Speaker 1: Welcome to Strictly Business Varieties podcasts featuring conversations with industry
Speaker 1: leaders about the business of entertainment. I'm Cynthia Littleton, Managing
Speaker 1: editor of Television for Variety, and today my guest in
Speaker 1: New York is AMC Network CEO Josh say Pen. Josh
Speaker 1: is a cable industry veteran and one of its most
Speaker 1: respected thinkers. He has headed AMC Network since the company
Speaker 1: was spun off from Cable Vision in two thousand eleven.
Speaker 1: In our conversation, Josh details AMC's efforts to diversify during
Speaker 1: the past few years, with investments in international channels, in
Speaker 1: independent streaming platforms, and the build out of the AMC
Speaker 1: Studios ARM. He offers his thoughts on why AMC doesn't
Speaker 1: need to quote dominate the planet, as he puts it,
Speaker 1: to be successful. Jan CEO of AMC Networks, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for stopping by. Great thanks, wonderful to be here.
Speaker 1: We're at a moment when people are re examining, rethinking, reevaluating.
Speaker 1: The headlines have been full of media m and A.
Speaker 1: You run the one of the you know, one of
Speaker 1: the really prestigious collections of great cable channels. AMC, Sundance, TV, WE,
Speaker 1: t v I, f C, BBC America, a really nice
Speaker 1: collection of channels small in the scheme of media that
Speaker 1: that has been making headlines for seventy billion dollar deals
Speaker 1: to bring companies together. How As you look ahead for
Speaker 1: the next three to five years, where do you see
Speaker 1: AMC networks competitive position? Where's your best shot to remain
Speaker 1: a vital and competitive brand. Sure, so I think you've
Speaker 1: actually described, uh, what could either be described as up
Speaker 1: people or a frenzy in the media landscape, UH, perhaps
Speaker 1: being the perception of it being made to seem somewhat
Speaker 1: brighter because of M and A. UH And although fundamentals
Speaker 1: are shifting, the M and A captures everyone's attention and
Speaker 1: UH and lends a level of drama to the actual
Speaker 1: patterns of consumption and economic vitality related to those patterns
Speaker 1: of consumption. So I think it can make the circumstance
Speaker 1: seem slightly exaggerated. So not to say that there aren't
Speaker 1: fundamentals and that M and A isn't undergone transition and
Speaker 1: therefore changing who's on first, so to speak. But so
Speaker 1: the way I would respond to that is that, um,
Speaker 1: we think that people like very good content, and that
Speaker 1: they follow very good content, and they follow it in
Speaker 1: changing patterns of consumption on different interfaces. But it is
Speaker 1: fairly constant. Uh, It's fairly constant that people like what
Speaker 1: they like. If you ask anyone rhetorically, what are your
Speaker 1: favorite things, they could often answer it, it's a limited number,
Speaker 1: and they'll find their way to those favorite things. So
Speaker 1: our point of view and how we've been operating now
Speaker 1: since we separated from Cable Vision spun off, which is
Speaker 1: now about eight years, has been to as a core
Speaker 1: principle focus on excellent content, and I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that we haven't been distracted by some of the very
Speaker 1: very near term rewards that are inherent in the media
Speaker 1: or television business that defy or contradict very very very
Speaker 1: good content. And it's put us in fairly stable instead,
Speaker 1: which I can describe in more pragmatic circumstances relating to
Speaker 1: our manner of distribution and our success and distribution and
Speaker 1: our consumer appeal. While we've been doing that, we have been, however,
Speaker 1: diversifying in a way that we think is meaningful in
Speaker 1: response to the fundamental changes. And I'll be specific. So
Speaker 1: your app description was we're a series of cable channels.
