B (4:01)

Great to be here. Matthew, nice to see you.

A (4:03)

Okay, so you've done many, many things in your life. You have traveled the world, India, Afghanistan. You built a multimillion dollar clothing export business. You've been a bartender in the Virgin Islands, orphanages, Burma, all over the world. I'm going to ask you about none of that. I am going to ask you what I am obsessed with, which is your time at Viacom. And specifically, I want to start with the key time, which I think is the key time in the evolution of the entertainment industry, which is that early 2000s, mid 2000s period when TV is king. Viacom at one point was the biggest media company in the world. And the commercialization of the Internet is a real thing. And all of a sudden, YouTube launches in 2005. Do you think looking back that there was anything that Viacom and the traditional television based media companies could have done at that point to either stave off or box out or take advantage in a better way of the digital revolution back then.

B (5:19)

Yeah, that was a period of time when sort of the decimation of the legacy media business was really getting underway. You know, it's still before the birth of the iPhone, but it was well underway. We saw all the stocks of the legacy companies kind of stagnant. And YouTube particularly for us was, was a game changer thing. I mean they, they came in in short form. They were the first form of social media where you could upload anything, share it, comment on it and so forth. And today it's worth like almost $600 billion.

A (5:49)

Well, in the initial clips that went viral on YouTube were Viacom, clips of the D, all sorts of stuff. You guys, you know, Viacom sued, they.

B (5:58)

Sued after I left. I mean, it was always a stone in their shoe. We brought up YouTube. I mean, you can remember it was sold for about 1.6 billion, which was the same amount we kind of offered for Facebook back in the day that Mark Zuckerberg turned us down. So it was sort of in our wheelhouse in terms of what we could afford. But it was viewed sort of more or less as a copyright infringement machine by the board who you could say didn't see what was really coming. They weren't alone at that. But that was a moment when I think MTV really began to lose its mojo. When you could begin to get a clip on YouTube and didn't have to sit around and wait to see Nirvana on mtv. It kind of lost a lot of its raison d', etre, if you will.

A (6:45)

Totally. And the power that MTV had, where you could negotiate exclusive windows with the record companies for these clips, essentially created a moat around the company where you couldn't really launch a competitor platform on the linear platform. And then YouTube comes along and any music video in the world can be available to anyone. And the labels saw that and saw that as a weapon to use against MTV and Viacom.

B (7:15)

Yeah, I mean the labels were not jumping up and down ready to give us rights to be on digital. I first thought we were ready to just to roll into the digital revolution. We had written the sort of the TV revolution to the top of its game. But when it was disassembling with digital, I thought we could take, we had like 25,000 videos in our library. We could just spin that out and have the ultimate sort of streaming Video on music, video on demand service. But the record labels either did not want to license us or wanted exorbitant fees. They did not want to create another MTV on the Internet. Right, because they, they, they felt we had built a business on their backs. You know, forget the fact that we had help, made stars out of a lot of their acts, a lot of music that, that never came up in discussions at one point.

A (8:04)

No, I get it. It's interesting you say the board wasn't interested in this stuff because like you said, you guys did go after Facebook. You turned down Netflix at one point. The whole music business was being upended by Napster and then itunes. It's hard for me to understand because I was not covering the business at the time. I was a lawyer in the early 2000s. Hard for me to understand how the board didn't see what was going on, didn't look at what was happening in China and other Asian countries via mobile, and what was growing. Like, how did everybody miss that? Or was it just that the business was so entrenched that even if they had said, we're going to be a shadow of our former self in 10, 15, 20 years, they just couldn't look away from those linear dollars?

B (8:59)

Well, in a way, you could say they were so far into it, they were out of it. I mean, the legacy business had turned it pretty well. They did not. There was a lot of people that did not know of the level of the paradigm shift that was beginning. You know, when things begin, you don't really see it so clearly. And there was an outrage about YouTube because they were taking content and they were seen as just being infringers on it. NBC on one hand, they put up Lazy Sunday on YouTube from Saturday night Live, and that went viral, and they were using it as a promotional device when I left. You got to remember Philippe Dumont sued YouTube for $1 billion.

A (9:38)

I remember I did cover that.

B (9:41)

Which made Viacom kind of radioactive in the digital world as, as, like, we were nasty people. I was gone. And they settled it. You know, like 10 years later. They lost in spending tens of millions of dollars in legal fees. They couldn't believe that YouTube was going to be able to get away with this in the end. This was so against all sort of legal precedent that someone could pull this off. No one ever could have imagined what YouTube might ultimately evolve and turn into, which is this unbelievable enterprise that they've really crafted and built out really deliberately. And I mean, it's quite a business.

