Month: August 2014

The Blooming Field of Online Originals

Ellen

Viewers can’t seem to get enough of online originals, so on-demand streaming services are working overtime to supply the demand.

2/19/2014   Emmy

For viewers of the political drama House of Cards, the very calculated risks taken by Kevin Spacey, as a scheming U.S. congressman, were a big reason to binge through all 13 episodes of season one.

For Netflix, the series also represented a risky but very determined move. The subscription-based company wanted to mimic the business models of pay-cable titans HBO and Showtime, increasing its subscriber base by creating unique, in-demand original programming.

Netflix came up with a winning formula: spend lavishly — reportedly more than $100 million — on top talent and production values, and combine that with its famously granular, NSA–level data about its audience.

And it didn’t miss. With its February debut, House of Cards proved that if a digital upstart really wanted to create a high-quality, original hit series that could win Primetime Emmy Awards — 3 of them to be precise, out of 9 nominations — it could do it. The debut 5 months later of Jenji Kohan’s similarly lauded women’s prison drama, Orange Is the New Black, which has become Netflix’s most watched original show, further supported that notion.

Suddenly, for every digital company dabbling in premium original video content, the bar had been raised. To compete at the level of Netflix, companies must now invest real money — in top-level, union-repped talent and production resources.

Of course, for those who enjoy quality television, that’s a good thing. With Netflix developing its next batch of online originals — and the 2 other major players in the subscription video-on-demand business, Amazon and Hulu, looking to get into the game — the scene is set for a flurry of big series premieres over the next 12 months.

Yes, 2014 promises to be even bigger than 2013. Here’s a look at some current and upcoming highlights:

AMAZON

While Netflix prevailed among premium digital streamers this year, it’s likely that Amazon Studios will have the next big online hit.

Looking to make a splash with its half-hour satirical comedy Alpha House, Amazon is sticking close to the winning formula established by House of Cards, kicking off its primetime originals business with a show that also focuses on the excess-laden world of national politics.

The comparison can probably end there. While House of Cards is a kind of Game of Thrones examination of the Beltway power culture, Alpha House is more Curb Your Enthusiasm… or better, Veep.

Just like Netflix, which has seen its U.S. subscriber numbers spike from 21.8 million in September 2012 to 31.4 million a year later — largely based on the drawing power of its originals — Amazon has good reasons for spending a reported $1 million to $2 million on each of the 11 episodes of its 1st season of Alpha House.

As of the 2nd quarter of this year, Amazon had 11 million members in its Prime service, which beyond letting customers stream movies and TV shows like Alpha House, also gives them free shipping on physical goods like Kindle Fire tablets. And with Prime members spending about 150 percent more on the shopping platform than typical Amazon customers, the company understandably wants to increase their ranks.

Alpha House stars John Goodman, Clark Johnson, Matt Malloy and Mark Consuelos as four dysfunctional Republican senators who share a rental house in D.C. Created by Doonesbury mastermind Garry Trudeau — who is executive-producing with Jonathan Alter and Elliot Webb — it was one of eight adult primetime and six children’s pilots that Amazon posted on its platform earlier this year.

Amazon let its users watch these pilots for free and requested their feedback. The company recently began refining the process, quietly forming small focus groups out of its more active users.

After evaluating viewer data and other factors, Amazon decided to move forward with Alpha House, as well as another comedy, coincidentally titled Betas, an ensemble about 20-somethings at a Silicon Valley start-up.

While the show’s stars — Joe Dinicol, Charlie Saxton, Jon Daly, Karan Soni and Maya Erskine — are not household names, the producing roster includes TV and film veterans Alan Freedland, Alan R. Cohen, Michael London and Michael Lehmann.

Alpha House appears to be a series that could answer Netflix’s bell in terms of star power and audience appeal. Or, as digital media analyst Richard Greenfield of BTIG Research puts it: “Amazon is spending real money.”

Roy Price, the former financial analyst who runs Amazon Studios, would not confirm the reported $1 million-to-$2 million-per-episode price tag, but he does say the budget is “in the ballpark” of made-for-pay-cable half-hour series.

Qualitatively, the Alpha House pilot certainly looks and delivers laughs like a top-shelf premium cable comedy.

When Johnson, as the cagey senator from Pennsylvania, lets Goodman — the blustery gentleman from North Carolina — reuse the speech he just gave on the Senate floor to continue a filibuster, he gets a dry, “Hey, thanks!” from Goodman in response.

Meanwhile, Molloy’s senator from Nevada — a Mormon of questionable sexual orientation who opposes gay rights — appears before the Council for Normal Marriage to receive a phallic-shaped Say No to Sodomy Award.  And the episode gets a cameo boost from Bill Murray, playing an outgoing roommate who oversleeps on the morning he’s supposed to be turning himself in to the Department of Justice.

So how is Amazon getting the word out about Alpha House and Betas? With “a mix of advertising on Amazon, as well as more traditional platforms,” says Price, who in addition to the sprawling Amazon.com empire, also has the traffic-producing Internet Movie Database (Amazon owns IMDB) to direct viewers toward its series.

Amazon chose to initially release three episodes of both series — Alpha House dropped November 15, Betas November 22 — and then follow with 1 new episode per week. For Price, this trickling methodology is preferable to making entire seasons available all at once, as the other big on-demand platform, Netflix, does with its shows.

“I think doing that creates a little problem for the water cooler,” says Price, noting that it’s difficult to create a cultural buzz around a show when some fans are on episode 1 while others are on episode 9 and still others have finished the whole season already. “You can see it in the numbers,” he adds.

As Amazon Studios ramped up development under Price this year, it used a uniquely democratized “open-source” system, whereby anyone could pitch a script or a series concept. More than 5,000 pilot scripts were uploaded to the site; ultimately, 2 of the 25 produced pilots came from the online process. The company also uses a 2nd track of traditional development.

With its Los Angeles headquarters, Amazon Studios seems to be relying more and more on proven TV industry executives, such as former ABC Studios senior vice-president Morgan Wandell, who was hired in October to oversee drama development.

And Betas aside, looking into 2014, the company seems to be relying on more established talent for its series, too.

Primetime pilots under consideration, for example, include Mozart in the Jungle, an adaptation of Blair Tindall’s memoir of life among struggling, recreational drug–gobbling New York classical musicians, written by Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Alex Timbers.

There’s also The After, an apocalyptic thriller from X-Files skipper Chris Carter, and Bosch, a procedural cop drama based on the work of writer Michael Connelly.

HULU

While Amazon stepped up with big-name talent in 2013 to challenge Netflix, Hulu — which touts about 4 million paid subscribers — spent the first half of the year in a kind of holding pattern, waiting to see if its corporate owners were going to sell the subscription video service.

Besides a number of coproduction deals with the BBC for so-called North American exclusives — like the just-premiered The Wrong Mans, starring Tony winner James Corden — Hulu has invested in some go-it-alone original productions.

