Apple TV+ isn't micromanagement hell -- for some creatives
While Apple TV+ has a reputation for micromanagement, it seems that it's not as bad as it once was. At least, so long as you're not damaging Apple's brand image.
Adam Scott stars in "Severance," an Apple TV+ hit - Image Credit: Apple
As a streaming service, Apple TV+ is far from a massive powerhouse like Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant Video. It's certainly a big play by Apple into the streaming arena, and to a point, it's worked.
In a wide-ranging discussion about Apple TV+, the Los Angeles Times writes about the service, Apple's ambitions, and how its fared so far. Overall, the article indicates that Apple TV+ is doing well in many areas, but it can do better.
One of those ways in providing more creative control to those who make shows and films for it.
Talent-forward and supportive
While Apple hasn't the massive audience numbers of its rivals, its efforts and high spending have led to a lot of success. Part of this is due to simply putting considerable sums towards projects headed up by major stars.
This started with "The Morning Show" with Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, but then continued with projects involving Jon Hamm and others. More recent releases include "The Gorge" staring Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy.
Brad Pitt in a teaser image for 'F1,' - Image Credit: Apple
Then there's "F1," the Brad Pitt vehicle that will be released in theaters in June. A theatrical release handled by Warner Bros., it is expected to be similar to "Top Gun: Maverick" in nature, and possibly in terms of success.
That said, other Apple TV+ movies with major stars have flopped in cinemas, like "Argylle" and "Killers of the Flower Moon."
Comscore analyst Paul Dergarabedian says it's a "huge movie for Apple," and that it had managed to pick a perfect project that can increase both its filmmaking acumen and relationships with filmmakers.
The big bets have, at least, earned Apple goodwill with filmmakers. This is especially so given Apple has moved from a position of micromanagement to one where it's more supportive.
The Owen Wilson-fronted "Stick" was budgeted high enough for the show to travel to North Carolina for filming, explains executive producer Ben Silverman. The move allowed the show to access golf commentators Trevor Immelman and Jim Nantz, who were there during the PGA Tour.
Silverman acknowledged that streaming platforms in general are supportive of creators at the moment. However, not all have the bandwidth available to go as deep as Apple on any individual project, because it's not doing that many projects in the first place.
Tomorrow Studios president Becky Clements claims she was grateful for Apple agreeing to take on "Physical." As an original piece, it's a tricky thing for studios to pull off in the marketplace, Clements adds.
Despite it including difficult material, Clements praised Apple with supporting the filmmakers and avoiding micromanagement.
A change of micromanaging heart, depending on who you are
Apple hasn't always been this way, as it previously had the image of meddling with show production. This was evident with "The Problem with Jon Stewart," as it stepped in to dictate what topics the show should avoid, before its cancellation.
In April 2024, Stewart alleged that Apple told him not to speak to FTC Chair Lina Khan on a podcast. He also claimed that Apple wouldn't allow the discussion of AI as a topic on the show either.
"Why are they so afraid to even have these conversations out in the public sphere?" Stewart asked at the time.
The cancellation and the rumors that Apple wouldn't talk about China due to its relationship with the country prompted a House of Representatives Select Committee to write to CEO Tim Cook for more information about it.
Even after that situation, there have been murmurs that Apple has still wanted to offer constructive criticism to productions, similar to a traditional studio's notes.
During an interview in March about "The Studio," star and co-creator Seth Rogen revealed that there was still some criticism from the company during production.
Apple expressed concern in pre-production about cameos that the show wanted, doubting that they would happen. The production proved Apple wrong, with it managing to get almost all of its cameo wishlist fulfilled.
The show also had to deal with feedback from Apple during production itself, but this too was practically ignored. The show's frequent use of "oners," long and uninterrupted shots with a single camera, made it practically impossible to fulfill any constructive feedback.
Ignoring the feedback worked for the show, as it has been praised in reviews by critics and viewers alike.
Small fish, crowded pond
The audience of Apple TV+ can be best described as small, or more charitably, selective in their choice of subscriptions. In the face of the 300-pound gorilla of streaming, Netflix, Apple TV+ looks positively tiny.
According to Wedbush Securities managing director Daniel Ives, Apple TV+ is estimated to have a "disappointing" 57 million subscribers. Ives proposes that Wall Street would be happier to see the subscriber count at over 100 million by this point in its life.
Part of the problem, the article offers, is the general lack of content compared to its competition. While Disney, Warner Bros, and Netflix have massive catalogs of content, both in terms of back catalogs and of newly-produced shows and films, Apple simply doesn't have the breadth available to it.
Ives compares Apple's service as building a mansion but lacking the furniture to fill it.
It's also an expensive operation for Apple, with it reportedly losing the company $1 billion per year. To a company that brings in tens of billions of dollars in revenue each quarter, it's a small amount of the pie, but it's still a massive amount of money.
To Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos in a March interview, he didn't understand why Apple operates Apple TV+ how it does. "I don't understand it beyond a marketing play," Sarandos offered. "Maybe they see some thing we don't."