A (10:21)

It is. And I think being attached To Google has enabled that a lot of help.

B (10:26)

I mean, if we had bought it, I mean, we brought this up with the board. If we had bought it, while we could have afforded it, it was seen that we would just be hit with lawsuits by everybody because we were a public company. And we also would have had a problem underwriting and paying for all the expansion that needed to be done, turned into what it was. We were a public company and it was sort of a little bigger than our appetite.

A (10:52)

And you're a. I mean, it's a sort of paradox that happens all the time. You guys were a mature company, your investors expected earnings every quarter. Google was a growth company. They didn't need to show profits.

B (11:03)

In a way, it's a pure case of innovator's dilemma. We were the king short form, and here comes an interloper. They're really small at the beginning, sort of ignored in a way and, you know, not treated that seriously. And ultimately they triumph.

A (11:17)

I mean, it's what happened with Netflix and now it's happening in AI. I mean, do you think the same conversations we're having right now about the legality of ingesting all this content into the models and spitting out AI generated TV shows clips, do you think that will go the same way that YouTube went, where eventually, in five years, it will just be accepted and all of these lawsuits will be dismissed or fought into the ground, and it will be yet another example of the big tech companies trampling all over Hollywood.

B (11:51)

It could be. I mean, that's the big question. You know, history would say that that's the case. I'm the lawyer and I'm not totally on top of it, but it's exactly the same argument. You know, they're just vacuuming up stuff, you know, using up all this electricity, vacuuming up everything and churning out, you know, everything from news hosts to actors and scripts. So I don't know what's gonna happen, but I don't think that that's an unlikely result. And if it is, it has huge consequence.

A (12:18)

Yeah, I mean, think about the media industry. I just curious, from your perspective, having seen it evolve over the past 30 years, are people right to be pessimistic and defeatist about where media is? I mean, your former boss, Sumner Redstone, his entire mantra was content is king. Do you think content is king these days, or are the platforms king and will dictate the future from now on?

B (12:43)

I think the balance has changed to the platforms. I mean, that's obvious. I mean, content's still important. You got to have some content people want to see and want to use and be engaged with. But it's the platforms who kind of dictate how that all works.

A (12:56)

But can they operate without content? Like, is the future of AI generated content going to be enough for these platforms, where the value of original, professionally produced content is just gonna go down, down, down? Or as people, some in Hollywood say, no, with all the slop out there, it's just gonna make the good stuff more valuable.

B (13:20)

Yeah, I kind of go there. I mean, I think they could take a hunk out of the business. But the top stuff, the great stuff with real people and real scripts and real writers rooms, I think ultimately will triumph. There's always a longing for authenticity. And do people want to have an AI companion? I mean, it just sounds so weird to me. A personal companion. I mean, I don't know, maybe if you're an incel or something, but I want to see movie stars. They're going to want to see who's going to go on the Tonight show, assuming it's still there, and tell me about their new movie. I mean, it isn't a layup using AI to replace what's coming currently being made in the Hollywood machine.

A (14:00)

So you are pretty bullish on the Ellison family taking over Paramount. And I've read some of your interviews talking about how they have kind of saved the company. But other than having money and having ambition, what about them gives you hope?

B (14:18)

Well, look, I looked at the alternatives of who was gonna take Paramount over, and it's like your old high school. You don't want it to burn down or, say, have it deconstructed by some private equity people. The Ellison. First of all, David's a smart guy. He makes movies. He like. They actually like movies, they said.

A (14:36)

And they sat down with you.

B (14:38)

Right?

A (14:38)

And some of the. The old MTV people and kind of picked your brains.

B (14:41)

They were kind of doing due diligence. They had a meeting with me and Judy McGrath and Doug Herzog and Jason Hirschhorn. So you guys were there in the golden era. What was it like? We're not in that era anymore. What can you might recommend that we could do to maybe bring it back? They kind of explained how bad things were with their linear networks. I've had one thing, too. I mean, another bright sign. I saw they put Sherry Lansing on the board.

A (15:05)

Yeah, Big move.

B (15:06)

It's another sign. I mean, she's fantastic.

A (15:09)

Yeah. Former head of Paramount Pictures. First woman to run a studio.

B (15:12)

And that's just a good signal. And I You know, they're used to working with creative people. And compared to the other options for Paramount, this to me was the best option. You wanted to. You want. You know, if they had had no deal and. And had to go to October and pay a $400 million kill fee to the Ellisons, I think they would have been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy almost.

