[ad_1]
MR. SAPAN: Oh, thanks so much for having me. It’s a treat.
MS. ELLISON: I want to start with the book. What–why did you write it, or why did you write it now? And is it fair to say that this was research for your third act?
MR. SAPAN: And the answer to that is yes. It was research for my third act. It was perhaps born more of anxiety than anything else, a little curiosity. As I came to the end of what would be my conventional career, I got very interested in what I might do next. I began to observe friends, colleagues, associates who were in that era, and some of them were doing terrific things. And I became enamored of them and then began to just look at the whole group, including the ones I knew and the ones I didn’t know; and hence, the book was born.
MS. ELLISON: So, you take 60 people, and some are famous like Jane Fonda and Alan Alda, but some are lesser known. We have Donzella Washington who became the oldest graduate of Alabama A&M University at 80. Tell us about what connected all of these 60 individuals.
MR. SAPAN: You know, I think, if it’s fair to say, I was actually speaking very recently to one of the people featured in the book named Paul Dillon, who served in Vietnam, just–and came out of the war and said that everyone looked at him like he was a bad guy. And he became a consultant at a real professional, and he then really developed an incubator for vets, just an example of someone like Donzella Washington, who you mentioned, and many others. And if there’s one, I guess, consistent thread in the people, it is that they are not, in a conventional sense, putting their feet up. They’re not resting on laurels. They’re not looking backward. They’re really deeply looking forward, and, in many cases, they report that they’re more–excused the overused word–engaged, enthusiastic, affected, and affecting than they were in this sort of conventional standard part of their careers, and it’s both a curiosity and it is–it’s a bit of an inspiration.
MS. ELLISON: It’s fascinating. How did you find some of these people? I’d love for you to tell us the story of Andrea Peterson, for example. It was so fascinating to read that.
MS. ELLISON: I wondered where did you–where did you get some of these stories?
MR. SAPAN: Well, you know, I did–I did do research, and I did have the help of someone doing research, because Andrea Peterson was a crazy story. You see a picture of her. She was in a fire as a kid, and then she had a rather, I guess you can say, conventional career. And then, she became a firewoman, you know, an EMT person.
And, you know, it’s just–son of a gun, at that age to say I’m going to be a–fight fires is really pretty wild.
There was actually someone else who worked in media, similar to us, and she worked for 30 years in media as a journalist and then did another gig in journalism. But she told me–Ellen Weiss–that she had always loved America’s national parks, and so she became a volunteer park ranger.
I happen to know her through her husband, so that was fortuitous, but a combination of those in abundant evidence, people that I knew through connections, and then some research–and then some had been, frankly, covered in media.
There’s a wonderful story of a guy who was very close with his wife, really buddies, and his wife passed away. He had a job, ad he was bereft afterwards, and he then purchased the smallest circulation newspaper in America and became not William Randolph Hearst, but the publisher of the smallest-circulation print newspaper in America and is just loving it to death.
MS. ELLISON: That’s great. That’s just so great. So, what’s the–what’s the biggest lesson that you learned in profiling all these people? And do you have any advice for someone who’s thinking about their next chapter? What would you say to someone who is thinking about that?
MR. SAPAN: Well, let me first stipulate that and the furthest thing in the world from an authoritative gerontologist, psychologist, sociologist, or anything with “gist” in it. So, it’s, really, I come by it as a layperson having worked in media.
I can name names, and I’ll keep riffing names, and they may not be that meaningful. But it does seem that, to say it simply, benefiting others a bit has an intoxicating and circulating effect and can make one feel better about themselves in the world. And many people in the book are truly, inch by inch, making the world a bit of a better place, and some other people are–I wouldn’t say living out their fantasies, but they are getting to do what might have been resident in their desire but never actualized. Those two things seem worth doing if one has the means and capability.
MS. ELLISON: And so, how do you know when you’ve reached that stage? And can you talk about for yourself how you came to the decision to step down from AMC?
MR. SAPAN: Well, that was–that was sort of planned and inevitable and arguably actuarial, and so that was–that was–the end was a good time, and it was a wonderful brief 36 years. And I’m indebted to all the people who founded the company and who were at the company.
And, Sarah, I’m going to ask you rhetorically–you don’t need to answer–what–and forgive me for doing this, but it really does strike me as true and almost universal is what did you ever think of doing differently in your life; what did you think of doing next, what might have you done if you were not a media journalist, an esteemed media journal. My guess is there’s a couple of answers. Don’t answer if you don’t want to. That’s not part of the bargain, but–
MS. ELLISON: Yeah. I’ll keep that to myself, but I see the exercise. I understand the exercise.
MR. SAPAN: Yes. You know, I’ve gone around, and when I’ve asked people that question, there’s always an answer and–
MR. SAPAN: And the answers are, they’re really frequently sentimental, spiritual, and fantastical a bit, and so I think those are nice guidelines.
