Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business Varieties podcast featuring
Speaker 1: conversations with industry leaders about the business of media and
Speaker 1: entertain I'm Todd Spangler with Variety Today. Our guest is
Speaker 1: Thomas Day, President and CEO of ACF Investment Bank and
Speaker 1: a top deal maker in the media and entertainment business.
Speaker 1: Thomas Welcome, Hi Todd. Thank you. So you co founded
Speaker 1: a c F in you've since then broke her numerous
Speaker 1: M and A deals across the sector. Um So, just
Speaker 1: maybe start off by saying, what is the lens through
Speaker 1: which you look at the industry well as as the
Speaker 1: listeners can tell from our voice. I starked it in
Speaker 1: the UK. UM really the start of the TV production
Speaker 1: industry if I consider it back in two thousand and
Speaker 1: three when the Communications Act came in transferring the rights
Speaker 1: of TV production creations from the broadcast to the actual
Speaker 1: the producers and the creators, and that was the real
Speaker 1: start of the industry because these companies became very valuable.
Speaker 1: Um So, I think my perspective is really one of
Speaker 1: spanning sort of two decades, and I've seen the industry
Speaker 1: morphing and changing from broadcast to cable and now to stream.
Speaker 1: My first question here is there's been a definitive shift
Speaker 1: in viewing habits during the coronavirus pandemic um and how
Speaker 1: media companies are reaching consumers. What what are your thoughts
Speaker 1: here on how permanent this shift in behaviors and what
Speaker 1: are the implications for your business. There couldn't be a
Speaker 1: more fundamental shift target that has occurred really in the
Speaker 1: last five years, and the reason for that is that
Speaker 1: the whole business model itself has shifted. If we think
Speaker 1: back to free to air linear viewing, people turn on
Speaker 1: the TV and what's on the TV they watch, and
Speaker 1: in between the shows there's adverts that are being shown
Speaker 1: to them, and that is the real generator of cash
Speaker 1: for the broadcast. So the relationships actually between the broadcasters
Speaker 1: stroke network and the advertiser and the actual consumers as
Speaker 1: a byproduct or actually to product themselves of that exchange
Speaker 1: because they're watching the adverts. So we've had this very
Speaker 1: complicated model for fifty seventy years or longer where actually
Speaker 1: the consumers were a secondary consideration and just by their
Speaker 1: volume of numbers they were considered important. Now this has
Speaker 1: changed completely to the consumers becoming the subscribers and they're
Speaker 1: directly engaging with the digital platforms to see the kind
Speaker 1: of content they want to see, and they're controlling what
Speaker 1: they see and when they steer UM. And this is
Speaker 1: being distributed now through quite a clever algorithm as opposed
Speaker 1: to um you know, expensive marketing. So the whole model
Speaker 1: has changed fundamentally to what I believe to be a
Speaker 1: superior product at a lower pricing. Well, it hasn't completely changed.
Speaker 1: You still have TV networks. They're still large audiences for
Speaker 1: linear television. There's still players in the game, aren't they.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I think free to air and broadcast
Speaker 1: and curated content will always have a place on our schedule.
Speaker 1: But I think that especially your question earlier about the pandemic,
Speaker 1: people are talking about what are they watching on the
Speaker 1: streaming platforms more than anything else. Right, Yeah, so I
Speaker 1: can't It's difficult to know where the new sort of
Speaker 1: cable cutting numbers will will end up, but I think
Speaker 1: it will be a lot deeper and a lot lower
Speaker 1: than people think. It's an unstoppable trend, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And you're seeing companies like Disney or Media, NBC Universal
Speaker 1: in the United States, they're all shifting to point towards
Speaker 1: this direct model going forward. I mean, they're putting all
Speaker 1: of their chips on that piece of felt. I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very exciting. I mean every week you're seeing a
Speaker 1: new ark in in in the paper of variety, in
Speaker 1: magazines talking about the shifts that are occurring. And these
Speaker 1: shifts are in the institutions that have been around for
Speaker 1: a hundred years and now they're all changing their platform
Speaker 1: to really focus on content because the content then feeds
Speaker 1: into the digital platform. And we're seeing this right acrost
Speaker 1: the studios, right across the broadcasts, and right acrost the networks.
