Too Much TV: Your TV Talking Points For Thursday, July 1st, 2021

Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Thursday, July 1st, 2021. I'm writing this from the Twin Cities suburbs, where AllYourScreens HQ is powered by the thought of ending the day with a well-deserved drink.

BETTING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF STREAMING
Viacom/CBS announced earlier today that it will unify the company’s US and international businesses under a simplified global leadership structure. This comes on the heels of last week's massive executive realignments that were billed as an effort to realign the company more in the direction of streaming.

I've been going back-and-forth all day with stock analysts who cover the company and they've been picking my brain trying to get a handle on where Viacom/CBS is headed in the future. There are also a number of questions about how seriously executives are taking the threat of the streaming business with one frustrated analyst telling me that he had spoken with several people at the company in recent days and that they seemed to have a core belief that at the end of the day, strong IP will win the day. "The problem with that attitude, he complained, is that "great IP won't save if you're going to get hit by an oncoming train."

There are a number of very talented people writing about the traditional television industry as well as the world of streaming. All of us have a slightly different approach and mine is to focus less on individual executive moves or ratings for a specific program. And as important intellectual property is to any network or streamer's content pipeline, any streaming service is only as important as its ability to feel necessary to its subscribers. Focusing on specific IP or subscriber numbers or executive prowess only gets you so far. How many people will happily subscribe every month without the need for expensive discounts?

The temptation is to look at some ideal monthly subscription fee charged by a streaming service or its overall subscriber numbers & use that as a benchmark for a service's "value." But in reality, what a service is worth in the real world is a concept called "perceived value." This is how it's described in the business dictionary:

A customer's opinion of a product's value to him or her. It may have little or nothing to do with the product's market price, and depends on the product's ability to satisfy his or her needs or requirements.

Media industry analysts and reporters often parrot the argument that "content is king." And while content is important, a bigger factor in the success of a media business is perceived value to the customer. How valuable is the content to the customers you're targeting? Is your user interface friendly enough that it doesn't lessen the value of your content in the eyes of frustrated users? There are a lot of factors that go into how customers perceive the value of a streaming service. And because it's all a bit squishy & difficult to quantify on a spreadsheet, it's often overlooked by industry analysts.

For instance, subscribers numbers are important. But to a certain extent, subscriber numbers are also a lagging indicator of perceived value. The customers subscribe in large BECAUSE the price matches or is lower than their perceived value of the service. It's why the cost of Amazon Prime Video is rolled into a package that includes everything from free music to free shipping. That's the customer's perceived value of the Amazon content. 

It's also why both Apple TV+ & Disney+ are priced low and extensively discounted. It's not that their respective content doesn't have value or that customers won't eventually pay a higher monthly fee at some point down the line. The pricing is a reflection of the reality facing both companies. Apple has all original content, but not an especially large amount of it. And for all of the intellectual property owned by Disney and headed for Disney+, trying to charge $9.99 a month for the service would be a slog. Keeping the price low and bundling it with other Disney-owned streamers is a good compromise between revenue growth and keeping down the subscription churn rates,

Perceived value is why all of those hot takes arguing that the lower pricing for Disney+ was the "beginning of the end for Netflix" were wrong. That price isn't the result of an attempt to "take down" Netflix. It is a reflection of Disney's assumption of the service's perceived value to the average streaming customer. It's likely that some small percentage of Netflix customers might drop the service for Disney+. But even Disney doesn't expect that to be a trend in the short or medium term. Instead, they're angling on being most customer's choice for the last of the services they'll probably add to their lineup. And everything they are doing - from the aggressive lineup of new shows to discount pricing - is in service of that effort.

Which brings us back to Viacom/CBS and their streaming platform Paramount+. Last week I wrote about some of the problems behind the scenes of the streamer and ever since then my in-box has been filled with current and former employees venting about some core problems at the service. 

I'm struck by the level of frustration at the streamer. There are complaints about the scalability of the app and some of the content decisions being made. But the overall fear is that Paramount+ will remain a service that is there but not in the top tier of consumer choices. Both employees and stock analysts have expressed concern to me that while Viacom/CBS executives spend a lot of time talking up the company's IP, it has struggled in recent years to develop new franchises. That has led to a lot of reboots and reworkings of 90s-era shows for Paramount+. Which is good fan service, but it doesn't exactly build the streaming brand.

And aside from the executive changes at Viacom/CBS, the real question is what the company sees as its streaming ambition. There are really only two choices for a mass-market streamer in 2021. You are either betting a substantial amount of your resources by going all-in on a streaming future. Or you are trying to hedge your bets, spending as much as you can on streaming as long as it doesn't disrupt your current revenue streams or substantially impact your bottom line. 

At this juncture Viacom/CBS seems to be taking the second approach with its business and with Paramount+. I think it's a mistake, but I've been wrong before. What is clear is that even if this approach works, it's going to be a messy and disruptive transition.

