated content as “right brain comedy.” They’re combining
the best of old school linear television and the best of new school online, OTT (over-the-top)
offerings. The main sensibility of SEESO is a blend of Dan Harmon (Community, Rick and
Morty) and Amy Poehler (Parks and Rec, Broad City), in new content uploaded every week.

While offering comedy from established names, SEESO is also seeking out emerging comedy
talent: from standup comedians and improv/sketch comedy artists to creators of video shorts,
along with developing and acquiring funny web series and indie comedy movies. One of their
offerings takes viewers inside LA’s Upright Citizen’s Brigade; another presents live comedy
shows from The Barrel House in San Francisco. SEESO is also presenting The Original
Caroline’s Comedy Hour (recorded live from Caroline’s club in New York City; the show
originally aired on A+E).

SEESO’s bill of fare also includes What’s Your Fucking Deal?, hosted by “Big” Jay Oakerson.
The “live” standup show gives performers one simple rule: no material allowed. Oakerson
and comedic guest stars take the audience for a ride in this completely off-the-cuff,
unpredictable “crowd work” show. Another show features standup from self-proclaimed
“Lesbian Comic,” Cameron Esposito. There’s Nerdist podcaster Jonah Ray, in Hidden
America, a mockumentary style show directed by multi-Emmy Award winning Troy Miller, that
spoofs Anthony Bourdain’s travel/foodie reality show; Bajillion Dollar Brokers, a spoof of
HGTV’s Million Dollar Listing, from duo Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant (Reno 911); a
comedic dating show from SNL producer Lorne Michaels’ Above Average Productions,
entitled Dave & Ethan’s Dating Game; and a series called Thingstarter, a scripted, workplace
sitcom in the vein of The Office, set behind the scenes at a Kickstarter-type company. There’s
also a new series based upon the popular webcomic, Cyanide  & Happiness, written and
illustrated by Rob DenBleyker, Kris Wilson, Dave McElfatrick (and previously Matt Melvin); like
its title, the series is darkly humorous and often surrealist in tone.

New animated shows are also on the menu, including Harmon Quest, from Dan Harmon. And
Gentlemen Lobsters, a GQ animated series for gentlemen who like lobster, that follows the
adventures of crustaceans Garrett and Quinn, “who, like you, love #menswear, booze and
bullshitting . . . Their styles may differ but their friendship is unwavering.”8 Kevin Burrows of
Fuck Yeah Menswear co-created with Matt Mider and the two co-star as fellow gentlemen
48 Gamechangers

lobsters, who cleverly self-mock their narcissistic, superficial lives and the #menswear with
which they and their audience are obsessed.

Shapiro aims to create a unique channel, marrying “the delivery of Netflix with the added
technology of human curation—where YouTube and Netflix are supermarkets programmed
by algorithms, SEESO is a neighborhood restaurant, where the chef supplies daily specials.”
He cites the Crunchyroll9 business model, though with bigger sub-genres and niches. Another
significant distinction from Netflix’s model is SEESO’s slate of weekly offerings of their
originals, versus offering all episodes at once. And a unique attribute is the auto-play function
upon sign on, which immediately presents a fresh dose of funny and is refreshed daily.
Subscribers have the ability to scroll for other menu offerings while the auto-play clip is
playing. Or, viewers might opt to disable the auto-play function. Up to you.

SEESO is avoiding the model of offering the first month free. Shapiro feels that such
“consumer bait” inevitably leads to a high churn rate, in which subscribers consume the free
content and then cancel their subscription once it converts to an actual monthly charge. He
prefers creating a value proposition for the consumer to attract new subscribers—and keep
them for the long haul.

Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Neil Landau: Your master plan is to air both acquisitions and originals once a week. Are the
formats the same as broadcast and cable—30- and 60-minute programs?

Evan Shapiro: The formats vary. Some could be 15 minutes; most will be half hours. We’re
offering live streaming events, with time-shifting encores.

NL: But new series have a premiere air date and time, right?

ES: Yes. For us, there’s a difference between primetime and free time. Even though our
viewers can choose to watch our shows when and where and how they choose, we launch
new shows during the heavy viewing traffic hours—between 8pm and midnight.

NL: So you’re categorically against the binge-viewing model offered by Netflix and Amazon?

ES: The problem with binge and wait [for the new season] is, it negates the experience of
“collective communal programming”—which is important to the relationship among viewers.
Our research indicates that the length of time a typical Netflix viewer spends scrolling for a
fresh program to watch is getting longer. What that tells me is Netflix viewers have a “been
there, seen that” relationship to their offerings. When you can watch an entire season of
House of Cards or Orange Is the New Black in one weekend, the excitement of discovering
something new diminishes.

NL: Their current mandate is to offer over 20 new originals a year.

 Gamechangers 49

ES: Right, but I don’t see binge only models as a sustainable strategy because it pressures
viewers to consume a show right away to avoid spoilers, and then all the heat and buzz on the
show dies for a year until they dump the next full season. Why not sustain and build on the
buzz of a great show?

NL: So instant gratification is overrated?

ES: Choice and discovery have more value. I don’t even like the expression “binge viewing”!

NL: Yeah, it does sound like an eating disorder. I don’t think Netflix likes it either. I prefer
“marathon viewing”—which at least implies fortitude over gluttony. So, what’s the audience
you’re targeting?

ES: Male, female, primarily under 35—and with access to a credit card.

NL: The usual suspects? But aren’t they too busy playing video games?

ES: Millennials watch lots of TV, but they’re doing it in a way that’s not being accurately
measured. The average 18- to 35-year-old spends around $800 per year on just media. What
we’re hoping to offer our subscribers is a sense of discovery. The great thing that the new
models have done is allow consumers to discover shows like Portlandia, Transparent, Orange
Is The New Black or Louis CK’s stand up specials.

NL: All highly distinctive, niche programs. Thoroughly original, unique voices, provocative;
funny and surprising.

ES: That’s what we’re after. We’re trying to create an island with the viewer at the center. What
we’re communicating to our subscribers is: You’re coming here because you like comedy.
Tune in and we promise you’ll never be bored or feel condescended to. For us, the viewer
must be at the center of the viewing experience. The big brands still warrant sampling;
people tune in to Netflix, HBO, FX, AMC, and Showtime; they attract viewers.

NL: How do you pull all those eyeballs away from the established brands?

ES: With high quality content you can’t get anyplace else. We’re forging a reliable connection
with our viewers based on our philosophy that the viewer is sacred.

NL: And no commercials? Not even wrap-around ads or corporate sponsorship to supplement
revenue?

ES: No commercials!

NL: Do you believe ads are going to become obsolete in the near future?

ES: I  do not. Advertisers are going to find a new way by targeting niche audiences via
algorithms.

NL: Maybe for live events, like sports and concerts. But aren’t younger audiences already
allergic to commercials? They fast-forward past them, or only watch SVOD.
50 Gamechangers

ES: That’s the trend. But you have teenagers, right? When they watch anything on TV, they
always have another device in their hands, don’t they?

NL: Always. We have to ban their iPhones and iPads from the dinner table.

ES: My point is the younger generations don’t have the same relationship to interruptions as
we do. To viewers of a certain age, their program is interrupted by commercial breaks. To
kids, it’s an opportunity to check their Instagram or Twitter or go back to texting or gaming.