Speaker 1: Talk a little bit, tell us about the deal flow
Speaker 1: and the piece of the deals that you've had in
Speaker 1: the last say nine months during this during this lockdown periods,
Speaker 1: it has it gone up as it stayed the same.
Speaker 1: You know, we've seen productions halting has had had an
Speaker 1: effect on the types of deals you're able to do.
Speaker 1: I think I think two things. I think one one
Speaker 1: is that the types of companies that were reliant on
Speaker 1: large production crews going to far away places. These were
Speaker 1: the sort of traditional shows that were creating the profits
Speaker 1: that sold the companies that we are acting for and
Speaker 1: when COVID hit that, we had about ten deals in
Speaker 1: progress and eight of them were instantly on hold because
Speaker 1: the buyers had considerable issues in their own businesses where
Speaker 1: they were fighting fires and trying to work out what
Speaker 1: to do. And meanwhile our clients, the sellers were no
Speaker 1: longer confident of their pipeline or their production. So it
Speaker 1: was it was a complete seizing up of the industry UM,
Speaker 1: and I expected things to completely hold UM And what
Speaker 1: actually happened is those types of deals did hold. So
Speaker 1: I was right in that regard. I think where I
Speaker 1: was surprised, they were pleasantly surprised. A bunch of other
Speaker 1: deals didn't move forward, and people shifted their focus, and
Speaker 1: we shifted our focus to try and find companies that
Speaker 1: didn't have that lines, so companies that had other ways
Speaker 1: of growing or other ways of being. Now, let's talk
Speaker 1: about some of the recent deals that you've been UM
Speaker 1: advising on. You were you were instrumental as as an
Speaker 1: advisor for Charlie Brooker and Annabel Jones, creators of Black Mirror. UM.
Speaker 1: They did a more deal with Netflix for their new
Speaker 1: in the production company Broken Bones. This was reported to
Speaker 1: be a deal worth over a hundred million dollars. I
Speaker 1: don't know you can comment on that, but what what
Speaker 1: were the dynamics in that particular that you that you
Speaker 1: helped them secure. Of course, to the terms of the
Speaker 1: deals are confidential, but what I can told about is
Speaker 1: that that type of deal was exactly the kind of
Speaker 1: deal I'm talking about. Charlie Brooker and a Bell Jines
Speaker 1: are the creators of Black Mirror. They did so at
Speaker 1: their previous company that was an in them all um,
Speaker 1: and Netflix was looking for a relationship with them and
Speaker 1: looking for a way to create compelling content. So this
Speaker 1: was a deal that was not reliant on huge teams
Speaker 1: of people and the historic performance. Who was very much
Speaker 1: a deal looking forward and working with two of the
Speaker 1: most count of people in the industry and a ready
Speaker 1: marrying them up with one of the most exciting digital platforms.
Speaker 1: So this is all about growing a business, going forward
Speaker 1: and creating more content, you know, like the black enfranchises. Now,
Speaker 1: once you seem kind of water finding and it's its
Speaker 1: own level, let's say, and you've got whatever it is,
Speaker 1: h five or seven or ten global streaming services, I mean,
Speaker 1: are we going to see a pullback on you know,
Speaker 1: these kinds of pretty large overall deals with creators or
Speaker 1: is the competition just going to get fiercer for this
Speaker 1: kind of talent. I mean, I think that Netflix is
Speaker 1: one of the earlier initiatives of these types of deals,
Speaker 1: and they've been the most active in the sort of
Speaker 1: earliest time period, and some people would say they have overpaid.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, with all of these things,
Speaker 1: I think people are often accused, including the networks and
Speaker 1: broadcasters that we've sold over a hundred companies too. They
Speaker 1: always talk about are they overpaying? And I think the
Speaker 1: the question is are there companies that aren't doing enough
Speaker 1: to meet the new challenges that are And if you
Speaker 1: don't do enough, what is the price of that? Because
Speaker 1: I think, you know, capturing the top talent in the
Speaker 1: market is always going to be um, you know, a
Speaker 1: sure way of guaranteeing your future, whereas being you know,
Speaker 1: maybe more conservative with your investment means you might not
Speaker 1: be here. And I think, you know, so we've got
Speaker 1: to look at these shows and recognize that with a
Speaker 1: piece of paper and a pen, these writers can create
Speaker 1: billion dollar franchises. So it's really hard how to to
Speaker 1: assess how much to pay up front to gain that
Speaker 1: kind of watching. We were speaking a little bit earlier,
Speaker 1: and I don't know bridging your mouth, but you were
Speaker 1: saying that it's, um, it's become uh the case that
Speaker 1: where you have a more agile type of production, one
Speaker 1: that doesn't require a lot of infrastructure, that those deals
Speaker 1: have been um been more fruitful in getting that you mentioned.