A (15:35)

Did you have a relationship with Sherry Redstone?

B (15:38)

Yes, I did. I had a good relationship with Sherry. I wouldn't call her a close friend, but we were close. She thought it was a mistake for her father to can me. She was very clear about that. She asked me, I was asked a couple times if I wanted to come back and be on the board, for which I declined. But it was a favorite Redstone.

A (16:01)

Your favorite Redstone. That's funny. Yeah. I won't ask you about the sex club that Sumner made you go to with him and his wife. I think that's been pretty well covered in the media. But it is funny.

B (16:11)

Yeah, it was.

A (16:13)

Bangkok sex club. If you want, you can Google it. This episode is brought to you by Starz is 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 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. The thing with the Ellisons that is interesting is that they are talking about trying to revive or salvage or do something with these MTV network's brands like Comedy Central. And I have heard that they are out there having meetings with people who can come and pitch them and say, this is what I would do with mtv. This is what I would do with Comedy Central. What would you do with these brands?

B (17:43)

I'll tell you what I told them. Not that I know everything, but MTV has been drained of any equity it had musically for years and years. They put no Craig.

A (17:53)

Basically. Craig barely knows what it is. It's the home of Jersey Shore to him.

B (17:56)

Yeah, it's been a collection of B grade reality shows that they play, you know, 15 times in a row. When they saw music television off the bottom of the logo, those words that really, I never, I never gave it a second thought again. Because all the music people who were there, who were good and they were ardent about it, they've all gone and they were replaced by more mainstream kind of Hollywood production people. But there's a corner. MTV could be reimagined for the digital age.

A (18:28)

How so?

B (18:29)

I don't know exactly how I said, you know, get 20 to 30 smart. 20, 30, 20 to 30 year olds and put them in a room, put them in a room with like Rick Rubin or John Mayer or somebody and see what they can come up with as ideas. They have a. They have a library that's considerable. They've got like 30 years of music news, They've got all kinds of shows unplugged. I could go on and on. And you know, there are people still watch music videos and they're made, they're made as many made today as there were in the heyday. They're just not on mtv. So. And I think people, at least some segment of the music viewer or listener, which is a huge amount, is a little, you know, they're not totally thrilled with the algo, you know, with algorithms and what has been done.

A (19:14)

Curation, you're saying?

B (19:15)

Maybe someone who's a good curator and you have a place where there could be music conversation instead of just video after video, you know, equivalent of modern day VJs or bring on critics and they can talk and it would be a place for, for people who really enjoy music on a higher level now. Maybe it's never gonna be as big as what MTV was. Cause we don't have the monoculture we used to have. But it could be a way to resurrect themselves. Then again, maybe it's not gonna work, I don't know. But it's worth a shot.

A (19:42)

Yeah, it's always been strange to me that Paramount does not do any of that kind of curation. I mean, a lot of that stuff from MTV is there on Paramount. If you look like you can go back and look at old episodes of Real World or Unplugged or things like that, but it's not curated really in any way. And I wonder if something similar to what Disney has done with their brands, which obviously are much stronger, if they could kind of capitalize on nostalgia at least, or maybe even make them relevant with some new content.

B (20:14)

I believe so. I mean, look at some of the record companies. Look at Columbia Records. They have a whole department that kind of goes through Miles Davis and Bob Dylan, these catalogs, and they reshuffle stuff and put out masters and B sides and things that were never. There's a lot of stuff that could be done. And someone who really focuses on the libraries and taking things out of them and making new products to put out there, that hasn't been done. There's been nothing done.

A (20:37)

Right. I know. And maybe they do need a partner. Maybe they need someone who cares about the brand to come in and partner with them and say, listen, I want to take this on, split it 50, 50 with you. If I can do something with these brands, then I benefit. You guys benefit and give me, you know, a little bit of money and I'll bring my own and let's do it.

B (20:55)

That could be the perfect solution. But, hey, it's a huge business, the music business, and here you had a leading iconic brand, and it's just all doing nothing and doesn't mean anything to anybody.

A (21:06)

Right. Do you think that it is even possible in this day and age, with Facebook and Google and Amazon and the others taking up most of the money in the media business, do you think it's even possible to have a robust kind of media culture or industry, or is that now off the table?

B (21:26)

Well, I know Puck's giving it a.

A (21:28)

Good shot, but we're so small. I'm talking about a media company of the size and influence that you once ran.

