← The Town with Matthew Belloni
The Town with Matthew Belloni
A Warner Bros. Antitrust Debate With Senator Elizabeth Warren and the Oscars Go to... YouTube
00:35:34
Loading summary
Transcript143 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode of the Town is presented by HBO Max presenting the HBO Original Series Task for your consideration. In the working class suburbs of Philadelphia, an FBI agent played by Mark Ruffalo heads a task force to put an end to a string of violent robberies led by an unsuspected family man played by Tom Pelfrey. Don't miss the series, the Atlantic is calling, riveting and revelatory. Now streaming on HBO Max, this episode is brought to you by Sentimental Value, which isn't just the must see film of the season, it's the must feel film of the year from the director of the Worst Person in the World, Joachim Trier's story of love, family and reconciliation is being hailed by critics as one of the best films of the decade, if not ever. Starring Renata Reinsveh, Stellan Skarsgrd and Elle Fanning in career best performances, Sentimental Value is a modern masterpiece. See it in theaters now. It is Wednesday, December 17th. We've been so focused on which of the bids for Warner Bros. Discovery ultimately win. Will it be Netflix, which has a deal to buy the studio and hbo max for 83 billion? Or will it be Paramount and the Ellisons, who want to buy the whole company for more than 100 billion but got their bid rejected this morning? But what if the answer to who will buy Warner's is neither? Seems implausible at this point. The company's in play, but that's what Senator Elizabeth Warren is fighting for. Warren is the Democrat from Massachusetts and a longtime antitrust activist, not a big fan of mergers in general, and she's been particularly vocal about the sale of Warner Brothers. This deal looks like an anti monopoly nightmare, she said when the Netflix deal was announced. A Netflix Warner Brothers would create one massive media giant with control of close to half the streaming market, threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices, fewer choices over what and how they watch while putting American workers at risk. She's not alone, of course. Lots of Republican lawmakers have come out against Netflix. WBD certainly would create a streaming behemoth. But also the Ellisons have their Trump GOP relationships. And Warren has been equally vocal against the Paramount bid, even calling out the Ellisons on Stephen Colbert's show on their own CBS network. But what power does Warren actually have here? And is it realistic to just say no to any M and A opportunity for Warner Discovery, a company that's being buried in debt and will be left to compete with the likes of Netflix and Google and Amazon, none of which have been particularly regulated over the years? Lots of Tough questions. So thankfully, the Senator wanted to come on the town to answer them. She's also got some news of a new push to recuse Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, from this matter. But mostly I wanted to ask the Senator what the options might be for Warners if it's not sold, how Hollywood could possibly compete with Big Tech, and what she has planned to try to become a problem for the Ellisons and Netflix, regardless of who gets this Warner's deal. So today it's Elizabeth Warren and can she block a Warner Brothers sale from the ringer and Puck? I'm Matt Bellany, and this is the town. All right, we are here with United States Senator Elizabeth Warren. This is our first public official on the town. So welcome, Senator Warren.
- [03:09]
B
Thank you. It's an honor to be here, Matt.
- [03:12]
A
All right, so we're going to talk about the logistics of. Of these proposed mergers and your opposition. And I have many questions, and forgive me if it sounds a little bit like an interrogation, I want to play devil's advocate a little bit here. But first, before we get going, tell us what your news is, because you have news on this front.
- [03:32]
B
Yeah. I've just sent a letter off to Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States. Ordinarily, in mergers like these, it would go to the Department of Justice, and that's appropriate to be reviewed to see if the merger is permissible under antitrust laws. Pam Bondi has said as Attorney General, she intends to be involved. And I just sent her a letter along with Senator Blumenthal saying, no, you need to recuse yourself and stay out of this. And the reason for that is that Bondi was working at a big lobbying firm just before she became Attorney General. And that same lobbying firm now represents both of the intended suitors in these.
- [04:22]
A
Deals, Paramount and Netflix. It's Ballard, by the way, and that is a big kind of MAGA affiliated lobbying firm. And this has been an issue in several instances with this administration. Seems very swampy. But isn't this just like sort of par for the course? Don't the lobbyists kind of go in and out of administrations? But why is this particular one so offensive?