Speaker 1: I think the Bear Grills UH deal with with Bana
Speaker 1: J tell us a little bit about what that was,
Speaker 1: what that involved, and why that happened at this particular time. Sure,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the deal with Bear and Bandage
Speaker 1: closed slightly prior to COVID impact, but I think it's
Speaker 1: a very good example. Certainly, I know you still working
Speaker 1: with them and content that they've been doing very well
Speaker 1: going forward because there's a very small production team that
Speaker 1: is being dropped by helicopter into the Amazon with some
Speaker 1: fortunate or unfortunate leader of the country who then survives
Speaker 1: with them for ex period of time. So this is
Speaker 1: very much a sort of small group of people that
Speaker 1: can create some quite exciting content without having huge crews
Speaker 1: necessarily interacting with each other. So I think that the
Speaker 1: Natural Studios, which is what the opportunity was called was
Speaker 1: about creating global content and really encouraging outdoor activity and
Speaker 1: entertainment across the world. And man j has got a
Speaker 1: very huge network production companies in each territory. So it
Speaker 1: was a good marriage and it was a good idea.
Speaker 1: I should note before I forget that you've been recognized
Speaker 1: in Varieties Dealmakers Impact Report for the last seven years
Speaker 1: and I just wanted to mention that. But on the
Speaker 1: topic of UM, you know, industry consolidation. Obviously we've seen
Speaker 1: in Disney buying the bulk of century backs. UM you're seeing,
Speaker 1: you know, those those types of UM massive deals. Does
Speaker 1: that does that put the brakes on M and A
Speaker 1: in the industry or does it accelerate, you know, the
Speaker 1: scrambled for positioning by other players. I think if you
Speaker 1: look at the last kind of ten fifteen years UM,
Speaker 1: there was there was a steady growth of channels, there
Speaker 1: was a steady growth of cable, there was a high
Speaker 1: viewing interaction. But content became dispersed across many channels and
Speaker 1: as a result, the the broadcasts and the networks became
Speaker 1: very risk adverse, spending huge amounts of money on expensive
Speaker 1: script and shows that after episode two could be canned,
Speaker 1: So really that was the birth of the reality TV
Speaker 1: and the sort of local lost higher volume viewing UM.
Speaker 1: And as the advertising revenues kind of went down as
Speaker 1: the viewers went down, this pressure but more and more
Speaker 1: pressure on the broadcast network and there was a downward
Speaker 1: spiral where their budgets went down and their viewing figures
Speaker 1: went down. So sixteen, seventeen and eighteen were not good
Speaker 1: years for anyone in the industry. Um, you bring into
Speaker 1: eight twenty in the streaming platforms which have been preparing
Speaker 1: for their debutant outing suddenly come into the market and
Speaker 1: start spreading the kind of money we haven't seen for
Speaker 1: a decade. UM. It's completely changing the industry to brought
Speaker 1: back scripted, high end content from people like Left Bank
Speaker 1: who produced The Crown, right across the board UM. And
Speaker 1: I think I think the industry has actually allowed more
Speaker 1: and more of that money to pour into the hands
Speaker 1: of the creator is the onscreen town and the writers.
