|
 by Chris Davison, chris@lthmedia.com
Kevin Beggs is the President of Television Programming and Production at Lionsgate, and is the incoming President of the HRTS. Kevin began his career as a PA and has since worked in many areas of the business, from development to production to marketing. I recently had a chance to speak with Kevin to discuss Baywatch, Mad Men and American independence.
Q: Can you tell us about your background and what made you want to work in entertainment? How did you get involved with the HRTS?
-I have always been fascinated by television. Although my parents divorced when I was four and it was fairly acrimonious, the one thing they agreed on was limiting our television viewing – which of course was the only thing that I could depend upon during that tumultuous time. From then on television was something that was restricted or banned, and my personal obsession with this forbidden fruit was born. That led to an interest in theater which I pursued in high school and college ultimately which was paired with my interest in politics. I graduated from UC Santa Cruz with degrees in both and moved to Los Angeles to pursue a career in entertainment. How I would accomplish that was utterly unknown. I wound up teaching elementary school in Pasadena Unified for two years and looking for an inroad into the business.
After a short stint as a PA on a series for ABC, I got a phone call for an assistant job on a series that was just launching in first-run syndication. It was a slightly higher salary and entailed working for the Executive Producer/Showrunners as a key assistant. The series wound up being a huge success and I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time and working for very generous and inspirational producers that empowered me to work in all areas of production, development, marketing, business affairs, brand integration, and publicity. Over the course of my 8 years on “Baywatch” I was promoted to producer and also headed up development under an overall television deal the Berk/Schwartz/Bonann team had at Touchstone, which was my first experience with a traditional studio and network television development. I really enjoyed that time working with the Touchstone team and when my attorney, Leigh Brecheen, suggested that I might consider exploring executive opportunities I was very open to the idea. That led to a phone call and interview at Lionsgate, which was a fledgling Canadian indie film distribution company based in Vancouver, with ties in Montréal and Toronto. The company was building a domestic television presence via its investment in Mandalay Television (longform) and acquisition of Termite Art Productions. They had not yet jumped into scripted series game and when President Dennis Miller hired me, that was the charge.
It was a struggle from day one. We were undercapitalized and the international market had collapsed. Everyone was getting out of the television business. We were unknown, and vertical integration was squeezing out any independents. The cable model was really our only option and we set up series at Fox Family, Pax, and eventually USA with “The Dead Zone”. With a little traction and the re-capitalization of Lionsgate under the direction of CEO Jon Feltheimer and his Vice-Chairman, Michael Burns, we were able to expand as the cable scripted business took off. “Weeds” followed which represented our first fully distributed Lionsgate television series, and most recently “Mad Men”, has also been a creative and financial success for us.
I had attended one or two HRTS luncheons prior to joining Lionsgate, but I knew that as we established our new business, we had to be there. At first we bought individual tickets, and about five years ago we became corporate members. When Chris Silbermann asked if I would join the board and later invited me to be Vice-President, I was flattered, but also very committed to expanding our membership and contributing to a continued evolution of the organization.
Q: What was the development process like for “Mad Men”?
-Mad Men was an existing script that Matt Weiner had written years ago when he was working in comedy on Becker. Although it didn’t sell at the time, my understanding is that was sent as a sample to David Chase, who hired him on The Sopranos. Flash forward to the final year of Sopranos and the script was being circulated again. AMC read and loved it and approached us about partnering on this as their first original. Their programming chief, Rob Sorcher, bought the first show Lionsgate ever developed when he was at Fox Family, and we wanted to work with them and loved the material. Still, based on the period elements and the expense, it was a major risk and we couldn’t get a corporate go ahead on the pilot. AMC produced it themselves and we happily came aboard when they greenlit the series and produced and distributed the series in all media.
Q: What was the impetus behind your deal with YouTube and how do you see it unfolding?
-The arrangement originated corporately. We have a New Media “czar” as we lovingly call him, Curt Marvis, whose mandate is to explore the various ways in which we can monetize our film, video, and TV content digitally. This represents a great first step but we have also done major deals with iTunes, Hulu, and others.
Q: In an era of consolidation and buyouts, Lionsgate has remained as a true independent, what are the advantages of this strategy?
-America loves an underdog. As an independent, there is always a creative advantage. We are hungrier, more willing to take risks, and not looking in our rearview mirror in a way that larger studios must. We have had the privilege of attracting amazing creators, writers, directors, and filmmakers to Lionsgate, and there is tremendous brand equity that helps each of the respective divisions in the company. There are not many studios in which the film division openly champions successes of its colleagues in television. But at Lionsgate, our film group touts “Weeds” and “Mad Men” whenever possible. Conversely, we do the same about their films from Tyler Perry to 3:10 to Yuma. And in a true example of cross divisional synergy, we are proudly bringing the series adaptation of our Oscar winner, “Crash”, to Starz in October as their first original drama.