- [04:43]
B
All right, so let me start with. Yes, it is swampy, but this one actually violates the regulations which say that for one year after you take this government post, you're not allowed to do any work on behalf of the folks where you were working before. And she hadn't been there a year yet. So this has got a conflict of interest in a very official sense, but also Come on. I get it. We can all roll our eyes and seem to be very sophisticated about how sloppy something feels. But remember, this is the same firm, Ballard, that was representing our dear friends at Paramount when Paramount wanted to do the Skydance deal. And remember how that one worked, how Paramount suddenly decides that they're going to settle a $16 million bogus lawsuit because they just want to throw $16 million.
- [05:39]
A
Now, that was Sherri Redstone that settled it. It was not the Ellisons that settled it. I know. Well, I just want to put that out there. That was technically the previous owner.
- [05:47]
B
Also, when Donald Trump takes exception to the fact that Stephen Colbert calls that a big fat bribe, that Stephen Colbert gets canceled, the whole notion that what's going to happen in the merger space is some variation on pay to play. And you can pay with dollars, you can pay with cryptocurrency. You can pay by sucking up to the president and promising to get rid of a meddlesome news agency or a comedian who tells jokes you don't like. That is a real problem, frankly, for our democracy, a problem for our economy, a problem for the whole notion that the corruption now is just open and out there for everyone to see. So Bondi should stay out of this damn thing just on appearance of impropriety. Could you just please.
- [06:43]
A
But you know, she won't. I mean, that's the thing about this issue that is interesting. Like, I. I applaud your efforts here. The whole thing smells bad. Many things about these various mergers and, and the attempts here smell bad. You know, the party's going to the White House, spending time at Mar A Lago. Everything smells bad here. But they don't care. And it just feels like noise, right?
- [07:05]
B
No, damn. They don't care as long as we let them not care. I am a United States senator, and, you know, I'm at least going to use what I got my platform to say. I tell you, Bud, I. I care about this, and I'm going to get as many other senators to care, and I'm going to try to embarrass as many Republicans who don't step up and say they care because it's bad enough that they do this, but it is really bad if the rest of us all just stand by and roll our eyes and say, oh, well, there's nothing we can do.
- [07:40]
A
Well, to that end, you do have Republicans who are questioning the Netflix side of this deal. Mike Lee, who leads the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, Darrell Issa, A couple of other Republicans have come out and said that they are at least questioning the Netflix transaction for Warner Brothers. So let's get into that. And that's where it's more interesting to me, because I'm a little bit more cynical than you. I don't think Democrats have that much power right now to do much about this. But there are senators who are openly criticizing the Netflix side. How could you guys work together to block a deal like this on the Netflix side?
- [08:20]
B
So, look, we have. Our biggest tool, frankly, is just to get out there and talk about it. And the reason I say that is because the law is already there. You know, we don't need to pass a new antitrust law. The antitrust laws have been there for a long, long, long time. And they're used over and over from industry to industry. It may feel new to the people in Hollywood because it hasn't been used very much there. But the whole idea that these companies get bigger and bigger, and then they decide, instead of growing by we innovate some new product, we do better movies than anybody else. We think what we'll do is just buy the competition. That is potentially a violation of the antitrust laws. Think about it this way. Your audience, very sophisticated, understands what's happening in the deal. But I always like to think about it as there are three kind of groups of players here. One group are the people who do all the work. You know, the guys who pitch the movie ideas. The ones who are the makeup artists and who are the screenwriters and who are the set designers and the truck drivers. Those are the workers. They actually produce this stuff. Then there are all the people who are listening to this, who like movies, who watch them on streaming, who go to the movies.
- [09:42]
A
Consumers.
- [09:43]
B
Right. That's group two. And then the other group are the investors. In this case, it's Netflix, you know, it's Paramount. And that they're the ones who are saying, right now we're going to spend, oh, about a bazillion dollars to buy Warner.
- [10:03]
A
Well, it's about $100 billion on the Ellison side. It's a less than that on the Netflix.
- [10:07]
B
That's right. They say that what they're going to do is. But it's going to return to us bazillions and bazillions and bazillions more. And how's that going to happen? They're not saying, oh, because once we're a bigger company, we'll be able to make bigger movies. Is there anybody who believes they'll be able to make better movies? They're not saying, somehow they're going to bring in a bunch more customers. What they're going to do is they're going to squeeze the other two groups, they're going to squeeze the workers because there'll be fewer places to pitch your movie, fewer makeup artists if fewer movies get made. And they're going to squeeze the customers either on price or maybe on one of these deals, shutting down a bunch of movie theaters. So the idea here is you got three groups and the investors. Just the pitch here in purchasing that Paramount is making is we can squeeze those other guys and make more money for the investors. And, and that potentially is a violation of antitrust laws.