Speaker 1: So I to see a very vibrant next five to
Speaker 1: ten years as people via for those people's um sort
Speaker 1: of attension and relationships, and I don't see any shortage
Speaker 1: of cash coming space. I do think that if you're
Speaker 1: going to compete in this territory, you have to have
Speaker 1: access to huge budgets or really niche content, So you've
Speaker 1: become a specialist in an ultra sort of niche aspect
Speaker 1: of the content, otherwise that people in the middle will
Speaker 1: just be sucked up. We've been talking about new productions mainly,
Speaker 1: but let me ask you just a bit about the
Speaker 1: value of library content. Um are you seeing that increase
Speaker 1: or these sort of libraries of bankable you know, popular
Speaker 1: titles or maybe even long tail titles. Is that the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that has increased in value given the
Speaker 1: race to director conterior streaming, Yes, exactly. I mean I
Speaker 1: think if you look at the music industry, it seems
Speaker 1: to be about ten years ahead of the content industry.
Speaker 1: And when the music industry went online, initially there was
Speaker 1: a complete tale of the record sales and everybody bemoaned
Speaker 1: the loss of the whole industry, and actually they said
Speaker 1: the only thing that was happening was live events. And
Speaker 1: then the streamers came on board, you know, with with
Speaker 1: Spotify and Amazon Music and all these companies, and they
Speaker 1: took the pricing point of music down to a point
Speaker 1: where everyone went, you know what, I don't mind this.
Speaker 1: I'm willing to pay eight dollars a month ten dollars
Speaker 1: a month to listen to anything I want to listen
Speaker 1: to at any point. And what that did was create
Speaker 1: nostalgic listening. So you and I initially listened to all
Speaker 1: the funky news stuff, and very quickly we started going
Speaker 1: back to the seventies, eighties and nineties and listening to
Speaker 1: things that we haven't even thought of listening to. So
Speaker 1: all these music library is weren't from value less to
Speaker 1: generating income, and a lot of people must have got
Speaker 1: shocks where they suddenly started getting these big royalty checks.
Speaker 1: I think the same thing happened with libraries that for
Speaker 1: a while they were mismanaged and left in small businesses
Speaker 1: that couldn't distribute them very effectively, so they were often
Speaker 1: assets sitting in the wrong hands, in the wrong country
Speaker 1: and people couldn't actually access. And I think now, through
Speaker 1: the ease of the digital platforms, these films are now
Speaker 1: becoming absolutely valuable. So we're seeing them and shoot up
Speaker 1: in value, and we're seeing a lot of people let
Speaker 1: go of them and allow them to be arriving at
Speaker 1: the home. In the commodities now pulling back just a
Speaker 1: little bit here in the seismic shifts in the industry
Speaker 1: that we've been talking about, who are the winners, Who
Speaker 1: are the losers? That's a big question, um. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think with I think it's the players in the middle.
Speaker 1: I think that, um, I think that people whose supply
Speaker 1: sort of okay services to a small group of people
Speaker 1: who will get washed away. And I think there's going
Speaker 1: to be very dominant, very big players that will have
Speaker 1: largely global networks that can be more efficient to reach
Speaker 1: more corners. And then I think there will be ultra
Speaker 1: niche providers of content to specialize in narrow areas that
Speaker 1: are hard to get, and I think everyone in between
Speaker 1: will be sucked up to go out of business, will
Speaker 1: be sucked up in some bigger entities. So those are
Speaker 1: potential acquisition targets. You had mentioned before that that your
Speaker 1: belief is that even with this uh you know, stampede
Speaker 1: towards streaming, there's still going to be a need to
Speaker 1: monetize these entertainment properties off platform. What do you mean
Speaker 1: for that, and what are the implications, um, you know,
Speaker 1: for theatrical exhibition, given that we're still all in large
Speaker 1: parts of the world under lockdowns and theaters are not
Speaker 1: an open mind. Yeah, I mean, I think what's happening
Speaker 1: is as the streaming platforms are launching and competing with
Speaker 1: each other, there is an acceptance that they have to
Speaker 1: consider off platform monetization and what that means is it's
Speaker 1: not just feeding it to the subscribers, but it's actually
Speaker 1: looking for other ways to monetize that intellectual property. And
Speaker 1: as we've seen across the board, interntional property can be turned,
Speaker 1: as you said, into the article, that can be turned
Speaker 1: into live performances, that can be turned into immersive theater.