B (21:36)

I don't think so. I mean, I think you can thrive around the edges like you guys are. There's niche things you can fill and do. But these platforms are, like, impenetrable. They're not about to be dislodged. And that's sort of the story. I think it'd be very difficult.

A (21:52)

Speaking of difficult, you are close to David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Discovery. Does he listen to people like you? Does he listen to his friends? I know he does these zoom meetings with his buddies. I've heard from friends of his that say, we tell him this. We tell him his salary is too big, take a pay cut. We tell him not to do this, this, this, and he doesn't listen very often. Do you think he listens?

B (22:15)

He listens. I don't know if he acts on it when he's. Someone's telling him something, he's not getting up and walking out of the room. I mean, I haven't talked To David in a while, I'd say we kind of came up together in the 80s, so we have a solid friendship and I've watched him and early advice was, hey, go out to Hollywood because he had like a year before they could do the deal and get to know people. People in Hollywood want to hear somebody who really cares about the business is coming in as a new boss and build up some relationships. It's a relationship business, it's not a cult, but it's a, it's a hard thing to break into. David was able to kind of break in and build relationships at the top level there. And you know that salary thing is a, you know, that's a big blaring neon sign over his head.

A (22:58)

It is. And it's so easy. He's made so much money in this business he could just cut his salary in half and it would be such a gesture at a time when there's so much pain in the industry. And this merger that he engineered between Warner and Discovery has just been so awful for so many people in the business. And it was really, if you look at it from the big picture, it was a salvage attempt by the Discovery people. We're going under. Who can we latch onto that might give us a lifeline or a few more years. And that's what Warner was. And now three years later he's selling it for parts or he wants to sell it for parts. But we'll see if the Ellisons get it first.

B (23:37)

I mean you're right. On the first count it was a brilliant move by Discovery because they were like just a bundle of linear channels.

A (23:46)

Yeah, they would have been amc, the networks company, which is not doing great right now because they're a TV company with small digital.

B (23:52)

What do you think's going to happen now with this so called auction of, of the parts or the whole.

A (23:59)

I still think that money wins here and that the Ellisons ultimately will get to a number that the board has to accept for the whole company. I think we are going to see bids from Comcast with a partner and Netflix. I'm not sure how serious Netflix is, but they're going to go after the studios and streaming unit. Comcast will also do the same. I think Netflix is mostly in it for to run up the price and to look at their books. I just don't see how this is a priority for Netflix to spend 50, 60, $65 billion on assets like this. So I think the Ellison's ultimately get it. Do you agree? Disagree?

B (24:39)

Yeah, I don't see why Netflix would possibly need it. They're doing just fine. Who needs to buy all those headaches?

A (24:45)

Yeah, I mean, listen, if you're Ted Sarandos, you covet. You covet that lot in Burbank. You covet the ip. Imagine if a Batman movie would go directly to Netflix. Like, that's pretty compelling. But they don't need it. You're right. They're already the leader and they've got so many regulatory headaches, potentially. The Republicans are also already making noise about it. So I just, I don't know. I don't. I don't. I don't think they want it. It's not must have. And when you're spending that kind of money, I think you got to look at the players that consider it must have.

B (25:18)

Looking backwards, you know, it's. It's hard to see another studio get subsumed. We saw Fox get subsumed by Disney. You have another one disappear. I mean, there's. It's painful, precious entities. When we started MTV, there were like 40 record companies, Matthew. And now there's like really two and a half and lot. And bigness isn't generally great for creativity. On one hand, you had a lot of companies that were run by entrepreneurs who did things based on their taste and instincts. They weren't part of public companies. They didn't have to grow their earnings every year to the sky. And now they, you know, you see what's happened when everybody gets amalgamated and all the back offices get sucked out. And it's not really a pretty picture. It's not a pretty picture, but it seems like from the Ellison's perspective, an acquisition of Warner Brothers makes total sense.

A (26:06)

And they're, you know, they're making noises about keeping the Warner film slate robust. I don't know if that's true or how long that's true or what the windows are going to be, but I have a feeling they would probably have more movies in theaters than Netflix would.

B (26:21)

That's a good bet.

A (26:23)

Or at least for longer time periods. Do you miss it at all? Do you miss the daily grind of the media business?

B (26:30)

Hey, part of me says I got out just in time.

A (26:32)

I know. I feel like you did.

B (26:34)

If I was quitting. I mean, I'm a loyal guy, I would have stuck around a while, but it's gotten really ugly. It was less about taking risks and moving things forward and always having your earnings go up and more about consolidation and cost management and shrinking. And I've had a much better third chapter in my life.