Those include shows with high-profile talent like Eva Longoria and Seth Meyers, who are producing — and voicing — half-hour animated comedies. Longoria’s Mother Up!, about a Manhattan mom transitioning to suburban life, debuted in November.

Meyers’s The Awesomes, about a misfit band of superheroes, debuted in August and is queued up for a 2nd season next summer. Executive-producing with Meyers are his former Saturday Night Live colleagues Michael Shoemaker and Lorne Michaels, and the cast also includes ex-SNL-ers like Bill Hader and Rachel Dratch.

“Comedy and animation — those are the kinds of programs that have traditionally done well on our platform,” Charlotte Koh, Hulu’s head of development, told emmy earlier this year.

The relatively inexpensive coproductions and toons supplement an array of 1st-run, in-season TV shows that viewers won’t find on any other streaming service, but Hulu has yet to debut a big, splashy original show.

With its ownership and management situation now stabilized, that is likely to change soon.

In August, the company announced that it is partnering with Lionsgate and Brad Pitt’s Plan B Entertainment to produce 10 episodes of the subversive comedy Deadbeat, about a New York medium who helps ghosts settle their unfinished tasks. Troy Miller (Arrested Development) will direct and also executive produce. The cast includes Tyler Labine, Cat Deeley (host of Fox’s So You Think You Can Dance), Brandon T. Jackson and Lucy DeVito.

Deadbeat is expected to debut sometime in 2014 on both Hulu’s free and paid-subscription services. Given the involvement of Lionsgate, which produces Netflix’s critically lauded Orange Is the New Black, it should be the company’s most ambitious — and risky — original content investment to date.

NETFLIX

After a year full of big, buzzy primetime shows — which included season two of the Ricky Gervais comedy Derek — Netflix is closing out 2013 rather quietly.

On December 13 it launches season two of Lilyhammer, the coproduction that stars Steven Van Zandt (The Sopranos) as an ex-gangster awkwardly exiled to snowy Scandinavia.

Also in December, Netflix debuts the kids’ series Turbo: F.A.S.T. An adaptation of the DreamWorks Animation feature, it features the voice of Mark Hamill.

Netflix promises an even bigger splash in 2014. In an October conference call with investors, CEO Reed Hastings said that the company will double its original-content spending during the calendar year.

To that end, the streaming service has committed to second seasons of House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black and the Eli Roth horror series Hemlock Grove. It has also confirmed a 13-episode order for a psychological thriller from Damages creators Todd A. Kessler, Glenn Kessler and Daniel Zelman.

The series — yet to be titled — concerns the unveiling of family secrets among adult siblings when a black-sheep brother returns home.

Meanwhile, reportedly in development for 2014 — though unconfirmed by Netflix — is Narcos, a series focused on notorious Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, from Brazilian director José Padilha.

The company was also said to be in talks with the Weinstein Company and Electus to distribute Marco Polo, a 9-part period drama from creators John Fusco (Young Guns) and Dave Erikson (Sons of Anarchy) that was originally intended to air on Starz.

Notably unmentioned by Hastings when touting the 2014 slate was the science-fiction drama Sense8, from The Matrix creators Andy and Lana Wachowski along with Georgeville Television. A 10-episode order for that show was announced earlier this year, but at press time its fate was unknown.

Already announced for 2015 and beyond: the rollout of four 13-episode live-action series based on the Marvel characters Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, to be followed by a miniseries called The Defenders. The deal with Marvel and ABC Television Studios, both divisions of the Walt Disney Company, comes on the heels of last year’s movie distribution deal that will bring Disney features to Netflix starting in 2016.
•
Originally published Emmy® magazine issue 12-2013.

 

http://www.emmys.com/news/features/blooming-field-online-originals

2013 TV in Review: The Rise of Craft-Brewed Television

Ellen

Why was so much of the year’s TV like a good beer?

12/10/2013   Time

As I wrote when I put together my top 10 TV shows of 2013, this was a tough and rewarding year to make the list because there was so much good TV. But that was also true because there was so much change going on in TV this year: in the stories being told, in the people telling them, and in the means of delivering them to you. As the year winds down, I’m looking back on a few of the trends that made 2013 TV what it was:

It’s been a few years now that people have predicted that technology would usher in a democratized, diverse media world of a billion channels, all on equal footing. I can’t forget that I am writing for the magazine that, with the rise of YouTube, declared “You” the Person of the Year in 2006.

That future hasn’t entirely arrived. Yes, there’s more original online video every year. Being an online media outlet now means being a video producer. Some web series, like Brad Bell and Jane Espenson’s Husbands or Felicia Day’s The Guild, could genuinely hold their own with their TV-on-TV counterparts. And there’s been some crossover between the worlds: Annoying Orange got a TV show! But there was still, by and large, a divide. On the one side, there were the interesting experiments and explosive memes of online video, and on the other, there was full-scale “real” television, made by the handful of broadcast and cable networks that could afford it. We didn’t really see the TV equivalent of “indie film” break out because the economics and logistics of the industry didn’t allow for it.

In 2013, though, we started seeing more and more TV productions that came close to that. While Netflix made HBO-scale projects like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, online video outlet Hulu gave us offbeat international productions Moone Boy and The Wrong Mans. Sundance Channel, eschewing high-metabolic action dramas, emerged as a specialist in low-simmer dramas like Rectify, The Returned, and Top of the Lake. New, small satellite channel Pivot had one of the best new comedies of the year in the Australian Please Like Me. IFC, following on the success of idiosyncratic sketch comedy Portlandia, gave Marc Maron his own dark personal comedy (which owed something to the dark personal comedy of FX’s Louie). Amazon debuted as a “broadcaster” with Alpha House and Betas, comedies set in the particular milieus of GOP politics and software startups.

None of these shows, and other small pleasures like them, are “indie TV” exactly–they have stars and budgets and weren’t exactly made on anyone’s credit card. But they’re approaching that–a middle ground somewhere between utterly DIY YouTube work and full-scale big network productions. They’re not exactly home-brewed, but craft-brewed.

The beer metaphor works nicely, actually, not just because TV and beer go so perfectly together. As in the beer world, some of these harder-to-find boutique offerings are overseas imports, others the productions of smaller American producers. (Or, like HBO’s stable of smaller-scale, smaller-audience series like Getting On or Hello Ladies, they’re a side product of a major distillery.)

Because they cater to smaller audiences with specialized tastes–even more so, in some cases, than already-narrow cable audiences–they can offer more specific flavor profiles, alienating to some. You might notice, for instance, that some of the shows that I mention above fit into a nebulous area somewhere between comedy and drama. Getting On, set in a hospital eldercare ward, is an often brutally funny memento mori. The Wrong Mans combines comedy with the crime-thriller genre; Maron, with personal psychotherapy.

Likewise, The Returned is a horror story that would rather unsettle than terrify. Enlightened–my #1 show of 2013–was simultaneously a New Age satire, a corporate cat-and-mouse game, and a meditation on how crazy you have to be to keep faith in a fallen world. Finding these stylistic and tonal hybrids may be a defining characteristic of craft-brewed TV: where big productions aiming at a larger audience need to be distinct in mission–very funny comedies, very stark dramas–these smaller shows are all about complicating things, making space for the odd, the both-fish-and-flesh, the uncategorizable and the category-creating.

