Warner Bros. Discovery’s Post

🚨 It is impossible to compete with Hollywood without a strong, independent and underground creative culture. Let me explain. When you see Hollywood spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding movies and TV shows, the knee-jerk reaction is to say, "We need to have that much money to compete." This is the trap Hollywood wants competitors to fall into. It's why Netflix spends billions a month on content, even if it is not good. Because it's essentially a "fist" shaking contest as a means to distract you and discourage you from ever thinking you can compete with them in a fair fight. It's a true David and Goliath situation here. But the truth is that having unlimited war chests is not the solution. It's been shown in history, time after time, with almost the same story for every major entertainment brand. Record Labels starting in garages. Indie filmmakers fleeing Hollywood. Cable TV brands like MTV, Food Network, etc. started with barely any money or resources. It is a demonstrable fact that cultural media institutions do not require the amount of funding and investment that most people believe. We've been trying to play the money game, and it hasn't worked because we have neglected independent filmmakers and building something counter cultural that is sustainable, repeatable and scalable. This is what the underground creative culture produces. Most people snobbishly reject the idea of indie culture because it's not as glamorous and doesn't get you invited to the right parties. But anyone who is actually, legitimately serious about changing the world with media and entertainment needs to understand that it always starts here. If you don't believe me, hop on a call with me, and I will walk you through television and film industry history and show you how it's demonstrably true.

Tough times need tough decisions and rules need to be broken. The big learning from the article below by my veteran friend Prof. Viveck Vaswani is ‘movies arw not made only with money’ - you need something else also. The X factor, the hunger to deliver, the dedication to your job without having to look at the clock, the homework before entering your set, the research before taking random decisions, the study of your target audience and the most important one being ‘FEASIBLITY’ - at all levels! Our audience understands ‘value for money’ - flamboyance of a High price luxe ticket pinches even the richest in India. Everyone likes being rational here, if you really want to give a deal, why not offer buy 1 get 1 free on the pop-corn and coke or any combo. That would be an attraction for the youngsters and audiences. As far as the film-makers are concerned they should just stick to making films at reasonable prices and make them feasible. Learn from the south -Indian film makers and technicians. When they go on a set, they worship their work and they never look for any comfort. No one demands a ‘vanity van’ or outside food. Many jobs done by a small team of people. Thus they make films, unlike Bollywood where we waste money.

Today on Further&Better: the RTL Group is grappling with financial setbacks amid a softer advertising market, signalling broader industry economic pressures. At the same time, the sector is engaging with the future, as evidenced by Pact's nuanced approach to AI, balancing the potential benefits against the risks. Events like the Irish Film & Television Awards and the Thessaloniki Documentary Festival highlight documentaries' ongoing creative vitality and significant storytelling contributions. Key moves and launches, such as Joseph Cohen's new advisory firm in Asia and Juliette Binoche's role at the European Film Academy, showcase the industry's global and dynamic nature. Meanwhile, strategic hires and expansions into new content areas, like Prime Entertainment's foray into animation, reflect adaptive strategies to changing market demands. The industry's critical look at AI's impact, illustrated by the launch of "Gauntlet," underlines a commitment to maintaining human creativity at the heart of storytelling. Subscribe to our daily updates: https://lnkd.in/ewgvBsRn Our subscribers include executives from companies including Netflix, France Televisions, Sky, ABC, Apple, Channel 4, ITV, A+E Networks, CBC, TV2, SVT & ARTE.

Excited to share that a recent post of mine was picked up by BusinessWorld as a feature! "The raison d ‘etre of the streaming platforms is subscribers, and not necessarily specific viewing, although one possible future is TVOD. Ergo, the cost perspective of the platforms depends upon their objectives, their creative strategy, and also their size. That is a big reason for the superstar culture going down, and we are seeing a larger number of films and shows which are of relatively low cost, with sharp writing and edgy film making. Interestingly, it is opening up new consumers, and new languages, as viewers are becoming language agnostic. So , virtually all future decision making will telescope towards building the best creative output at lowest cost , which then puts the writers , producers , directors in limelight to drive creative and commercial success of the product . This needs compensation and incentive structures to be aligned to the delivery, and the parameters have to be templated for transparency. The industry may have to look at the sports Industry for inspiration where the base product differentiates between superstars and the hoi polloi, but the success and its spoils are shared equitably with everybody , and not just stars." Read on for more:

