An Open Letter to Mr Mike Lazzo, President [adult swim]

Dear Mike,

My name is Seth Piezas. You don't know me. I always thought by now we might have met. My company produces the animation for your show, 'Lucy: The Daughter of the Devil'. Lucy had a start in life that was less than elegant. First half a pilot. Then a break. Then the second half of the pilot. Then another break. Then an airing of the pilot. Then another break. Then a first season. And then. Yes. You guessed it. Break. I should be an Adonis by now, what with all the time I could have been in the gym.

But recently - quite recently - I received a message from Loren's agent forwarded to me through our lawyer, Jeff Cohen. (Jeff played Chunk in the 1980's classic, The Goonies. To this day I play down my unnatural love for the film in front of him.) The contents of the email were simple:

Adult Swim is doing a 30 minute Lucy project, but they do not want to use Fluid to do the animation.

A bit of a shock, you can understand. We - Fluid - have after all been with the show since its inception, producing what some called the best looking show on the block for a budget that would make a Chinese sweat shop owner think twice. And we did it in expensive San Francisco (my BA's in art, not business and I feel a stupid obligation to employ local talent. George Lucas with all his dollars has broken that bad habit). From what I understand, network was ADAMANT. It was, as they say, a deal breaker.

But now that I've collected my thoughts upon the whole thing, having ample time to reflect upon the nature of television and your network and our place as producers (there were alot of breaks and we covered my non-existent exercise routine), I thought I would write to you and ask:

Why do you hate us?

Let me be more specific. Why would a network chose to treat its producers so poorly at a time when the value added by networks is in danger of being replaced by a credit card, a Facebook fan page, and an upload button on YouTube? Doing so injures the relationship between artist and network for everyone. And it does so as we enter a period of transition. This isn't true for all networks. But for a variety of reasons, it is true for yours.

I know you're a busy man. I admit this is a long letter. L O N G. And you have those Upfronts to deal with. Right? That dog and pony show to convince the Wieden Kennedy's of the world that you're not just the ambient jokes people listen to after Family Guy as they're more focused surfing the web. You may still need to book a Kanye to sing away the little chasm between what you charge your advertisers and what you pay to make your shows (perhaps you've had the good taste this year not to). I'd be busy worrying that media buyers from across this nation may think they have a bit of leverage on you. So I appreciate your time. You should get some tea. Or a nice warm brandy and settle in should you read on. I've filled it with anecdotes and introspection, aimed to be appreciated by yourself and those you have a stake in the future of media.

Like I said, L O N G. And I'm writing it to you, Mike, in the same vein that a soldier would write an American President. It's larger than just our show. I know other producers for your network that feel like they star in a German Sheisse Video. In many ways, it's about your strategy for the future. And so it seems the business of a President and not his lackeys.

I guess I'm looking to understand why I should feel it's worth dealing with a network like yours anymore as the glimmer of a different future peaks above the horizon. Or anyone, for that matter from producers to advertisers when consumers - let's face it - are starting to sniff elsewhere and getting more directly in touch with the people adding value. Why, even though I still have near half the creative backend (which will amount to nothing unless we make an ungodly sum of money your accounting team just can't hide), I shouldn't feel like Peter in Office Space when he tells the Bob's, "It's not that I'm lazy. It's just that I just don't care."

As it has been left, this whole experience of making this show for you for years in a less than sustainably paid stochata feels...not under appreciated, that's not right.

Rapey. Yah. Rapey works. Don't get me wrong, I do like that pillow you sent us once. But I always imagined creating a highly regarded show for a network such as yours would get us a bit more in the 'thank you' department. Perhaps two pillows.

Ready? Have your brandy? Let's begin.

THE ZEN OF SWIMMING (WITH SHARKS)
Let me address a theological fundamental, if you will, first.

It seems rather obtuse - more than simple obtuse, obtuse extraordinaire - to be surprised when you make a show about the Devil and then wonder how you got fucked (Pardon the literal vulgarity. I've never known which combination of $'s or #'s make for the best censorship). But still, I've always taken the long view on God and religion. And I never thought that a being - THE being - of inifinite power, dimension, and wisdom could have such a limited sense of humor. So I figured he would be okay with it. And so that I why I believe this is not divine justice. I think there are one or two other problems requiring such intervention such that we are understandably low on that list.

