malumirones

[malumirones]

Make Em’ Laugh

Netflix’s recent subscriber loss may have sent out a ripple effect of panic among streamers; even the mighty can fall. And yet, production companies that provide content for these streamers were not hit (at least not as majorly) by this wave of panic. After all, no matter where it ends up, content will always be produced and displayed somewhere. Streamers may come and go, but the content itself and those who produce it will remain. Making a point of this, Kevin Hart’s production company HartBeat has secured a $100 million investment by selling equity stakes of the company to Abry Partners, a private equity firm. In addition, HartBeat and Laugh Out Loud are merging and existing under HartBeat to produce more comedic content for streaming, both film and television. 

A trend I’ve noticed this semester is streaming platforms’ need for original content that sets them aside from competitors. The streaming wars are host to another war within itself: the content and intellectual property wars. Whoever has the best content, the most unique intellectual properties, is bound to bring in the most subscribers. This of course gets complicated when considering how many people go on and off streaming services for certain shows or films, but this difficulty does not negate the fact that these platforms need content. As long as there’s a need, creators will continue to produce content, and HartBeat intends to do just that by bringing in new high quality comedies to life. The company has an edge, not only because of the new merger and $100 million investment, but also because it is owned by a prolific and popular actor. While Kevin Hart will be stepping down as CEO, bringing in Thai Randolph in the position, his position as chairman and face of the company is crucial. Companies headed by celebrities have the advantages of connections and existing audiences that will follow these creators wherever they go. Kevin Hart’s reputation in comedy, both in stand up and scripted shows and films, almost guarantees that HartBear productions will continue to flourish and attract the attention of streaming platforms in dire need of new and unique content that attracts viewers. 

[malumirones]

Stranger Things, Stranger Production Costs

At the beginning of the semester, I could hardly believe it when I realized that by the last season of Game of Thrones, each episode cost HBO around $15 million dollars. This barely compares to the much discussed budget for Amazon Prime’s Lord of the Rings series, which reportedly cost $465 million for its first season. However, if there’s one company I didn’t expect to see making headlines for its costly per-episode production costs this week it’s Netflix. And yet, here I find myself reading that the streaming platform reportedly put in $30 million per every episode of its original series Stranger Things for its incoming 4th season. This comes as a surprise after the company announced losing 200,000 subscribers during Q1 and rumors swirl about them cutting on production costs and changing their business model. 

Obviously the company’s current state is not directly related with the $30 million per episode on the popular sci-fi show; after all, when the show was produced and budgeted, Netflix had no way of knowing of their current loss. However, news of the show’s high budget coming out days after the subscriber loss news does bring up a flaw in Netflix’s television production pipeline, which has had and will continue to have a big impact on how shows are produced. As one of the lead companies in streaming, Netflix stands out to audiences because of its release format, which makes it easy for audiences to binge their favorite shows. In addition, Netflix is also popular with creators because of their reputation as a company prioritizing content over metrics. However, this has started to change, even before the subscriber loss.

It’s no secret that some original Netflix shows have been preemptively canceled due to low initial viewership; The OA, One Day At a Time , I’m Not Okay with This, Sense8, Daybreak, Everything Sucks…the list goes on. Here’s where Netflix’s release format affects its production. With immediate, binge-worthy hits like Stranger Things, Squid Game, and Bridgerton, Netflix measures the success of their productions, and therefore whether they deserve more seasons, on how much of an instant hit they are. The way Netflix treats its shows reminds me of how social media content creators treat their posts; as soon as something doesn’t go viral, it’s scrapped and a new idea comes to the table in the hopes that this one will go viral. The issue is that television production cannot be treated like this with such a quick churn out rate and such a huge disparity in how much money is invested in the content. 

If all Netflix wants is for their original content to go viral, then their model is much better suited for social media. If, however, they seek to establish themselves as a giant in the film and television production industry, then they need to start thinking about long term success instead of the high rush of having their shows go viral for one week. The solution here is not cutting down their creator’s liberties, which seems to be where the company is heading at the moment, but rather establishing a realistic timeline for their content to be released and to abandon their release format, opting for weekly releases like other companies are and have been doing for years. 