And like the artisanal beer market (or, for that matter, the term “indie film”), craft TV describes both a sensibility and a business situation. It’s a phenomenon that’s possible not just because of the artists working in it but because of the growth of outlets–cable, satellite, streaming–for them to work in. It’s a byproduct of a market with expanding shelf space that allows–no, demands–unusual, niche products combining odd ingredients. Crack a few open. Eventually you’ll find your favorite.

 

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/10/2013-tv-in-review-the-rise-of-craft-brewed-television/

For Liberty Global, the Next Step Is the Content

Ellen

7/29/2014   WSJ

“You need to have great scale to compete with Google [or] Netflix,’ said Mike Fries, CEO of Liberty Global. Sander de Wilde for The Wall Street Journal
Cable magnate John Malone and his protégé Mike Fries helped light the fire in Europe’s telecom consolidation. Now they are on the prowl for media.

Liberty Global LBTYA +1.88% PLC—of which Mr. Malone is chairman and holds a roughly 27% voting stake and Mr. Fries is the longtime chief executive—has spent tens of billions of dollars in recent years buying cable operators including Virgin Media Inc. of the U.K. and, if regulators agree, the Netherlands’ Ziggo ZIGGO.AE +1.00% NV. Its assets are mostly in Europe.

Amid a global race to keep up with Google Inc. GOOG +0.23% and other technology companies, Liberty Global needs media assets to complement its cable empire and keep subscribers paying their monthly bills. Earlier this month, it bought a 6.4% stake in ITV Group PLC, Britain’s No. 1 commercial broadcaster, which airs the popular drama series “Downton Abbey,” for more than $800 million.

(Liberty Global, whose legal headquarters are in London, is separate from Mr. Malone’s Liberty Media Corp., a media and communications holding company where he is also chairman.)

On the sidelines of a board meeting in Brussels, Messrs. Malone and Fries discussed industry consolidation, their acquisition plans and competition with U.S. tech giants. Edited excerpts:

WSJ: What’s behind the current wave of consolidation in telecommunications and media?

Mr. Malone: It’s the “eat or be eaten” drive of capitalism. Scale economics are compelling in the media space where you have high fixed and very low marginal costs. The consumer’s appetite for convenience and a full menu of services is compelling, along with the synergies.

Mr. Fries: Consolidation is king. Scale has always been critical for the industry, and I think it is more critical today than it has ever been. The pace will accelerate and it makes good sense. Consolidation supports our thesis that in a globalizing digital world you need to have great scale to compete with Google [or] Netflix.

WSJ: Liberty has played a big role buying up cable operators. Is there more in store?

Mr. Fries: That story line is not coming to an end, but it is slowing down. The acquisition opportunities in terms of cable television assets are fewer, and our market expectations in terms of how many more markets we want to expand into is a smaller universe. Portugal is too small. Italy doesn’t have any cable. And we wouldn’t get into the satellite business.

There are a couple of markets in Central and Eastern Europe that still require some consolidation. Poland would be one of them. It is a pretty competitive market with lots of fragmented [cable] operators.

Opportunities around content and other media assets [also] look to us to be interesting. Those opportunities look to be becoming more plentiful, not less, over the next 18 to 24 months.

WSJ: Why more media-deal opportunities?

Mr. Malone: [Mike] has done the major obvious acquisitions that have been available. And now they’re looking for ways to make those businesses that they are in better. Either considering certain vertical investments that would enhance their service offerings, their competitive posture, or moving forward on a whole series of technological innovation.

In some cases it is defensive; in some cases it is offensive. In the [case of ITV] it looked like a good investment and would enhance our relationship with ITV and its management. They have a very large production studio whose output could be very interesting with respect to program needs in other jurisdictions.

WSJ: Would you be interested in increasing your ITV stake beyond 6.4%?

Mr. Fries: Are we committing today that we’ll never, ever own more shares? Of course not. [But] we don’t have any intention to do anything. There is no smoking gun there.

WSJ: What’s the status of Liberty’s efforts to buy a majority of motor racing series Formula One jointly with Discovery Communications Inc.?

Mr. Malone: We have been engaging in discussions for what seems like an endless period of time. We continue to be interested, but when we have something to announce we’ll announce it. You have got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince. At this stage we are still kissing the frogs.

WSJ: Why invest in Formula One?

Mr. Malone: Sports has been elevated as an area of interest in content because of its real-time nature. The industry has a long tradition of paying up for sports and that becomes even more important as other elements of entertainment programming commoditize.

WSJ: You offer mobile service to your customers through other operators. Why not buy your own mobile operator?

Mr. Fries: We are not buying mobile companies that are, in some instances, falling knives—struggling in this competitive environment.

It makes a lot more sense if you are mobile operator to buy a cable operation. That I get. You need all the things a cable operation provides, which is why Vodafone bought in Germany, why Vodafone bought in Spain.

WSJ: So would there be a logic to Vodafone buying Liberty Global?

Mr. Fries: There have been no conversations. Our core organic business—I have never felt better about it in 20 years in the industry. We don’t need to make acquisitions. We certainly don’t need to be acquired to make shareholders happy in this company.

Mr. Malone: As a practical matter, this company is not for sale because it represents a very unusually high long-term return on invested equity capital. It’s an approach towards wealth building that I totally believe in.

WSJ: Long-term, how can Liberty compete with U.S. tech giants like Google or Facebook as they become bigger distributors of content?

Mr. Fries: I don’t see them as competitors, quite frankly. They are changing the landscape but they are also furthering our own business strategies. They are not in the connectivity business. They are apps. But we are certainly thinking about the business differently today because of the evolution of these apps.

WSJ: How about Netflix, which is preparing a September launch in several additional European countries? Are they a competitor or partner?

Mr. Fries: Both. We distribute them in the U.K. We compete with them in Germany and the Netherlands. We see them as enabler of our broadband business, and that is a good thing. But also they are competing for content rights and competing for share of the video wallet.

Mr. Malone: “Frenemies” is the term of art. Almost all the communication companies compete with each other and supply each other and drive each other. It is sort of the nature of the beast.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/next-step-for-liberty-global-content-1406667563

 

 

Kendall Morgan Rhodes VRP

Ellen

Kendall Morgan Rhodes

SVP, Digital Programming & Content Production
Relativity Media

Kendall_Rhodes13

Bio (from NATPE’s Speakers page)

Kendall Rhodes serves as Senior Vice President of Relativity Media where she is responsible for expanding Relativity’s original digital content, developing channel strategies, launching branded video marketing campaigns for Relativity’s feature films, developing intellectual property, and growing Rogue’s audiences across the Rogue Movie Network and Relativity Media’s digital properties such as iamROGUE.com and AritstDIRECT.com.