As for why I feel slighted by your particular network, I cut that part. If you think this is long, that was Peter Jackson director's cut. I left Pixar to make something from scratch. And to say that you got screwed in entertainment is to say you work in entertainment. I'll highlight for those who may be interested to ask.

It had to do with why I think all of the creatives for your shows should matter (I admit it's a terrible little habit that I picked up at Pixar). Why it should be considered at least the decent thing to allow the people who have sacrificed to make your show for peanuts to keep making the show (I have, in addition, also had the privilege of riding in an armored car, being bitten by a lion, and having shared a drink with someone I am now convinced was hiding from extradition. So fair trade, right?). Or why I thought it was particularly classless to drop us, without personal contact or explanation from anyone at the network despite the network's specific stance and the accolades we've received (I suppose there is one more tactless way: to let us find out by watching the premiere of the new show. How funny would that have been?!)

No. For all it's laughs, that part had the ineffable waft of producer scorned. We were the ones who signed away our creative copyright - made our deal with the Devil, so to speak - and relegated our position to 'maker of widgets'. So you can act as faceless as you would like, as old a business style as that may resemble (anyone really interested can contact me. I'll provide the coffee to forge through). Besides, it would have detracted from the real point I want to express - the business point. A line of thought I have been developing for a while, observing the flow of transactions, the frustration of both artist and fan, and the unstoppable march of technology. A point which I can now articulate freely - you having so completely removed the incentive to operate in your universe. And it is this:

I do not believe you are long for this world.

The 'network' you at any rate. The network you has to please advertisers and producers and audience, adding VALUE to everyone else's. But I believe your value is diminishing just as your profile is growing. I'm biased by location, of course. Being in San Francisco, we have a familial relationship with all things digital. But it has unboxed music and turned record labels on their ear. So do indulge me some observations on television regarding each of the groups you serve. Observations which might lead one to conclude that you could be the 'low hanging fruit' of digital experiments to come. And please, feel free to disagree.

ON MAD MEN
I imagine everyone right now is anxious about the Upfronts. Some predict sales off 15%. Some more. Things do eventually trickle down. But the question isn't whether things economically will rebound. The question is when it does, will this current pressure have caused your advertisers to rethink your value to them - the exclusivity of your most popular content, the focus of your audience, the value of your original programming, and the transparency of your costs. Or will they sail more confidently, more justified towards the new kids in town. The ones who don't emphasize upfront buys. Who can target audiences better than 'disaffected P18-34'.

Smart money says that there's no downside to waiting; that in the end you will have to relent more than they will. I believe there's a value in CASH right now. This isn't the year for marketers to gain ground. It's the year to survive. Consumers are largely aware of the brands that are out there already. This is the year, from auto to financing, that companies should be looking to re-steer marketing into product value. And the last 10-20 percent of airtime they could buy achieves incrementally less ground than the first 80. Given your production value, there may be a large margin to negotiate. LARGE. I would guess this year that the transparency demanded of us in the past could be demanded of you now. One should wonder what the cost can be of a 12 OZ Mouse. I would imagine if everyone did this, it would be quite effective in revealing the nature of that margin. At worst, they can turn to the scatter market which last year was just as expensive as Upfront buys.

But at the end of the day, advertisers aren't buying your programming. Audiences could be watching a test pattern so long as you deliver predictable numbers. And that used to be the end of the discussion. But now there are more questions that are entering the discussion: what exactly is the engagement of that audience? Are they surfing the web? And, if so, is there a cheaper alternative to reach more specific segments of your audience with similar or greater touch? My answers would be: somewhat, definitely, and absolutely.

For my money, watching 30 Rock or Arrested Development requires focus - focus that is rewarded with a better experience. I'm the dinosaur that even feels a stupid obligation to watch the commercials. I have yet to meet, however, any of your audience who isn't either browsing the web or 'high on life' as they 'watch' your programming. That's a bit of the appeal of the programming block you created. To some degree, it's just the right style and amount of noise to occupy your audience as they go about other more engaging business. P18-34. They are the prime internet generation accessible through more engaging mechanisms.