NL: But they’re still not watching the ad—which is bad news for advertisers, isn’t it? Or, even
if the viewers’ attention is elsewhere, the ads might be enhancing brand awareness somewhat.

ES: The reality is that content creators, producers and distributors need to make a living. The
content still needs to be monetized one way or another. The solution might be to make better
ads. In fact, the best ads tend to be on podcasts. Ads need to be contextual.

NL: And humor always helps. As SEESO proves: laughter is the best medicine.
 YouTube
Broadcast Yourself
Before YouTube came along in 2005, how did you watch short-form video? Did you even
watch videos online? Probably not. You were more likely to catch the latest episode of
America’s Funniest Home Videos, Stupid Pet Tricks on Letterman, or glued to American Idol
and Survivor on network television. And if you missed a “water cooler” moment, unless you
had the foresight to TiVo a show or program your VCR, you were SOL (shit out of luck).

Today, with more than 1 billion dedicated users per month, YouTube is valued at $80 billion.10
It’s come a long way since its sale to Google back in 2006, 1 year after it launched, for a cool
$1.65 billion. Google was criticized at the time for overpaying, but it saw in YouTube what
many didn’t: people will watch online, in numbers that YouTube itself didn’t anticipate—so big
that Psy’s Gangnam Style (its most watched video) broke YouTube’s counter, which was built
to accommodate 2,147,483,647 views.11 That’s a third of our planet, all watching a pop video.

YouTube’s origins lie far from Seoul’s Gangnam district, on the Texas football field that hosted
the SuperBowl in February, 2004. During the live half-time performance, headlined by Justin
(Timberlake) and Janet (Miss Jackson if you’re nasty). As Timberlake sang “I’m going to have
you naked by the end of this song,” in his zippy tune Rock Your Body, he literally ripped a
patch off Jackson’s costume, which momentarily exposed her right breast. Admittedly, she
was shielded by a piece of nipple jewelry—a modest and brief reveal, at least by 2015’s
standards. Yet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” became a household term; her career
suffered; the FCC received a record number of complaints; CBS, NBC and exec producers
MTV revised their live performance policies. 140 million people saw “Nipplegate,” but more
wanted to watch it again.12 And again. PayPal employee Jawed Karim, drawing a blank at
finding the clip anywhere online, wrote a piece of code with his coworkers, Steve Chen and
Chad Hurley, which would allow users to upload their own content to their site. Today, it
sounds like a no-brainer, but this had never been done before.

A decade old, despite the grand numbers, YouTube struggles to make profit,13 to reap the
same advertising dollars as chief competitor Facebook. Part of the challenge is that users
access YouTube via other platforms—embedded in Facebook itself, Twitter and more. By
2012, YouTube identified that comparatively little originated on YouTube.com, or its app.
The company also admits it didn’t holistically keep pace with tech advances. Its iOS app, for
example, was built on one track and its Xbox app on another. Such fragmentation, together
with its late recognition of the importance of capturing mobile data, meant that YouTube has
had to completely overhaul to catch up and capture those ad dollars. CEO Susan Wojcicki
(“the mom of Google”14) oversees wholesale initiative “InnerTube,” which began in 2012.
Better algorithms lead viewers down a warren of clicks after clicks of videos that you might
actually be interested in watching. Now, 80% of mobile uses originate on the YouTube app,
55% on the desktop.15 YouTube wants more, and it’s working on it. It’s using the artificial
intelligence from Google Brain, which is developing A.I. that mimics and aims to surpass our
human brain.
Flashy algorithms aside, the online ecosystem still comes down to user experience. You
may wish to watch those videos, but the ad experience on YouTube remains both its curse
and its blessing. Without ads, there would be no YouTube; it commands a 45% share of ad
revenue. With them, the excruciating wait for an unskippable, lower quality 30-second ad to
pass before a 2-minute video—even if the video is superlative—can make the entire viewing
experience inferior. The average YouTube attention span is 5 minutes,16 so it’s no surprise
that YouTube jams the ads in there upfront. New, clickable “TrueView” shopping ads, which
Google is pioneering to promising feedback,17 may turn things around. As for the interface,
Lady Gaga may have advised YouTube to “keep looking shitty”18 to retain authenticity and
familiarity with its hard-earned community, but there’s no denying, the platform looks dated,
while competition remains rife. The sleeker Spotify, for instance, may be moving into music
videos—which was always traditionally YouTube’s domain.

Perhaps of most concern, despite hosting incredible shows from Broad City to Run, the
creatives who started on YouTube may be opting for other platforms for distribution. Some
now skip it entirely in favor of ad-free platforms. Others are utilizing free, low-risk YouTube
as a “proof of concept” stepping stone  .  .  . en route to more curated platforms (such as
Awesomeness, Maker, Vice, Vimeo).

Yet from music videos to bloopers, from TED talks to startlingly original, creative storytelling,
YouTube remains the undisputed conqueror of the short-form space. They’re still the go-to
online platform for those feverishly suffering from FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) clips: from
Madonna’s tumble at the BAFTA Awards; to the patrol cop lip-synching to Taylor Swift’s Shake
It Up; Alex from Target; or the mischievous dad in the Batman mask who taunts his kids in his
gruff “Swear to me!” Dark Knight voice. YouTube has evolved far beyond being the original
purr-veyor of cat videos. It’s also had a wide-reaching, social impact; those YouTube users’
videos of the events in 2010 in the Middle East crossed borders, galvanized action and may
have been instrumental in making the Arab Spring happen, changing the world forever.

Today, profits and UX aside, YouTube’s biggest challenge is to stay relevant amidst its
younger competitors. It’s forging partnerships with other platforms, creatives and brands,
and via innovative new YouTube Spaces that have sprung up globally, from São Paulo to
Tokyo. YouTube execs know that the kids who grew up consuming content on YouTube are
tomorrow’s content creators. Accordingly, the YouTube Kids App launched this year and aims
(like Netflix KIDS) to get ‘em when they’re young. Even if the creatives eventually shift (a la
High Maintenance) to HBO, YouTube continues to be the dominant online destination and
the most prominent incubator for emerging talent. In late 2015, the platform launched its very
own subscription service, YouTube Red, complete with ad-free and music streaming capability.
Global head of original programming Susanne Daniels (who used to run programming at MTV)
is overseeing a slate of YouTube original series and movies. Daring to charge for YouTube –
the Big Kahuna of digital - is a gamechanger for Google and perhaps even the industry.
Time will tell how it all plays out.

And to think that it all started with the flash of a nipple.

 Gamechangers 53

VIMEO
Sam Toles: The Streaming Curator

V
imeo’s Vice-President of Content Acquisitions and Business Development, Sam Toles
is a 19-year veteran of the entertainment industry. Starting out in theatrical marketing
with New Line Cinema and Warner Bros, Toles moved into home entertainment
marketing with Paramount Pictures and Rhino. In 2005, he joined FremantleMedia as their
Vice-President of Business Development, overseeing media licensing for their award-winning
portfolio of British, American and Australian brands, followed by a stint as Vice-President of
Content Strategy at Gaiam Vivendi Entertainment. Toles’ current mandate at Vimeo is to
expand the content offerings and revenue growth for their open platform for direct film
distribution, Vimeo On Demand. His breadth of experience aligns with Vimeo’s mission: to
empower professional creators to distribute content directly to audiences worldwide, by
offering open access, powerful tools, total control and better economics for earning money
from premium content.