MS. ELLISON: Fair enough. I think that’s a goo–that’s a good broad set of guidelines for people to follow.
So, to your old day job for a bit, if you’ll–if you’ll allow us–
MS. ELLISON: –you are credited as helping to usher in the golden age of television, and in many ways, AMC was a basic cable version of HBO with shows like “Mad Men,” “Killing Eve,” “Better Call Saul,” “Breaking Bad, which is so near and dear to my heart. But what do you look for? What did you look for in a pitch, in a script, and what is the thing that you find that is the most essential ingredient for a hit?
MR. SAPAN: Sure. Well, let me first acknowledge that the wisdom of others is largely what I relied upon in my–it’s really true. It’s not just a standard statement. The wisdom of my colleagues was, first and foremost. No kidding. It’s not a company of one; it’s a company of 2,000. I think–and they made it all happen. I can name their names, but it would take a couple of hours.
So, you know, I think that there is a little bit of sort of just truth of voice that comes through, I think, narrative when people respond to it. It’s like meeting a person who is real or genuine, and you say, “I really like that person.” And so, there’s something in a script, I think, that is true. It rings human. It rings essential. It rings not imitative, and that’s easy to say. And then there are the brilliant craftspeople who make it happen.
And like you, I’m an extraordinary fan of “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul,” and so to say that is simple–but Vince Gilligan, who created it, and with his partner, Peter Gould, went on to make it, I think, sort of make magic happen. I don’t know how it happens. It really does feel a little magical.
You know, I knew someone who knew Sam Shepard, the playwright, and she was his girlfriend for a while. And she said–this is years and years ago. She said Sam would sit down at his then typewriter and work for a few days and sort of spit out “Buried Child” or, you know–and it seemed like it was sort of passing–as I heard it, passing through him, like he was not crafting it as he was funneling it. That’s a little easy and a little convenient. But I do think there’s a little bit of people who have that sort of capability where they really do–
MR. SAPAN: –are like, a bit, vessels for somehow the constellation of stuff that makes for something brilliant that renders on the screen, you know. And then they’re, of course, professional, and they hire the right people that cast, direct. They know how to do that. But it does begin, I think, with like great writing. It’s somewhere resident inside the person.
MS. ELLISON: You had so much success at AMC Networks. “Walking Dead” was, if not the most popular or biggest hit on television, one of the most. How did you convince creators to come to you and to come to AMC rather than go to HBO or to Netflix? What kind of a pitch did you have for them? What were you offering them that others might not, besides money or other sorts of, you know, specific–specifics?
MR. SAPAN: You know, an honest answer is at the time–am I speaking over these extraordinary clips of walkers? I can’t do that. I would never interrupt a walker.
MS. ELLISON: No. We have to give them their time, and then now please, please continue.
MR. SAPAN: You don’t mess with a walker, man, because you’ll make noise, and then you will live to regret it.
But, you know, it’s interesting. When we began, there was not necessarily a ready home for some of the materials. So “Mad Men” had been with Matthew Weiner for six or seven years, and no one wanted to do it. So, it was less challenging. It then became more challenging as television went through its own evolution.
And I think what AMC had to offer and still has to offer that’s unique is–some of the streaming services, as we all know, are huge. They really are huge, and they have options for absolutely everyone. And I think it’s fair to say that AMC and its streaming services offered a front–a store window for creative material that was unmissable. It didn’t disappear. You didn’t get your one day and then you have to go find it. It really was in evidence and in the store, the front of the store window because it was a boutique and it wasn’t a large store. And I think that’s attractive to creative people, apart from money, who want to see their work attended to.
MS. ELLISON: Did you ever pass on anything that you came to regret?
MR. SAPAN: Yes. Do you mind if I not mention it, lest I have a bad afternoon?
MS. ELLISON: Well, it’s obviously your choice. I would love to hear it, but we’ll let you off the hook if you don’t want to.
MR. SAPAN: I just don’t want to appear really dumb in front of whomever is paying attention to this. Yeah. Because one is bound to make–there’s bound to be omissions. and some of them are–they’re actually irreconcilable, if you want the truth. They’re just almost irreconcilable.
MR. SAPAN: And I don’t want to–I don’t want to go through that trauma again. I’ve done it once.
MS. ELLISON: It was bad enough the first time, I guess.
MS. ELLISON: So, we’re talking about that golden age of television. Do you think that that is over? There’s a lot of discussion now about how you–there’s such a variety of tastes, and some people are trying to appeal to everyone. You’d say that Netflix would be an example of that, or do you need to be more specialized now and find your niche? I guess, in other words, the question is, how do you balance quality and quantity in today’s world?
