“It used to be that you were paid for what you do in Hollywood in success. You had a piece of a show or a movie financially. And if it was a hit, you and the studio would benefit. Netflix changed that by paying everybody upfront for what they do and taking away the upside… 10 years later, that guy who did a show 10 years ago is not being paid on that show, even though it's a gigantic hit for Netflix.”
sputnikintelligence.com
Derek Thompson observed that Netflix, once a disruptor, increasingly resembles the industry it disrupted. Belloni replies that Netflix did upend the pay model: talent got a premium upfront in exchange for giving up a share of later success, a trade that looks different years on.
…in theaters. And we'll see if he took that job knowing they're going to change or whether it's going to be a clash again. But that's another problem is that they want to work with the top filmmakers and yet they don't offer the same things that a Warner Brothers or a Universal or a Paramount does.
…that as Netflix grows, in many cases, they have to become in part the industry that they're disrupting. Maybe that's a sign of them losing a differentiated identity, or maybe it's just a sign of when you grow, you have to do everything. I want to follow up, though, on this concept. But let me just
say one thing. They're in a highly regulated and unionized industry. Netflix knew that they couldn't just come in, drop a bomb, and expect everybody to play ball with them. All of the talent unions need to be able to work with Netflix like they work with the others. So they came in and they had to adopt some of the tropes of traditional Hollywood. And some ways they completely upended. It used to be that you were paid for what you do in Hollywood in success. You had a piece of a show or a movie financially. And if it was a hit, you and the studio would benefit. Netflix changed that by paying everybody upfront for what they do and taking away the upside. And Hollywood went along with that because they were quote unquote overpaying people. They were saying, what's your quote? You want to make a show for us? Your quote is X. We'll give you X plus 10%. And the agents went, we love that. I'm going to make my numbers this year. But 10 years later, that guy who did a show 10 years ago is not being paid on that show, even though it's a gigantic hit…
I want to go back to the question of hits because I do think that there is an external sense, an external attitude outside the company, that there's just a lot of wallpaper that Netflix produces, a lot of slop. But you're also suggesting that that is a sentiment that is shared by some people inside…
They call it broad. They say we are everything for everybody. And that's what people on the outside don't realize because all they see is what the algorithm curates for the individual viewer. You don't see Little House on the Prairie, I'm guessing, because you are not the kind of person who would…
But how do you do that? How do you fix a problem like we're not creating enough hits that create water cooler conversations among people who read the New York Times? It's not like there's a button on Ted's desk that's like, make the slop or make the hits. And he's just insisting on hitting the slop…