Speaker 1: But today we are also an international company and we
Speaker 1: use investing. Yeah, we spent a billion dollars to buy
Speaker 1: channels overseas, and that is connected to the fact that
Speaker 1: we're also a studio. And so we now have getting
Speaker 1: close to half a billion dollars in revenue or a
Speaker 1: big chunk of our economics coming from the shows that
Speaker 1: we own the underlying rights too, and can place on
Speaker 1: our own channels and ourselves others. So I'd like to
Speaker 1: say that we were a cable we were a cable
Speaker 1: channel company, and today we are a content company that
Speaker 1: is that is relatively smaller and more boutique. I would
Speaker 1: say that with as a strength, with more agility and
Speaker 1: flexibility that has diversified its manner of economic exploitation to
Speaker 1: include what was the United States and is the globe,
Speaker 1: What was cable systems and is now in including the Internet,
Speaker 1: and what was uh an interface that had a channel
Speaker 1: lineup and now is an interface that is as frequently
Speaker 1: an app right and in that world, the focus of
Speaker 1: somebody finding their favorite show or that hot new property
Speaker 1: that they that they've heard about through word of mouth,
Speaker 1: through recommendations through their friends, UM in that in that world,
Speaker 1: that focus on excellence becomes that much more important because
Speaker 1: presumably people are going to run, people are going to
Speaker 1: rise and seek out the premium, the exclusive, the distinctive.
Speaker 1: That's kind of been your your mantra. It has been
Speaker 1: our moentre. Who's an anecdote, and I hope it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not meant to be self serving, but are not
Speaker 1: biggest channel called DBC America UM, which is at Comic
Speaker 1: Con today, parenthetically with Jody Whittaker being the first female doctor,
Speaker 1: which is fun uh and is also today at Comic
Speaker 1: Con talking about Killing Eve a little bit, which is
Speaker 1: a show with Sandra Oh and Jody Comber written by
Speaker 1: Phoebe waller Bridge. But that show premiered on what we
Speaker 1: would call today on a relative basis, a smaller platform,
Speaker 1: BBC America, and it actually either defied odds or even
Speaker 1: defied gravity in terms of attention. Now limited number of episodes,
Speaker 1: but it was excellent television. And so I think it's
Speaker 1: the status that it has been roughly a decade or
Speaker 1: so since one TV show grew its linear ratings in
Speaker 1: every episode of its exhibition, which Killing Eve did. Now,
Speaker 1: admittedly they're relatively small numbers compared to The Walking Dead,
Speaker 1: but that was the trend, and you're in the television
Speaker 1: writing business. Uh. Television critics gave it more recognition than
Speaker 1: they did any other TV show this year. So it's
Speaker 1: just an example of good or excellent finding its way
Speaker 1: because people are paying a lot of attention and actually
Speaker 1: the barriers that used to cause them to only go
Speaker 1: one way, for instance, the channel that they were on
Speaker 1: and the night and the time and the night on
Speaker 1: the time or gone. And And I also think that
Speaker 1: what replaced that paradigm, which is became the almighty algorithm,
Speaker 1: is actually showing signs of somewhere in fact. And I
Speaker 1: think that personal recommendation and curation as it relates to
Speaker 1: Berthal recommendation is becoming more important in the face of
Speaker 1: machines indicating what you might like. That sounds labor intensive.
Speaker 1: I would beg to differ. I actually think that um that. Uh.
Speaker 1: I'll say it rhetorically. I wouldn't tell my friends to
Speaker 1: go watch something unless I really thought they would like it. Uh,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. But a machine might tell you to watch
Speaker 1: something if it's indications are that you might like it.
Speaker 1: So I think that real people, real humans us are
Speaker 1: relying increasingly more on personal reference and recommendations, and frankly
Speaker 1: to a degree a of course less than watching what's
Speaker 1: on at nine, because you were watching what was on
Speaker 1: at eight, but also a little less uh by watching
Speaker 1: what an algorithms suggests you should watch. And let me
Speaker 1: ask you the question. I don't mean to put you
Speaker 1: on the spot, and I'm supposed to being interviewed, but
Speaker 1: I think you might answer that you pay a little
Speaker 1: bit more attention to what people who you respect and
Speaker 1: like and think have good screen criteria are more than
Speaker 1: what pops up through some and I don't mean to
Speaker 1: make it sound poor, but through essentially a formula. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely true. And I would just like to say that
Speaker 1: I distinctly remember speaking to you a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago and you said, I've just seen this great play
Speaker 1: at the public It's called Hamilton's It's crazy. It's so good.
