[Uzo0312]

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers.

So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off.

BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

[gamblor956]

Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works.

BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money

Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in

This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios...

But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.)

and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces).

But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay.

But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.

[dang]

I'm late to this, but could you please stop being an asshole on HN? Your comments in this thread have at best straddled the line, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28076349 crossed it completely, and unfortunately your comment history is often that of a jerk: your posts frequently contain something abrasive, even as you also make interesting points.

Your interesting points are worth reading, but the meanness is destructive and not cool here. We're trying for conversation in which people treat each other well, in addition to making interesting points, because without that, the forum crumbles into internet default nastiness.

I'm sure you can make your substantive comments thoughtfully, so please do that instead. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[gamblor956]

My apologies dang.

Within the LA startup and entertainment communities, we are less politic in our critiques; LA's funding system is quite different from SV's, and harsh truths are more valued here than polite nothings. A thick skin is required to survive in the film industry. (It is an aphorism here that a true friend is someone who will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.)

My intention was not to be mean but to be straightforward, but I currently work in-house in entertainment so my abrasiveness filter is much less refined than it used to be. The comments I made were the sanitized versions of the critiques from people in the Black film industry who were initially interested in possibly working with BlackOakTV.

Unfortunately, there are now concerns about the role of non-Black investors in what is ostensibly a Black platform. Due to the politicized nature of the ongoing discussion, I will not go into further details on HN as that is likely to trigger a flame war over non-technical issues.

[dang]

Thank you. I wasn't having any problem with the substance of your comments, just their abrasiveness. If you had posted your critique without that, it would have been great, and if you'd do that in the future, we'd greatly appreciate it.

From my perspective this isn't an LA or SV issue or anything to do with "funding systems", it's a (rather shallow) internet issue that has simply to do with the tendency of internet discussion to degenerate rapidly, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Comments that would make sense in a smaller, private context become completely different beasts on the public internet; the medium is the message, etc.

I appreciate that you meant to be helpful and there was interesting information in your comments, which I imagine everyone, including the founders, appreciated.

[senojretep356]

Whenever I see these kind of take downs on HN I always get reminded of the Coinbase and Dropbox take downs and countless others of eventual very successful companies. I actually think the poster makes some interesting points - if they could be framed as more of a question it might have been more helpful. I for one will be be signing up at some point - I circle through the various sites subscribing and unsubscribing regularly - disney, netflix, discovery, paramount, hulu, prime etc so this will get added to the list.

My key question is how are you going to bulk out the offering - I think there is value in a smaller set of curated content but to keep my subscription I'll need to be able to get several months of content?

Could you not just focus on originals and licence some old classics as well?

[Uzo0312]

Obviously, you seem to think very highly of what you know, and very little of what I know. First and foremost, the idea that I just have a tech background is probably where you've really misread me. I'm a media person through and through who developed with the times and tech industry's takeover by technical developments.

Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently.

Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today.

Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer".

Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.

[gamblor956]

First, my apologies for being unnecessarily mean in my critiques of your startup. My abrasiveness filter is set for Hollywood standards, not SV standards, and come off as unnecessarily harsh outside to those not in the entertainment industry.

But I stand by the substance of my comments about your startup, and please be aware that a number of them are simply me echoing the sanitized versions of comments I got from my Black friends in Hollywood after I sent them a link to your website. There comments were significantly harsher than what I passed along.

If you would like to talk to one of my friends in the Black Hollywood community, I can try to connect you with them. But please be advised that they will hold nothing back.

[whoknowswhat11]

Not scientific but observationally their target market does seem relatively high use on social media - so probably an opportunity if they picked up traction - low budget could also be authentic and black ownership for example is differentiating.

That said the attacks on the existing options read a bit weak - will be fun to see what they come up with!