Rhodes has been developing and producing content for features, television and the web for over ten years. Rhodes produced a number of feature films as co-founder and President of Cherry Road Films such as Southland Tales with Dwayne The Rock Johnson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Seann William Scott, Mandy Moore, and Justin Timberlake; The Hunting Party with Richard Gere and Terrence Howard; L.A. Riot Spectacular with Snoop Dog and Emilio Estevez; and Eulogy with Ray Ramono, Zooey Deschanel, Famke Janssen, and Debra Winger. While President, Cherry Road Films had a first look, development deal at Warner Independent Films, a division of Warner Brothers. Rhodes also incubated and launched SpinDaily.com in 2008, an editorial website dedicated to making videos on the latest trends and products in beauty, fashion, lifestyle and music in the Los Angeles area. Prior to 2002, Rhodes was the coordinating producer of A&E’s Inside Story and Investigative Reports, co-produced a documentary in Cuba with Academy Award winning director, Barbara Kopple, as well as worked at Nibblebox.com (Hypnotic) and CNN.

Rhodes went to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for her BA. She received a scholarship to complete her Masters from San Diego State University in Women’s Studies and also her MFA in Film from Columbia University in New York.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendallmorganrhodes

Summary (on LinkedIn):

For over ten years, Rhodes has been creating and producing long- and short-form multiplatform content and branded entertainment. Rhodes has developed and produced feature films, television shows, digital web series, YouTube campaigns and branded viral videos.
Rhodes is currently Executive Producing for Relativity Digital Studios and responsible for the packaging, production and daily oversight of a number of their original series.

Experience:

SVP, Digital Programming & Content Production
Relativity Media
February 2010 – Present (4 years 6 months) Beverly Hills, CA
Co-Founder/President/Feature Film Producer
Cherry Road Films
January 2002 – September 2010 (8 years 9 months) Santa Monica, CA
Co-Founder/Digital Producer
SpinandStir Media
October 2008 – January 2010 (1 year 4 months) Los Angeles, CA
Creative Executive
Hypnotic
January 2000 – January 2001 (1 year 1 month) Greater New York City Area
Series Coordinating Producer
BNN
September 1999 – September 2000 (1 year 1 month) Greater New York City Area
Assistant Producer
CNN
May 1998 – September 1999 (1 year 5 months) Greater Atlanta Area

Education
Columbia University in the City of New York
2000 – 2002
San Diego State University-California State University (Scholarship)
1996 – 1998
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Honors)
1990 – 1994

Organizations
The Paley Center’s Media Council – Member
International Academy of Web Television (IAWTV) – Member
Academy of Television Arts & Sciences – Interactive Media Peer Group
Film Independent – Member Arts Circle
Sundance Institute – Innovator
Women In Film

Language: French

Twitter: @spinkendall (1,486 followers) https://twitter.com/spinkendall
“Producer Film, TV, Digital + I just like to make good content with cool people.”

Google+: https://plus.google.com/105288311568269589677/posts
(One of her three posts is Variety’s article “Relativity Launches Digital Studio Division (EXCLUSIVE)”)

IMDB Pro: https://pro-labs.imdb.com/name/nm0604811/

Credits:
Money for Nothing (Executive Producer) (In development)
Bob Thunder: Internet Assassin (Producer) (In production)
Interns (2014 TV Mini-series) (Executive Producer)
Girl’s Guide with Michelle Phan (2014 TV Mini-series) (Executive Producer)
Tube Top (2011 Talk show) (Producer)
The Hunting Party (Co-Executive Producer)(2007)
Southland Tales (Producer) (2006)
The L.A. Riot Spectacular (Executive Producer) (2005)
Mail Order Wife (Producer) (2004)
Eulogy (Executive Producer) (2004)

In The Media:

-Kendall Rhodes has been on many panel discussions on online video production including “Digital LA – Branded Entertainment Panel” and “Digital Hollywood” etc.

YouTube Stars Get the Hollywood Treatment
7/15/2014 Variety
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/youtube-stars-get-the-hollywood-treatment-1201262848/

YouTube star Shane Dawson is one of the featured cast members in “Bob Thunder: Internet Assassin,” a feature-length digital movie lampooning YouTube multichannel networks being co-produced by Relativity Digital Studios and video site FilmOn.

“Bob Thunder: Internet Assassin” is being funded by FilmOn Prods., owned by Alki David — the eccentric entrepreneur who has tried to launch an Aereo-like Internet TV service to stream broadcast networks online. David and Relativity’s Kendall Rhodes serve as producers.

Online video tips from Spin and Stir Media

12/27/2008
http://stylecampaign.com/blog/2008/12/online-video-tips-from-spin-and-stir-media/

2009 will see a surge in retailers using product and educational videos on the web and in email campaigns.

Dave Witzig from ShopNBC reported that customers that watch their videos convert at twice the rate of customers who don’t. Conversion rates increased 45% on 10 different products after retailer MyWeddingFavors.com tested more than 100,000 video impressions.

Obviously now is the time to start thinking about an online video strategy.

I interviewed Kendall Rhodes – seen below – founder of SpinandStir Media, which caters solely to business who want to produce internet video content.
kendall

1. Introduce yourself
SpinDaily.com is a video blog for Los Angeles fashion, beauty, arts, culture and lifestyle.
SpinAndStir Media is an internet video production company that produces high quality video promotions, web series, how-to videos and short films.
……

Maker Studios Snags AOL, Yahoo Execs for Original Content Division (Exclusive)

Ellen

8/4/2014   THR

Gabriel Lewis (center)

The Disney-owned digital media firm has hired Gabriel Lewis and Bonnie Pan to its programming division, led by chief content officer Erin McPherson.

Maker Studios is making a significant bet on original content with two big digital media hires.

In a coup for the Disney-owned firm, former AOL Studios head Gabriel Lewis has been tapped as executive vp development and strategy and Yahoo programming veteran Bonnie Pan (pictured below) will join as executive vp programming. Both start Aug. 11 and will report to chief content officer Erin McPherson.

Lewis previously was vp AOL Studios and AOL Originals, where he spearheaded the tech firm’s programming strategy and helped develop its formula for advertiser-friendly shortform content driven by well-known personalities. AOL developed shows such as Nicole Richie‘s #CandidlyNicole and Steve Buscemi‘s Park Bench under his leadership. In his new role, Lewis will be responsible for developing Maker’s pipeline of more than 200 original projects in development, working with the multichannel network’s top YouTube talent and partnering with Hollywood.

Pan was most recently head of originals and programming at Yahoo Video, where she worked with McPherson, formerly head of video at Yahoo, for more than three years. During her time at the Sunnyvale tech firm, Pan oversaw Yahoo Screen’s move into longform content by resurrecting Community and picking up a pair of series from Paul Feig (Bridesmaids) and Mike Tollin (One Tree Hill). She also led the programming and development of projects including Electric City from Tom Hanks and The Bachelor spoof Burning Love.