- [11:06]
A
I get that. But then that sounds great and I understand why you are talking about that in this situation. You have a company, Warner Brothers Discovery, that is on a trajectory to fail. It's got cable networks that are failing, that will go to zero, that throw off a lot of profit right now, but will eventually go down significantly. You've got a movie studio, you got a television studio that are both profitable on their own, but they're not scaled like some of these other competitors and they're getting their lunch eaten. So why shouldn't the shareholders and the board of these companies look for a better option, look for a way to provide this company to another company that could potentially scale up? Because they're fighting not against each other, they're fighting against YouTube, they're fighting against Amazon, they're fighting against these large scale media companies that are devouring the market for media.
- [12:03]
B
So I'm going to argue with you on multiple fronts. I don't think movie production and YouTube shorts are the same market. I think those are different from each other. Okay, so what we're talking about here in the case of Netflix is the largest streaming service trying to buy the fourth largest streaming service.
- [12:21]
A
That is correct. If you, if it's subscription streaming.
- [12:24]
B
That's right. It can be even more gigantic. And what can it do with that? Well, it has the potential because it picks up the movie making part of this to Actually, Netflix has said repeatedly that they think anytime anybody's spending in a movie theater is time, they're not spending streaming. They don't like that.
- [12:43]
A
They don't. You're right. They say they've changed their mind, but I don't believe them.
- [12:47]
B
Yeah, exactly right. That's not enhancing competition, that's cutting competition off to drive the consumer into fewer choices and ultimately to up prices on consumers. So I think that one is a real problem. The question about that you ask about Warner Brothers, I think is a question about stupid mergers from the past where they picked up businesses they're not good at.
- [13:15]
A
Of course. And listen, this company has been thrown around. The only people that are benefiting from the various transactions of Warner Brothers over the years were the executives who did them and the shareholders who got some, you know, momentary lift. It has been a value destruction exercise for decades now.
- [13:32]
B
That's right. And they just want to run that play again.
- [13:35]
A
I get it. But. But that's the past. We're talking about this company and where it is right now. And you could argue, you know, you were opposed, for instance, to The Spirit Airlines JetBlue merger that was blocked and Spirit Airlines declared bankruptcy.
- [13:49]
B
Yep.
- [13:50]
A
Let's take it here. Warner Brothers Discovery is the Spirit Airlines of Hollywood. Would you like to see them just go under?
- [13:57]
B
No, I would like to see Warner Brothers continue to be a strong studio. Now they may do that by breaking off some of the pieces that are not their expertise that are dragging them.
- [14:10]
A
Down like cable network. Yeah, but they throw off all of the operating income for the company. How do you operate a studio and streamer when you don't have that revenue coming from the networks?
- [14:24]
B
You're saying the only way now to produce movies is if you can do the cross subsidization. You think that is the only economic model?
- [14:32]
A
I'm saying that helps. I'm saying these are diversified media companies where one arm benefits the other. For years, Disney was powered by its cable television networks. Now because they have theme parks, it is powered by the theme parks. And that is helping them make the transition to streaming. That is the benefit of a fully diversified company that was acquired over the years by the way. They bought different elements of Disney. So now we're in a situation where Warner's is really hurting and there are other companies out there in the entertainment landscape that would benefit Disney from having Warners. Why shouldn't Warners be allowed to be part of another company? I know change is hard. People don't like it. But ultimately we're talking about the health of the entire ecosystem. Maybe this is better for that. Just putting that out there.
- [15:21]
B
So the question, Matt, is not whether or not there's any merger that's possible for Warner Brothers. It's not whether or not Warner Brothers can't develop other lines of business or even engage in cross subsidization within their businesses. And the question is the antitrust question. Whether or not number one gets to buy number four and become number one. Plus plus plus yeah.
- [15:45]
A
450 million worldwide subscribers. It's A lot. It would dwarf everybody else.