There is a new trend. Audience and distributors saw through fake collections.; then they saw through fake reviews; then they saw through fake stars given by fake critics/ analysts/ experts. Now the new thing is, buy one and get one free. Which means that the producers pay for one ticket for every one you buy. Why? so that the collections are boosted, So the OTT platforms which have linked the OTT rights to the box office collections pay for the target collections achieved. How much more can genuine cinema take? How much more will genuine film makers be battered? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just make better films, giving the audience the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price, and making sure that the ticket price at the cinema is affordable for the entire nation? Wouldn’t it? But unfortunately, and I saw it in the end credits of the film that I saw yesterday, more than 500 names in the end credits were lawyers, studio executives, administrative employees, marketing and sales teams, taking up the budget of the film by nearly 30%! Is there seriously no common sense left? When I made Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, I was the producer, the line producer, the executive producer, the casting director, the assistant director, the assistant story writer, the Production secretary, the go between between the actors, the director and the assistants, the marketing head, the PR person and I liaised distribution. I worked as 20 people and didn’t look at the clock. It worked. The film was high quality, low budget, superbly marketed, had a great score and created a mega star! Thirty two years later I am doing it again! In every way! Minimalistic in cost, huge in mounting and its canvas! Great music, young team….If you though Raju was terrific, look out for M*nn*! Giving the audience a great experience! Creating a new distribution model. Getting a great musical score and yet the full film up to censor certificate at 25% of the price that a star could charge… And mouth wateringly priced! Let’s wake up and smell the coffee! Let stakeholders dictate terms, not employees! Let’s just work and not look at the clock! Let’s give cinema a chance! Here’s a hint : the film doesn’t cost money! Everything else does!!!

More opinion some of you are preparing to pay for : a lot of power structures are going to be crushed in coming years as executive control systems are shown to be little more than a management class that really can't replace journalist/non fiction author/screen writer/producer teams that have original voice, perspective, and feel that is an intriguing bit of tug of war with the reality of our emerging tech belt. For those interested in the commercial future of cinema where there's the most political discussion we really need to get back to treating development planning as a thought experiment also thinking less linearly that in reality you are hunkering down for more than the singular 3 to 4 year dev cycle at this point with hot concepts attracting attachments, breaking down every last molecule, and challenging convention in the face of the on set of licensed co-prods retaining rights with other variables assessing how to reduce the cost of capital along with outrageously high upfront talent fee expectations that are no longer congruent with reality with what S.V.O.D.'s are doing even with the tiny increase in back end residuals so that we own our product retaining international rights controling negotiation end points . A simple reality to consider is audiences want more story and the 2.5 to 3 hour movie in on the average not a profitable vessel (I consider classic cinema formats outdated). Marley as a case study exploited the estate's incredible cultural legacy and had a built in audience. This is curious to measure in original story in non fiction/biopia in particular when the conviction isn't wrapped around a celebrity historical figure (sometimes coined as 'anti great man' by two of my favorite deviant philosopher screen kings in Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander's incredible lineage). On the thought experiment train focusing on unit economics, at a reported $70,000,000 budget this conceivably could have been shot at twice the length with a 5.5 to 6 hour movie that plays out equal to any limited television series making the studio/S.V.O.D. go heavy on integrated marketing while milking joint theatrical release with streaming (which Netflix claims they are generally done with in cinema anyway which should thus be no problem for we the producers to exact our 70% cut on global theatrical while leaving a margin of 15 to 20 % for theatrical distribution partners and then taking the S.V.O.D. to task on what the real numbers play out at as not just on streaming distribution but on all ancillary sources where they have been flat out plundering revenues on titles that do hit as we know with case studies like Squid Games despite that being a different franchising modality). We've observed lot's of hyberbole from incumbents controlling the discourse about what the future of cinema outside the superhero tent pole model is, and very little effective answer locking the field in the same doom loop where new talent really doesn't break through.

Reimagining Hollywood: A New Era It’s time to face facts and embrace change—it's here. Hollywood’s old system was deceptively simple: the more people loved a movie, the more tickets they bought, and the more money rolled in. TV followed the same script—popular shows attracted more viewers, making ad space a goldmine. But then Netflix blew up the rulebook. They switched to a flat revenue model, where it doesn’t matter if you watch one hour or a hundred hours—they make the same amount of money. Popularity? It’s not part of the equation anymore. Meanwhile, every extra second you spend on your phone translates into more profit for Google. YouTube, meanwhile, gets content for free, profits from every view, and shares a slice with creators. Hollywood is clinging desperately to the notion of exclusivity, making everyone believe that movie-making requires a fortress of cash and top-tier equipment. No joke—I was once in a meeting with studio heads who asked me to explain a new social media platform. It makes you wonder: Are these studio and agency heads keeping up with current trends, or are they just trying to pay their bar tabs? This outdated belief has kept many people employed, which has its perks. If the old model were still working, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops. But since it’s not, how do we keep those jobs? Here’s the twist: the landscape is shifting. Filmmaking is getting more affordable, distribution is as easy as WiFi, and “mainstream culture” is fading into obscurity. Talent isn’t confined to Hollywood anymore. And don’t fret about losing visual quality—AI is advancing at a breakneck pace. As Niko Pueringer put it at the AI on the Lot conference, “The type of equipment you have won’t really matter. Ideas are gonna matter a lot more.” Artists are diving into technology, pushing creative boundaries to new heights. This isn’t a gloomy article—it’s a call to rethink the narrative. The future is bursting with potential, and it’s far from too late to make your mark.

