Steven Soderbergh says streaming data transparency bigger worry than people realize

[BluBonnet]

Steven Soderbergh: Streaming Data Transparency a Bigger Worry Than AI

Steven Soderbergh says that among all the issues facing Hollywood during dual actors and writers strikes, the one that “keeps me up at night” is data transparency — or the lack of it — from streaming platforms.

In an interview with Defector, Soderbergh — promoting his self-funded web series Command Z — said that while using artificial intelligence in the creative process is a serious issue, he’s more concerned that media companies are hiding something, whether good or bad, with their lack of transparency.

The filmmaker noted that with the projects he’s made for Warner Bros. Discovery’s streamer Max (including the recently released Full Circle), he was given “adjectives” instead of data, with the company telling him things like “We feel good about these numbers.”

“There are two potential reasons that we’re not getting all of the information,” he told Defector. “One is that they’re all making a lot more money than anybody knows and that they’re willing to tell us. The other is they’re making a lot less money than anybody knows. And they don’t want Wall Street to look under the hood of this thing in any significant way because there’ll be a reckoning that will be quite unpleasant. It’s one of those two.”

Even if it’s the latter, Soderbergh said he’d still prefer to work in an environment “where I know what’s going on.”

“If we tear this thing down to the studs, and find out that the math is funky, it’s going to be quite a transformation,” he continued. “And so my feeling — and I’m operating from a place of real privilege — is the sooner we find out the better, because one way or another, it’s gotta get rebuilt, you might as well start now.”

AI, however, is less of a concern for Soderbergh, who admits to having used it to create some conceptual images for an upcoming project. But he doubts that AI can really replicate the work of humans in writing and directing.

“It is my impression of the executives that I’m working with, or was working with, that they don’t need any more work. That they are overwhelmed,” Soderbergh said. “And the idea of riding herd over a department that’s going to generate new material, based on their ideas through AI, that will then have to be curated and made better by humans? I wouldn’t do it. I just don’t think we can be replaced like that. I just don’t.”

Soderbergh is a member of the Directors Guild of America, which ratified a new contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers in June. He is not part of the Writers Guild of America, having become a “financial core” non-member in 1995 — meaning he can still benefit from the guild’s protections for writers but can’t vote in WGA elections or run for leadership posts, among other restrictions.

[prkchopexpress]

soderbergh isn’t some alarmist. and has worked in literally every position in a film (in regards to budget) through this career.

i don’t get why some studio board wouldn’t want to try and find a way to put him charge. artist friendly. wouldn’t wildly overspend. knows what you can do with a budget. can help you make your movie look bigger. liked by talent! (actors/crew)

[Ferretferret]

I think Soderbergh is underestimating
A. The rate at which AI's capabilities are being invested into
B. Executives' willingness to compromise product integrity in exchange for the veneer of being cutting-edge
Still, I hope he's right. And transparency is better for all; studios are the last to be trusted with studio data.

Edit: deleted part of this message due to the deletion of the posts it corresponded to

[kylor]

But on topic, I think AI is the bigger topic over streaming data. Although Steven is not without his points.

[prkchopexpress]

it’s so bad from every angle for everyone.

if it is revealed that streaming doesn’t making money, less content is made and studio heads can’t steal money from budgets or get their “bonuses” for having that hot new show.

but the studios can’t do that. because they don’t give a shit about movies. these guys are glorified accountants at best. they haven’t cultivated relationships with artists. and if you don’t have artists, then who is going to make you tv show/movie?

here’s a problem with streaming…. how much do they spend on bandwidth? on developing the apps for multiple operating systems and devices? on hosting files?

if streaming already, right on top, doesn’t make money, you’ve just added an additional cost to each product. so it will take longer to make back it’s money to break even. but also, the studio heads don’t care, because they want to write it off as a loss and get a tax break, while also hoping it doesn’t make enough money to have pay out any profit.

the advertising is almost worse. they all wanted to be like “oh you don’t like cable. me neither! i’ll make this app so you can pay just me. eventually you’ll have to get several of these services to get all the stuff you want. but it is not like cable at all. not one bit.” and you definitely don’t have to pay a cable company for your internet connection. (you’re ultimately paying someone for internet, but let’s be real. it’s most likely a cable company)

so what’s the best case scenario? they’re all making so much money from it that studio heads are just stealing it in the forms of bonuses? or is more likely that it’s a case where they’re trying to take as much as they can before more people know the numbers don’t play out.

both of these lead to less things being made.

