Preach brother. As you have pointed out, entertainment companies are in the culture business, and culture is always a moving target. And in 2024, the real value is created by a big bet (made 2 years ago) that hits the culture just right today; that is very rarely going to be how a CFO thinks. CFOs pile up the assets of the past hoping they can milk another cycle of revenue out of them (like Buffett's old cigar butts theory). A great example is Doug Herzog-- he figured out where MTV needed to go, then Comedy Central, then all their cable channels, and was really tuned in to where the culture was going and what would be opportunities, but Paramount continued to choose lawyers and family members to run the show. (And now they have become de facto a broadcast channel for NFL games.) Susanne Daniels at YouTube is another great example-- not a techie, but gets the customers deeply, and was passed over for friends of the founders.
Product nerds (a/k/a people who are obsessed with what the company does and what its customers need) always make the best CEOs, because they are passionate about the customers and end users. That's how you create value in just about every business.
Side note: I'm curious to hear more about what you mean by "exposure" here: "Content execs do not get enough exposure to the key overseas markets." And also what the effect of insufficient exposure to international markets has on those executives, internal processes, etc.
At minimum, there should be a tight feedback loop around international performance. Sometimes there is not and people more or less think of themselves as developing and producing for the US only.
But a step up from there, if the company produces internationally, would be to get the US content leader really involved with original content teams and talent in Tokyo, Seoul, Mumbai and Munich and really develop an understanding of these different markets.
Ah, makes sense, and the "US only" part resonates for me, for sure. And given the context of your article, better international knowledge and experience probably makes them more effective future leaders of the company as well.
One of the most aggravating things I've noticed since diving into film finance is how few people in this business actually care about good movies. Nearly half of the people I meet want to rub elbows with celebrities and politicians, go to bullshit fancy parties, pump up some lame social cause du jour, or brag to their friends about working in Hollywood. The other half, who are just as irritating, are dullard technocrats with zero passion for film but, for some bizarre reason, see showbiz as a get quick rich industry in spite of the decades of evidence proving otherwise. These folks also never go to the movies and might as well be selling car insurance or toilet seats.
I dont understand why so many gatekeepers in our world have little to no interest in the products we create and sell. Good movies are made by people who enjoy watching them.
Preach brother. As you have pointed out, entertainment companies are in the culture business, and culture is always a moving target. And in 2024, the real value is created by a big bet (made 2 years ago) that hits the culture just right today; that is very rarely going to be how a CFO thinks. CFOs pile up the assets of the past hoping they can milk another cycle of revenue out of them (like Buffett's old cigar butts theory). A great example is Doug Herzog-- he figured out where MTV needed to go, then Comedy Central, then all their cable channels, and was really tuned in to where the culture was going and what would be opportunities, but Paramount continued to choose lawyers and family members to run the show. (And now they have become de facto a broadcast channel for NFL games.) Susanne Daniels at YouTube is another great example-- not a techie, but gets the customers deeply, and was passed over for friends of the founders.
Product nerds (a/k/a people who are obsessed with what the company does and what its customers need) always make the best CEOs, because they are passionate about the customers and end users. That's how you create value in just about every business.
Good examples!
Great work here, Roy, totally agree.
Side note: I'm curious to hear more about what you mean by "exposure" here: "Content execs do not get enough exposure to the key overseas markets." And also what the effect of insufficient exposure to international markets has on those executives, internal processes, etc.
At minimum, there should be a tight feedback loop around international performance. Sometimes there is not and people more or less think of themselves as developing and producing for the US only.
But a step up from there, if the company produces internationally, would be to get the US content leader really involved with original content teams and talent in Tokyo, Seoul, Mumbai and Munich and really develop an understanding of these different markets.
Ah, makes sense, and the "US only" part resonates for me, for sure. And given the context of your article, better international knowledge and experience probably makes them more effective future leaders of the company as well.
One of the most aggravating things I've noticed since diving into film finance is how few people in this business actually care about good movies. Nearly half of the people I meet want to rub elbows with celebrities and politicians, go to bullshit fancy parties, pump up some lame social cause du jour, or brag to their friends about working in Hollywood. The other half, who are just as irritating, are dullard technocrats with zero passion for film but, for some bizarre reason, see showbiz as a get quick rich industry in spite of the decades of evidence proving otherwise. These folks also never go to the movies and might as well be selling car insurance or toilet seats.
I dont understand why so many gatekeepers in our world have little to no interest in the products we create and sell. Good movies are made by people who enjoy watching them.