Q: As incoming President, what is your vision for the HRTS?
-Certain things jump out at me; evolution of our business, the explosion of new media, and global television outlook. HRTS is incredibly vibrant yet also anachronistic. Our very name suggests that the business evolves and that business models go with it. Radio is not part of the equation at HRTS any longer and to avoid television befalling the same fate, we have to expand our thinking about what constitutes this particular industry association.
I believe that our mission includes being at the forefront of media decision-making , media influences, and media trends. To accomplish that, we have to evolve or die and that means re-evaluating constantly. Who are our members? Who are we servicing? How can we inform them more effectively?
New corporate and individual members may not be the usual suspects, and we need to aggressively expand the membership base. It is also incumbent upon us at HRTS to deliver entertaining and informative luncheons. We are in the most efficiently distributed entertainment medium in the world but sometimes the showmanship is lacking. To borrow from our NBC member Ben Silverman, “we need to bring sexy back” to HRTS.
The other initiative that I am spearheading is aimed at capitalizing on the clout, expertise and value of our membership. When we think about decision-makers in television, they are all HRTS members. This is a powerful group. Our opinions about media trends are valuable and I would like to monetize that. Additionally, we need to heighten our political engagement on issues that directly affect our membership. We presented the AARP/EIF/MPTF luncheon in an effort to raise consciousness about the hugely challenging issues surrounding healthcare in this country. This is an issue that transcends partisan politics and affects our members as individuals and our business as creators and distributors of content. If consumers are going bankrupt in an effort to stay insured, they are not spending on sponsors that fund our programming. We will continue to present luncheons that selectively focus on these kinds of issues going forward.
Q: In an always-connected yet decentralized world how does the HRTS offer value to its members?
-The value is twofold, the value is information and education, and it’s access. We need to update and modernize and streamline the HRTS website to make it more relevant. Already, there’s a large amount of information available through the website and the things we're going to expand to include are going to be valuable for any member, whether they are part of a huge conglomerate or a two-person operation.
Getting into the room with our members is a very rare opportunity. It would be impossible in any other setting. Without exception, everyone that comes to address our group, whether it be studio moguls, network programming chiefs, or cable group presidents, all have valuable information that really doesn't show up in press releases or in the trades. These are the professionals that are making and buying television. We offer credibility and the authenticity, and we will continue to be unwavering in our efforts to provide it, that is the key value for our membership.
Q: How do you see the next 3-5 years of our industry and the HRTS role in it?
-The HRTS and its members are at the forefront of the business and creative trends in our industry. Going forward we will push the envelope, and maybe even risk making some missteps with our luncheon programming, in an effort to be in front of media trends and not playing catch up. My expectation is that new media corporations will more adequately be represented as convergence continues.
The Olympics are a great indicator of the power of live events on broadcast and the ability of broadcasters with the right programming to aggregate huge audiences. We’re also seeing a little bit of a migration of scripted and higher-end fare to cable, where the programming does not require the same amount of eyeballs to sustain itself. The trends are really healthy overall, they can be disturbing in some senses because the business is changing and the business has been somewhat stable for a long period of time. Traditionally, broadcast was the province of scripted programming and high-end dramas and comedies, and cable was the province of reruns and movies and off-network series but all that is changing. Today, some cable networks are pulling broadcast numbers. Broadcasters will continue to be the big tent players and their programming has to shift to deliver the big tent audience. Cable can do what it does with the dual revenue stream as a niche player, and some of the higher-end cable players like USA and TNT and TBS are going to kind of continue to brand themselves as broadcasters in terms of their reach, not 24 hours a day but when their originals are in season and at their peak. The larger cable networks have ambitions to be at the table with the major agencies and say ‘you should be coming here first’.
I continue to see more cable players jumping into the market for original programming. We’re doing “Crash” with Starz, and 18 months ago, AMC had only done one original miniseries but now they have two major series, “Mad Men” with us and “Breaking Bad” with Sony. Both of these players two years ago were not on the dial for original programming and are now undertaking major initiatives, in addition to the usual suspects. They are obviously finding ways to find the money and the business model and the eyeballs to make it work. So I think from a 90,000-feet-up perspective, there is growth in television, but in areas that were less on the radar five years ago.
|