At Maker, Pan will be responsible for expanding the MCN’s 23 content verticals, building out programming under the categories of family, entertainment, life and style, and gaming and sports.

“Bonnie and Gabe both bring this wealth of knowledge and expertise in content and programming and we’re going to leverage that as we grow and expand our business,” McPherson tells THR. “I think the fact that both of them are coming speaks to the incredible growth we’re seeing in our business and the massive opportunity we have with Disney now to really expand our programming offerings.”

Original content has become an increasingly important part of Maker’s business, as it looks to own content and develop more distribution channels off YouTube. The Culver City-based firm made its first presentation at the Digital Content NewFronts this year, announcing a slate of originals that included a comedy from Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele and a docuseries from YouTube creator Shay Carl.

Maker also recently launched Maker.tv, its first off-YouTube platform that includes a mix of original content, videos from its network of creators and shows from third-party partners.

Lewis and Pan join Maker at a key moment for the firm, which was folded into Disney in May. McPherson, who was hired in November last year to jump-start Maker’s content strategy, says that the network now has more than 6.5 billion streams a month and will soon reveal a number of initiatives with its new parent company.

“We’re going from startup to being part of the Disney family and we’re at an inflection point for online video as a whole industry,” she adds. “You combine those two things and it’s just a unique moment in time to be in this business and to be at Maker.”

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/maker-studios-snags-aol-yahoo-723246

 

 

Review: Chipotle’s ‘Farmed and Dangerous’

Ellen

2/11/2014   Variety

A Hulu mini-series about food integrity? Don’t have a cow, dude

Chipotle is hardly the first sponsor to brave the programming game – indeed, not even for Hulu, since Subway underwrote a comedy pilot dubbed “The 4 to 9ers.” Still, “Farmed and Dangerous” does mark an unusual entry into production for the restaurant chain, inasmuch as it mixes pointed satire about corporate greed with wonky dissertations about food policy. The result is a four-episode series with more tang than one might have anticipated given the pabulum often churned out in ad-supported vehicles, yet which ultimately falls into a sort of narrative no-man’s land that’s neither fish nor fowl.

In pitch-meeting terms, the show’s money shot comes in the opening sequence, when PR/image guru Buck Marshall (Ray Wise) is receiving a demonstration of the newest product from Animoil, which involves feeding a petroleum-based substance directly to cattle to lower costs. The main side effect of the PetroPellet, he’s told by the CEO (Eric Pierpoint) and the company’s German scientist (Thomas Mikusz), is that the cows occasionally explode – which is precisely what this one does.

So Buck faces the rather uphill task of putting lipstick on this particular cow, enlisting his daughter and newest employee (Karynn Moore) to help him. She enthusiastically dives in, which includes trying to win over an advocate for sustainable farming (John Sloan), who pushes back against the corner-cutting maneuvers employed by Animoil and its distasteful implications for the food supply.

The sparring banter between these two beef-crossed characters is a lot older than Chipotle, down to the complication of her sneering country-club boyfriend. But their exchanges are often woefully stilted, feeling as much like a public-service announcement as an actual series.

“Farmed” fares somewhat better when Wise (“Twin Peaks”) commands center stage, strategizing with his minions at the Industrial Food Image Bureau about how to, say, downplay a YouTube video of the aforementioned cow, with the head of digital expressing relief that it “wasn’t on TV.”

What makes “Farmed and Dangerous” mildly interesting is seeing some of these Occupy Wall Street-type sentiments articulated through the prism of a corporate-commissioned TV show, one that mentions Chipotle – which employs the slogan “Food with integrity” – precisely once in a later chapter, yet which conveys an implied slight to other fast-food chains throughout.

Traditionally, advertisers have gone into programming to create what they see as a hospitable environment for their commercial messages. Here, the company approaches production with more ambition, but also slightly suspect aims, given how inseparable the message is from the messenger.

The marriage between advertisers and programming, in other words, remains an awkward one, even if their heart appears to be in the right place. Because “Why buy the cow when the milk’s laced with a petroleum-like substance?” could just as easily be read as “Why sit through a food-integrity lecture from a company that clearly has a dog in the fight, even if they sugar-coat the packaging?”

Review: Chipotle’s ‘Farmed and Dangerous’

(Limited series; Hulu, Mon. Feb. 17)

Production

Filmed in Los Angeles by Piro and Chipotle.

Crew

Executive producers, Mark Crumpacker, William Espey, Tim Piper, Daniel Rosenberg; producer, Natalie Galazka; director, Piper; writers, Rosenberg, Piper, Mike Dieffenbach, Jeremy Pisker; camera, Marc Laliberte Else; production designer, Bruton Jones; editor, Ross Baldisserotto; music, Deetown; casting, Joanna Colbert. 22 MIN.

Cast

Ray Wise, Eric Pierpoint, John Sloan, Karynn Moore

Movies Try to Escape Cultural Irrelevance

Ellen

10/28/2012   The New York Times

Eclipsed by TV: “The Master,” top, has been seen by about 1.9 million viewers, much less than the audience for an episode of “Mad Men,” bottom.

LOS ANGELES — On Feb. 24 Hollywood will turn out for the Oscars.

But it’s starting to feel as if it might be “The Last Picture Show.”

Next year’s Academy Awards ceremony — the 85th since 1929 — will be landing in a pool of angst about movies and what appears to be their fraying connection to the pop culture.

After the shock of last year’s decline in the number of tickets sold for movies domestically, to 1.28 billion, the lowest since 1995 (and attendance is only a little better this year) film business insiders have been quietly scrambling to fix what few will publicly acknowledge to be broken.

That is, Hollywood’s grip on the popular imagination, particularly when it comes to the more sophisticated films around which the awards season turns.

Several industry groups, including the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which awards the Oscars, and the nonprofit American Film Institute, which supports cinema, are privately brainstorming about starting public campaigns to convince people that movies still matter.

That seemed self-evident only a few years ago. But the mood has turned wistful as people in the industry watch the momentum shift toward television. Even the movies’ biggest night will feed that trend: the Academy has lined up Seth MacFarlane, a powerful television writer-producer, as the host of the Oscars.

“Shakespeare wrote his sonnets long after the sonnet form fell out of fashion,” James Schamus, a screenwriter and producer who is also the chief executive of Focus Features, noted in an e-mail last week.

George Stevens Jr., the founder of the American Film Institute, said he would not descend “like Cassandra,” with a lecture for members of the movie Academy, when he accepts his honorary Oscar at their Governors Awards banquet on Dec. 1.

“I think they will find their way, but it’s a time of enormous change,” Mr. Stevens said. He spoke by telephone last week of his concern that a steady push toward viewing on phones and tablets is shrinking the spirit of films. In the past, he said — citing “A Man for All Seasons,” “8 ½,” and “The Searchers” — there was a grandeur to films that delivered long-form storytelling on very large screens.

But the prospect that a film will embed itself into the cultural and historical consciousness of the American public in the way of “Gone With the Wind” or the “Godfather” series seems greatly diminished in an era when content is consumed in thinner slices, and the films that play broadly often lack depth.