- [15:49]
B
That's exactly right. And the problem is it puts us on the path. Notice what you're talking about now that all of these have to be so big and so cross subsidized, it means you don't get new entry, you don't get the same kind. What you do is you keep shrinking up and shrinking up and shrinking up the number of actual competitors.
- [16:09]
A
Well, Netflix would argue, just to be fair, they would argue that the overall viewership, they are fourth in overall viewership. If you include linear platforms and if you include YouTube, the overall viewership is YouTube, then the Disney platforms, then the NBCUniversal platforms, and I believe sometimes the Paramount platforms. When CBS has football, that's up there and then it's Netflix. And that if they buy Warner's, the viewership will go from about 8% to about 9% in the U.S. that's what they're arguing. And if you include, you know, just depends on what the market is. And for antitrust purposes, how do we define the market that we are dealing with here? Is it all viewership and engagement on all platforms? Is it specifically subscription streaming? How are we supposed to divide this? And what, more importantly, would a judge do? If a judge were presented with this?
- [16:59]
B
This is the classic question in almost every antitrust case. Because everybody who wants the merger to go through tries to find a way to describe the market that is bigger than the earth itself. So when the two big supermarket giants wanted to merge, what they claimed is, oh, but the market includes all those Kwik E Marts at the gas station because you can buy a package of potato chips.
- [17:27]
A
Right. It's like letting McDonald's buy Burger King because food is available everywhere.
- [17:31]
B
Because food is everywhere. That's exactly.
- [17:33]
A
And David Ellison said it's like letting Coke buy Pepsi because beer is a beverage.
- [17:38]
B
That's exactly right. Because you drink all of it. So that's gonna be their argument. But the reality is. Ask the people who pitched the movie script.
- [17:48]
A
Yes, Right.
- [17:48]
B
Ask the people who try to do the thing that's one off that isn't, you know, hasn't been done before when you're pitching succession and nobody wants it and nobody wants it and nobody wants it until somebody takes a risk.
- [18:03]
A
Yes. And this was the argument in the Random House case, and it was ultimately victorious that authors would have less choice in who they sell to. And I think that's a really good argument. And that's why the entire entertainment community is looking skeptically at both of these mergers.
- [18:18]
B
Yes.
- [18:18]
A
And it's probably why you're on this show, because you're speaking to them and they're. They're pissed about this because they see fewer buyers. But they also see, I think, a vision of Warner Brothers that may not exist in a couple years if it is allowed to continue on the current trajectory.
- [18:36]
B
But that takes back to the question you were talking about. If there's real value in Warner Brothers, and pause. I'm going to assume there is, or we wouldn't have two outfits trying to buy it.
- [18:50]
A
True, they do. Well, it's largely the library and it's the subscribers that HBO Max has. But you're right, there is clearly value there.
- [18:56]
B
If there is real value other than simply the monopoly value that you can create, if there's real value there, then all these guys who say it's all about the market, the market, the market, then we ought to see a Warner Brothers that can succeed. The real fear here, go back to the Random House case because you're exactly right. It's not only that there are fewer places if this one merger goes through now, fewer places to pitch your script, to ply your trade. It's that once you get big enough, the thing has a way of accelerating and literally going to one. The best evidence about these giant companies is how they transform. And they transform from companies that are hungry and innovative, changing and developing that first iPhone, developing that first whatever it is, into companies that get better and better out of milking a monopoly, out of protecting their barriers, their borders, out of making sure that there's not no competition out there, stomping out the competition before it has a chance to get a foothold. And let's face it, in an industry that ultimately relies on creativity, you gotta have the competition. Competition is what makes this work.
- [20:30]
A
Yeah. That's how you get a raise. That's how people get paid. And that's how. Honestly, the only reason why Warner Brothers has had such a good year at the box office this year, and with sinners and with weapons, and with one battle after another, although that's dicey, but with these movies is because they were desperate. They were desperate to compete. They had new people running the studio, and they took some chances.
- [20:51]
B
And that's a good thing. And what either of these mergers is about is trying to tamp that down and have less and less of that. And that's why we have antitrust laws, why we've had them for basically for a century now.
- [21:06]
A
It's just when you look at this macro landscape, and it is wild to me that the leader in digital advertising is allowed to own the largest television service in YouTube. The fact that Google can own YouTube is still crazy to me, but it is what it is. And these companies in Hollywood are crippled in their ability to compete there. What if Netflix, what if Paramount with the Ellisons can be that company that has is a real Hollywood oriented company that competes with the tech giants like this? This industry is undergoing such seismic change right now. And why can't we produce a competitor to those big tech giants?