Growing the audience
Despite still being a costly enterprise for Apple, it's still pushing forward with trying to get more eyeballs watching its content. While major shows such as a new season of "Severance" have helped bump up subscriber numbers, it has tried over actions as well.
This included opening itself up to subscriptions sold through Amazon. According to Antenna, approximately 30% of its sign-ups in February were via Amazon Channels.
It has also temporarily offered price cuts, as a juicy carrot for new subscribers.
Apple is also preparing for the future of the service and its productions, also at a high cost. Four years after buying land in Culver City, Los Angeles, it has started construction on two new studios and office space, which should be operational by 2026.
Though Apple has reportedly been taking other steps to trim budgets and stem the losses, the service still seems to have a big future. With construction underway and high levels of funding for productions despite the cuts, Apple still believes Apple TV+ will succeed in its own way.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
If you have a contract or are funded with tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, in what world are you not subject to review and possible changes with how you are spending money? A lot of times I just don't understand these media narratives. They ask us to take leave of our senses.
If you give a company 50k to go build a pool or renovate your house, you totally expect to understand how your money is being spent, right? Right?
Some film-makers have earned a kind of carte-blanche on how they spend their money, but they still have limits. They still need to convince the people with money that they will have a good product.
That’s level of creative freedom (and money!) has been reined-in in more recent years. But yeah, that was what Netflix was known for in the not too distance past — at a similar-ish time when Apple was known for micromanaging creators. That’s why the first sentence in this article says: “While Apple TV+ has a reputation for micromanagement, it seems that it's not as bad as it once was.” That was what Apple was known for in the past (in contrast to Netflix at the time).
It’s sets up this notion that Netflix was throwing money at film-makers without supervision, ie, management. It’s easy to believe that Netflix was trying to create as much content as possible years ago, yes.
Perhaps Netflix objected and wanted a slightly altered project. Is that micromanagement?
John Stewart kind of gets the benefit of the doubt from his fans. But, if his show, such as the “The Problem With…”, isn’t getting enough viewers, he should have totally expected to be micromanaged, or suggestions.
Even James Cameron doesn’t get a blank check without demonstrating he is making good product.
You have now mentioned “complete freedom”, “without supervision”, and “carte blanche creative freedom”. However, nobody is claiming that Netflix gave complete crate blanche creative freedom without supervision.
The narrative was that Netflix gave more creative freedom (relative to others). And that narrative became the joke/meme of Netflix green lighting any and everything. I very specifically said it was a joke, but the joke/meme originated out of that narrative. It was simply a ‘joke with a grain of truth’ type of example.
Here's how it works: executives at the entity putting up the money to get a project made--whether it's a big movie studio, a streaming platform, a broadcast network, or a cable channel--get a say in how it gets made through a process of script readings and pre-production meetings before anything is shot, to make sure everyone is on the same page, and then notes are given after the show is shot on cuts as they come in. This isn't "meddling." This input is responsible management of anywhere from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars spent for a project. You don't just write a giant check and hope for the best. Good execs working with a good creative team will not see a need for excessive notes, what they do note will be actionable and there will be an explanation for why the note was given. Bad execs--and they do happen--seem to estimate their self-worth in how many pages of notes they can give, calling for changes in even the most infinitesimal details. There's even an industry term for this--execs who give voluminous notes like these are said to be "frame fucking" the production company.
So, getting back to Apple: they're entitled to have a say because they're not only paying for the shows to get made, but Apple is pretty much #1 when it comes to the amounts they're willing to pay for a show they want. $200 million estimated for the second season of Severance. Lavish and expensive sci-fi series. The show Pachinko had four other bidders besides Apple, but Apple won as the only company willing to cover the entire production budget estimated at $13 million per episode. Compared to its competitors making shows and movies, Apple TV+ has an excellent reputation in the creative community for the amount of freedom it gives to creators and the trust it places in them. But what about confirmed issues with Jon Stewart and rumored ones with The Studio? Fair question! Well, consider why Apple is in the television business, which almost certainly isn't profitable. It's there to burnish the Apple brand and image and to provide another way to keep the Apple user base engaged with the Apple ecosystem. So considering those goals, why would Apple want to support a project that reflects poorly on the brand in some way or is upsetting to relationships and partnerships it needs for its businesses that actually generate the profits that make Apple TV+ possible? With Jon Stewart, who I think is great, being political and controversial is part of his brand, so I'm not sure why Apple greenlit a show with him in the first place. Someone at Apple didn't think that one through and that it ended badly isn't a surprise. With the rumored "meddling" in The Studio, this is another case where I understand where Apple is coming from, but makes me want to ask, "What were you thinking when gave this show a greenlight?!" It's a hilarious and savage satire of the studios that make television and movies, which is pretty uncomfortable for Apple TV+, since it needs great relationships with studios. I expect The Studio may end up with a slew of Emmy noms and maybe even wins for Apple TV+, in which case case any discomfort with the show will be forgotten!
I guess when you need to build up your content library fast, you need to produce shit.