Hacker News Reader

Maybe I just have enough black friends in Hollywood, but in the past few years, the following shows from black showrunners all made the cultural zeitgist on broadcast tv: Blackish, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and Bob and Abishola; and on on cable/streaming: Atlanta, Insecure, Power, Dear White People, Lovecraft Country, and I May Destroy You. (Note, I am friends with some of the writing staff and crew on several of these shows, so I am aware that I am not representative of the general public.)

And that doesn't even include anything on BET, or shows with black executive producers or showrunners but which were based on existing IP or were from non-black creators, like LA's Finest, All Rise, The Neighborhood, or the Shondaland shows.

And really, the big elephant in the room is BET. Which does everything you want to do, but it already has the connections to the black creators, and the black audience, and the black investors.

So it kind of seems like this is another SV startup that was created without a critical examination of what the market actually is beyond hoping to be potential acquisition target for an actual player (in this case, presumably BET).

View on HN

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers.

So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off.

BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works.

BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money

Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in

This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios...

But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.)

and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces).

But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay.

But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.

Not scientific but observationally their target market does seem relatively high use on social media - so probably an opportunity if they picked up traction - low budget could also be authentic and black ownership for example is differentiating.

That said the attacks on the existing options read a bit weak - will be fun to see what they come up with!

Obviously, you seem to think very highly of what you know, and very little of what I know. First and foremost, the idea that I just have a tech background is probably where you've really misread me. I'm a media person through and through who developed with the times and tech industry's takeover by technical developments.

Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently.

Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today.

Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer".

Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.

First, my apologies for being unnecessarily mean in my critiques of your startup. My abrasiveness filter is set for Hollywood standards, not SV standards, and come off as unnecessarily harsh outside to those not in the entertainment industry.

But I stand by the substance of my comments about your startup, and please be aware that a number of them are simply me echoing the sanitized versions of comments I got from my Black friends in Hollywood after I sent them a link to your website. There comments were significantly harsher than what I passed along.

If you would like to talk to one of my friends in the Black Hollywood community, I can try to connect you with them. But please be advised that they will hold nothing back.

I'm late to this, but could you please stop being an asshole on HN? Your comments in this thread have at best straddled the line, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28076349 crossed it completely, and unfortunately your comment history is often that of a jerk: your posts frequently contain something abrasive, even as you also make interesting points.

Your interesting points are worth reading, but the meanness is destructive and not cool here. We're trying for conversation in which people treat each other well, in addition to making interesting points, because without that, the forum crumbles into internet default nastiness.

I'm sure you can make your substantive comments thoughtfully, so please do that instead. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

My apologies dang.

Within the LA startup and entertainment communities, we are less politic in our critiques; LA's funding system is quite different from SV's, and harsh truths are more valued here than polite nothings. A thick skin is required to survive in the film industry. (It is an aphorism here that a true friend is someone who will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.)

My intention was not to be mean but to be straightforward, but I currently work in-house in entertainment so my abrasiveness filter is much less refined than it used to be. The comments I made were the sanitized versions of the critiques from people in the Black film industry who were initially interested in possibly working with BlackOakTV.

Unfortunately, there are now concerns about the role of non-Black investors in what is ostensibly a Black platform. Due to the politicized nature of the ongoing discussion, I will not go into further details on HN as that is likely to trigger a flame war over non-technical issues.

Thank you. I wasn't having any problem with the substance of your comments, just their abrasiveness. If you had posted your critique without that, it would have been great, and if you'd do that in the future, we'd greatly appreciate it.

From my perspective this isn't an LA or SV issue or anything to do with "funding systems", it's a (rather shallow) internet issue that has simply to do with the tendency of internet discussion to degenerate rapidly, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Comments that would make sense in a smaller, private context become completely different beasts on the public internet; the medium is the message, etc.

I appreciate that you meant to be helpful and there was interesting information in your comments, which I imagine everyone, including the founders, appreciated.

Whenever I see these kind of take downs on HN I always get reminded of the Coinbase and Dropbox take downs and countless others of eventual very successful companies. I actually think the poster makes some interesting points - if they could be framed as more of a question it might have been more helpful. I for one will be be signing up at some point - I circle through the various sites subscribing and unsubscribing regularly - disney, netflix, discovery, paramount, hulu, prime etc so this will get added to the list.

My key question is how are you going to bulk out the offering - I think there is value in a smaller set of curated content but to keep my subscription I'll need to be able to get several months of content?

Could you not just focus on originals and licence some old classics as well?

FWIW I don't gather that a lot of black people consume or respect BET how people may assume they do.

Please read this reddit thread, it highlights so many opportunities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/...

My summary of weak spots mentioned:

- Not black-owned

- Very heavy on commercials

- Missing lots of quality content

- Generally inauthentic

- Not creating opportunities for HBCU students

- Could have more focus on news and original reporting

All that is to say that the BET brand isn't super strong in the black community, and a rethought, streaming-native service could definitely have an opportunity to outshine a BET+ type offering.

Those may all be perfectly good shows. But there is space for them (BlackOakTV) if the market is really underserved.

Just curious, but how do you have so many friends in Hollywood? (Feel free to email me directly if wanted)

I live in LA and met them through work and friends.

I posted your link in one of our group chats. If any of them reach out to you it means they're interested. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up, critiques from the chat thread so far:

-"so it's quibi for black people"

-trying to be BET "for indies" but without backing it up with the funding, marketing, audience, mentorship opportunities, or industry connections

-based on out NY, but the hearts of the black TV industry are Atlanta and LA (BET is hq'd in NY, so I think this one was about where the talent/crew are located rather than the execs)

-featured shows on front page: "First Dates" has promise if marketed properly. "Trifecta" tested poorly with all the women in the chat ("hell no"). Nobody could figure out what "The Retreat" was about and based on the trailer they weren't interested in finding out.

- the website is amateurish, the copy is basic and doesn't inspire interest, and "looks like a fly-by-night operation"

- "they need to hire a marketing team ASAP"

- "it's all stuff BET rejected" (this was from someone who works at BET)

Just for clarity, I don't think the commenter you were replying to there is affiliated with this startup. I was confused at first by what you meant by "your link".

Just for whatever this is worth to you, and I know you probably already know this, but networks rejected Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, South Park, Mad Men, and, I think most infamously, Stranger Things.

There's nothing wrong with that --- perhaps the networks involved should have rejected those shows! You pick one, you gotta turn down another one. But having more venues specialized in a specific type of show means that, for instance, when BET passes on your thing, it can still find a home somewhere else.

I don't know anything about these particular shows. But look at the first couple episodes of Broad City --- not the extremely successful TV show, but the low budget web series that started it all. I'm inclined not to dismiss things based solely on production quality relative to what's on FX.

The rest of these points are probably well taken!

Except for Stranger Things, the shows you listed were only turned down by a few networks before being picked up, which is actually pretty typical in Hollywood (hence the term "shopping around").

And while I agree that it is possible for a low budget web series to become a bigger show on cable/streaming...Broad City succeeded because it was available for free on the biggest video streaming platform in the world (aka Youtube) and had the benefit of the recommendation algorithms and all the visibility that Youtube leads to. A niche website with a monthly fee will not give the world the next Broad City.

For comparison: Quibi also had a monthly fee, higher production values, dozens of Emmy nominations...and those shows still went nowhere until they were picked up and made available for free on Roku this year. Contrast to Dust, a similarly niche (sci-fi) distribution house that has seen multiple projects get picked up for feature-length development, and numerous talent get offered studio gigs, because it made all of its content available for free (even before it started using Youtube to host its videos).

I would not be surprised if acquisition by BET is the exit strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com