As the awards season unfolds, the movies are still getting smaller. After six weeks in theaters “The Master,” a 70-millimeter character study much praised by critics, has been seen by about 1.9 million viewers. That is significantly smaller than the audience for a single hit episode of a cable show like “Mad Men” or “The Walking Dead.”

“Argo,” another Oscar contender, had about 7.6 million viewers through the weekend. If interest holds up, it may eventually match the one-night audience for an episode of “Glee.”

The weakness in movies has multiple roots.

Films, while in theaters, live behind a pay wall; television is free, once the monthly subscription is paid. And at least since “The Sopranos” sophisticated TV series have learned to hook viewers on long-term character development; movies do that mostly in fantasy franchises like the “Twilight” series.

And a collapse in home video revenue, caused partly by piracy, drove film salaries down. Television, meanwhile, raised its pay, and attracted movie stars like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Laura Linney, Claire Danes and Sigourney Weaver.

Ticket sales for genre films like “Taken 2” or Mr. MacFarlane’s broad comedy, “Ted,” remain strong. And a growing international audience, particularly in China, has brightened the outlook for action-hero blockbusters like Marvel’s “Avengers” or “Dark Knight Rises.”

But the number of films released by specialty divisions of the major studios, which have backed Oscar winners like “Slumdog Millionaire,” from Fox Searchlight, fell to just 37 pictures last year, down 55 percent from 82 in 2002, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

The drop-off leaves many viewers feeling pained.

“They feel puzzled,” said the critic David Denby. “They’re a little baffled.” He was referring to those who have applauded his argument — made both in a New Republic essay “Has Hollywood Murdered the Movies?” and in a new book, “Do the Movies Have a Future?” — that the enduring strength of film will depend on whether studios return to modestly budgeted but culturally powerful movies.

“If they don’t build their own future, they’re digging their own graves,” Mr. Denby said.

Mr. MacFarlane; the Oscar producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron; and the president of the Academy, Hawk Koch, declined through an Academy spokeswoman to discuss the challenges of celebrating film.

Privately some Academy members have said they were jolted by the choice of Mr. MacFarlane as host, in what appears to be a bid for viewers who have flocked to his television hits, notably “The Family Guy.”

But Henry Schafer, an executive vice-president at the Q Scores Company, which measures the statistical appeal of celebrities, said that “if the idea is to attract the younger audience, I think they got the right choice.”

Still, Daniel Tosh, who hosts “Tosh. O,” a hit Comedy Central series that highlights silly Web videos and skewers their participants, has given the doubters a voice. After playing a clip of two Russian men dropping a live grenade over the side of their boat and blowing it up, Mr. Tosh deadpanned: “It’s still a better idea than having Seth MacFarlane host the Oscars.”

The turn toward Mr. MacFarlane, who directed and voiced a foul-mouthed Teddy bear in “Ted,” his main contribution to feature film, has left the Academy scratching for ways to get the public reinvested in the sort of pictures it typically honors. Its staff, for instance, has been looking at the possibility of getting filmmakers who have made Best Picture winners to join a promotional campaign in theaters. In Los Angeles the Academy is also building a movie museum, meant to showcase the medium.

Separately the National Association of Theater Owners recently asked public relations and advertising consultants to submit proposals for a similar push.

Board members of the Film Institute also have been looking ways to strike a new interest in feature film, said Bob Gazzale, its president. Mr. Gazzale said it was too early to discuss details, but another person briefed on the initiative said the group had considered things as far afield as reaching out to prominent politicians — say, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton — as supervisors of film awards programs. The goal would be to re-establish a connection with viewers who were turning elsewhere for cultural direction.

In a discussion at Colorado State University this month, Allison Sylte, a student journalist, suggested that the Academy helped break the connection between her generation and high-end movies in 2011 when it chose as Best Picture “The King’s Speech,” which looked backward, rather than “The Social Network,” which pushed ahead.

“So, what does that mean for us as a culture?” Ms. Sylte asked of a vacuum that might occur if the better films went away.

The hole, Mr. Gazzale said, to whom the question was relayed, would be a large one.

“Movies remind us of our common heartbeat,” he said.

Brooks Barnes contributed reporting.

 

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 30, 2012

Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about Hollywood’s efforts to restore cultural relevance to the movies described incorrectly the decline at the domestic box office last year. The decrease was in tickets sold, to 1.28 billion; it was not a decline in ticket sales revenue to $1.28 billion.

 

Federal Courts Reject Erin Brockovich’s Latest Pitch

Ellen

April 2007

Erin Brockovich, of movie fame, is aggressively trying to stretch the limits of Medicare law by suing hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare providers. So far, federal district courts in every one of the more than 30 California cases that Brockovich filed last summer have refused to “green light” this production. Rather, all courts have dismissed her claims, and they have done so upon initial motions to dismiss filed by the hospitals and other healthcare provider defendants.In nearly identical, form-like, complaints that Brockovich filed across southern California, she urged that the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) laws impose “primary payer” liability (and resulting double damages) against hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that allegedly commit professional negligence when treating Medicare patients. Brockovich also asserted that MSP suits may be prosecuted by uninjured, non-Medicare-insured plaintiffs, like herself, on the government’s behalf. At the time she filed her lawsuits, Brockovich was 46 years old. She was neither Medicare-eligible nor a former patient of any healthcare provider she had named.

Federal district courts in California uniformly rejected Brockovich’s theories. So have federal courts in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania in cases filed by Brockovich’s lawyers on behalf of another, similarly situated plaintiff. In fact, no court anywhere has done anything other than dismiss these suits, upon the defendants’ initial motions.

Brockovich is persistent, even if she is wrong on the law. She has appealed each California ruling in a pending (and consolidated) appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Brockovich’s lawyers also have pursued a pending appeal to the Eighth Circuit in one of the identical cases filed in the other plaintiff’s name.

In the California cases, the defendants argued that, as a matter of law, they could not be liable under the MSP absent established liability for payment, such as when a provider is determined in a judgment or settlement to be liable or finally responsible to pay on a patient’s claim of negligent treatment. The defendants further argued that Brockovich could not manipulate the MSP private cause of action by attempting to make it, in effect, a qui tam statute that allows a private citizen to sue in the name of the government. The courts agreed, dismissing these actions without leave to amend. 2

The keys to Brockovich’s legal misadventure lie within the language and purposes of the MSP law. The MSP statute was enacted to help reduce Medicare costs. 3 It makes Medicare the “secondary” payer whenever a Medicare beneficiary also has other primary medical insurance, or when another source is determined to be primarily responsible to pay for the care – such as worker’s compensation or a third-party tortfeasor’s liability insurance or its self-insurance.