[malumirones]

Streaming Wars? No, Rebrand Wars

Okay, so it’s not really a war, but there has been an awful lot of renaming and rebranding lately. From Facebook to Meta, to Warner and Discovery to Warner Bros. Discovery (the most original of the lot for sure), and now IMDb TV is rebranding itself as Amazon Freeve. To be honest, IMDb TV was barely in my radar when it comes to streaming and television producers, but this side of the IMDb brand has been operating since 2019, working under its long-time parent company Amazon. One of the biggest selling points of the service is the fact that it has free (with adds) content streaming, some original content and some licensed as well. While before it was simply known as IMDb TV, it will now go by Amazon Freeve, a name almost as on the nose as Warner Bros. Discovery. This sudden change comes as an attempt to fulfill the “need for a standalone, streaming-centric brand name that is easily definable for [our’] customers.” While the name may not be the most original, it will certainly separate IMDb TV from IMDb, which focuses more on film and TV information and reviews, and establish it more as a streaming service and content producer. More importantly, it will pull focus on the brand’s main selling point: it’s free. 

With the streaming wars heavily weighing on all streaming services, anything that can differentiate one from the other is key, and being free is certainly going to pull attention from viewers, even if it’s ad supported. But streaming aside, this decision to rebrand affects the actual productions that will come out of the studio. After two years of “tremendous growth for [their] AVOD services,” president of Amazon Studios Jennifer Salke said that they will be “building on this momentum with an increasing slate of inventive and broadly appealing Originals.” The rebrand and name change are a clear indicator that Amazon has noticed IMDb TV’s success and sees potential in their productions, both film and television. Most notably, it has been reported that they intend to increase their original programing by 70%, and while there is still no way of knowing how much attention will be given to film and television respectively, it is still exciting to see that the success of a streaming service directly correlates to the number of original productions that will be developed and released into the world of media. 

This change in branding and naming will happen on April 27, taking away IMDb TV and bringing into the media production scene Amazon Freeve (how do you even pronounce this?).

[malumirones]

One For All and All for One: Diversity and Inclusion Programs in Television Production

A month after NBCU Launch announced its partnership with Telemundo to promote more hispanic women directing in television, WarnerMedia OneFifty has announced its partnership with Banijay Americas for an incubator program to promote new stories and diversity in unscripted content. As seen on the exclusive with The Hollywood Reporter, Warner does not explicitly say this program will promote diversity in the production of unscripted content, but rather state that they are looking for creators that have “authentic visions and perspectives” and “strong cultural aesthetics,” which sounds like a long-winded way of saying “diverse.” The program itself sounds wonderful and like it will help underrepresented creators, but it’s the phrasing in the announcement that makes me wonder what these companies have in mind when they are making these strides towards diversity. 

As far as WarnerMedia’s recent partnership with Banijay Americas goes, the two will join forces to pick 5 creators per period to participate in the program, receive grants, develop their content, and have it pitched to WarnerMedia after the incubation period is over. The details are still being finalized, but its goal is pretty definitive: make room and give opportunities to diverse and underrepresented creators. 

What confuses me about this announcement is Warner’s phrasing and complete avoidance of words like “diverse” and “inclusive.” It strikes me as strange considering that WarnerMedia OneFifty operates within the company’s Equity and Inclusion section. In addition, Warner’s website is no stranger to these words and their use in their mission to make their company and industry more diverse and inclusive. Their site even includes stats around diversity within their company, something missing from the NBCU Diversity, Equity & Inclusion website. On the other hand, NBCU is quicker to mention their initiatives and current doings, something which might take a little digging to find in the Warner page.

This is not particularly about comparing both companies and their diversity and inclusion programs, but rather about pointing out the entertainment industry’s treatment of these programs. As helpful and filled with good intentions as these are, the language around them is interesting. Thinking of Warner’s recent partnership and program, I can’t help but shake the phrasing used by the company, which fully avoided words like “diverse,” “inclusive,” or “underrepresented.” Why? Have these words been used far too often and far too loosely, to the point that they feel overused in the entertainment industry? And if so, what does it matter? 

Granted, these companies could not produce the exact same content using the exact same words, but when it comes to talking about the opportunities and programs they offer to promote diversity and inclusion, there is no reason to avoid those words. When it comes to having more diversity in primarily white, male, and heterosexual spaces, embellishing ideals with phrases like “strong cultural aesthetics” should be avoided, if not lower their word account, at least to fully acknowledge the importance of taking actions towards having more diversity and inclusion in the entertainment production industry. 