Speaker 1: So so you're your your recommendations right higher. But to
Speaker 1: your point, yeah, it's so that's you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's interesting because uh, you know, just when you thought
Speaker 1: it was safe to go back in the water, Uh,
Speaker 1: just when you thought it was safe to premier a
Speaker 1: show and deliver an audience because it was preceded by
Speaker 1: a big show. Came the emergence of something that made
Speaker 1: everything on demand easily accessible, which put pressure on that
Speaker 1: old system. Didn't go away. And now just when you
Speaker 1: thought you could safely rely onto ubiquitous recommendation algorithm, through
Speaker 1: a good uh development of that sort of machinery, I
Speaker 1: think comes the beginning, I would say, of what might
Speaker 1: be exhaustion with it, and it's enhanced that exhaustion by degrees,
Speaker 1: if you will. I wouldn't call it a suspicion, but
Speaker 1: by degrees of evidence in social media that what you're
Speaker 1: getting is not what you should be getting. And you
Speaker 1: see that. Obviously book Head labored and continues to labor
Speaker 1: under some of the issues related to that, and you
Speaker 1: see in other platforms then beginning to try to adjudicate
Speaker 1: what pleasing they need to do. And I actually just
Speaker 1: think it's the not maybe the beginning of some questioning
Speaker 1: and greater personal authority in the manner in which you
Speaker 1: make your choices and curation. Right now in this world
Speaker 1: a wash in content curation. Good curation is more valuable
Speaker 1: than ever, and that's kind of what you offer people
Speaker 1: through through am C, through Sundance as a brand, I
Speaker 1: think I think the answer is yes, and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: limit it to us. I mean, there are other brands
Speaker 1: that are very trusted for what they do. And you know,
Speaker 1: everyone has their favorites. I won't name mine, but everyone.
Speaker 1: If you said what channel or what frankly magazine, UH
Speaker 1: would you go to just because it's there, everyone would
Speaker 1: come up with their answer. And I do think that
Speaker 1: we've taken pains to establish that if you see something
Speaker 1: on a MC, it's going to be like this. And
Speaker 1: it may be as different from Madmen, Breaking Bed, Walking
Speaker 1: Dead and currently Lodge for You Nine with Wyatt Russell,
Speaker 1: or diet Land with Julianna Margalie's or The Terror with
Speaker 1: Jared Harris, but I think you're gonna see a very
Speaker 1: well constructed drama no much, no matter what the circumstances.
Speaker 1: And I think on BBC America, whether you're seeing Blue
Speaker 1: Planet two or Planet Earth, which you're obviously nonfiction, or
Speaker 1: you're seeing Killing Eve, you're seeing something that stands up.
Speaker 1: And I think on i f C, if you're seeing
Speaker 1: Portlandia or Documentary Now, you're seeing something that is idiosyncratic,
Speaker 1: comedic and reliable in what it delivers you. And there's
Speaker 1: extraordinary benefit a of course in the content standing for itself,
Speaker 1: but also in the frame of reference meeting expectations right,
Speaker 1: and and that I'm sure that puts a that puts
Speaker 1: a bar on your programmers, because that puts a high
Speaker 1: bar for your programmers in terms of meeting those expectations
Speaker 1: set very high by you know, little shows like mad
Speaker 1: Men and Breaking Bad and Rectify on Sunday's TV. Do
Speaker 1: you worry about the future of the linear TV business,
Speaker 1: the future of the you know, getting people to the
Speaker 1: set at Thursday at nine or Sunday at eight. Uh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the answers yes. I wouldn't say worried about
Speaker 1: the future of it. I say that it's undergoing transition.