The MSP statute also provides that the federal government, or a single Medicare beneficiary (through a private cause of action), may recoup double the amount of any sums Medicare paid, if a “primary payer” has a “demonstrated . . . responsibility” to pay, but has failed to do so. A 2003 amendment added that “[a] primary plan’s responsibility for such payment may be demonstratedby a judgment, a payment conditioned upon the recipient’s compromise, waiver, or release (whether or not there is a determination or admission of liability) of payment for items or services included in a claim against the primary plan or the primary plan’s insured, or by other means.” 4

At least three fatal problems with Brockovich’s theory of MSP liability were immediately apparent and decisive:

First, as the California and other courts ruled, Brockovich lacked Article III standing to pursue her claims. The MSP private right of action does not support a claim by the likes of Brockovich, an uninjured person who is not even a Medicare beneficiary. The private cause of action is available, in proper circumstances, to Medicare beneficiaries, but not to simply anyone who decides on his or her own to sue. 5

The second major problem with Brockovich’s claims is evident from the language of the MSP statute itself. Knowing that she had no case or controversy, Brockovich argued instead that the MSP statute is a qui tam statute, which would authorize private suits, by anyone, on the government’s behalf. However, Congress must authorize qui tam actions expressly, if that is its intent – and in the MSP, it did not do so. 6 Unlike the quintessential qui tam statute, the False Claims Act 7 (a primary tool for policing suspected Medicare abuse), the MSP’s private right of action speaks only to individual claims for damage, and the private right of action is distinct from a separate MSP right of action reserved specifically for claims directly by the federal government.

Unsurprisingly, the MSP private cause of action section lacks any procedural safeguards to protect the government, or any provisions for government ownership, supervision, or control of purely private MSP suits. Congress has been careful to insert such safeguards into the False Claims Act, specifically to prevent runaway litigation by private citizens, ostensibly in the name of the government. Courts repeatedly recognize the constitutional concerns raised by private suits on behalf of the government, and the False Claims Act has been carefully crafted to address them. 8 Brockovich’s declaration that she sued on behalf of the government clashed with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that a tightly circumscribed assignment must exist for qui tam relators to proceed on behalf of the United States. The courts in the Brockovich cases refused Brockovich’s request that they essentially rewrite the MSP private cause of action section to make it read as though it were a qui tam law. 9 As the district court in the Pennsylvania case brought by Brockovich’s attorneys noted in its March 2007 order of dismissal, every one of the more than 35 decisions has rejected this “coordinated nationwide effort to persuade the federal courts to find an implied qui tam right of action in the MSP.” 10

The third major problem with Brockovich’s claims also is fundamental, and it transcends the narrower problem of Brockovich’s lack of standing to sue. Neither Brockovich nor anyone else – including an injured Medicare patient – can allege that a provider has a “demonstrated . . . responsibility” to pay, in any instance where the only wrong alleged is an undecided or unsettled allegation of medical negligence. Brockovich was unconcerned with any such real cases. Instead, each of her complaints contained verbatim boilerplate allegations of provider negligence, but none offered even a single allegation about any actual malpractice committed on an actual Medicare beneficiary resulting in care for which Medicare paid. The complaints, therefore, could not fall within the scope of the MSP statute. 11

Brockovich’s only response was to try bootstrapping the MSP’s reference to “other means” by which responsibility to pay can be “demonstrated,” to cover federal and state agency survey reports and mere allegations of deficiencies and claims of non-compliance with certification requirements unique to particular providers participating in the Medicare program. She also cited generally to healthcare providers’ internal incident and investigation reports, and regulatory “plans of correction” and “statements of deficiencies.” These reports contain findings, she argued, that can suffice to create “demonstrated . . . responsibility,” without adjudication or other final finding of fault or a settlement agreement promising to pay.

Of course, none of these things is an acknowledgement that negligence occurred, nor is an investigation of an incident an admission of fault, and attaching MSP liability to such processes could discourage Medicare providers from undertaking internal review and improvement of the care they provide. Moreover, even a provider that renders deficient medical care may be entitled to Medicare reimbursement. Other legal avenues – not the MSP statute – ensure that the government enforces high standards for quality of care rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. 12

Briefing in the Ninth Circuit consolidated California cases will take place in May and June. A similar case has already been briefed in the Eighth Circuit, so a decision from that court may soon establish additional precedent confirming that Brockovich’s attempted expansion of the MSP private right of action exceeds the limits of the statute. 13

1 Mr. Landsberg and Ms. McCallum are partners in the Los Angeles office of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP. They are members of the Healthcare Litigation and Appellate Practice Groups, with extensive backgrounds defending healthcare providers before the federal and state trial and appellate courts. Together they defended three of the Brockovich cases described in this article.
2 Twenty-nine of the cases were assigned to the Honorable David O. Carter in the Central District of California. Two others were assigned to the Hon. Thomas J. Whelan in the Southern District of California.
3 42 U.S.C. § 1395y.
4 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2) (B)(ii).
5 See Manning v. Utilities Mut. Ins. Co., 254 F.3d 387, 394 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that “[t]he MSP creates a private right of action for individuals whose medical bills are improperly denied by insurers and instead paid by Medicare”).
6 See Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1999) (“‘there is no common law right to maintain a qui tam action; authority must always be found in legislation”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1052 (2000).
7 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-30.
8 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b), (c). see also Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 252 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir. 2001) ( en banc) ( qui tam FCA actions only meet constitutional separation of powers requirements because the executive branch retains some degree of control over the litigation, such as the ability to intervene, the ability to dismiss, the ability to supervise).
9 See Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens , 529 U.S. 765, 771-78 (2000)..
10 Stalley v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., Civ. 06-2492 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2007).
11 Brockovich pursued her claims despite the fact that a spate of recent decisions, in the mass tort context, rejected the precise premise of her actions, observing that an alleged tortfeasor has no “demonstrated . . . responsibility” to pay absent an adjudication of liability, a settlement, or some other “like means” – which one court held “encompasses other instances of ‘like kind’ where there is a previously established requirement or agreement to pay for medical services for which Medicare is entitled to be reimbursed.” Glover v. Philip Morris USA, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (footnote omitted), aff’d, Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) ( per curiam); see also, e.g., United Seniors Association, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 2006 WL 2471977 (D. Mass., August 28, 2006).
12 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395i-3(g), (h); 42 C.F.R. § 488.450(c).
13 See Stalley v. Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, 458 F.Supp. 2d 958 (E.D. Ark. 2006), appeal pending, No. 06-3884 (8th Cir.).

 

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/landsberg_mccallum.html

 

Erin Brockovich v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. – Davis Wright Tremaine

Ellen

Erin Brockovich v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc.

Defense of two hospital systems in qui tam actions purporting to enforce Medicare’s Secondary Payor provisions (42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)). Plaintiff sought recovery of all Medicare funds paid to treat alleged but unspecified hospital malpractice injuries. The cases were dismissed while on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (C.D. Cal.)

Uneven Growth for Film Studio With a Message

Ellen

6/5/2011   The New York Times

President Obama meeting with students from the documentary “Waiting for Superman” last October.

LOS ANGELES — Doing well is difficult. So is doing good.

In Hollywood, doing both turns out to be more complicated than you might think.