Speaker 1: It can be books that can be merchandizing. There can
Speaker 1: be so many sort of extensions from intellectual property. But
Speaker 1: it's just a fact that like the big studios before them,
Speaker 1: they will slowly increase their their efforts to monetize. And
Speaker 1: one of the as we talk about is whether they're
Speaker 1: going to actually end up having a distributional because a
Speaker 1: lot of the digital platforms affected in the countries that
Speaker 1: have the infrastructure. There's lots of countries that don't have
Speaker 1: the infrastructure. So they're actually talking about will they go
Speaker 1: sort of downstream and start having a distribution on or
Speaker 1: even at broadcast style that will see the broadcast to
Speaker 1: those terrace ms. One other question on industry trends. Do
Speaker 1: you see, you know, this coupling of UM telecommunications and media,
Speaker 1: is that a model that's going to survive? You know,
Speaker 1: podcast with NBCU and now Sky and a T and
Speaker 1: T with direct TV and Warner Media. Are those vertical
Speaker 1: integrations advantageous to those companies through to those some have
Speaker 1: become a liability. Well, I'm completely biased with my answer,
Speaker 1: but I do believe it's got a small amount of
Speaker 1: actual grounding. UM. I think that the technology platforms are
Speaker 1: becoming a homogeneous and a little bit like you lay
Speaker 1: the cabling, and you know, once you've laid the cabling,
Speaker 1: what do you put down it? I think that's the
Speaker 1: issue that both technology and telecomspects, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: you can come up with a smarter piece of technology
Speaker 1: that slightly improves the quality of telecoms, but what do
Speaker 1: you Why are people coming to you? What is the
Speaker 1: originality between the different providers? As the service becomes more
Speaker 1: and more homogeneous between the groups, the one thing that
Speaker 1: distinguishes them is access to what comes down those pipes,
Speaker 1: what gets them to you? And I think content is
Speaker 1: something that everybody identifies with. It's quite funny when you
Speaker 1: talk to someone you know about a bioscience business or
Speaker 1: about even automotive, unless they're really enthusiasts, you can lose
Speaker 1: them with in three months. But if you talk to
Speaker 1: some about coming own and switching on the TV and
Speaker 1: watching a stream or watching a broadcaster. Everyone has a
Speaker 1: personal view as long as a business view. Um. And
Speaker 1: I think that in this world, content is just critical.
Speaker 1: People talk about it. It's the new politics. It's acceptable
Speaker 1: to talk about your favorite show of the dinner policy.
Speaker 1: Try talking about politics now well. UM. And in this
Speaker 1: new world, data obviously has become a big piece. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of a crown jewel. And you know
Speaker 1: that's why you're seeing companies wanting to own that first
Speaker 1: party data. Um does this this? Doesn't that put more
Speaker 1: leverage on the side of the content buyer as opposed
Speaker 1: to the content seller. That's interesting. I was planning on
Speaker 1: going on holiday and they said you have to have
Speaker 1: a COVID test and in the small print it said
Speaker 1: they own your DNA information. And I was quite alarmed
Speaker 1: by that, as that could be a According to you,
Speaker 1: our horari that that would be the next bit of
Speaker 1: data we're giving away with content. I think your question
Speaker 1: is probably aimed at the US, where the buyers or
Speaker 1: the commissioners of the content usually end up owning the
Speaker 1: intellectual property. In other countries in the world, it can
Speaker 1: be the creators that end up owning intellectual property. And
Speaker 1: what we've seen in a very competitive environment is that
Speaker 1: as you the creator can negotiate with more than one party,
Speaker 1: you can start having quasi ownership rights and that could
Speaker 1: be having points on the back end, that could be
Speaker 1: having a lifetime right to produce it, and it can
Speaker 1: even be a share of income from the content. So
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I think that in this country
Speaker 1: there is definitely a vault of content that is created
Speaker 1: by the by has. But I still think that new
Speaker 1: content pips the day in terms of attractive audiences. It's
Speaker 1: about that renewal, is yeah. Right. Um, so a c
Speaker 1: F does have a global per view. You're you're relatively
Speaker 1: small investment bank, but you're you've got transatlantic operations here. Um,
Speaker 1: are we seeing deals more global in nature now that
Speaker 1: you have h companies that do span global global operations?