Speaker 1: And um I think that. Um it's a curious question
Speaker 1: and a rich question and to be a fascinating question
Speaker 1: and an imperfect analog. UM is terrestrial radio, which competed,
Speaker 1: of course with satellite radio, which offered diversity and essentially
Speaker 1: a cable paradigm like alternative first in the automobile, UM,
Speaker 1: where you could have incredible diversity on a vertical basis.
Speaker 1: So you could listen to a political channel and that
Speaker 1: was I would say it wasn't supplanted, but it was
Speaker 1: hugely influenced by um streaming services. Uh so take Pandora
Speaker 1: bad analogy, but Pandora offered you something that was customized
Speaker 1: for you, and then Spotify offered something different, and Apple
Speaker 1: Music offered something different than Amazon offered something different related
Speaker 1: to price and creation. To rest you, radio is hardly dead.
Speaker 1: To rest you, radio is a different animal. And by
Speaker 1: the way, podcasts of course offered talk radio, if you
Speaker 1: want to call it that, in a completely different incarnation.
Speaker 1: So so I hope I'm not going on too much
Speaker 1: length about it, but it's a fascinating subject. So our
Speaker 1: engagement with linear television in the US is mindful of
Speaker 1: the fact that it's taking on different proportion and a
Speaker 1: different nature. But we do think that it has important
Speaker 1: and important place in the world, just a very different
Speaker 1: place in the world, and it will have different characteristics.
Speaker 1: And you really prospered, you know, I know from covering
Speaker 1: your earnings. I mean you've really prospered, prospered through content licensing.
Speaker 1: In the last couple of years, You've seen really meaningful
Speaker 1: revenue coming through Obviously, that's a that's a calculation as
Speaker 1: to how much of your content that you exhibit first
Speaker 1: on linear platforms, how much do you how much do
Speaker 1: you license out into other buyers that want your high
Speaker 1: quality content to bring subscribers and eyeballs to their platforms.
Speaker 1: How do I know? Over the years you've had you've
Speaker 1: gone back and forth a little bit, but in general
Speaker 1: you have made you have embraced the s P o
Speaker 1: D world and made shows available on a season delay basis.
Speaker 1: Is that are those calculations becoming more tricky now that
Speaker 1: you are sort of seemingly kind of tiptoeing into your
Speaker 1: own streaming platforms. So you know, I think you you
Speaker 1: characterized it rather perfectly. I think that, um, we set
Speaker 1: ourselves up to evaluate it on an ongoing basis. Not surprisingly,
Speaker 1: we made a calculation and arrived at sort of a
Speaker 1: protocol if you want to call it that, for how
Speaker 1: to approach that which was just what you said, which
Speaker 1: is to take advantage of the economic reward that allowed
Speaker 1: us to pour more money into production by doing licensing
Speaker 1: to third parties, which continues. We now have a few
Speaker 1: several streaming services which have grown in terms of our
Speaker 1: own the ones that we do at our own hand
Speaker 1: and ones we've invested in external to those, and so
Speaker 1: we now have scale enough for the economic consideration of
Speaker 1: whether the show as we make should go to those
Speaker 1: streaming services. And so it's become a more practical consideration
Speaker 1: economically and so called strategically to place some of that
Speaker 1: content perhaps on those streaming services. So I would call
Speaker 1: it a work in progress. Um I think others who
Speaker 1: have a different media mix and different proportion and perhaps
Speaker 1: different ambitions in terms of size are reacting to it
Speaker 1: somewhere differently. We were earlier to the activity. It's been
Speaker 1: now five years of subscription video on demand services with
Speaker 1: owned contents that we were there before some others were,
Speaker 1: and but that's appropriate for the scale of our business,
Speaker 1: for our size. We actually don't need to dominate the
Speaker 1: planet in order to be extraordinarily successful, and so we've
Speaker 1: also put that into our calculus. But the answer is yes,
Speaker 1: we actually give different consideration to where material that we
Speaker 1: make may go in the future. And you reference your
Speaker 1: investment you've been you bought, you bought a big chunk
Speaker 1: of Robert Johnson's company that has the Acorn streaming platform
Speaker 1: is known as a home for British drama. You own
Speaker 1: BBC America. The map there seems to make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense. Can you talk about what motivated your investment
Speaker 1: in Robert Johnson's company? Sure, so, so yeah. We we
Speaker 1: operate a tow services ourselves that are of one could
Speaker 1: call them niche or decidedly focused editorial area. One is
Speaker 1: Sundance now, which focuses on sundance like material it barely
Speaker 1: needs more explanation to this called Shutter, which focuses on
Speaker 1: what's broadly called genre material, and both have been growing
Speaker 1: very well. We then made an investment in the company's
Speaker 1: Bob Johnson's company. It bears the name r l j E.
