6 ms·

Maybe I just have enough black friends in Hollywood, but in the past few years, the following shows from black showrunners all made the cultural zeitgist on bro

Maybe I just have enough black friends in Hollywood, but in the past few years, the following shows from black showrunners all made the cultural zeitgist on broadcast tv: Blackish, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and Bob and Abishola; and on on cable/streaming: Atlanta, Insecure, Power, Dear White People, Lovecraft Country, and I May Destroy You. (Note, I am friends with some of the writing staff and crew on several of these shows, so I am aware that I am not representative of the general public.) And that doesn't even include anything on BET, or shows with black executive producers or showrunners but which were based on existing IP or were from non-black creators, like LA's Finest, All Rise, The Neighborhood, or the Shondaland shows. And really, the big elephant in the room is BET. Which does everything you want to do, but it already has the connections to the black creators, and the black audience, and the black investors. So it kind of seems like this is another SV startup that was created without a critical examination of what the market actually is beyond hoping to be potential acquisition target for an actual player (in this case, presumably BET).

ldargin 5y ago
Those may all be perfectly good shows. But there is space for them (BlackOakTV) if the market is really underserved.
Uzo0312 5y ago
I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers. So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off. BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works. BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios... But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.) and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. ??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces). But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success. As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay. But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.
rasen58 5y ago
Just curious, but how do you have so many friends in Hollywood? (Feel free to email me directly if wanted)
- gamblor956 5y ago
  I live in LA and met them through work and friends. I posted your link in one of our group chats. If any of them reach out to you it means they're interested. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up, critiques from the chat thread so far: -"so it's quibi for black people" -trying to be BET "for indies" but without backing it up with the funding, marketing, audience, mentorship opportunities, or industry connections -based on out NY, but the hearts of the black TV industry are Atlanta and LA (BET is hq'd in NY, so I think this one was about where the talent/crew are located rather than the execs) -featured shows on front page: "First Dates" has promise if marketed properly. "Trifecta" tested poorly with all the women in the chat ("hell no"). Nobody could figure out what "The Retreat" was about and based on the trailer they weren't interested in finding out. - the website is amateurish, the copy is basic and doesn't inspire interest, and "looks like a fly-by-night operation" - "they need to hire a marketing team ASAP" - "it's all stuff BET rejected" (this was from someone who works at BET)
  - dang 5y ago
    Just for clarity, I don't think the commenter you were replying to there is affiliated with this startup. I was confused at first by what you meant by "your link".
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Just for whatever this is worth to you, and I know you probably already know this, but networks rejected Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, South Park, Mad Men, and, I think most infamously, Stranger Things. There's nothing wrong with that --- perhaps the networks involved should have rejected those shows! You pick one, you gotta turn down another one. But having more venues specialized in a specific type of show means that, for instance, when BET passes on your thing, it can still find a home somewhere else. I don't know anything about these particular shows. But look at the first couple episodes of Broad City --- not the extremely successful TV show, but the low budget web series that started it all. I'm inclined not to dismiss things based solely on production quality relative to what's on FX. The rest of these points are probably well taken!
tootie 5y ago
I would not be surprised if acquisition by BET is the exit strategy.
reilly3000 5y ago
FWIW I don't gather that a lot of black people consume or respect BET how people may assume they do. Please read this reddit thread, it highlights so many opportunities: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/bet_has_so_much_potential_to_be_great/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/... My summary of weak spots mentioned: - Not black-owned - Very heavy on commercials - Missing lots of quality content - Generally inauthentic - Not creating opportunities for HBCU students - Could have more focus on news and original reporting All that is to say that the BET brand isn't super strong in the black community, and a rethought, streaming-native service could definitely have an opportunity to outshine a BET+ type offering.
- horrified 5y ago
  "Not black-owned" I have to admit, I would have more sympathy with their cause if they weren't so openly racist. I am in favour of freedom of opinion, though, so if they want "black owned" producers, they are certainly entitled to it.
  - reilly3000 5y ago
    To a community whose origin revolves around the value of their labor going entirely to violent oppressors, ownership structure of enterprises that claim to represent them is understandably prized.
    - horrified 5y ago
      So they consider white people to still be slave owners? Sorry I think it is racist, no matter how you turn it. I think it is a way backwards, not forward. But again, if that is what they want, OK. Would it be beneficial for the black community if other communities started doing the same? So white people would prefer to do business with "white owned" businesses?