[chip75]

I think transparency is better for everyone apart from the providors, but what constitutes a view? should we just have minutes watched? should each episode of a series have it's own statistic (that would be a good analytic for drop offs)?

We've come from eras that extrapolated figures for viewers from a sample size, to an era where they know exactly how many people watch their content, on what device, where, and for exactly how long.

Yet, surprisingly they're cagey about the numbers.

So it's no surprise that they feel good about the numbers.

[b_scott]

yeah I can definitely see that as an issue. No streaming service ever seems to tell anyone how many views things have, etc. Probably so they don't have to stick to certain residual guidelines. Then they can kill whatever they want, even if it's doing great - if they don't want to pay for it. Personally I would count anything over halfway watched as a view.

[Tony208]

At least in the music industry artists know if they get paid 2 dollars per thousand streams

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by b_scott

yeah I can definitely see that as an issue. No streaming service ever seems to tell anyone how many views things have, etc. Probably so they don't have to stick to certain residual guidelines. Then they can kill whatever they want, even if it's doing great - if they don't want to pay for it. Personally I would count anything over halfway watched as a view.

There are no "certain residual guidelines." when it comes to streaming content. The content makers have upped salaries to compensate for this. But this is not enough for the SAG-AFTRA.

Behind the Brawl Over Streaming Revenue Sharing for Actors

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ra-1235559427/

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think transparency is better for everyone apart from the providors, but what constitutes a view? should we just have minutes watched? should each episode of a series have it's own statistic (that would be a good analytic for drop offs)?

Funny how the streamers are trying to hide how many people are actually watching their movies and shows, yet studios never tried to repress the box office of even their biggest flops in years past.

[wonderer99]

The problem is most people are happy to eat up low quality crap. They watch it on their phones. Streaming on your phone is great for watching season 4 episode 14 of Friends for the 1000th time. Not for watching a Chris Nolan film for the first time.

Trouble is studios go where the majority are happy with. Can't blame studios. If the general public still demanded 4k physical media we would still have lots of stores selling them. But they don't so us old farts have to take what we can while shaking our fists at the youth.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Funny how the streamers are trying to hide how many people are actually watching their movies and shows, yet studios never tried to repress the box office of even their biggest flops in years past.

Until the 1970s box office was reported manually until it became an more automated services accessible by the media. It was designed as free media publicity for their biggest hits, but of course the media are going to report their biggest flops as well.

The thing is studios can still hide numbers in 3D or 4D ticket sales or premium screenings. The media publishes ticket revenue and not tickets sold, which would be more interesting.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by chip75

The thing is studios can still hide numbers in 3D or 4D ticket sales or premium screenings. The media publishes ticket revenue and not tickets sold, which would be more interesting.

Still, the box office reports are free and easy for all to see (as well as a movie's budget), so it's easy to see what's REALLY making a profit, as opposed to a $380 million flop like Dial Of Destiny. Meanwhile, it's impossible to see how many people are watching some Netflix or Prime movie all the way through, as opposed to someone tapping out five minutes in being counted as "A viewing".

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Still, the box office reports are free and easy for all to see (as well as a movie's budget), so it's easy to see what's REALLY making a profit, as opposed to a $380 million flop like Dial Of Destiny. Meanwhile, it's impossible to see how many people are watching some Netflix or Prime movie all the way through, as opposed to someone tapping out five minutes in being counted as "A viewing".

Where can you go to see a movies budget? Anything online is proposed. Or what they want people to know. Without a cost breakdown that data is not useful. That is how the Nielsen works it is based on time watched, which is that 5 minutes.

[NARMAK]

We've all known for decades or heck, even longer that studios like to "cook the books" just like any major corporations and that's why they'll never unless legally forced to do so be "transparent" and even when caught doing anything remotely illegal, they're slapped on the wrists and given a small fine, whilst everybody else is usually screwed to the full extent of the law.

We'll then be given cock and bull about how these so called corporations are "too big to fail" or there's no human being that could be held accountable etc.

AI is a threat for sure, but money hungry men and women? That's been a threat since Day 1 of humanity.

[Tony208]

I'll never forget that time New Line shot all three LoTR back to back to back to save money and then tried to claim it lost money even after it became a big hit