Speaker 1: And does that does that change the nature of um
Speaker 1: of how those deals are done. Okay, that's a good question.
Speaker 1: I mean we we kind of operate in space of
Speaker 1: about fifty million dollar deals going up to that two
Speaker 1: billion dollar deals, and most of the investment banks who
Speaker 1: operating in space do not have the transatlantic footprint. You
Speaker 1: don't have a global from footprint. But I've actually found
Speaker 1: that a significant number of ideals involved parties selling from
Speaker 1: UK Europe into the US and people from the US
Speaker 1: selling into Europe UK. It just seems to be a
Speaker 1: lot of transatlantic interest, both in terms of the style
Speaker 1: of content and the wish to access the sort of
Speaker 1: consumer or the subscribers. So I think we are unique
Speaker 1: in that regard that we maintain that global presence that
Speaker 1: can service deals of that songs. Why do you think
Speaker 1: there is that interest in getting foreign product, if you will,
Speaker 1: to a domestic audience. Well, I definitely know that in
Speaker 1: the UK and in Europe. The idea is that the
Speaker 1: budgets in the US are just significantly high. Um So
Speaker 1: there is a lot of golden eyed sort of envy
Speaker 1: that they're going to If you want to make a
Speaker 1: lot of money, you have to come to the US
Speaker 1: and be able to access those budgets at the same
Speaker 1: time is extreme only hard to do that from the UK,
Speaker 1: you know, because you have to set up a team,
Speaker 1: you have to access to the market. The US market,
Speaker 1: they certainly welcome Europeans into their content world, which you
Speaker 1: need to have a base here and you need to
Speaker 1: be accessible. And then I think for the US, because
Speaker 1: they have such a strong dominance in the content space,
Speaker 1: they like the uniqueness and the sort of idea generation
Speaker 1: that comes out of the UK or Europe. I mean,
Speaker 1: God Mora is a good example of a show that
Speaker 1: was in Italian and had subtitles. It totally increased the
Speaker 1: interest in the Italian based content. And and just to
Speaker 1: tell our listeners, that deal involved to Go More sold
Speaker 1: to Sorry Go Mora was produced by Catalet who sold
Speaker 1: to my TV, and it has done very well. I think,
Speaker 1: I think it has and we've recently a deal with
Speaker 1: the Spanish speaking great called the Immigrant, who we helped
Speaker 1: launch their product I think last year. Yeah, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you you had pointed out that
Speaker 1: that foreign language content it's really been this second tier
Speaker 1: creature for the last couple of decades, and now you're
Speaker 1: seeing a lot more interest in that um from across
Speaker 1: the landscape. Correct, and what I'll say, I'll slit you
Speaker 1: just bet. I don't want it to be viewed as
Speaker 1: second tier content. What I'll say is that the English
Speaker 1: speaking broadcasters put it into a chair or two interest
Speaker 1: um because they found that it was too hard to
Speaker 1: do and they were worried about consumers being able to
Speaker 1: enjoy it. And what happened in the last thirty six
Speaker 1: months is again, I think it's the idea of this
Speaker 1: spressions that you see that you see the content put
Speaker 1: together in a different way, with a different vibe and
Speaker 1: a different energy, and people are firing. That refreshing because
Speaker 1: I think this is one of the by products of
Speaker 1: streaming and whatch and binge watching. So previously, with network
Speaker 1: and broadcams, we had to wait once a week to
Speaker 1: watch our favorite show, and the formula in the show
Speaker 1: was not necessarily visible. Bad guy comes in and going
Speaker 1: to do something bad, scared, everyone fails, but then manages
Speaker 1: to do it, but then the good guy stops him
Speaker 1: at the end. That's what we watched once a week,
Speaker 1: and we found the formula refreshing because we could watch
Speaker 1: it time and time again. It was familiar. When you
Speaker 1: watch seven of them back to back over three hours,
Speaker 1: the formula becomes very appound and we start going, Okay,
Speaker 1: when's the good guy going to get the upper hand again?