ldargin 5y ago

Those may all be perfectly good shows. But there is space for them (BlackOakTV) if the market is really underserved.

Uzo0312 5y ago

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers. So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off. BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

gamblor956 5y ago
Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works. BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios... But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.) and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. ??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces). But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success. As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay. But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.

rasen58 5y ago

Just curious, but how do you have so many friends in Hollywood? (Feel free to email me directly if wanted)

gamblor956 5y ago
I live in LA and met them through work and friends. I posted your link in one of our group chats. If any of them reach out to you it means they're interested. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up, critiques from the chat thread so far: -"so it's quibi for black people" -trying to be BET "for indies" but without backing it up with the funding, marketing, audience, mentorship opportunities, or industry connections -based on out NY, but the hearts of the black TV industry are Atlanta and LA (BET is hq'd in NY, so I think this one was about where the talent/crew are located rather than the execs) -featured shows on front page: "First Dates" has promise if marketed properly. "Trifecta" tested poorly with all the women in the chat ("hell no"). Nobody could figure out what "The Retreat" was about and based on the trailer they weren't interested in finding out. - the website is amateurish, the copy is basic and doesn't inspire interest, and "looks like a fly-by-night operation" - "they need to hire a marketing team ASAP" - "it's all stuff BET rejected" (this was from someone who works at BET)
- dang 5y ago
  Just for clarity, I don't think the commenter you were replying to there is affiliated with this startup. I was confused at first by what you meant by "your link".
- tptacek 5y ago
  Just for whatever this is worth to you, and I know you probably already know this, but networks rejected Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, South Park, Mad Men, and, I think most infamously, Stranger Things. There's nothing wrong with that --- perhaps the networks involved should have rejected those shows! You pick one, you gotta turn down another one. But having more venues specialized in a specific type of show means that, for instance, when BET passes on your thing, it can still find a home somewhere else. I don't know anything about these particular shows. But look at the first couple episodes of Broad City --- not the extremely successful TV show, but the low budget web series that started it all. I'm inclined not to dismiss things based solely on production quality relative to what's on FX. The rest of these points are probably well taken!

tootie 5y ago

I would not be surprised if acquisition by BET is the exit strategy.

reilly3000 5y ago

FWIW I don't gather that a lot of black people consume or respect BET how people may assume they do. Please read this reddit thread, it highlights so many opportunities: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/bet_has_so_much_potential_to_be_great/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/... My summary of weak spots mentioned: - Not black-owned - Very heavy on commercials - Missing lots of quality content - Generally inauthentic - Not creating opportunities for HBCU students - Could have more focus on news and original reporting All that is to say that the BET brand isn't super strong in the black community, and a rethought, streaming-native service could definitely have an opportunity to outshine a BET+ type offering.

horrified 5y ago
"Not black-owned" I have to admit, I would have more sympathy with their cause if they weren't so openly racist. I am in favour of freedom of opinion, though, so if they want "black owned" producers, they are certainly entitled to it.
- reilly3000 5y ago
  To a community whose origin revolves around the value of their labor going entirely to violent oppressors, ownership structure of enterprises that claim to represent them is understandably prized.
  - horrified 5y ago
    So they consider white people to still be slave owners? Sorry I think it is racist, no matter how you turn it. I think it is a way backwards, not forward. But again, if that is what they want, OK. Would it be beneficial for the black community if other communities started doing the same? So white people would prefer to do business with "white owned" businesses?