- [21:50]
B
So why isn't the answer the reverse?
- [21:52]
A
Matt And I'm just saying the reality. I would love it if Google was not allowed to own YouTube. But they are. The government hasn't done anything about that.
- [22:00]
B
But hold on. Instead of saying the answer is more concentration to say, nope, the answer is more competition, get more creative. A desperate Warner has done good things right, but that we apply antitrust law everywhere. We don't use the excuse of saying, hey, we've let one giant get away with it over in this part of the tech industry, we've let another get away with it over here. So the answer has to be that we become an entire economy, an entire nation that's just driven by. Within each industry there's one big slow, sluggish.
- [22:43]
A
It's not that slow. I get my toilet paper and my Thursday night NFL from the same company?
- [22:48]
B
From the same company. And does that make you feel better?
- [22:51]
A
It doesn't.
- [22:53]
B
And does it make either one of those any better?
- [23:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Starz's Outlander Blood of My Blood, an epic tale of love, legacy and longing. Starring Hermione Corfield, Jeremy Irvine, Harriet Slater and Jamie Roy. Variety Rave's Blood of My Blood is lush, complex, beautifully shot and structured. And Los Angeles Times proclaims it's the ultimate period drama. Industry voters can access all episodes@starsfyc.com AMC.
- [23:29]
C
The Home of award winning drama and unforgettable originals, brings you more in 2026.
- [23:35]
B
Prepare to have your mind blown with.
- [23:36]
C
A new season of the critically acclaimed Dark Wings. You cannot separate spirituality from art.
- [23:41]
A
Upholding the law.
- [23:42]
C
All new Anne Rice's the Vampire Lestat. I'm a rock star now. I am everywhere. Plus the Audacity, a bold new series from a producer of succession and better Call Saul with Zach Galifianakis and Billy Magnuson coming in 2026 only to AMC.
- [23:58]
A
What are the options for the States here?
- [24:01]
B
So I'm focused right now on trying to get Pam Bondi out of the picture because of a conflict of interest but here's the fun part. Even if Donald Trump does a whole pay to play around this and both CEOs think that the right way to get their merger approved is to suck up to Donald Trump. Remember, states have their own antitrust laws.
- [24:25]
A
But are you organizing them? Are you organizing these democratic AGs?
- [24:29]
B
The democratic AGs are ahead of me. They are already organizing themselves. I am merely here to describe what's happening.
- [24:37]
A
Okay, but why aren't we hearing from them?
- [24:39]
B
Oh, I think we are.
- [24:40]
A
I think we've heard a little bit. But why? Yes, and there is no deal yet.
- [24:43]
B
Starting to look, it's right at the beginning. None of this is going to happen in the next hour and a half. This is going to be over a long stretch of time. But the Democratic AGs recognize they have an opportunity to get in the game. And again, it's the reminder they're learning how to do this because they've had these laws on the books. They're learning how to do it not just in the case of this giant, very visible media merger, but they're starting to do it in industry after industry where they are getting more aggressive in applying the antitrust laws.
- [25:19]
A
And do you think they will go after the Ellisons having Middle east money here? Is this a topic you guys are going to focus on? If the Ellisons get it, I think.
- [25:29]
B
That'S going to be very relevant and I think it's going to be.
- [25:32]
A
And they would control cnn.
- [25:33]
B
There's a news outlet involved in all of the middle of this.
- [25:36]
A
Yes, they would control cnn, which, you know, some people think that that's your ultimate goal here, that you really just don't want the Republican oriented media company to own cnn.
- [25:47]
B
I don't want either one of these mergers to go. I think both of these mergers undermine competition. We have laws against that. I want to see the law enforced.
- [25:56]
A
This is a fascinating conversation. I hope you'll come back when this is resolved and then this is headed towards possible approval.
- [26:03]
B
You know what, we may not want to wait till it gets resolved. We may have more to talk about because I have a feeling the deal making and offers and attacks on this deal are not any place near over yet.
- [26:16]
A
Yeah, I mean the thing is though, Electronic Arts was just sold to the Saudis and I didn't hear a lot of people upset about that. So is it just that the Saudis would be involved in a media company that owns CNN here?