Speaker 1: And then he's going to lose it again and needs it. So, actually,
Speaker 1: I think consumers have become much more aware of that
Speaker 1: formula much. It's much more visible. So when you get
Speaker 1: a foreign speaking content with a different formula, it's just
Speaker 1: enough to throw people and keep them much more interesting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an interesting point. Um, back to this this question. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know there's so much money being spent on original
Speaker 1: content and to some ce library content to feed the
Speaker 1: streaming services as everyone's trying to get an edge and
Speaker 1: capture their their customers, and people have been complaining about
Speaker 1: the blood of content that's out there. There's just thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of hours. Um. Do you see that as
Speaker 1: potentially depressing new productions going forward? Or is or is
Speaker 1: this appetite for original content going to continue innovated? Well,
Speaker 1: I'd suggest after COVID that we've all searched high and
Speaker 1: loads through each streaming service and heap of content, and
Speaker 1: then because productions have haven't been aver to really happen.
Speaker 1: I'd say right now, they're streaming out for even more content. Content.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's always nostalgic watching, but I
Speaker 1: think the people are viewing their annual subscription going out
Speaker 1: the door. If they're not getting a good dollop of
Speaker 1: kind of new content that's exciting and any of it,
Speaker 1: I think they will challenge them. You know, we've been
Speaker 1: debating in the industry how many services the average family
Speaker 1: will have, and you know, we're kind of thinking that
Speaker 1: it will be three, maybe four. And if you agree
Speaker 1: that Netflix and Amazon and Disney, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: three of the main ones, there's kind of a space
Speaker 1: for like plus one. So there's going to be a
Speaker 1: fierce competition to fill that slot. And if you don't
Speaker 1: feel the slot, you know it's it's it's enough that
Speaker 1: you feel it once customers have to come back and
Speaker 1: watch it again and again and again and not turn
Speaker 1: it off because that that you know, they're not giving
Speaker 1: you two year kind of contracts. Back to the question
Speaker 1: of doing deals in a distributive remote situation like we're
Speaker 1: in today, how has that changed the as yea, And
Speaker 1: do you think we'll ever go back to these in
Speaker 1: person negotiations as the primary meeting for MAT. It's interesting
Speaker 1: because if you speak to people who are fortunate not
Speaker 1: to have lost anyone to Covid or suffered any serious
Speaker 1: business home from Covida business being shut down. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people have found this period, this last
Speaker 1: eight months ten months to have a lot of advantages
Speaker 1: and not just disadvantages. And we've set and seen the
Speaker 1: ability to you know, face to face zooms and meet
Speaker 1: people around the world without having to fly there to
Speaker 1: be immensely efficient. And all data is digital nowadays, so
Speaker 1: there's no need to sit in the room, there's no
Speaker 1: need to share a physical contract when you can do
Speaker 1: it all over emails. So I think we almost were
Speaker 1: being nostalgic up until two thousand and nine team and
Speaker 1: there was a considered a courtesy that you would meet
Speaker 1: people face, play shake hands and somehow the firmness of
Speaker 1: the hand shape would tell you whether they were truthful
Speaker 1: or not. I think that's all been blown away now,
Speaker 1: so I think the efficiency of this has already been
Speaker 1: proson and is factor that lots of business is finding
Speaker 1: more efficient. I think the flip side is when I
Speaker 1: heard today that there is a potential vaccine and it's
Speaker 1: nine percent effective. You know, you immediately as a human
Speaker 1: being in a joyous feeling of freedom and adventure. And
Speaker 1: I think that will come back much quicker than people expect.
Speaker 1: When your competitor actually flies over and meets them and
Speaker 1: you don't, I think that would be the point where
Speaker 1: you get back on the plane say it's time to
Speaker 1: do it again. But I'd like to think that we
Speaker 1: can at least cut down the extrabits. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is this incessant traveling around the world to end
Speaker 1: of this market, you know, incessence of traveling backwards and forwards,
Speaker 1: east coast, west coast. I'm hoping that can all reduce.
Speaker 1: But I think there'll always be a place for face
Speaker 1: to face and human content now times you mentioned that
Speaker 1: a couple of the pending deals that you've been working
Speaker 1: on and then have been tabled. Um, what are what's
Speaker 1: getting the most attention at this moment, and then looking
Speaker 1: ahead to one, what do you see happening as hopefully
Speaker 1: restrictions start to ease up. I think at the moment,
Speaker 1: we've seen that scripted continent has led away for the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, certainly double digit and higher multiples
Speaker 1: are being paid for scripted companies. They can create compelling
Speaker 1: shows that you know, keep the whole TV department relevant.