Launched in 2004 by Jake Lodwick and Zach Klein, Vimeo started with a team of 11, and has
expanded to 200+ employees. The name “vimeo” is a play on the words “video” and
“me”; it’s also an anagram of “movie,” the name itself being emblematic of the company’s
cheeky personality and sense of humor. In fact, prior to 2004, Vimeo was part of
CollegeHumor.com, onto which viewers could upload their content. Eventually, Vimeo
transitioned into its own video platform with a storage password, with the goal of sharing
creative work and life’s personal moments. Vimeo set itself apart from YouTube from the
start, eschewing advertising, and aiming to attract more serious visual artists, offering HD
quality. Without advertisements, Vimeo decided to create a “storefront for creators,” with
all the tools to share and sell, in a curated, transactional iTunes-like environment. IAC, the
media and Internet company whose global brands encompass Tinder and The Daily Beast,
acquired Vimeo in 2006.

At press time, Vimeo attracts 1 billion views per month from 160 million viewers, and over
35 million registered users. It is the biggest, open transactional VOD platform in the world.
All content is protected behind a pay wall; they offer over 22,000 VOD titles available for
purchase, as well as the myriad of videos that are free to view. Even The White House posts
its sharpest quality, HD videos on Vimeo.

Neil Landau: What makes Vimeo different than its closest competitors (Netflix, Hulu, Sony
Crackle)?

Sam Toles: Vimeo has become a haven for indie filmmakers and musicians. Our brand is
“Created for creators.” We offer transactional access; zero pre-roll ads. Our content creators
54 Gamechangers

control the price for streaming and downloads. Vimeo also offers global reach, and creators
can cherry pick which territories. Our most important distinguisher is: Vimeo does not take
ownership. We take a straight 10%—with 90% going into the pocket of the content creator,
as compared to iTunes which offers a 70/30 split—but iTunes is not an open platform.
Another distinguishing attribute is: Vimeo has the ability to embed and click from other sites
without going back to the originator (such as Twitter). We like to feel that we offer both
creators and our viewers a more “organic, human touch.” Yes, we use algorithms to determine
our programming and viewer needs, but we also rely on our “Staff Picks” which can highlight
employee favorites for viewers. Our Staff Pick process is sacrosanct and apolitical; it can’t be
bought or influenced.

NL: Whereas YouTube is completely democratic (all channels are created equal), a Vimeo
“Staff Pick” can elevate a series, such as High Maintenance, into a bona fide hit.

ST: Right. High Maintenance was Vimeo’s first and only original series at that time. Our House
of Cards, if you will. Its creators [Katja Blichfeld and Ben Sinclair] engaged the press, social
media and their own contacts, and provided links to prominent bloggers and cultural
influencers. Ben and Katja self-funded for the first season; based on the show’s success,
Vimeo offered them an MG [Minimum Guarantee] as an advance for the second season.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE: Season 2 of High Maintenance became so popular that Season 3 was
acquired by HBO. See my interview with Ben and Katja in Part 2.]

The Internet ecosystem is changing. A common belief had been that no one would ever pay
for content. The vast majority of content was ad-supported, aka free, but restricted to avoid
being offensive to advertisers. At the same time, content creators wouldn’t want to be
associated with certain products. So, for instance, evangelical Christians on Vimeo don’t need
to worry about offensive ads. HBO was revolutionary at its inception for non-censorship of
nudity and language. But as we move into Internet programming, we now have the HBO
element—without ads, but more availability. Vimeo offers its viewers greater reach and
broader content choices. For example, when the third season of web series Video Game High
School was initially released, you could access 1 episode (per week) via YouTube, or binge
watch by purchasing all of the episodes at once on Vimeo—in 4K, high definition.

NL: Vimeo is becoming a major player in the digital content business—what are your planned
next steps?

ST: Vimeo is actively seeking new, original content from Hollywood agents, larger production
entities, and our own creators (via Staff Picks), cultivating relationships and developing from
that base.

We also recently announced our “SVOD tool set,” through which any creator can offer their
own SVOD channel. Vimeo plans to provide both the perfect tools for creators to best
monetize their works, and an exciting environment where consumers discover exclusive
offerings from a broad base of creators, with truly unique voices.
 Gamechangers 55

NL: What makes you say “yes” to an acquisition?

ST: We need to see content, not just a script. It’s also vital to us that the creator already has a
passionate, measurable audience willing to pay for their content and substantial following on
social media.

NL: Which is a very different model than at the major broadcast and cable networks?

ST: Correct. Traditional media is a one-way street to a passive audience. We’re after deep
audience engagement. We are always asking ourselves: “Who is the audience? Where do
they live?” The difference between Amazon, Netflix, and broadcast networks is that they
already have a built-in, passive audience. For us, artists must be entrepreneurs. That’s the big
difference now from 3 to 5 years ago. We’re seeing the elimination of the Costco mentality in
which merchandise is deliberately rotated every 6 months; the retail philosophy of better buy
it now or it may be gone on your next visit. But at streaming, on-demand channels and
networks, there is no rotation/expiration date. There is no scarcity principle. Now the artist is
the brand, and the main challenge is breaking through all the noise to get noticed.

❝
That’s the takeaway: who is your audience and how do
you cultivate them to keep them engaged? Or else
you’re going to have a great piece of content that no
one is going to watch.
❞

NL: Could you tell us about Vimeo’s recent acquisitions—Going Clear, Da Sweet Blood of
Jesus, Ned Rifle? As well as great stories and a following, what were the factors that went into
Vimeo selecting these films in particular?

ST: Each title had a specific rationale behind its respective acquisition. For Ned Rifle and Da
Sweet Blood of Jesus, the directors each had meaningful fanbases, and had successfully
crowdfunded their works. This indicated there was a passionate audience willing to purchase
these titles once they were launched on Vimeo On Demand. Going Clear was the most talked
about film at Sundance. Post-Vimeo acquisition, it proved to be HBO’s most successful
documentary in decades. The title was also based on a bestselling book. For all 3 films, the
path to audience was very clear and it made sense for Vimeo to invest in a premium window.

Our most recent acquisitions include On My Way Home (the band Pentatonix’s first feature
film), Soaked In Bleach (Kurt Cobain documentary), Con Man (Alan Tudyk/Nathan Fillion web
series) and dozens of others. We seek to release 6 to 8 exclusive titles per month, that share
high production values and appeal to passionate niche audiences.
56 Gamechangers

NL: What is Vimeo’s strategy for marketing movies and reaching their audiences? How does
Vimeo approach cross-promoting other original content on the platform?

ST: Vimeo is a native Internet platform. Our marketing spend is targeted at online activations
which focus on social media, re-targeting, display, email and other tactics. It is an amplification
strategy, where the fanbase or niche of the programming serves as a core from which our
marketing then amplifies its reach.

NL: What types of webisode arenas are most desired at Vimeo? High Maintenance did so
well. What areas seem ripe to be Vimeo’s next breakout hit?