- [26:28]
B
I think there's concern about the Saudis, but I think it's particularly Paramount has already sensitized us to the fact that they are very much into how to suck up to Donald Trump as part of your overall merger strategy. The fact that Ellison puts out a notice and says to the shareholders, the reason you should go with us instead of going with Netflix is we already have the inside track on how to get this approved.
- [26:57]
A
Well, he could also be referring to the fact that they wouldn't have 450 million subscribers to their streaming service. But I get what you're saying. The implication is we've got the path greased for us. Yeah, the whole thing is fascinating. All right, listen, I appreciate you coming on the show, Senator Warren. We appreciate the time.
- [27:15]
B
Happy to do it. Thanks for having me.
- [27:19]
A
All right, we are back with the call sheet. Lucas Shaw happens to be here. We're recording the townies, and we figured we would jump on and do a little analysis of the YouTube deal. YouTube taking on the Oscars from 2029 to 2033.
- [27:34]
D
You're excited. I can tell you're energized.
- [27:37]
A
I'm excited because it's a shock. I did not think this was going to happen. Do your victory lap. You did report that YouTube was serious.
- [27:43]
D
About this a few months ago. Yes, I had. I had written about this process a couple times, and a few of the people involved started to ask me what I thought about YouTube because they were getting the sense that they were a real contender.
- [27:56]
A
I think there's two things here. First of all, for the audience of the show, this will absolutely get more people to watch it.
- [28:02]
D
You think so?
- [28:02]
A
I do.
- [28:03]
D
Even though usually when things move from broadcast to the Internet, the viewership at first dips because it's a new place.
- [28:13]
A
That is true, I guess, worldwide.
- [28:16]
D
And the average YouTube viewer is not the average Oscar viewer.
- [28:21]
A
That is true. And they are going to be watching mostly on their phones or on their devices, which is not typically how you.
- [28:29]
D
Moment for people in their 60s and 70s to learn how to use YouTube on a television.
- [28:33]
A
Exactly. Well, but this is four years from now, so, you know, we got to think about what.
- [28:39]
D
What will change between now.
- [28:41]
A
I mean, we both. We know that the majority of YouTube viewing now is on television. They are the number one television platform.
- [28:50]
D
Yeah.
- [28:51]
A
And it's only going to get bigger by the time the Oscars deal starts because they have more adoption every year.
- [28:58]
D
Right.
- [28:58]
A
I agree with you that there's going to be some of, you know, similar to when Thursday Night Football went to Amazon. There's going to be the, you know, on the phone with your parents, talking about how they can watch on their tv. But on the viewership thing, ultimately it could generate more viewers.
- [29:15]
D
I'll be curious how they handle the viewership number.
- [29:18]
A
Well, they. They'll have to report it because there's. They're going to sell ads into it.
- [29:21]
D
Right, but are they going to report. Are they going to report the number like live or like normal. But like, like a normal television network would report a number? Like they've had, like they've had to have Amazon and Netflix start to do for their live sports.
- [29:34]
A
Yeah, I mean, the second aspect of this is just what the members think, because I think it's got to be shocking to the members that, you know, this is a platform that is arguably eating away at their audience for movies and destroying the model that the modern movie business has been shown very little.
- [29:49]
D
Interest in copyright over the years.
- [29:52]
A
I mean, they were sued by.
- [29:53]
D
If they think, if they think that Netflix is like a tech interloper that doesn't get their business. Netflix spends billions of dollars a year.
- [30:00]
A
To fund programming and movies and gives them like, the full awards treatment. I mean, the nice thing about YouTube is that it's not competitive. Like, the problem with a lot of these bidders is that, you know, Netflix makes movies. So if Netflix got the Oscars, they would probably use it to plug their own movies, as they have done with the SAG Awards, get their presenters and stuff like that. And there's a. An ickiness around that Disney had sort of been light on that they kind of been respectful of their properties. But they do put their big things on the show and they put interstitial ads and things like that. This doesn't have that problem, at least unless YouTube buys a studio.
- [30:34]
D
I think it's a fascinating move and it makes a lot of sense as an experiment, because it's loud. You are going to the most popular place for people to watch video, both on the Internet and on a television. You know that they're going to put it right there on their homepage. So a lot of people will sample and watch it. And if your job as the Academy is to try to get the ratings for the Oscars have been in decline for years. And if you're.