If we're looking at the same reports, many of these advertisers have already starting shifting their dollars. They are already relying on the AdBrites and Rubicons of the world to reach consumers in your audience - targeting individuals with increasing effectiveness and specificity - to generate a better impression. If I were you, I would be worried that advertisers might think of your channel similar to another form of ambient noise - radio - and wonder whether even just a small amount of their media buy money could make an app. Or a casual game. Or anything else that would lead to a more direct sale. The fruits of these experiments are increasing in number.

And the last, more transformative idea that should be circulating around their heads is this:

Why not dial you out all together?

Or mostly, anyway. You ability to guide content development is becoming more of a consulting activity. An agency activity. So tell me why your paying advertising clients - the folks who make all of the wheels of this economy really turn - shouldn't think they could engage a campaign and make a couple seasons of show for free and pervasive distribution and cut out your heafty weight. A dialing back to an earlier age, creating entertainment that has a brand proximity that TiVo can't remove. Sure at one point your broadcast license made a formidable argument for content distribution. But at one point we all thought the world was flat too. And momentum clearly says the internet will consume everything. That the simple, locked in TV experience we all know will in the long run be an application setting (perhaps called 'Passive' or 'Old Timey') on a content aggregation site.

It's attainable. Cheaply. See, to get that disaffected audience you have driven production value in reverse. It is effective. But in guiding content with directions like less, little, or 'shittier', your product becomes competitive to that found on the internet. And it makes you particulary vulnerable to those who believe they could get your audience without your cut. The more expensive networks are still insulated. Running crews and named actors and decent production value is still expensive. But hardly anyone ever noticed when our original Lucy was replaced. It's animation, after all. And if you do you work right, hardly anyone will notice when our animation is replaced.

But soon, hardly anyone will notice when you're replaced as well. Because audience follows content. So maybe that world isn't today. Maybe that content couldn't be distributed just yet. But if it could be started now. Well, that would be pretty interesting (I have alot of time to chat on the subject. I'm never going to get that six pack...).

Remember, even agencies have to prove their value to their clients. At the end of the day, clients will evaluate everyone and think, did they do the visionary thing? Did their contribution make things more effective? Or was it safe. And remember, safe is something that they'll soon be able to rely on internally - Google engineering away a set of toggle boxes on an AdWords account.

ON P18-34, OUR AUDIENCE
I learned a lesson my first month in commercials. Not from the work. From a book that was sitting in the client area. It was a book on fetishes. On the cover was an old man, about 60. He had an inserted catheter attached to an IV bag he was likewise carrying, had weights on his nipples, and wore a leather mask complete with gag ball. Amazed as I was, my producer friend noted, "no matter how weird you think you are, with 6 billion people there are enough people just like you that could fill a midsize town". At least a book. Right? And as disaffected to traditional advertising as the Adult Swim audience is individually, they collectively become 'disaffected P18-34'. The brilliance of the AS brand is delivering them to advertisers who have difficulty reaching them otherwise.

I've met many of them over the course of the years. They're young and smart and I only have one suggestion for them:

consider stop paying for the privilege to watch commercials

I'm talking about your subscription fees, paid to you by the cable company and passed along to the consumer. I get what the purpose was. I just don't get what the purpose is. Not for your network. At one time, it supported a steady stream of exclusive programming when advertising couldn't. But much of your programming is being given away on the web. And the majority of your revenue now does come from advertising (at last count, an AS hour has 24 30 second spots with Honda and PepsiCo among them). Can you continue to the make the case that your programming is so expensive it needs support?

You need to give away your programming to as many households as possible - free if necessary - otherwise your ad supported model doesn't work. If I were the telecom upon which you travel, I would consider your leverage to be limited. I'd even wonder if removing network fees out of the picture - lowering a consumer's overall bill - would prevent calls for a government backed public access infrastructure. Of course I know you're a package deal. But it's the principle of the thing, now isn't it. Subsidizing your costs today seems a bit like corporate welfare. And for someone regarded as the highest ranked total day P18-34 audience, I think your audience has done their bit. Let them keep their money. They're already watching your commercials.

And if fans really want to support the people who make their shows, I believe there are one or two ideas floating around that would support content creators more directly. Ideas that make significantly less use of your services. At least, that is, until you become considerably more transparent than, oh, let's say: lead. They don't care about the massaging required to get Honda into bed. They want to see their money on screen, benefiting the objects of their affection. Shows cancelled. On hold. Suspended in limbo by a lack of conviction. I think whoever comes along to deliver this in a way that is honest and simple (and caters to the lazy in us all) will do very well. I think fans have more power than they realize. And I believe someone very soon will come along to unleash their energies.