ST: Format and genre are less relevant than content quality, and community. These were the
key ingredients behind the success of High Maintenance, not that they were simply dubbed
“webisodes.” My team is constantly scouring the creative landscape in search of the next
exciting project—and they will be focused on titles that embody those 2 key qualities.
 Vice TV
Everything “News” is New Again
How did a company that launched as a fringe, Montreal-based punk magazine in 1994 evolve
into an Emmy Award winning, HBO newsmagazine? The words ballsy and audacious come to
mind, along with a dedicated demographic with an appetite for hard-hitting, unfiltered news
coverage, tailored for those who prefer outside-the-box, deep dive news coverage over news
as infotainment. Vice TV leans in to controversial subjects, and has established itself as a news
outlet in the major leagues, securing a sit-down with both Vice-President Joe Biden, then
separately with POTUS himself in a one-on-one discussion, concerning escalating tensions
with Russia.

Vice TV’s host and Vice Media founder, Shane Smith, is a larger-than-life, business savvy,
yet highly relatable hipster media mogul who has redefined news reporting, covering
a wide range of what Al Gore might call inconvenient truths: from the effects of planting
genetically modified seeds to the commercial surrogacy industry in India. Smith’s coterie of
correspondents are a new breed of journalists who eschew the celebrity reporter spotlight,
and are more than willing to express trepidation as they venture into some of the most
obscure regions (Greenland, Sudan, China’s Ghost Towns) or inadmissible territories (North
Korea, GTMO), making good on Vice TV’s tagline to “expose the absurdity of the modern
condition.” For Rolling Stone’s Katie Van Syckle, “It feels a little like your buddy from the bar
just happened to be wandering through eastern Afghanistan with a camera crew.”19

Executive produced by Bill Maher, Shane Smith, Eddy Moretti, BJ Levin, with Fareed Zakaria
as Consulting Producer, Brooklyn-based Vice TV garnered national attention in its Season
1 finale (June, 2013) when its crew accompanied NBA Hall-of-Famer Dennis Rodman to
North Korea—along with members of the legendary Harlem Globetrotters—for a friendly
experiment in “Basketball Diplomacy.” In doing so, Vice TV became the first American news
organization to meet the young leader of the “hermit kingdom,” Kim Jong-un.

Detractors of the episode and of Vice TV in general criticize Shane Smith’s philosophy and
buccaneering style of “go there, spend time with the people, press record, and let them tell
their story,”20 noting a dearth of hard-hitting questions, and the possibility that they are being
exploited by those they are interviewing. As Maureen Ryan of the Huffington Post remarked
at the time, “There is a disturbing credulity that runs through the entire venture, and while
being open-minded is crucial to being a reporter or a traveler, there is such a thing as being
too naïve.”21

There is nothing naïve, however, about Vice TV’s strategic plan, its brand, or its nurturing of
a loyal following. Vice Media, now a global youth media company boasts an international
network of “hip” digital channels, a television and feature film production studio, a magazine,
a record label and a book publishing division. By the time Vice TV aired its first show on
HBO, its large fan base was ready and waiting for it. Vice’s cohesion is its target demo: the
cool dude (although it is expanding into the cool dudette demo with the launch of its new
female-centric channel, Broadly)—the audience for which advertisers and traditional networks
are clamoring.

With $500 million in financing and $1 billion in projected revenue for 2015,22 the company
has signed a multi-year deal with HBO to broadcast a daily, half-hour newscast, in addition
to upping the newsmagazine show from 14 to 35 episodes through 2018. Shane Smith’s
ambitions for a Vice branded cable channel will be realized in early 2016 with the launch of
Viceland, the tentatively named new cable network that represents a joint venture between
them and A+E network. Viceland will take over A+E’s flagging H2 channel, banking on Vice’s
brand in the digital realm to lure GenYers back to a 24-hour linear network.

To the surprise of everyone—except, naturally, Smith and his fellow producers—the company’s
young demographic has embraced the raw, sometimes irreverent style of reporting, that has
made the news cool again.

AWESOMENESSTV
Brian Robbins: The Forecaster

B
rian Robbins is the founder (with Joe Davola) and CEO of AwesomenessTV, and one of
the entertainment industry’s most prolific producers of television, film and digital
media. Launched in 2012, AwesomenessTV is a multi-platform media company focused
on discovering and supporting the next generation of digital talent, with over 90,000
channels of content creators who have accumulated almost 13 billion views. A joint venture
between DreamWorks Animation and Hearst Corporation, AwesomenessTV is among the
fastest growing teen and tween destinations on YouTube. Under its banner are both scripted
and reality series including IMO, Royal Crush, Amanda Steel’s The Social Life, Cheerleaders,
Awesomeness Hollywood, and Side Effects.

As the co‐founder of Tollin/Robbins Productions and the founder and president of Varsity
Pictures, Robbins is best known for executive producing numerous popular and critical
television hits aimed at teens and young audiences, including the long‐running CW series
Smallville and One Tree Hill, Disney Channel’s Sonny With a Chance and So Random,
Nickelodeon’s All That and Kenan & Kel, and Spike TV’s Blue Mountain State. He was also
the producing force behind the popular WB series What I Like About You and HBO’s Arli$$.
 Gamechangers 59

Robbins has directed and/or produced films including Wild Hogs, Shaggy Dog, Coach
Carter, Hardball, and Varsity Blues. Robbins won a Directors Guild Award, a Peabody
Award, and was honored with the Pioneer Prize by The International Academy of Television
Arts and Sciences.

Neil Landau: I  just read an article in Emmy magazine in which Michael Nathanson, of
MoffettNathanson, reports on the rapid erosion of viewership on the traditional side of both
broadcast and cable: “On the kids’ side, Nickelodeon and Disney XD saw their total day, C3
rating, among the 2–11 set drop 15% each.” And yet, in the digital space, things are growing,
and exploding exponentially. Obviously you saw the writing on the wall and where things
were going and you jumped in. You forecasted and now your hunch has proved to be right.
Are you psychic or a savvy businessman—or both?

Brian Robbins: It would be nice if I could say I had some vision and knew what was going
to happen, when it was going to happen. And for me it was sort of 2 different paths that led
me here. The first one was more personal. I have a lot of friends in the music business, and
I watched what happened over time, when everything turned to digital. One day there was
this huge industry, especially in the CD revolution where the business was on fire, so you’d
have this huge catalog business, plus people buying CDs. Business was booming. Then, the
MP3 came along, and all of a sudden that business changed dramatically. It got unbelievably
disrupted, and it was no longer about having to buy the whole album; it became a song
business, and people stopped paying for it. I felt that film and television could easily be
disrupted the same way—especially with that kind of direct, consumer distribution.

On another path, several years ago, my agency introduced me to this kid named “Fred” (actually
an alias for Lucas Cruikshank) who was the first YouTuber to have about a million subscribers. At
the time I met him, he had a half a billion video views. The kids loved him, and parents couldn’t
stand him. When I met him, my first thought was: “Is my career over? What happened? Why are
my agents encouraging me to meet a YouTuber?” The kid sounded like a Chipmunk.

And then, I went home that night to my kids, and a bunch of their friends who were at my
house, and I asked them all if they knew who Fred was, and of course, they all did. They took
me to the computer and they started showing me his videos, and 20 million views, 30 million
views, and I  thought, “Holy cow, there’s this unbelievable, alternative universe going on,
that’s not really on anyone’s radar in Hollywood, and yet my sons and all their friends knew all
the lines from every video?” I  went to my office that Monday, and did something that I’d
never done before, which is told my team that we were going to make a movie with “Fred,”
and I was going to end up financing it myself, because I realized that I could never get the
CEOs at any major studio to make the movie.