Participant Media, the film industry’s most visible attempt at social entrepreneurship, turned seven this year without quite sorting out whether a company that trades in movies with a message can earn its way in a business that has been tough even for those who peddle 3-D pandas and such.

“The Beaver,” Participant’s latest picture, is a flop. A mental health-themed drama with Mel Gibson in the lead, it has taken in less than $1 million at the domestic box office since opening early last month, though it cost about $20 million to make, and was backed by a vigorous effort to build a following among those who treat depression.

Despite accolades — Participant took 11 Oscar nominations in 2006, and films like “The Cove” and “An Inconvenient Truth” later became winners — nothing from the company has approached blockbuster status. The biggest ticket-seller among its films — it has produced about 30 — was “Charlie Wilson’s War” in 2007. A star-packed tale about the unintended consequences of America’s past dealings with Afghanistan, it took in just $66.7 million in domestic theaters.

And Participant’s owner, the eBay co-founder Jeffrey S. Skoll, is still pouring in money. In an interview, Mr. Skoll put the amount he has invested at “hundreds of millions to date, with much more to follow.”

Yet Mr. Skoll last week described his growing enterprise — which also publishes books, produces television programs, has a wide Internet presence through its TakePart social action network, and owns a major stake in Summit Entertainment — as only the beginning of a media empire that he and his partners expect to surpass eBay in terms of impact, if not profit.

“This is the very early stage, as far as I’m concerned,” said Mr. Skoll, who joined Participant’s chief executive, James G. Berk, in a broad discussion of their experience in an industry in which many players share their commitment to social causes, but only rarely have tried to build a business around their views.

Ted Leonsis, with his indie-minded SnagFilms, and Philip Anschutz, with his family-oriented Walden Media, have both made forays into film-related social entrepreneurship. But neither has matched Mr. Skoll’s attempt to penetrate the studio system by financing and producing a broad range of pictures that are intended to set off not just ticket sales, but social and political action campaigns.

In the past, those have aimed to pressure senators into ratifying the New Start arms control treaty (via “Countdown to Zero”) or to press for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (with “North Country”).

Mr. Skoll and Mr. Berk spoke in a conference room on the third floor of their new quarters in Beverly Hills. The offices, Mr. Berk said, are made entirely of recycled material — the carpet comes from old tires, but the look is stylish and green. From the second floor, Mr. Skoll operates philanthropies to which he has donated, by his count, about $1.5 billion.

Eventually, Mr. Skoll said, Participant is expected to become self-sustaining, though both expansion and the soft performance of some films have kept it from making a profit to date.

In strictly financial terms, said Mr. Berk — who was previously the chief executive of Gryphon Colleges, Fairfield Communities, and Hard Rock Cafe International — Participant’s film business appears to perform “just above the median” for similar size companies, thanks to a slight edge in home entertainment sales. Those are helped by long, intensive campaigns that urge like-minded activists to rally for years around message films like “An Inconvenient Truth,” the global warming documentary.

In measuring its success, Mr. Berk added, Participant sometimes resorts to an unusual standard: On losers, the company assesses whether Mr. Skoll could have exerted more impact simply by spending his money philanthropically.

By that measure, “Waiting for Superman,” about the failures of public education, was a hit, Mr. Berk said. It had just over $6 million in worldwide ticket sales, but managed to put the issue of teacher competence into what he calls “the pool of worries” for millions who were caught up in a fierce discussion of the film’s premise, that failing children are hindered by union-protected teachers.

Speaking privately to avoid conflict with the company, some filmmakers who have worked with Participant expressed concern about turning off potential viewers who usually are not looking for new worries when buying a ticket. Mr. Berk and Mr. Skoll acknowledged that they had done best with smaller films that garner intense interest from those who share their views. But they continue to believe they can break through to a large audience.

A test will come in August with the release of “The Help,” a film based on the best-selling novel about racial reconciliation that was made by DreamWorks for release by Disney, with backing from Participant. Another, in October, is “Contagion,” a pandemic-themed thriller directed by Steven Soderbergh, and set for release by Warner Brothers, with Participant among its producers.

“They’re the first and probably the only place you’ll go if you have a movie that’s about issues, and also entertaining,” said Michael Shamberg, who is a producer of “Contagion,” and counts “Erin Brockovich” and “World Trade Center” among his credits.

On a smaller scale, Participant later this month will join Magnolia Pictures in distributing “Page One: A Year Inside The New York Times,” a documentary about The Times and some of its media journalists. The film’s aim, according to Mr. Skoll and Mr. Berk, is to provoke discussion about the role of traditional media in a news-gathering process that has been changed by new competition and the Internet age.

(In promoting “Page One,” some Times employees have made appearances for which expenses were paid by various film festivals, and one promotional trip by a reporter was paid for by Magnolia, which receives a contribution from Participant for social action screenings and panels. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said The Times would reimburse Magnolia for the trip.)

After founding Participant in 2004, said Mr. Skoll, an early lesson was the folly of relying piecemeal on the major studios for film distribution — an arrangement that almost always meant unfavorable terms. In 2007, the company bought a stake in Summit, and remains its second-largest shareholder. It also made an agreement under which Summit would distribute as many as 18 films for Participant under terms Mr. Skoll finds more favorable.

“It gives us, as a regular studio, a different view” of how movies can be marketed through activist networks, Robert G. Friedman, Summit’s chief executive, said of the arrangement.

Another lesson involved spreading risk. In 2008, Participant formed a joint venture with Imagenation Abu Dhabi, a division of the government-owned Abu Dhabi Media Company, to finance its films. According to Mr. Skoll and Mr. Berk, the Imagenation joint venture is obligated to underwrite its slate, though the Abu Dhabi partner is permitted to remove its name from any film with which it is not comfortable.

Through a spokeswoman, Danielle Perissi, executives of Imagenation Abu Dhabi declined to discuss the venture.

Both executives said the reliance on money from a foreign government with extensive oil interests would not affect their own choices — overdependence on oil is a core concern at Participant. But the financing may sometimes complicate a project.

In one instance, Summit joined Participant and Imagenation in buying an option on the rights to a New York Times article from Dec. 26 of last year, about the final hours on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Mr. Skoll, Mr. Berk and others, a script being written for the producer, Lorenzo DiBonaventura, is expected to focus on the heroism of men on the rig. But any resulting movie, like the rest of Participant’s output, will aim to provoke social or political action. If that were to impede further off-shore exploration here, it might give an advantage to a foreign oil exporter.

“We are not participating in this film in any way, we have only optioned the rights to the story,” Ms. Murphy said of The New York Times’s involvement. She said The Times had the right to withhold its name from the movie if it became uncomfortable with it. Any further involvement by The Times or its employees would have to be approved by the paper’s standards editor, she said.

Ultimately, Mr. Berk said, a Deepwater Horizon film, like most Participant movies, would probably involve a cluster of five or six issues. Those may include oil dependence, climate change, care for the oceans, and, not least of all, he said, “the need for transparency and accountability.”