MR. SAPAN: Yeah. Well, I’ll–a two-part answer, if you can tolerate it.
MR. SAPAN: At AMC, we set up streaming services that were targeted. So, we set up one called Sundance Now, which was related to the spirit of Sundance, and we operated the Sundance channel. We set up one called Acorn, which was British mysteries and dramas for fans of that. There’s one called “ALLBLK” that was founded by Bob Johnson, and that speaks for itself. And there’s one called “Shudder,” which is for horror fans. So those are specialized streaming services.
But I think that the–this–the notion of quality gone away is slightly overstated, and if one looks at the shows currently that are–yesterday I think the Producers Guild Awards were identified and the Directors Guild Awards–it was Producers Guild, I think, yesterday. And, boy, the lineup of shows was–it was just spectacular. It was insanely good. It was–
MR. SAPAN: So, yeah, there’s a–there’s an abundance of material. But, you know, I would say, do you think “White Lotus” is good? I think “White Lotus” is spectacular–
MR. SAPAN: –just as an example, because it was recognized not on–not an AMC show. And so, I–by the way, I don’t think “The Patient” on Hulu with Steve Carell necessarily got the, quote, “love” that it–that I might have given it, but I think there’s so–“Poker Face” just is a relatively new show. There are too many great shows, in my view, to name. I think it’s–we may be in the double golden age, but maybe we’ve gotten a little bit accustomed to it.
MS. ELLISON: And so, we have so many tech companies getting into the entertainment business, Apple, Amazon. You could argue that Netflix is something of a tech company. How has that changed the creative process and the risk-taking that we associate with great media and great entertainment? Do you think it’s–do you think the culture has changed because of those new companies that have come in?
MR. SAPAN: You know, I think they probably–one could argue that they have–you’re a business–that they have a sort of genetic position that is advantageous because they have a system that goes beyond video, and that’s hard to argue, at least conceptually.
I think if one looks at the material that is on the non–if you want to call them “tech companies”–and I’ll begin with HBO and Showtime or Paramount Global or STARZ or AMC–there is a tremendous amount of material, I think, distinctive to those services. And so I think the tech companies have their own position, and it will undergo, I believe, evolution. And I didn’t mention Disney and Disney+ and Nat Geo and all their subcategories within it, their brands, but it sure seems to me like they’re making great material. It’s tending, as life goes forward, to be more brand-identified and distinctive for each, and the tech companies will do what they do. And at the moment, it’s pretty darn good.
You know, Apple TV+ is doing some wonderful–just wonderful material, but they–I get confused sometimes about where’s where, but I think if you watch “Slow Horses,” I think it’s–if I’m not mistaken–
MR. SAPAN: Gary Oldman. You know, inarguably wonderful, and it–to me, inarguably wonderful. And but–so true is of Hulu and so true of HBO and so true of Showtime and so true of AMC.
MS. ELLISON: You just rattled off a variety of different–there’s so–there’s sort of seven or eight major streaming options, and we could see even more consolidation in the near future. How many major streaming services is a sustainable number that the U.S. market can handle? And out of the big players, where do you see consolidation happening? Paramount comes up so often in these conversations.
MR. SAPAN: Yeah. You know, you may be a better student of all this than me, no kidding, you know, because I think there’s a few things happening all at once, it seems. One is that–that there is some, quote, “bundling” of services within companies that are owned and sometimes outside. So, there’s discounting and price advantage to buy groups of them, which changes, I think, a consumer appetite/tolerance. You can buy more if you get a deal.
And there are special interests as opposed to general interest, and not to slide into an analogy, but there are stores of any sort that serve everybody. And then there are stores that serve very few, both online and in bricks and mortar. So someone in New York City, where I live, can go shop pretty happily at a department store which is–sounds anachronistic, but they seem to be intact, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, et cetera, and then walk up the street. And these are high end, of course, and you can go into Lululemon and be guaranteed what you’re looking for.
And so, I think that there’s compatibility as long as the–you know, consumers are smart, not dumb, and they’re to be respected and their wallets should be–to be respected and their taste is to be respected. So I think there is just the obligation to do it well, I think, in order to succeed.
But I think all those things will keep changing. You know, pricing will keep changing. Bundling with tech will keep changing. Bundling with other audio services will keep changing, and there’s going to be an evolution. It won’t look like it looks today. It’s a little difficult to see how it will look.
MS. ELLISON: Yeah. That’s what keeps us all sort of busy and guessing, I guess.
MS. ELLISON: AMC was also, you know, considered ripe for acquisition by a larger company, and in recent years, AMC has lost value. Do you see–do you see it being sold? Why hasn’t it sold? Is that something that you could see happening in the next year or two?