Speaker 1: It's publicly traded. It has two streaming services. One is
Speaker 1: called Acorn, focused on British mysteries, and it also owns
Speaker 1: the underlawe assets of Agatha Christie and something called UMC
Speaker 1: or Urban Movie Channel targeted for urban audiences. And they
Speaker 1: have been growing extremely handsomely, and so we had the
Speaker 1: deal was warrants initially, it's all public and we've purchased
Speaker 1: more of the company and we now have a offer
Speaker 1: to to take the company private. So that's actively being
Speaker 1: considered because we'd like being in the streaming business. And
Speaker 1: then we set up AMC Premier, which was the first
Speaker 1: of its kind, uh so called Inside Baseball World in
Speaker 1: ecosystem with Comcast Acfinity subscription video on demand service that
Speaker 1: just launched on YouTube tv last week. So when all
Speaker 1: we have six and that service, just to clarify, offers
Speaker 1: viewers the linear basically the linear streams and on demand
Speaker 1: streams of your five channels, but without commercials. It's actually
Speaker 1: of a MC and then and uh so it's a
Speaker 1: MC and then selectively we have offered because it's sympathetic
Speaker 1: with our m v PD partners, we have ah put
Speaker 1: some series on that are binge able at time of premiere.
Speaker 1: So and that's the calculation that we're making about where
Speaker 1: we and our MVPT partners can experience experience the greatest
Speaker 1: value development. So and we'll do things differently as we
Speaker 1: go forward. Uh and I think we'll see wider distribution
Speaker 1: for that service. But it's nice to say that, and
Speaker 1: I should have perhaps mentioned it earlier. All of those
Speaker 1: subscription video on demand services are experiencing a good pace
Speaker 1: of growth, and we're pretty economically minded about the manner
Speaker 1: in which we invest in them. So it's not only
Speaker 1: linear channels that were are beginning and international exposure and
Speaker 1: studio and owned. It's now subscription video on demand that
Speaker 1: we have equity in. So we like the composition of
Speaker 1: our company. Is the plan with the Robert Johnson Company,
Speaker 1: is the plan to keep Urban Movie Channel and Acorn,
Speaker 1: to keep those as those distinct brands, or might you
Speaker 1: might you rebrand them into a more sort of general
Speaker 1: entertainment service at some point. The plan is to keep
Speaker 1: them as distinct brands. We think that that company and
Speaker 1: the people who operated have done a magnificent job developing
Speaker 1: those as being a top choice of people who like
Speaker 1: that material, and it's evidenced in the numbers and in
Speaker 1: the pace of growth. By the way, I should mention
Speaker 1: not parenthetically, that we're also partners with our friends at
Speaker 1: the BBC in another streaming service called brit Box, if
Speaker 1: I didn't mention it, and so that's a separate flavor
Speaker 1: of British content now streaming commercial free on the internet
Speaker 1: and I t V as a partner in that. So
Speaker 1: when I mentioned six, I was probably didn't count the sixth,
Speaker 1: but that's what makes at six and so we like
Speaker 1: and enjoy the answers. Yes, we think they're doing a
Speaker 1: wonderful job. We think Acorn is perfectly articulated and very
Speaker 1: well developed. And we think Urban Movie Channel is in
Speaker 1: a wonderful position to be the authoritative brand both for
Speaker 1: creative people in that community and for consumers in that community.
Speaker 1: And there has yet to be a declaration and an
Speaker 1: implementation of real creative ambition by and for that community.