- [31:04]
A
They went up a little, sure.
- [31:05]
D
But in general, it's going down. If your job is to make the Oscars more culturally relevant, doing a deal to keep it on abc, even if it goes on, that means it goes on Disney and Hulu or put it on NBC, more of the same is not going to do that. Doing something that fundamentally changes it's Risky, right?
- [31:22]
A
It is risky.
- [31:23]
D
It's possible it blows up in your face, but if you can actually execute it well, you have a chance to make the show more interesting and relevant than it has been. Now, am I confident that they can execute it? No, but I get the thinking.
- [31:35]
A
I'm skeptical on the prestige front. The Oscars are the Oscars for a reason. They are bigger and better than any of the other award shows because they matter. And when this deal starts, it'll be a hundred years of the Oscars and then it goes to YouTube. There is a feeling already within the community, I am guessing, that this feels cheap, this feels down market.
- [31:55]
D
The money.
- [31:56]
A
This feels like a money grab. They were getting $90 million that YouTube.
- [32:00]
D
Is where you go to watch Cats and you.
- [32:01]
A
Yeah, I think it's. It's more nuanced than that, but it's certainly not where you go to watch prestigious programming. Well, it might be where young people go, but young people are not the. I mean, the Oscars viewership is older, Right? Well, isn't that the whole idea? I know the idea is to get young people, but they're.
- [32:17]
D
Instead of leaning into their audience and kind of super serving them, they are trying. They're doing the thing where they stretch to go and reach out to people who might not want them.
- [32:26]
A
And is Mr. Beast going to host? Like, what are they going to do? You know, try and bring in that audience and just really.
- [32:32]
D
And that's where the execution really matters. Because if you want to make it feel. Still feel prestige and important, you have to find ways to tweak the show without obvious pandering.
- [32:42]
A
Yes.
- [32:43]
D
Whereas if they lean in too hard on. Yes. Like, all of a sudden, YouTube stars are everywhere throughout the show. The average Oscar voter is. Or the average Oscar viewer is gonna go, who is this? Why?
- [32:56]
A
Yeah, they can't do that and cheapen the whole thing. The whole thing about it is it is the prestige moment of the industry. It may be the problem.
- [33:05]
D
People feel it. The Oscars are out of touch.
- [33:07]
A
They're awarding.
- [33:07]
D
They're awarding. Yes, but they award.
- [33:09]
A
They're not gonna change the movies that get nominated. The Academy is going to still be the Academy. Maybe YouTube will get them to introduce a popular Oscar or something like that. But it's not going to change the movies that get and the people that are in the room and, you know, it just feels like it's slumming a little bit. Oh, I don't know. I think the perception on YouTube is changing.
- [33:30]
D
Like.
- [33:30]
A
I know, I know. But it's still not there. It's still not there. And it's, it's just, it feels like, you know, you're going to be alongside a dude. Perfect video. Oh, I don't know. It's, it's just doesn't feel like a prestige moment that the Academy needs it to be. But ultimately, this is about money. They needed someone to step up and replace the 90 to $100 million a year that the Academy was getting from ABC. And they weren't going to pay that. And YouTube's just willing to pay. This is for them. What's a hundred million dollars a year?
- [34:02]
D
I wonder if YouTube.
- [34:03]
A
What's $200 million?
- [34:04]
D
Does YouTube have the, the gumption to talk to the Academy about and make them change the show in a way that would make it more interesting to.
- [34:14]
A
No. I am guessing that the Academy had pretty strong leverage here. ABC was probably saying, guys, if we're going to re up at anything close.
- [34:23]
D
Take out a couple of categories, we.
- [34:25]
A
Want 15 categories on the show, the others in a montage presented elsewhere. Or we need to have it in the deal where we don't go over three hours. And if you do, you pay us X amount of money, like all the things that the Disney people have wanted for years.
- [34:39]
D
Right.
- [34:40]
A
But we'll see. It's fun for us to talk about. Thank you, Lucas.
- [34:43]
D
Thanks, Matt.
- [34:44]
A
All right, that's the show for today. I want to thank my guest, Senator Elizabeth Warren, producer Craig Horbeck, art Jesse Lopez. Special thanks to Lucas for coming on. And that's it. We'll see you tomorrow.