ON MY FELLOW PILLOW OWNERS
If I were to offer advice to fellow animators or artists or whoever that want to make your shows for you, I think it would be: Do it once. Make a show and learn how to make the show cheap. And then, regardless of what happens after the first season - even if it's a really good hit - drop it. Let someone else take it over. Use what you've learned and apply it somewhere else. Adult Swim is doing pretty well. There are any number of people trying to compete with you now. And it's difficult to conceive of a channel that would pay less or market less for all of the profile. So just move on. I know it's difficult to sacrifice your babies, but that's the industry expression, now, isn't it. They should remember that.

Because there's far more value in their ideas and what they can do than in the networks future value. It's your overhead, Mike. It's too large. It's consuming. And in the past, it meant something more. In the past, your expensive broadcast license was the thing that stood between the advertisers who had messages they wanted to share with people and producers who had content they wanted to deliver.

But that's not really the case anymore, is it? Like print and telephones and everything else, the brave face and confidence in the face of digital is a transition tactic. Confident statements like 'TV will never die' should resonate like 'everyone will have a land line' or 'there's nothing wrong with the bank's liquidity'. People are wary to trust these messages. Because the truth is people will say whatever is necessary to say. Whatever is in their best interest (including myself). And it works for a long while because there is no TRANSPARENCY.

Again. That word. Like every other systemic problem we're seeing nowadays, corruption is not the infrequent friend to a lack of transparency in business. Being able to obfuscate the nature of transactions or information leads among other things to the destruction of world economies. Or the planet's inability to sustain life. And it also has to do with your value to producers.

A lesson to the future me: consider 'net' zero. I own nearly half of what is called 'the Backend' - a share in the profits of our show's success, regardless of our involvement. I have no doubt that the show has or will make money. There was ad revenue and you are highly regarded. There were a not unsizable number of iTunes sales. But I similarly have no doubt that we will never see a single dime. Because every cost - there are production costs, I have yet to hear of anything that could really be called sincere marketing - may be added together with a nebulous black box cost of overhead and run through an accounting equation that would make Einstein contemplate how simple Special Relativity is in comparison. And the beauty of it all is that no one can see the equation. All they can see are the results.

Kudos for this, BTW. It's a masterstroke that would make, umh, the Devil smile.

No. Until your presence becomes more transparent, I see a growing frustration among your advertisers, your fans, and your producers. I see provocative statements that embrace change, but brace - feet planted, back rigid - as a large corporation would act in the face of true change. I hope I am wrong. It remains to be seen. Very few large corporations are able to be visionary. It took more will and vision to craft the iPhone than technology - the ability to see past archaic business structures and define the 'Next'. You had the vision to craft the block. But I just don't think you have it in you to accomodate the next generation of producers looking to make a living.

EXIT STAGE LEFT
I've always felt a bit like a whore for how I introduced myself to my NYU animation class. I said that I loved art, but that I was turned off to art as a living because I could not see a future that would support me. Let alone a family. I told a story about my talented childhood art teacher who had to manage a 7-11 to support himself and his kids. It seemed right in my head at the time. But actually saying it in front of a group of young NYC student artists and my professor, John Canemaker, felt dirty. Like you've sold out before being legal to drink.

It may have felt whorey at the time, but trust me when I say I've paid my dues since. After scraping through Lucy like a Depression-Era Oakie triple stews a shank bone, a couple thoughts enter your head. You wonder if you shouldn't be able to make a decent living off of this if you're working for someone who's supposed to be 'The Number One Cable Draw for P18-34, etc, etc'. Right? Producers from other countries ask me, "Don't they want you to stick around? Don't they care for you to keep going so they can make more?" After deliberating on things as of late, I have come to the conclusion: No. You probably don't care. There are a line of kids coming out of schools in this and other countries. As I speak, someone right now is running a show off of unpaid interns. Or thinking of a way to have students pay THEM to create a work for sale to others. I am as certain of this as I am certain that my Backend is as formidable as the Loch Ness Monster; that our attempt to give you what you needed for what you would pay just further eroded the ability to support oneself as an artist.

