THB #178: U.S. v Hollywood

In recent days, amidst the frustration of watching the Supreme Court of the United States openly become the most lawless, activist Supreme Court in history, I remain soaked in the realities of the film/tv/streaming industry. And it struck me how the tone of the coverage of these industries is so similar, though the reality is not.

As both America and The Industry face change, there are positives and negatives to the freedom of capitalism vs. the limitations of a governed culture, even though the ultimate goal of “having the best outcome” is the same.

Imagine if we were allowed to have an Industry President who would help lead the 8-12 major content players through the transition from “legacy” to where The Industry is headed. It would be so much more effective to clarify goals and the means to get to those goals instead of having each group trying to both strategize and execute transition.

And unlike government, the goals would not be split by personal takes on purpose. Maximixing the future of these companies would be the only real goal… which doesn’t mean they all have to paddle the boat in the exact same direction.

The biggest transition in what we are going through right now is the massive shift from cable/satellite delivery of content to streaming, with is both a technical and a revenue shift.

Comcast, Disney, and Paramount are all tethered to legacy television as broadcast network owners. These 3 and all of the other legacy players have cable interests.

For Comcast, cable is still $40 billion of its $120 billion annual revenue stream. Broadband services in homes is about $25 billion. NBC/Universal is about $40 billion.

For reference, remember that Netflix total income, worldwide, is just $30 billion. Both the cable and broadband segments for Comcast are primarily domestic.

So why does Peacock seem to be unwilling/unable to break through as other streamers have? Every time it comes up, I get people - some of whom have worked for Comcast - arguing about the internal struggle and attitude within the corporation. And I hear it and feel their pain. But the execution of Peacock is not really the issue at this point. It will be someday. But not now.

Over 70 million U.S. households still pay for cable or satellite TV every month. Still.

“The Streaming Wars” have barely begun, even in the United States.

Americans have relied on the 3 branches of government to keep things balanced. In the streaming universe, there is not only no government-style structure… it is truly the high seas of ye olde days, some passenger ships, some cargo ships, some pirates.

This freedom doesn’t necessarily work for everyone… not even the massive companies battling it out.

So imagine there being a President Of Filmed Entertainment who would be voted on by 40,000 people in the industry, a Supreme Court of Filmed Entertainment with 9 members and new members selected by the sitting President, and a Filmed Entertainment Congress with a Senate made up of 2 executives from each of the major filmed entertainment companies and a House split up between various skill groups with Actors, Writers, Directors and Producers, as well as all of the “below the line” workers represented as well.

For an idea to work its way into being accepted, it would have to get the broad approval of the FE Congress, then then more narrow approval of The Money, and finally, get signed off on by the figure head that had enough support to be voted in. (There would have to be a term limit to keep Clooney, Hanks, and Emma Thompson from just switching off every year.)

Imagine the industry setting structure for the Disney/Fox “merger.” Okay… but you either have to use 75% of Fox’s assets/talent for at least 5 years or you have to sell the production part off and just keep Star, 1/3 of Hulu, and the library. No… you can’t just keep Searchlight.

Want to shorten the window before post-theatrical? Let’s discuss it in depth in the House. Maybe it will be 45 days. Maybe 60. Maybe 90. Maybe 30. What makes for maximum revenues? What needs to be imposed and what needs to be tested for 6 months before making it permanent?

What is best for the industry as a payment method for the creation of filmed entertainment, up-front or based on success? Maybe there is a happy answer with both. But let the discussion happen with all the players, not with every one making up their own set of rules.

Comcast holding onto legacy a bit to strongly for everyone else to progress as quickly as they feel they should? President of FE works to find an answer that doesn’t instantly strip Comcast of $40 billion a year but also doesn’t disadvantage streaming too much.

How can the Filmed Entertainment Government put at least 300 mbps of internet in every pot.

When companies make change or won’t make change, it’s is almost beyond comprehension how many people and livelihoods this affects. Don’t get me wrong. Comcast is doing what it feel it must… as are the other legacy players… and the streamers.

Whatever your position, we have all seen the idea “The Future is everyone doing what Netflix did” get smashed to the ground with a 70% devaluation of Netflix stock and hits taken by everyone else for daring to become streamers when Wall St signalled that they wanted exactly that. (Wall St = 3 Card Monte)

And what if a company, say BretTrix2023, wants to do what it wants and doesn’t care about the Government of Filmed Entertainment? Cool. They just don’t get to walk in and get all the advantages of the entire group (like FE Oscars), no matter how much they spend on content.

I know that this is never going to happen. Everyone is just too smart to listen to everyone else, much less to share the responsibility for the final decisions.

I recall conversations with various leaders of various groups about why they had not done this or that. And often, the reason is that collusion is illegal.

I believe in the public marketplace. I believe that consumers will make themselves heard, at least within the parameters of what they are offered. But in this business, as much as or more than any other, waiting on the market is and has been breathtakingly expensive… even before companies insanely pushing to 11-figure content budgets.

There has to be a way to limit the number of risky choices every year without making everything so homogeneous (aka, fucking boring) that this becomes an road to inevitable failure. “IP-Mania” is not that answer.

I think this bunch of smarties could do it together.

Not every result would be right. There would be Mitch McConnells out there… and AOCs… and Pelosis… and even the occasional Trump. There could be a Supreme Filmed Entertainment Court that wants the world to go back to 78 records. (If you are under 50, you may have no idea what those were… but that is why they made the internet.) But I believe that rowing in the same direction is better for everyone. A fair race. And let them measure winners and losers from there.

And now I click my ruby VHSes together.

Until tomorrow…