Long story short, we ended up moving really fast. I had met him in August, by December we
finished shooting the movie, cut together a few minutes’ reel, showed it to the CEO of
60 Gamechangers

Nickelodeon, and she was in. And that movie was Nickelodeon’s highest rated movie of the
year for kids, teens and tweens, and still one of the highest rated movies in the history of
Nickelodeon. We ended up making 3 “Fred” movies and a TV series from it.

❝
From there I realized, Wow, if this “Fred” kid from
Omaha, Nebraska, on his own could build this franchise,
and we could come along and supercharge it, what
would happen if we really paid attention to this space?
And so that was how Awesomeness was born.
❞

NL: So “Fred” was your “Eureka!” moment, a great hunch that’s paid off—big time—and now
everybody’s jumping on the bandwagon, seeking out the next Internet and Vine stars and
cultural influencers with a large social media fan base and who have a relationship with their
fans that’s genuine.

BR: It’s like what happened with cable 30  years ago; up until that point you had 3 or 4
broadcast networks, and a lot of people watched very few programs. Cable came along, and
these niche brands were born, but ultimately became very big brands. ESPN, MTV, CNN,
Nickelodeon were born on the back of the cable boom. I felt that there was an opportunity in
this digital video ecosystem, that it was going to happen again, whoever really concentrated
on building a brand was going to win. Our mission at AwesomenessTV was, and still is, to
build a destination, build a brand, around teens and tweens, and build it on the back of
YouTube. And we’ve clearly found success during that. Other companies have done really
well, too; Vice has done a tremendous job of building a young, male brand on the back of this
ecosystem, with the emphasis on a consumer-facing brand.

NL: The last ones standing will be people who have stepped out of the box, and taken bold,
calculated risks based on Internet/Vine personalities, such as Cameron Dallas who has a huge
fan base. He starred in the AwesomenessTV movie, Expelled, which was very successful. With
Dallas’ number of followers, one would presume that movie was both critic proof and virtually
guaranteed to recoup its investment. And not with a movie star or TV star, but a Vine star.
I believe that was unprecedented in the movie business.

BR: We got lucky. But there are going to be winners and losers. Just because you have a
million Vine followers or 2  million YouTube followers doesn’t necessarily mean automatic
success. I still think that it’s got to be the right combination of the star, the influencer with
followers, the content, and marketing. I  think Expelled was an example of all of that. We
made a movie that not only spoke to Cameron’s audience, but also spoke to the larger
 Gamechangers 61

AwesomenessTV audience. Our marketing team here did a spectacular job of promoting that
movie, and that’s how it went to #1 on iTunes, which is not easy to do. So, it’s all of that. But
the movie has to work on the creative level or it’s going to bomb.

NL: Since your launch in 2012, AwesomenessTV has been acquired by DreamWorks Animation
(and Hearst Corporation also has a 25% stake). How involved are they in your day-to-day
operations?

BR: We run the company day to day, and in addition to the AwesomenessTV business, we
also run the DreamWorks TV YouTube channel. But we’re pretty much left alone to run our
business. I will tell you that Jeffrey Katzenberg has been a huge energizer to the company. His
guidance has been invaluable. He’s like a heat-seeking missile; if we need something, just
point him and shoot. [Laughter] He gets stuff done, and more than anything he’s a great
cheerleader for us.

NL: Your business plan is continued growth and expansion, but your production model is
highly cost efficient, on the micro-budget level.

BR: Yes.

NL: On the positive side, you guys are able to offer creative opportunities to fresh voices that
they would not get at elsewhere. At AwesomenessTV, a nascent creator can get his/her big
break to write and direct. The money is relatively low, but the experience is invaluable.
Incidentally, you’re currently in business with one of my other former students, Hannah
Macpherson—and she’s thrilled.

BR: I think she’s awesomely talented, no pun intended.

NL: Agreed! So, do you see AwesomenessTV as a training ground for new talent?

BR: It’s the most exciting and fun part of what I call my job. I’ve always been a big believer
that Hollywood is just such a closed place. It’s so hard to break through. Like, a young film
school grad, Alex Goyette [writer/director of Expelled], how would he even begin to write
and direct a studio movie? Nearly impossible, right? But I  recognized Alex early on at
AwesomenessTV, and he was making some of the best videos that we were putting out. I met
with him and I was like, “What do you want to do?” He pitched me the idea for Expelled and,
on the spot, I said, “Here, I’ll pay you to go write it,” and he wrote it. And I read the script and
I was like, “Let’s make this—let’s go for this!” That’s really liberating for me.

NL: And inspiring.

BR: That’s where the revolution is happening. Whether it’s Alex, or like you said, Hannah, and
other people that we’re working with. We have a film called Shovel Buddies that’s about to
go into production, and these 2 super-talented English commercial directors, named Si and
Ad, are directing the movie. It’s fantastic energizing moves like this, and these new talents are
so determined and grateful for the opportunity to make their dream come true.
62 Gamechangers

NL: AwesomenessTV has been able to streamline the development and production process.
It must be great to be so nimble in this fast-paced, high-speed world?

BR: Look, not every bet is going to pay off, but you know, not every movie’s a hit either. The
good thing for us is that the cost of failure is on a smaller scale, so we get to be bigger
gamblers.

NL: Where do you see your company going in the next 5 or 10 years?

BR: For us, it’s continuing to build a brand by discovering and nurturing talent and making
exciting content. I think you’ll also see us expanding out of YouTube to other platforms, and
expanding internationally. And continuing to expand the movie business, selling shows and
having the AwesomenessTV brand live everywhere. We’ll be in the movie business; we’ll be
in the TV business; we’ll be in the short-form video business. Great content is the way to build
a brand.

NL: And now you’re launching a multichannel network for millennial moms called Awestruck
with original content on YouTube?

BR: Right. It will be a mix of female-centric, scripted and unscripted programming, including
comedy, drama, docu-series, and talk shows. Millennial moms are digitally savvy, globally
conscious, and defined by more than motherhood, yet they’re underserved.

NL: It makes a lot of sense to jump into that space, too. If you build great content, they will
come.

BR: That’s the plan.

GEEK & SUNDRY
Felicia Day: The Entrepreneur

I
f you’re not a hardcore gamer, ComicCon fanatic, or self-proclaimed geek, you may not
have heard of Felicia Day. But, trust me, you’ve seen her. On TV, she played “Vi” on
Buffy the Vampire Slayer; “Dr. Holly Marten” on SyFy’s Eureka; and had a recurring role
as “Charlie” on the CW’s Supernatural. She was also an early pioneer in the digital
streaming space with her breakout web series, The Guild, about her life as a gamer; and
her follow up digital series, Dragon Age: Redemption, in which she plays Tallis, an Elven
assassin.

Felicia got a jump-start on content specifically aimed at what had been an underserved
demographic on television. Today, video gaming revenue dwarfs all network, cable, and
digital series profits combined. It’s a fan base in the multi-billions, with its own language and
culture—and they can’t be pandered to or reached through traditional “old school” media
 Gamechangers 63

marketing tools. They can sniff out something inauthentic and ignore or actively rebel against
even the most aggressive (even stealth) corporate ad campaigns.