MR. SAPAN: You know, it’s certainly not–literally not my job, and so I–I’m only a cheerleader and supporter and shareholder, and I just would say that the share price declined. The “multiple compression,” as it’s called among the pros, has been pretty universal. It’s across the board in media. It’s actually been pervasive in tech as well. You know, Sarah, you may know better than me how much of it is alteration and interest rates and how much of it is sort of market–could be market saturation and what was considered–what were considered appropriate levels of leverage that may not, because of the escalation and interest rates now, be treated so fondly.
You know, for my own taste, AMC is a killer company. It’s spectacular. It’s got a spectacular culture. It has a spectacular 35-, 40-year history of invention and reinvention. And the Dolans, beginning with Chuck Dolan and Jim Dolan and now Kristin Dolan, really are–you know, really, they excel, and they’ve always excelled, and they’ve always guided it well. And so I would say “bright future,” in two words.
MS. ELLISON: You were always–you know, you were pretty early in exploring international expansion and international content, which has become one of the main growth areas for so many entertainment companies. Does that push mean that the U.S. market is sort of tapped out if you’re looking for growth, or what’s–that’s–I guess that’s the question. Is that–is it a–is it a move of necessity, or does it allow for something different from a content perspective?
MR. SAPAN: Yeah. So, I think–I think I understood your question. I’m not sure because–but I’ll answer it in two parts, if I might, and hopefully I cover what you meant.
MS. ELLISON: I can ask it again, if I wasn’t clear, but–
MR. SAPAN: Well, I think I may–I think I’ll–I think I understood it. Two things. One is on the streaming side particularly, round numbers, a billion-plus, seven billion people on the planet, round numbers, a billion-plus who have high-speed connection, and the numbers are–I’m going to get them half right. I think Netflix with a quarter of a billion worldwide subscribers, but that number’s–that total broadband number across the globe is going to get well above a billion. I don’t know where it goes–two billion, three billion. So, on the streaming side, if that’s the current preferred means of consumption at the moment, either ad-supported or not,
I think there’s extraordinary room for growth.
On the content side, if you were talking about that, one of the most exciting things that I was exposed to was TV shows that traveled across borders, and I can name a slew of them, but I’m going to name a few because they’re just so relevant. You know, “The Night Manager” was something that was Brit that we did, and I thought it was wonderful. But then later on, we had a French show called “The Bureau” and a Swedish show called “The Restaurant” and, of course, exported the “Walking Dead” all across the planet. So, I think the globe, in a sense, becomes–I don’t mean more homogenous, but it becomes more of a market opportunity, both in terms of business opportunity and in terms of content generation both.
I hope I did answer in that babble.
MS. ELLISON: Yeah, absolutely. That’s well done. Well done. That was exactly sort of what I was–what I was getting at.
I want to go to our audience because we do have an audience question. You hear a lot about cord cutters and the death of linear television, and we have a question from Carlton Bush from New York who asks, “Where will basic cable networks be in five years?”
MR. SAPAN: You know, I guess there’s been–there has been cord–there’s been a reduction in the numbers, and it is interesting, however, that–and forgive me for trying to sound like an academic, which I’m not, but it does strike me that the history of media is that it adapts. And so, it takes advantage of technological changes and then with content changes. So, I guess I would–my attempt at an answer would be that live sports and news become a more significant part of what linear is because it’s urgent, I think is one thing.
I think a second thing is that I think people’s imagination may find formats that are not yet revealed that take advantage of live. I think we’re on one now, Washington Post Live, that is something that could find its way to a different route over time. You know, it’s pretty interesting.
And so, I think there will be invention. I think there will be invention against the tech–not against–in accord with the technology is what I meant to say, and I think that happened in TV, and it happened with the shows you referenced. The complex so-called “dramas” are a little easier to watch on demand than they are on linear because you can pay attention. You can stop and make sure that you’re not interrupted when you take a break to go get a cup of water.
So, I think that there will be evolution and evolution and evolution, and I personally think that some of the distinction between what we see now as social media, all of the services that are predominant and conventional or linear may find a way to join at least a bit. They may not be quite as segregated as TikTok and Instagram around the internet and this service is on cable. I think that some of that stuff–and those experiences will merge.
And by the way, if I may, to wit, this. You know what I mean? And so, what happens when you do that? If you get good minds to figure it out, you get experiences that have not yet occurred, and, you know, HBO has a big hit show that’s made from a video game. And I think one can see that go on and on and on and on.
MS. ELLISON: I wish we had more time. I wanted to ask you about–you know, you’re making independent films now. We’re going to have to put a pin in this conversation and have you back, because we have run out of time, sadly.
Josh Sapan, thank you so much for joining us, and thanks to all of you for joining us in the audience. Check out what interviews we have coming up. Please go to WashingtonPostLive.com and register for future programming.
My name is Sarah Ellison. Thank you again, and have a great day.
[ad_2]
Source link