THE NY TIMES HAS A NICE WHITEWASH OF DAN SCHNEIDER
I have spent a lot of time over the past several years reporting on Dan Schneider. The teen show creator was arguably the Dick Wolf of teen TV: a person responsible for some of the biggest hits of the past 20-ish years. But he was the target of a lot of rumors from people inside the industry. He had a reputation as a hard-driving, often difficult boss who crossed way over the line between passionate and abusive. So when Nickelodeon suddenly cut ties with him in early 2018, it seemed pretty clear that the channel had reached its breaking point. And in fact, Nick executives said as much behind the scenes.

Since then, I've spoken to dozens of people who worked with him and have written a bit about what I discovered. But I wasn't able to be as specific as I wanted to be because many of my sources didn't want to be identified:

After nearly two year of talking to network executives, cast, and crew for all of Schneider's shows, I find myself left with a "Rosebud" level mystery. I've reached out to over 100 people and done some level of an interview with more than 40 former co-workers of Dan Schneider. And after all of that, there is a limited amount I can talk about publicly.

When I began research for this piece, what I didn't anticipate is that no one would be willing to talk on the record. Slightly more than 40 interviews, more than a dozen of them wider-ranging, extensive discussions, and not one person wanted to be identified. To be fair, this doesn't mean that all the interviews ended up being hostile towards Schneider. I spoke with people who raved about his talent and described him as a kind and generous writer and producer. But they didn't want to be quoted by name.

On one level, I understand their reluctance to attach their name to even positive comments about Dan Schneider. All sorts of rumors have swirled around him in recent years and while some of them are QAnon-level crazy, no one wants to take a chance that there might be some level of truth in one of the stories. No one wants to have to explain their positive comments about someone who might at some point be the focus of an unsettling story.

But I spoke with a number of people who were less kind about Schneider and their reasons for remaining anonymous were as varied as their stories. Some people were out of the business and weren't eager to publicly rehash an experience they considered to be unhealthy and unpleasant. In many cases, the people I spoke with are still in the business in some level and feared that airing their complaints in public would brand them as "difficult" in an industry that depends on trust and discretion. I also spoke with several former stars of Schneider shows and in their cases they feared that discussing their experience working with the producer would follow them around for years. "I've busted my ass to build the career I want since the show ended," said one actress. "The last thing I need is to have every interview for next ten years ask me about Schneider and his show. I respect and appreciate my fans from that era, but I also need to move on. Let those fans remember the show however they want. I'm done."

The other factor in this story is that I was told in no uncertain terms that publishing a negative story about Schneider would spark a lawsuit:

When you are writing about powerful Hollywood people - even if the story is only marginally unpleasant - you run the very real risk of being sued. While Gawker-type extinction events are rare in journalism, they do happen. What's scarier is the prospect of being sued and facing a legal bill so big my grand kids will be paying it off. I'm not a journalist at some big media outlet that has a team of experienced litigators in speed dial. I'm a one-man show who's only real legal advice comes from the free legal aid I can request from the local bar association. It doesn't matter if I'm right. Any level of a legal battle would ruin me financially and likely force me out of journalism. I'm brave and all that. But what I am not is financially suicidal.

So imagine my joy today to read this piece in the NY Times, which is constructed as a career rehab piece for Schneider. There are some sources - some of them I suspect supplied by Schneider's people - who argue that "sure, Dan was difficult. But he was just passionate about his work. And besides, he was just a kid at heart":

Many of Schneider’s allies said he reminds them in some ways of a big kid — one who respects his young viewers as his equals and who was uniquely (and profitably) able to tap into what they would find funny. He is a fan of “Star Trek,” and has a penchant for timepieces and vintage lunchboxes. He is obsessed with his pets, and even had his pet rabbit Cookie ferried from Los Angeles to San Diego so that the rabbit could receive medical care from a particular veterinarian.

Words almost fail me about when it comes to this story. No one is denying that his behavior wouldn't be tolerated in 2021 Hollywood (probably). Nickelodeon can't comment publicly because of an agreement both sides signed when Schneider and his production company split with the network. But it's notable that the two network people quoted in the story are not the executives would have dealt with him over the course of his career.

I don't care if Schneider is a better person now. That doesn't mean that he should get the chance to launch a comeback in the industry without any consequences other than a well-paid three-year vacation.

AND THE MATTER OF EMBARGOS

All reporters struggle with embargos when it comes to reviews and there are sometimes some very strange embargo limitations imposed by the studio and/or the network. But I can't recall one as odd as the one attached to the upcoming Netflix series Resident Evil: Infinite Darkness. Reviewers who received the screeners later received a note asking them to not write about the politics of the show or to draw comparisons between the politics of the show and current events. Which just seems...strange.

Another difficult embargo restriction is the one for HBO Max's Gossip Girl, which has pretty much been spoiled in cast interviews. And to be honest, I don't know how you can even seriously review the series without mentioning the core "spoiler," which happens in episode one.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:

The nightly listings will be back tomorrow. It's been an extremely busy news day and I am backed up with people who want to talk to me. 

Also, for those of you who are new to the newsletter, I am not generally this cranky.

If you have any feedback, send it along to Rick@AllYourScreens.com and follow me on Twitter @aysrick.