Felicia intrinsically understands her audience, and interacts with them in an instinctual,
symbiotic way. She’s built a modest empire based on that mutual respect. In 2012, she started
Geek  & Sundry, a digital network that claims over 1.5  million subscribers on its YouTube
network and Hulu channel. Geek  & Sundry, which has since been acquired by Legendary
Pictures Television, boasts more than 12 million fans on social media platforms. But it’s her
appearance in Dr.  Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog (with Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, and
Simon Helberg; co-written and directed by Joss Whedon, Jed Whedon, Zach Whedon and
Maurissa Tancharoen) that has earned her certified cult status. Not bad for a home-schooled
girl from Huntsville, Alabama.

Neil Landau: Did you have any idea that Dr.  Horrible’s Sing-Along would become such a
phenomenon?

Felicia Day: I was fortunate to star in that in 2008. There are things I’ve made that have gone
viral, it’s been few and far between but every time I’ve seen the edit before it’s gone out I’ve
known it would go viral. When I read Dr. Horrible I knew it would be huge. It was huger than
I thought. Nothing has equaled it as far as financial success or cultural impact. That’s the show
to look at as a template for the future. Only now some of these Vine and YouTube stars are
duplicating that, 6 years later.

NL: You started as an actor and segued into creating content. Was The Guild the first thing
you did on your own?

FD: The first thing I shot was The Guild episode 1. I wasn’t a filmmaker before that. I was an
actor. I moved to LA in 2000 after college. I spent 6 years being an actor and making a great
living, but I wasn’t happy with the lifestyle. I wasn’t a regular on a show. I was a journeyman
actor so I got bored. I took a sketch writing class and got very addicted to a videogame called
World of Warcraft. I  had that experience for over a year and a half, then quit. After that
experience I  wanted to get back to creating, and my friends said “write something for
yourself. Take control of your career.”

After procrastinating I wrote a half-hour script—The Guild—in 2006 thinking I’d make it into
a huge television show. That didn’t happen. Back then gaming culture was underground
and wasn’t part of people’s vocabulary. In 2007, I took the script out convinced everyone
would make it. I was discouraged for a while until I showed the script to a couple friends—a
director and a producer. My producer, Kim Evey, she taught my sketch writing class, and
had been making videos and posting them online when YouTube started. This is literally a
year after YouTube started. The idea of online video was foreign to most people. She
started filming and uploading sketches that became hugely popular. She read my pilot and
said we should do the show for the Internet. That’s where your friends are. So we pulled
64 Gamechangers

money, and shot the first 2 episodes that became 3, and released them once a month
summer of 2007.

NL: At the time did you have a channel, or was it on general YouTube?

FD: We had a channel that we started—Watch The Guild, because “The Guild” was taken.
We did everything ourselves. We had no budget. We shot in garages at our homes. But
because we had experience on professional sets as actors, we treated it like a TV show. We
did production design. It was a crew of 5 people at the most.

NL: It’s such a smart concept. My kids are addicted to videogames and would much rather
play games than watch shows. And you really tapped into something viable so early on.

FD: It’s true. Gaming has evolved. Early on The Guild was one of the first pieces of content
other than Pure Pwnage, which is a Canadian show that started before The Guild. Having a
piece of entertainment around the culture of video gaming was new and fresh. I was a zealot
about getting the word out about my show, because I knew no one was going to just find it.
I was the web designer, the marketer. The 3 of us did everything, and it was successful enough
to get the attention of YouTube. And they featured our show in a couple of ways that helped
our viewership take off.

NL: In what ways did they do that?

FD: In 2007 YouTube would curate their front page. They created most of the main stars of
today. They were created by that curation. It was visibility and a platform. Nowadays the
space goes to ads, but back then they curated based on quality of content. On the third
episode we were featured on the front page, and we were able to take meetings to finance
our show outside of our own pockets.

NL: Vimeo brands themselves as a curated YouTube because of their staff picks. High
Maintenance got so much traffic that they picked it up for Season 2 and gave them an
advance. Before YouTube featured you, what were you using to get the word out?

FD: I  posted on forums, contacted bloggers. I  don’t have a marketing or PR background.

I just thought from my audience’s POV—where would I be? After the third episode we took a
lot of meetings. The Hollywood paradigm was to own all content and take it off of YouTube.
Ownership became a sticking point for me. Every major studio had a digital arm, and offered
to finance the show, but take the rights away. I didn’t like that idea. Someone in a meeting
suggested looking to the fans to fund the show. Kickstarter didn’t even exist in 2007. On a
whim I  put the PayPal button up and within a week we had the money to shoot another
episode. That continued throughout the whole first season. Even though we weren’t paying
anyone, we were making something out of the normal parameters. That was our whole first
season, over a year.

NL: Look how smart you were. You didn’t give up ownership.
 Gamechangers 65

FD: I’d seen a lot of people make that mistake—my friend Kim sold her show to Sony and
they moved it off YouTube and it got less popular. I saw others sell rights to their web series
to places like SyFy and they never made another episode. They were in development for
years. The platform was so new, and the way they were looking at digital content wasn’t the
way people would want to respond to digital content. I  was afraid my show would die
because I made a deal that doesn’t serve the audience well enough.

❝
Today people are much more savvy. That we did it alone
allowed us to grow the show and prove we were an
asset.
❞

NL: If you could go back and launch the show now versus 2007, what would you do
differently?

FD: I think today it would be hard to launch The Guild without heft behind it. At the time
I was an unknown actor and there’s a lot of gaming content now. There wasn’t anything in the
space then. Scripted content has gone through a lot of ebbs and flows. Scripted is hard to
get financed. I don’t think the scenario would be that different. I think it’d be more challenging
now. I’d like to say that the writing quality and authenticity would see us through. I don’t
know how to project whether we’d be a hit. I would say that a lot of things I wanted to do
that weren’t available back then in terms of distribution, reaching new audiences and
innovation would be very easy now. On a crowdfunding level, if we were to translate our
show to the popularity at its peak to now, I believe we’d blow crowdfunding away.

NL: For content creators considering the webisode format as proof of concept for a more
traditional scripted series, what are the biggest challenges they’re going to face?

FD: Nowadays if you try to make something like that (e.g., Broad City) you would need an
established showrunner behind it or a Vine star to sell it. That’s the trend. I don’t know if a
bunch of unknowns making a high quality product have an easy time succeeding because
companies are less inclined to invest in quality over views because that’s not what has found
success on a financial level. I understand it and am cognizant of the complexities of making
scripted content. Look at the season finale of Girls. Not even 700,000 people watched it. I’ve
had scripted half hour episodes on YouTube get those numbers and I can’t get the shows
refinanced because that’s not considered a hit on the web. At the end of the day, online
content always goes back to advertising dollars. Advertisers see that they can throw $100,000
at a personality with 3 million views, or throw $400,000 at a scripted piece that’ll get 100,000
views and win some awards. I  understand the numbers game, but the online world is the
66 Gamechangers

place to grow that kind of niche content and a community around it. Kickstarters are funded
by only 30,000 people, raising millions of dollars. I’d like to see us go in that direction, but
I don’t think we’re there yet.