[malumirones]

Fast times at Warner Bros. (Discovery)

Just as last week’s guest in class, Jacqueline Lem, mentioned, the Warner Bros. and Discovery merger happened this past Friday April 8th. After a fairly speedy process, Warner Bros. and Discovery will formally come together starting this Monday as Warner Bros. Discovery, a media and entertainment company with a rather eclectic content library and an unclear future as far as its future productions. With the merger, figureheads of both companies have come and gone, leaving some from Warner, a good number from Discovery, but most importantly, leaving Discovery’s CEO David Zaslav as president of the newly formed Warner Bros. Discovery. This change in leadership is important for primarily two reasons. For one, Warner Bros. is coming into this merger after 3 years of being owned by AT&T, an ownership that proved messy and complicated in terms of leadership and management of the media company. The rocky road these past few years did not stop Warner Bros. from producing content and bringing in new subscribers, but it’s easy to imagine how hectic the environment must have been with such a drastic change in leadership. With Discovery management coming in strong in Warner Bros. Discovery, there is hope for better management from industry veterans that understand the landscape Warner Bros. operates in a little better. 

However, with this comes another possible challenge and the second reason Zaslav’s new promotion is so significant. Coming in from being CEO at Discovery, Zaslav’s main experience with media production and distribution is around unscripted television, with shows such as 90 Day Fiance and Shark Week, but much of Warner’s portfolio and currently running shows are scripted television. While Zaslav is definitely excited to begin working with this new portfolio at his disposal, it is impossible not to question the future of programming and production of both Discovery and Warner content. Sure, the two will now exist together under one umbrella, but will one form of content take priority over the other, and if so will it be because of Zaslav’s comfort and savvy within unscripted television? Hopefully a middle ground will be found, where both scripted and unscripted television will be able to coexist and benefit from the newly brought together talents of Warner Bros. Discovery. One thing is for sure, all eyes will be on David Zaslav, as employees, audiences, and stakeholders look at this new media behemoth and hope for the best. 

[malumirones]

Lost in Translation: Viral on Twitter Does Not Mean Viral on Cable

The hot topic of the week in the world of entertainment is without a doubt the Oscars, which aired live on ABC and streamed on Hulu. From big wins like Ariana DeBose and Troy Kotsur, to the on-stage reunion of casts from iconic films (Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, White Guys Can’t Jump), to the altercation between Will and Jada Pinkett Smith and Chris Rock, the 2022 Academy Awards were full of big moments that will go down on pop culture history and that went viral on social media platforms during and after the awards. However, what is so interesting about this event when thinking about television production and broadcasting is the disparity between on-air viewership and social media engagement. 

Following a decline in viewership, hitting an all-time low of 10.4 million viewers in 2021, this year the Oscars reported 16.62 million viewers. And yet, this number is still fairly low in comparison to previous years. In 2020 (early February) viewership reached 23.6 million viewers, which was still a drop from previous years like 2017, where the awards reported 33 million viewers. This decline has been going on for over a decade, and has been accelerated by the pandemic and changing movie and television watching habits. However, the production behind the Oscars was set on making Sunday’s event a success. Will Packer and his production team made changes to the awards to try and persuade more viewers. For example, some awards were pre-recorded in order to keep the show to 3 hours, they brought back hosts for the awards, and segments of the show were presented by actors coming to celebrate anniversaries for some of their biggest films. With all of this in mind, the Oscars had a chance of reeling in more viewership than in previous years. However, what no one could have predicted was the altercation involving the Smiths and Chris Rock. 

This event went immediately viral on social media, particularly Twitter, as users from all over the world tweeted about it or shared uncensored clips of what happened. Now, two days after the event, this Oscar moment is still being talked about and debated in the media. Why is this so important for the Oscars? While their viewership went up, it does not compare with the social media attention the event has gotten, and while social media attention may make the awards relevant, it does not mean they were successful. This is the intersection where today’s media meet. Social media “virality” is crucial, but it does not really quantify, let alone monetize, in the same way that viewership does. The production behind the Oscars could never foresee such a viral moment, but even if they did, how could they use it to restate the importance of the event and the production itself? Despite media attention, are the Oscars simply doomed to die out little by little due to lack of interest, or can social media bring back attention to the pop culture role to be played by award shows? 

[malumirones]

Journalists Killed and Injured in Ukraine

As the Russian war on Ukraine continues, more journalists suffer the consequences of attempting to document the war and violence committed by Russian soldiers. After the recent death of filmmaker Brent Renaud (March 14th), on whom Russian soldiers opened fire while he was in his car in Irpin, two more deaths of those documenting the war have been reported (March 15th). Pierre Zakrzewski, a videographer for Fox News, and Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova, a Ukrainian journalist helping Zakrzewski and his team on the ground were killed as Russian forces opened fire on their car around Kyiv. In the car was also Fox News war correspondent Benjamin Hall, who was injured in the attack and is currently outside of Ukraine and recovering. 