I need some help with a paradox: I spent last week in Atlanta with some of the most amazing filmmakers from every corner of the world. The International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers is a fabulous organization bringing together producers from the entertainment, commercial, corporate, experiential and production services spaces. My first take away is just how great people working in film are. Since I first started, I have been drawn to the openness, inquisitiveness, and creativity of those working with the medium. In my experience - and I know this is a generalization - to be a good filmmaker you must be open to what the world has to offer. Say yes more than no. Be interested in people. This makes them great fun to spend time with. The content being produced right now is the best it has ever been. New tech is adding so much to what can be achieved. The quality of what was shared throughout the week was fantastic. I did think that the increased softness in the market might be forcing everyone to up their game. If that is the case, the game has been upped! The moving image space is really patchy. Some businesses have had their best ever year, others are in free fall. This might not make a newsflash in our crazily lopsided world but fortunes are not evenly distributed. It is also not fair - some extremely talented companies are finding it tough. For all the amazing stories, work and people there, I left pondering a paradox. At a time when more people are consuming more content than ever before, so many of the best practitioners of that medium are hurting. I know the answer is complex - distribution changes, globalization of production, new tech displacement, the lasting effects of the writers strike, market recession, global instability - but I can't help but think there is a way to square this circle. Does anyone have any ideas?

Have you ever noticed how Hollywood loves to remake old movies? Right now, I'm thinking of Twister. Whether it's a classic from the '90s or a beloved tale from decades past, these stories are spun up again and again for new eyes and audiences. It's not because Hollywood is in a creative rut (though that happens too!); it's because some stories are timeless and deserve to be told in fresh, innovative ways. The same principle applies to social media and content creation. Repurposing ideas and content isn't just okay—it's smart and necessary. We live in an era where the sheer volume of content can be overwhelming, and not everyone catches everything the first time around. By revisiting and resharing valuable content, we ensure it reaches a wider audience and continues to provide value. Just as a movie can find new life through a remake, your content can find renewed engagement and impact through thoughtful repurposing. Whether it's updating an old blog post with new insights, turning a popular article into a video, or sharing snippets of past success stories, there are countless ways to breathe new life into your ideas. Remember, even Hollywood recognizes the power of a good (or bad haha) remake. So, don't hesitate to reimagine and repurpose your content. Your audience—and future fans—will thank you for it!

Thanks for posting this, Hayley, and for linking back to the original article. As we seek solutions to the current crisis in the entertainment industry, diverse perspectives on the causes are crucial for our understanding. The notion that entertainment is constantly competing with its past iterations is key to this discussion. I recently discarded boxes of CDs and DVDs—not because of their content, but because I have new technology to access it. In a year's time, I'll likely upgrade to the latest version, continually generating revenue for companies like Apple. However, the CDs I discarded contained music from 40 years ago, music that my daughters are discovering today. This means new music must compete for their attention with every piece of music ever released. While it can be argued that this has always been the case, the shift from physical media to streaming has changed the dynamics. Previously, accessing music meant a trip to the record store and a transaction. Today, it’s an online search and a microtransaction, with value stemming from mass access to a vast library. The financial model crashes because the value of new content is based on a vast library, not on individual works, making it difficult for creators to cover the cost of producing new material. This pattern is repeating with video content. When a new piece of content is created, streamers pay vast sums for productions that attract large audiences, each paying micro-rights to view. The result of mass worldwide sharing is that less content gets made, disrupting the business model. In the UK, there's discussion about large arena venues paying a levy to support small venues and their live music, ensuring a pipeline of new acts for the future. The same argument applies to our industry. Without support for groundbreaking small experimental dramas and non-scripted shows, crucial skills will be lost, and streamers will struggle to find new content. New industry leaders need to support smaller development projects and training to ensure a steady flow of content. However, commercial competition often undermines good corporate responsibility to the sector as a whole. The entertainment industry needs a system of united stakeholders who support the industry collectively, rather than exploiting it for profit. Similar to how Formula 1 supports educational opportunities despite internal competition, our industry should collaborate to sustain itself.