NL: HBO; they can afford to have Girls getting only 700,000 views because of their huge
subscription base; their metric is different than an ad-supported platform. And Amazon can
tout Transparent as a critically acclaimed “hit” without divulging audience numbers to
anyone. Ironically, Transparent is opaque when it comes to accountability.

FD: There are 2 ways to make content: Have PR and personality recognition and be elevated
by your platform, or play the numbers game. Unfortunately there’s no middle ground. I’m
fortunate to be prominent in the world of digital content, but even I’d need to pair with a
showrunner to get an Amazon show. They’re aiming high and getting headliners like Woody
Allen. They want to show they’re like Netflix and make premium content. And then you have
YouTube where every piece of content is equal to the advertising dollar. I specialize in the
middle class of the web series, which The Guild helped to create and sustain. That middle
class has dried up somewhat in order to allow digital and TV to even out. I hope it will emerge
again because great things are made in that budget pocket.

NL: So you’re saying the Netflix and Amazons are competing head-on with quality and
budget with HBO and Showtime. And then there’s the really lower micro budget model?

FD: Or no budget, self-financed, crewed by friends and family—and may not ever find an
audience on YouTube. But on Vimeo and other curated platforms, the right concept at the
right time can excel. And then you have your half hours that people are investing in at
$200,000 an episode. In order to be invested in you have to have a YouTube personality or
Vine star. And that has yet to be proven financially successful.
NL: What about AwesomenessTV? Their movie, Expelled, with Vine star Cameron Dallas
really performed well.
FD: Awesomeness knows their audience and they do an amazing job. They really have shown
the financial advantage of having an online personality.
NL: The downside is that many Vine stars can’t act. And Awesomeness uses a low budget
financing model, so the production elements can be challenging. Alex Goyette (the writer/
director of Expelled) got a theatrical release in a few cities over Christmas. And I wouldn’t say
he’s embarrassed of the movie, but he isn’t proud of it because of the budgetary limitations.
FD: They’re going to make a ton of them, and some will succeed, and most of them will
probably fail. But YouTube and Vine stars are always going to want to step up and be actors.
It’s fantastic that there’s a new way to succeed in this industry that’s outside the system. Right
now, I think digital is just in its awkward teens years.
NL: It’s frustrating. The movie business when it began used to be fed by the theater.
 Gamechangers 67

FD: Now it’s driven by the mob of the very young. And not in a bad way, it’s just the only
demographic that Internet or YouTube personalities are able to drive traffic in the way that
can make it financially successful. As people age up, in 10 years, if they are able to sustain
their careers, you’ll have more mature people transitioning into becoming actors. Or maybe
they’re doing their own personality-based thing forever. The cool thing is the model is diverse
and sustains more options for performers than ever before.
NL: I believe there are more opportunities for content creators, but for less money. Forget
union scale; it’s more like minimum wage.
FD: The current reality is that creativity is cheap. It’s not valued. As a businessperson
I understand why businesses need to make money. You can’t be generous with your creatives
until the creative has proven his or her value—you have to be an A-lister in a sense.
Look, despite The Guild’s early popularity, I  was offered $1,000 total for the show initially.
That’s what I was offered in 2007. I just figured I’d act in another commercial and save $1,000
and shoot it myself and not give up ownership or creative control.
NL: You’re a savvy entrepreneur—and it’s paid off. Now you’re a dominant force in this space.
Can you tell me about how your company has evolved?
FD: In 2012, I created Geek & Sundry, which is a web series company; I wanted to expand and
sustain my audience from The Guild and grow a company that could last and release a bunch
of shows. YouTube financed it in an original content experiment. They funded about 100
channels at 1–5 million dollars apiece. One of the channels was mine. The idea was to create
100 cable-type networks and have shows live under the umbrella of a YouTube channel. If you
look at what came out of it, it was rocky. Awesomeness, Vice, Nerdist, came out of it. If you
look at the aggregate of what actually survived out of that investment, it’s a small percentage.
But not any less than network pilot season.

At the time it was a big move and put a lot of money into the space. Whether every person
succeeded or not, it was a move to legitimatize online content. It flooded the market with
lots of content, and unfortunately there’s no way to watch 500 hours of content and make
sure it gets paired with advertisers and monetized enough. We succeeded enough based
on my fan base to garner a second year of investment. Only a handful got reinvested in.
I was lucky enough to build the business further and sell to Legendary Pictures. I’m the
Creative Officer of the company and continue to appear online, and also have a
development deal for television with Legendary Television. The Guild was actually made a
superstar by being on Xbox not YouTube. They funded seasons 2–6 and made us a dream
deal. They didn’t own the show; they got Sprint to pay for all of our cost. And they featured
us in a way to millions of people and gave us prominent placement and found millions of
new fans. It was the ideal deal for a while in digital, and is one that hasn’t really been
duplicated since.
68 Gamechangers

If you look at YouTube’s business model, they are just now thinking about putting the kind of
money behind a single show like Xbox did with us. They aggregate all their advertising costs.
One video is the same as another on the YouTube platform, and that’s why a lot of people are
going off platform to make money. I can’t invest $1,000 or $10,000, or $100,000 in a video
when I’m being treated the same as the ad that rolls in front of it as a $1 video. The benefit
of YouTube is audience building, but the challenge is monetizing it. Everybody is now
focusing on taking the fan bases built on YouTube and taking them off of YouTube to build
new business. They’re a big company and they have different priorities. It will never go away,
it’s just how people treat it to release content that will change. Or they’ll adjust to retain their
talent. It will be interesting to watch.

The Legendary deal was exciting for me and let me pivot back to my roots—making content
of differing kinds, unscripted and scripted, moving-off of YouTube and onto our own website.
On our site Legendary can control our advertising. We’ll be funneling our audience to
different places than just YouTube now. We have a Twitch channel that is constant live
content, 6 hours a day. We have our website that has our own player and Legendary can get
sponsorship directly. For me personally I want to branch out into directing and write a vehicle
for me as an actor, online or on TV. The great thing about being at Legendary is they’re able
to consider all types of original content that I would love to make, especially on the scripted
side, whatever the budget level or platform.

NL: So your dream scripted project would be . . .?

FD: My dream scripted project would be a half-hour comedy that I  star in and created. It
would be at an Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, or Yahoo. That’s my ideal world. But I’d be happy just
to do something in my garage again as long as it’s something I believe in and love.

Part of my development deal is to develop television as a creator. That was the exciting part.
Others just wanted the digital end, but my goal was to get back to where I started as a creator
and actor and producer of my own stuff. As a company with a footprint in all these worlds,
Legendary offered an awesome deal. And their vibe works well with my fan base.

NL: Even so, you’re certain that’s not enough to warrant a series order unless you’re paired
with an established showrunner?

FD: It’s about melding old and new media in an innovative way. That’s the sweet spot going
forward. I’ve never run a show, but having someone who has shepherded 10, 30-minute
episodes and then you have your creativity and innovation mixed with experience that’s
where the hits will come from.

NL: But not from your own studio here at Geek & Sundry?
 Gamechangers 69

FD: At present, it doesn’t make financial sense to do traditional half-hour scripted

independently. Our fans are ComicCon going fans. They love Supernatural and our online
shows. Developing and owning IP that was always the goal, so who knows what we’re going
to grow into. We have some things in internal development that will jump to other platforms,
the budget levels and scales are to be determined. Online can be the incubation place that
you use the mass audience to prove concept and then you can go out and get enough
financing to sustain a real show over 20 episodes.