Pierre Zakrzewski, a 55 year old war zone photographer, was well known at Fox News for his long trajectory covering war zones and international conflict, most recently having helped Fox freelancers and their loved ones escape Afghanistan last year when the US withdrew from the country. Oleksandra Kuvshynova on the other hand, was a 24 year old local journalist who was integral in the team’s navigation of Ukraine and was passionate about getting the truth of the war zone out into the world. The deaths and injuries of four members of the press and media so close together are an indicator of the dangers of war correspondence and documentation, but more presently, the dangers faced by the “truth” in war. While all media and documentation is capable of containing bias, gathering documented evidence of historical events is crucial to maintain the rest of the world informed and to give future generations proof of the events that transpired. War narratives may differ based on who is telling them, but evidence like video and photography can tell and show realities that narrators may either not be able to convey or, in the worst cases, attempt to hide. Russian forces’ direct attacks on members of the press is not only inhumane, but also a threat to truth and the distribution of information and news from the current war zone. 

[malumirones]

Love Island going from CBS to Peacock

Content moving from one network to another is not unusual in today’s day and age, but a move like that tends to come after the cancellation of a show or the ending of a contract. In the case of “Love Island” USA however, the reality show’s move from CBS to Peacock is mainly rooted in the world of possibilities provided by streaming. “Love Island” USA premiered on CBS in 2019, when the network decided to play off the success of the original “Love Island” UK and bring it to American audiences by working with the show’s producers ITV Entertainment. However, after two seasons, “Love Island” USA has not reached the level of popularity of its UK counterpart, a show that has reached international success. One major difference between the two shows is that the American version was far more censored than the UK version, taking away part of the show’s shock value and appeal.

And yet, the future of “ Love Island” USA looks brighter than ever now that Peacock has acquired the show. After CBS and ITV Entertainment could not agree on the number of hours for a future season of the show, ITV put the show on the market and finally landed with Peacock. NBCU’s streaming platform is not only willing to give ITV Entertainment the show hours they originally wanted for “Love Island,” but they are also ready and eager to shift the show’s tone so it matches that of its UK counterpart. With streaming, there are more possibilities regarding swearing and explicit content that would simply not fly in broadcast. This gives Peacock the upper hand with a show like “Love Island,” while also possibly increasing the show’s success. The missing elements of raunchiness and shock value may have disappointed viewers who compared the USA version of the show to its original UK version, but Peacocks’s promise to bring new “steamy and dramatic twists” might just bring back the “Love Island” spark to its American audience.

“Love Island” USA will start at Peacock this summer, following the show’s multiple episodes per week format (having 3-4 episodes released on different days of the same week), and is already set to have two seasons at Peacock, making these “Love Island” USA’s third and fourth seasons.

[malumirones]

Fox Acquires Rights to Gumby

In the world of entertainment, owning unique and relevant intellectual property can differentiate a company from its fellow competitors. It is with this in mind that Fox Entertainment has been quickly gathering new properties, especially after selling away most of its entertainment properties to Disney in 2019. Last week, it was announced that Fox acquired the rights to the Gumby franchise and all related characters, in attempts to expand their current library and open up possibilities for new content around the franchise. 

Fox stated that they want to develop the characters for new and current generations, producing animated and live-action content. A more nuanced idea of new content around the iconic green character are NFTs, which Fox plans on developing alongside more traditional consumer goods. Exactly how the company will do this is still unknown, but it is clear to see that Fox is moving into their future as a company by adjusting to the times and current trends, making their content accessible to current generations. 

Another important thing to note of this acquisition is that now, previous Gumby material, particularly television episodes, will be available on Tubi, Fox’s streaming platform. Television shows in particular make a good addition to a company’s library, since they mean more content and allow for binging, a trend that has become almost synonymous with the idea of streaming tv shows. As the streaming industry grows, it is interesting to see companies acquire material with this direct-to-consumer purpose in mind.  Expanding content libraries and acquiring valuable intellectual property is becoming a high priority for all entertainment companies who want to stand a chance in the streaming wars; as Fox’s CEO Charlie Collier said, “Competition for globally recognized intellectual property is fierce.” 

[malumirones]

Sector and sources (plus news)

This semester I will be looking at television production and I’ll be following Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times. 

A fairly recent bit of news in this sector is that, as reported in The Hollywood Reporter, Disney+ officially green lit the Percy Jackson series, which has been in development since May 2022. The book series’ author, Rick Riordan, will be heavily involved in production, hopefully serving as a redemption for the series after its unsuccessful (and unfaithful) film adaptation from 2010-2013. Riordan and Jon Steinberg will write the pilot episode and come in as executive producers for the show, alongside Dan Shotz. As a fan of the series myself, I’m very excited and happy, especially seeing Rick Riordan so involved in production after being practically ignored by production in the film series in the early 2010′s.