Speaker 1: So that's a wonderful ambition that we hold with our
Speaker 1: with Bob is um what what has the uptake been
Speaker 1: on the AMC Premier package? You know, it's still relatively
Speaker 1: early days, but we're very encouraged by what began just
Speaker 1: several months ago and is on the Comcast Exfinity platform
Speaker 1: alone and is experiencing a good number of subscribers. Um
Speaker 1: and was followed raple BYFX doing the same plot, if
Speaker 1: you will, on the Comcast Expenity platform. Has it mean
Speaker 1: Comcast has demonstrated its willingness to experiment? Has it been
Speaker 1: a tougher conversation with other m v p d s
Speaker 1: to get them to offer You know, we we actually
Speaker 1: have been focused fairly, uh somewhat singularly I will say
Speaker 1: with Comcast, because we've been building it with them, uh,
Speaker 1: if you will sort of there in our baby and
Speaker 1: UH and so we have focused our attention fairly specifically
Speaker 1: on and some of the nuances of where you come
Speaker 1: into the system, how you find it, how you connect,
Speaker 1: how you're identified, how you pay, have degrees of complexity.
Speaker 1: So we've been focused on making that a very good experience.
Speaker 1: So we've yet to really commence actively UH seeking wide
Speaker 1: wide distribution Florida. Is it um it costs about six
Speaker 1: bucks a month? And is the split that you do
Speaker 1: with Comcast with your distribution partner, is it commensurate to
Speaker 1: like a pay TV like with like an HBO or
Speaker 1: a showtime. You know, we have our own very happy
Speaker 1: arrangement with Comcast. As you might imagine. The sensitivities on splits,
Speaker 1: as with many things in commerce between business partners get UH,
Speaker 1: are subject to great care of expression. The content business
Speaker 1: and especially you know, the very distinctive and innovative fair
Speaker 1: that has made you know that put AMC on the map. Um,
Speaker 1: that stuff doesn't It never has come cheap. But boy,
Speaker 1: the arms race that people are talking about in content
Speaker 1: right now is so much is fueling a lot of
Speaker 1: the M and A people are trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: ensure that they have big, heavy pipelines of creative people
Speaker 1: writing nine figure checks to lock up to lock up producers.
Speaker 1: Can AMC play in those waters? Yeah? You know. Um,
Speaker 1: the answers are definiti I believe, yes, and if I may,
Speaker 1: I think that um it is it is true that
Speaker 1: that arms race so called that you mentioned is occurring,
Speaker 1: and I think that there's a sort of panic in
Speaker 1: the streets about that. Um. We have been running, I
Speaker 1: will say bluntly, a very different playbook, and so we
Speaker 1: are not seeking to produce a hundred and eighties series
Speaker 1: in a year, and we look carefully when we do.
Speaker 1: The Terror for example, So AMC was a limited series
Speaker 1: called The Terror. It's an anthology series and will reincarnate
Speaker 1: it this I don't know if you saw the last one.
Speaker 1: It was about a ship sailing through the Northwest Passage.
Speaker 1: It was pretty good at the Great ratings, it was
Speaker 1: well reviewed. Um, there'll be a terror too, if you will,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you for that word. And so we
Speaker 1: so we didn't rush out and deliver a nine figure
Speaker 1: check to someone for that or for diet Land or
Speaker 1: for killing Eve, or for Lodge forty nine, who Paul
Speaker 1: Giamatti and Dan Carry did for us, or for Fear
Speaker 1: the Walking Dead, or for any show that we have
Speaker 1: on the air. We actually operated within I think, very
Speaker 1: reasonable and highly disciplined economic parameters. I'd like to think
Speaker 1: with true, true, true respect for the creative people involved
Speaker 1: and the desire for them to bring to life the
Speaker 1: stories they wanted to tell, uh as well as they
Speaker 1: possibly could. And I hope Marty Knoxon would say that
Speaker 1: we helped her realize diet Land, and I hope that
Speaker 1: Hankers Area would say that we brought rock Meyer to
Speaker 1: life if c a character he's been doing since he's fifteen, uh,
Speaker 1: to life when no one else would. And it's not because, uh,
Speaker 1: we we paid a big check to someone. It's because
Speaker 1: we believed in Funny or Diet, which we own a
Speaker 1: piece of, and we believed in the character, and we
Speaker 1: believed in Hank and we brought it to life. So
Speaker 1: we didn't buy our way into creative excellence. We actually
Speaker 1: sought creative excellence, and we sought stories that were as
Speaker 1: yet untold and unmade. And I actually think that, uh,
Speaker 1: if you go back and run an inventory of everything
Speaker 1: that should have been wonderfully successful on television because it's
Speaker 1: pedigree was should have led to great success. I think
Speaker 1: what you'll find is a pretty modest batting average. Yes
Speaker 1: there are you'll find Dick Wolf, Yes, you'll find somebody else.