A (26:57)

Yes, you've done amazing things. Do you think that with a better CEO than Philippe Domond or if you had stayed on that Viacom now Paramount would have had a chance? Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm surprised. Philippe Doban all time worst media CEOs. That's my opinion. You don't have to say that. But I have a feeling you agree.

B (27:17)

I mean, Look, Heyday spent $16 billion on stock buybacks and you thought, look at all the digital companies. I mean, the legacy companies who really transformed into a digital first company. None of them, but there was a strategy you could take, which was what Bob Iger took. He took $16 billion, the same amount of money and bought Lucas, he bought Pixar, he bought Marvel, and he made himself more impermeable and invincible as a content provider and was able to fuel the streaming service that they put out. So you could have doubled down on what you were already doing rather than try and buy a social media company or just manipulate the stock and take your options off the top.

A (27:59)

It's so amazing because Marvel movies were released by Paramount, people forget that Iron man is a Paramount release.

B (28:08)

Viacom could have adopted the same strategy as Disney, but they didn't. And it's a shame to see, like I say, to see your old high school kind of burning away.

A (28:19)

All right, well, on that very cheery note, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

B (28:24)

Matt, Nice to see you.

A (28:27)

We are back with the call sheet. Greg, I hope you saw the most important news of the year that broke today on the Hollywood Reporter website. Our good friend Alex Weprin broke the story. United Talent Agency has signed the Parmigiano Reggiano Consortium. They signed a cheese. I was against doing this for the call sheet, but Matt insisted it's too good. Oh, God, I can't believe they did. And the funniest thing about this is that this story clearly came from the cheese people. Like UTA did not put this out. UTA declined to comment for this story, but the cheese people put out a statement saying that UTA will, quote, leverage its expertise in global connectivity across entertainment and culture to introduce Parmigiano Reggiano to a wide pool of partners. Amazing. This was the work of the Parmigiano Reggiano consortium. Yes, which I learned. I learned that Parmigiano Reggiano is only true Parmigiano Reggiano if it's produced within five cities in Italy. Yeah, it's like champagne. You can't really call it champagne if it's elsewhere. And they want everyone to know that. So why not hire a prominent Hollywood talent agency to represent you and get you into movies and tv where they will properly refer to you as the Parmigiano Reggiano that you deserve to be the king of cheeses. Do you think CAA or WME would have let this happen? Oh, I don't know. I mean, my prediction today is actually that this will never happen again. I mean, everyone in town is laughing about this. UTA has got to be mortified about this. Like, it just. It just looks awful. It looks like something out of the studio, which is funny because Seth and Evan are represented by uta. But no, my prediction is that this is the last we will see of food products putting out statements about their agency of record. Will we see Parmigiano Reggiano in a major film in 2026? Good question. I mean, we'll see how good their agents are. They might. They might get poached. CAA is already looking after them, saying, you know, I'm hearing that you could be getting more opportunities if you were with us. Captain Crunch is a hot ticket right now. I hear clearly WME has to sign Velveeta next.

B (30:35)

Yeah, okay. I've had about enough of this.

A (30:39)

You don't find this as funny as I do? No, this is good. I mean, what. I mean, what has protected designation of origin status, right? That is important to know here. This is not just signing a random cheese off the shelf at Trader Joe's. This is Parmigiano effing Reggiano, right? Not just Parm. It's a higher tier of cheese. How much money would Parmigiano Reggiano pay to be in The Studio Season 2? Oh, God. I don't know what the product placement stuff is now. I mean, presumably you could get it for free because you're the king of cheeses. Yeah, I guess. I mean, these agencies have brand arms. I mean, CAA bought a brand marketing agency. Beanstalk. Like, the majority of the money at these agencies is not made on movie stars. It's made on people that are not famous and sports teams and licensing and brand deals and all sorts of other things that are not like George Clooney. So it's not out of the. I mean, this is like a normal thing that you would represent a brand, but it's just funny that it's cheese and it's funny they put out a press release which I predict will never happen again. All right, enough of this. We're done. I kind of want a quesadilla now. I want to thank my guests. Tom Freston, producer Craig Horobeck. Arter. Jesse Lopez. I want to thank you. We'll see you next week. As a Raider scavenging a derelict world, you settle into an old underground settlement. But now you must return to the surface, where arc machines roam. If you're brave enough, who knows what you might find. Arc Raiders, a multiplayer extraction adventure video game. Buy now for PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X and S and PC rated T for teenage.