NL: And now with Legendary’s power and scope . . .?

FD: Legendary is a big company and there are many people there covering the business
things that aren’t where I want to spend my time. My job is to make sure that everything we
do melds with our fan base and, if we are consistent, the tone will be clear and we’ll continue
to grow, whatever the format it is that we make.

NL: Different places are into the pilot phase and others circumvent it. I wondered how what
you’re doing with Legendary—are they using the pilot or going straight to series?

FD: To me the pilot process is important. My goal is to always pilot before picking a series up,
whatever the scale. You have to know it will mesh with your audience, you don’t want to
release episode 5 of something that drops into the world without being loved by your
audience. At the very least, I, as creator and the temperature gauge of my audience, want to
watch that pilot and think, “is this a hit or is this not going to fly?” I do feel like I have an
internal sense of what is good or bad. We have block shot23 series that just didn’t turn out
right. Why didn’t we shoot 1 instead of 10? We don’t have the money to not release content.
Maybe in 5 years we’ll have the cushion to be able to dedicate ourselves to something that
could gradually grow in popularity. But on the scripted side that’s not where we are right now.
We are still solidifying our brand, branching out on other platforms is our immediate goal,
and making sure that we take our content to places we can monetize better.

See my interview with Erin McPherson, former Chief

Content Officer, Maker Studios at www.routledge.
com/cw/landau
70 Gamechangers

ASSEMBLING THE DREAM TEAM

W
ars often begin with a revolution. This time it’s the war of attrition as viewers slip
away/lose interest in expected, formulaic programming designed by the big 4
broadcast networks to appeal to the widest possible audience; a war against rigid
time slots, exorbitant cable bills, recycled summer reruns, and overnight Nielsen ratings
determining which series deserve to live or die. In this latest and (arguably) greatest “New
Golden Age of Television,” the audience is in charge of who, what, when, where, how, and
why they watch.

Like a Fantasy Baseball League, this gamechangers section provided me with the opportunity
to assemble the Digital Television Revolution Dream Team—from Felicia Day’s feisty
entrepreneurship to Andy Kaplan’s practical pursuit of quality. While they’re all competitors in
the marketplace, collectively they are the starting lineup, each possessing unique skills,
vision, acumen, artistry, and leadership.

Decades ago, Ben Stein wrote in his book, The View From Sunset Boulevard,24 that TV was all
about “Happy people seeking happy solutions to happy problems.” Today, digital content
creators are feeling liberated. And viewers are exhilarated by content that not only provokes
and challenges, but also more accurately reflects the diverse, complicated world in which we
live. If viewers of the past turned on their TV sets for reassurance and answers, this new cord-
cutting, OTT (over-the-top) iteration of TV content is much more likely to raise provocative
questions than to offer simple solutions. With the current variety and (overwhelming) volume
of programming, certainly there is room for both traditional, reassuring, comfortable television
shows and the New Wave of creative content in the future of TV. Something for everyone.
Stay tuned. . . .
 Gamechangers 71

Notes
1 
The WB was a network jointly owned by Warner Bros and Tribune Broadcasting. Later, it merged
with another start-up, the UPN network (originally owned by Chris-Craft Industries’ United
Television and Paramount) to form today’s CW network, a joint venture of CBS and Warner Bros.
2 
By the time Blockbuster—the now defunct video store chain—tried to replicate (some say, steal)
Netflix’s proprietary algorithmic formula, the company was moving full steam ahead into SVOD
and cutting deals with TV studios and networks. They were like a stealth bomber (no malice
intended). No one could have predicted how disruptive their streaming service was going to
become for both broadcast and cable networks. Sarandos himself, back in 2010, asserted that
Netflix was “absolutely complementary to cable.”
3 
While Borgia was Netflix’s first acquired original series, Lilyhammer was Netflix’s first original
order.
4 
In both cases, he didn’t merely green-light a pilot episode. Instead, he shelled out a king’s
ransom for a full order of 13 episodes of OITNB and ordered 2 full seasons (26 chapters) of
House of Cards. He also gave the nod to Season 2 of OITNB even before Season 1 was aired.
Algorithms told Sarandos that audiences would tune in, but still it was a bold investment.
5 
Jason Lynch reporting.
6 
Fin-Syn—the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules—has had a substantive impact on the TV
business. In the late 1990s, all Fin-Syn rules were eliminated, allowing studios to own networks
and the shows they aired on their own networks. It’s a controversial deregulatory issue that
caused most, if not all, independent television production companies (MTM, Carsey-Werner-
Mandabach, Tandem Communications) to shut down, unable to compete on a level playing field
with the studio and networks that are now fused together as one entity.
7 
Participant Media dedicates itself to producing entertainment that creates social change.
Perhaps best known for producing the Academy Award winning documentary An Inconvenient
Truth, Participant was founded by Jeff Skoll (eBay’s “second employee”) as Participant
Productions, with a mandate to produce films shining a light on environmental, healthcare and
human rights, institutional responsibility, peace and tolerance and social and economic justice
issues.
8 
http://fourpins.com/style/gentleman-lobsters-is-hilarious-and-hits-a-little-too-close-to-home.
9 
Crunchyroll is a free and premium subscription video service and community for Japanese
anime and Asian media, which operates both through its streaming site and third party
applications, from iPad to Playstation. It was founded by a group of UC Berkeley graduates in
2007, who retain a major stake along with TV Tokyo, which came on board in 2009 as a content
provider and investor, followed by The Chernin Group, that acquired a major stake in 2013.
Crunchyroll has over 5 million online community members globally.
10 
YouTube is worth more than eBay, Yahoo and Starbucks: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/
youtube-is-valued-above-ebay-yahoo-and-starbucks-2015–05–27.
11 
How “Gangnam Style” broke YouTube’s counter http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2014/12/economist-explains-6.
12 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/02/01/how-janet-jacksons-super-bowl-
wardrobe-malfunction-helped-start-youtube/.
13 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967.
72 Gamechangers

14 
http://www.fastcompany.com/3033534/innovation-agents/rebooting-youtube.
15 
To Take On HBO And Netflix, YouTube Had To Rewire Itself http://www.fastcompany.
com/3044995/to-take-on-hbo-and-netflix-youtube-had-to-rewire-itself.
16 
http://www.wired.com/2011/08/how-long-should-you-make-that-youtube-video.
17 
Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/21/google-wants-youtube-viewers-to-
shop-while-they-watch/.
18 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-when-lady-gaga-told-youtube-keep-its-ux-shitty-hunter-
walk.
19 
HBO Courts Danger with Gonzo “Vice” Show: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/hbo-
courts-danger-with-gonzo-vice-show20130405.
20 
Ibid.
21 
“Vice” On HBO: News And Stuff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-ryan/
vice-hbo_b_3023038.html.
22 
As Vice Moves More to TV, It Tries To Keep Brash Voice http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/
business/media/as-vice-moves-more-to-tv-it-tries-to-keep-brash-voice.html?_r=1.
23 
Block shooting is cross-boarding scenes so all scenes from multiple episodes in the same
setting can be shot on the same day. Also known as “shooting directionally.” It saves time and
money, but tends to benefit production more than creative.
24 
Basic Books, 1979.