Speaker 1: And you'll also find and I don't want to name
Speaker 1: the name a list of road kill that would cause
Speaker 1: you to think, not once twice, or but perhaps never
Speaker 1: to ever do that, right, Right, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, high priced recruits that that don't always that
Speaker 1: don't always pay off. Yeah, And there's nothing wrong with it.
Speaker 1: I don't defame anyone from pursuing that if they want to.
Speaker 1: I just don't think it's a necessity if you're quite
Speaker 1: serious about making wonderful creative material. The business of creativity
Speaker 1: is so you can't you can't plan for it, you can't,
Speaker 1: you can't forecast it. You just can't. You know, you
Speaker 1: just don't know what great idea is going to walk
Speaker 1: in the door. And I would imagine is some of
Speaker 1: that would you say Madman is kind of still in
Speaker 1: North Star for a MC in terms of what's possible.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I think I think. Look, I think it's
Speaker 1: you know, they're a bunch of sort of north stars,
Speaker 1: and you may find my list of both ambitious and
Speaker 1: not in a certain sense. But so I think Madman
Speaker 1: was a great experience in that because it was unlikely
Speaker 1: and it was quiet, and it was left a big mark.
Speaker 1: And I think, uh no, uh Weiner's a genius. And
Speaker 1: I think that Vince Skillagan wrote a story that nobody
Speaker 1: wanted to do and we did. And Better Call Saul, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and and Better Call Saul lives on And I
Speaker 1: think is not a prequel that takes its invitation to
Speaker 1: just slop the characters up there. I think it's breath taking,
Speaker 1: lee different and ever more unlikely almost than Breaking Bad.
Speaker 1: And so when when um Jim Gavin who goes to
Speaker 1: a series of short stories about sort of a slacker
Speaker 1: in southern California and teamed up with the producing team
Speaker 1: of Paul Giamati who you know as an actor, and
Speaker 1: Dan Carey. We thought the stories were wonderful and we
Speaker 1: thought Jim gavin take on the world was very fresh.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it is high risk because it's
Speaker 1: a TV show that doesn't have the standard punches and
Speaker 1: so but we're in love with doing it. I'm so
Speaker 1: sorry forgive me. I'm as I'm acting as if you
Speaker 1: and anyone who's listening knows everything I'm talking about. So
Speaker 1: thank you for anchoring me to the world lodge for you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Cynthia. And but I think that
Speaker 1: those and I think that those things, I actually think
Speaker 1: people get it, you know what I mean. I think
Speaker 1: people who watch television and when they watch a channel
Speaker 1: are I'd like to think if you give them an
Speaker 1: enormous amount of respect, they will understand if everything is
Speaker 1: not a hit, but they will give you great credit
Speaker 1: and reward and some things will be big and little
Speaker 1: hits for being true to respect for them and respect
Speaker 1: for story and respect for the craft. So I think
Speaker 1: I think it's not only sort of purposeful and principled.