Speaker 1: And I think that's been a consistency of the last
Speaker 1: three four years. What I've seen in the last twelve months,
Speaker 1: maybe eighteen months, is a move into premium unscripted UM
Speaker 1: and I think that there has been a great interest
Speaker 1: in having high quality unscripted programs. We did a deal
Speaker 1: with plincel I Share and it is attracted interest from
Speaker 1: all over the globe and you know, they do very
Speaker 1: high end unscripted content UM and I think that that
Speaker 1: to me indicated that the key word here is premium.
Speaker 1: And if you think what premium means, it means content
Speaker 1: with the brand, content with identity. And I think that
Speaker 1: in the world of global streaming, when you're being given
Speaker 1: a whole bucket of content, the thing that stands out
Speaker 1: is things that have identity with you. And the things
Speaker 1: that stand out are things that people have either told
Speaker 1: you about, you've heard about before, or you know some
Speaker 1: of the people attached and that's how you choose your content.
Speaker 1: I doubt many of us take on the storyline and say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's about a little boy growing up in South Africa
Speaker 1: and he grows a business and becomes maybe I'll watch that.
Speaker 1: We commediately to see what is it grand that's on
Speaker 1: the screen that we can easily identify it. So what
Speaker 1: we're going to see going forward is that high end, branded,
Speaker 1: recognized content, maybe a recognized director in the film, a
Speaker 1: recognized actual the screen, or a recognized series that we've
Speaker 1: enjoyed before. What do you think the impetus behind unscripted
Speaker 1: it's been I think it's this Bins watching. I think
Speaker 1: after you've and I think it's the formulas that people
Speaker 1: are using when scripted that after you've watched your tenth
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones series, you start seeing the high end,
Speaker 1: glossy scripted content and you just don't want that formula
Speaker 1: for a while. You want to try something different, and
Speaker 1: I certainly as a viewer, have done that and you
Speaker 1: start looking at documentaries, you start looking at biographies. You
Speaker 1: kind of move away from that kind of drama and
Speaker 1: action when you start looking for something else. So I
Speaker 1: think it's a consumer driven push. I mean, it must
Speaker 1: be said. It's more cost effective on per hour of production,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I mean it depends, actually, I mean if
Speaker 1: you get into some of the natural history programs that
Speaker 1: take five years of a guyline on top of an
Speaker 1: iceberg with a camera to get can get expensive. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a I think there is
Speaker 1: a lower pricing point, but the quality of the unscripted
Speaker 1: now is so high that it's not that much. Okay, Thomas,
Speaker 1: any last thoughts on what we can expect to see
Speaker 1: in the in the coming year in terms of M
Speaker 1: and A and the media and entertainment sector. Yes, certainly.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think for me, the thing that's interesting
Speaker 1: is when you look at this industry like we have
Speaker 1: over a twenty year time period. You know, we've seen
Speaker 1: genres come in and out of vogue, and if you remember,
Speaker 1: and if we push our minds back, you know, for
Speaker 1: a while it was the soap opera. Then we went
Speaker 1: into the shiny floor game shows. Then we went into
Speaker 1: scripted and everyone said it was too spensive, so that
Speaker 1: we came out. And then we went into unscripted cute
Speaker 1: reality shows. And now we've gone heavily into scripted and
Speaker 1: our premium unscripted. My sort of guest is that the
Speaker 1: next area is going to be in comedy and game
Speaker 1: show again. I think it's going to be the rise
Speaker 1: of you know, these kind of game shows that we
Speaker 1: used to see ten plus years ago. Um So, I
Speaker 1: think the other thing is the non English and content
Speaker 1: is going to continue to be of an interest. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, timas Day of SCF and dost Think,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Thank you, thanks for listening. Be
Speaker 1: sure to leave us a review at Apple Podcasts. We
Speaker 1: love to hear from listeners, and be sure to tune
Speaker 1: in next week for another episode of Strictly Business