Speaker 1: I think it's smart business. It's it's a good will
Speaker 1: that that you build up with that audience that you
Speaker 1: can then you know, I think it's true. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's just what it is. What uh it is
Speaker 1: the the the people who inter the world, the construction
Speaker 1: that used to intermediate brands. I believe in a standard
Speaker 1: marketing sense, meaning what's our talking points, what's our position?
Speaker 1: On this. How are we going to bring this to market?
Speaker 1: That disrespected people and believe that you could control the
Speaker 1: outlet and the assessment I think is of a different time.
Speaker 1: I think it's anachronistic, you know what I mean? Yeah,
Speaker 1: But also the fact that you could sort of quote
Speaker 1: position something and get people to leave a products not
Speaker 1: good or good when in fact it's not good at
Speaker 1: a time when the business is changing so much, What
Speaker 1: where do you see am C going in the next
Speaker 1: three to five years. Would you say continued obviously content
Speaker 1: international is there? What would you say is your plan? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So I can tell our plan is to um. The
Speaker 1: plan is to walk and chew gum and by which
Speaker 1: I mean that we will need to continue to make
Speaker 1: great content that people like, uh and that is fundamental,
Speaker 1: but we will need to be ever mindful of the
Speaker 1: different manners with which people are engaging in screens and
Speaker 1: interacting with the world of content. So, as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: we moved from a cable channel paradigm to the US
Speaker 1: international to added studio to international, and added commercial free
Speaker 1: streaming to Studio to International, And we just launched the
Speaker 1: game last week related to the world if They're Walking
Speaker 1: Dead that had instant success and so and we have
Speaker 1: these niche subscription services and the Shutter service just lost
Speaker 1: by the way, uh four days ago, a podcast actually,
Speaker 1: and a merchandise store. So so we will have to
Speaker 1: undergo an evolution. But I think, like the best brands
Speaker 1: that began in a media um that had uh commonly
Speaker 1: referred to as digital incursion or competition, that can be
Speaker 1: very challenging. I think the ability one needs to adapt.
Speaker 1: You have to be adept at it and embrace it,
Speaker 1: but you also have to have the good stuff that
Speaker 1: allows you to embrace and adapt it and have people
Speaker 1: follow you. That's the plan. If that wasn't too conceptual,
Speaker 1: but and that's that's Those are lofty goals and hard
Speaker 1: to achieve. But you know, you've had a pretty good
Speaker 1: track record so far. My last question for you is
Speaker 1: UM you do have AMC Networks does have a controlling
Speaker 1: shareholder in the Dolan family. What do you think and
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to ask to make talk for you. How
Speaker 1: do you think that they're feeling about the landscape right now?
Speaker 1: Do they like what they like the hand they have?
Speaker 1: Do you think they would be amenable if somebody would
Speaker 1: have called up big offer for I can't speak to them.
Speaker 1: We take very seriously the idea that our job is
Speaker 1: to provide return to shareholders. We do we we the
Speaker 1: shareholders own the company. UM So that is a serious,
Speaker 1: uh consideration of ours and not in any way off handed.
Speaker 1: I believe that they own the company and we have
Speaker 1: to reward them. Uh. So I can't speak for I
Speaker 1: can't speak for the Dolans. We are um with every
Speaker 1: fiber of our body and effort, attempting to execute the
Speaker 1: plan that we formulated and adapt as we go forward
Speaker 1: and um and we do see a pretty interesting and
Speaker 1: rich horizon, uh if we can be successful in executing it.
Speaker 1: So there's an awful lot of work to do to
Speaker 1: execute that. I can't really give you a good answer
Speaker 1: to the larger considerations, which is which would be their consideration.
Speaker 1: It's all about the shows. It's all about the shows,
Speaker 1: Jess say, Pan, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: It's always it's always really intellectually stimulating to talk to you.
Speaker 1: And I mean that well. I thank you and thank
Speaker 1: you for providing the proper name references so someone has
Speaker 1: some chance of understanding what I was talking about. No problem,
Speaker 1: we'll send them to the Internet. Thank you, okay, good,
Speaker 1: thank you, thanks for listening. Be sure to join us
Speaker 1: next week for another episode of Strictly Business.