I consider this penance donated to future me's. Perhaps I wouldn't write this if I (and others) didn't feel that your role as arbitor weren't so transient. Telling me not to burn bridges feels like telling a battered wife, "You never know what will happen in the future..." Besides, I don't think this way of all networks. Yours is the one that feels particularly vulnerable to the future.

As I mentioned, I live near a city called San Francisco. And over the past couple years you may have heard about the things we've developed. I'm not talking about our liberal drug policies or sexual orientations (Which you may be a fan of too. Your welcome). I'm talking about that thing you plug your computer into to get your pornography, Mike. The Internet.

The internet is great for lots of things. And one thing it's particularly great at is disintermediating things that no longer add value. I look at this like an equation. And the equation pretty much looks like this to me:

(Advertisers + Customers + Content) / Oversight = Entertainment Experience

And it all boils down to money. Consumers time is money. Content's value is money. Your steerage and overhead is money. And advertisers money is, well, money. But a funny thing emerges when you take a look at things this way. And that's the greater your part is, the smaller the experience becomes. And the smaller your part is, the greater everything gets. And I don't think it's about steerage. People who can steer content. Well, they are money in the bank, aren't they (Imagine a Stephen King novel without an editor - there aren't enough trees! Or a Picasso without, well, perhaps some people just need their whores and critics.) I think it's about overhead - all of the things you have to do that a System eventually can do automatically.

It's WOPR's epiphany at the end of WarGames. So I don't think I'm burning a bridge. I think I'm building a new one to the future because I just don't see any point in playing this current game. Because in addition to writing boring letters I can also write code. Little 1's and 0's. It let me write a system to make Lucy for the little that was available, deliver it on time, and get screwed in return. And it has let me start writing something that can show advertisers and consumers and producers a world with you. Very end of 'The Matrix', n'est pas? I'm not the only one around here doing so, I've found. It must be all the drugs and sex...

For all I know, you might welcome this too. It's alot to be a network (Imagine getting one of these from everyone). An unsung job for many, under-appreciated in its own right. It keeps one from creating things directly. It is the frequently frustrating editorial seat for an artist who thinks they should be the name under 'written or created by', watching others have fun and get credit as they keep them from driving off of a cliff.

But if you really do want to still keep going with the network thing, I suggest you pick up the phone and call the top two guys in your rolodex. They're also named Seth (how did that happen?). One makes that show, Family Guy. Brilliant thing picking it up from Fox when they lost their cahones for it. Kudos. I always thought it was a stitch. Collage - the art of the 20th century. The other Seth makes Robot Chicken. Both perfect digestifs for a lifetime of television consumption. Take them out for a night on the town, if they don't have their evening booked. Cuddle up. Let them pick who gets to be big spoon and who is the little spoon. Because I think I just saw one of them on an ad for Hulu. And between the two of them, they form a large part of your ratings anchor, don't they? With few exceptions, everything else is just a steady stream that trails and dashes off like a faulty prostate (I count our show among that stream, so no offense to my fellow producers. Just look at the ratings. For everyone else, think 'duplicating a success').

Take them out and make sure they feel good. Feel wanted. They're smart and doing 'pretty well' so they should already feel it, but it never hurts to be safe. Hell, take all of them out. 'Lucy' was on that iTunes 100 list for months. That should be good enough for a couple rounds and I'll never be able to find out, transparency and all. Right? Give them, I don't know, something more than an Adult Swim pillow for their dedication to your projects. Remember, making producers LIKE you is one of the 'defensible positions' that will make you relevant in the future. Because it's not necessarily true that they'll NEED you.

Phew! That was alot. Right? Felt, good, though. The things that one bottles up! Amazing what you can say when all incentive or appreciation or hope has been abandoned from the transaction - the perfect period at the end of this phase of my career. But I warned you. A TOME. Unreadable to many (of course, by the standard of 'unwatchable', I thought 'unreadable' should make for a compelling letter).

Perhaps you've got some thoughts you'd like to throw back my way (Or anyone else, for that matter, who might have made it to this point. If you're an advertiser, YOU TOO can make 2 hours of TV for less than the price of a 30 second commercial! Just call in the next ten minutes...).

But by no means think that I believe I have all the answers. I'm just a producer who has had lots of breaks to think about this when he should have been at the gym.

Sincerely yours,

Seth Piezas
dbnr

BTW, I hope that we weren't dropped because of anything related to the concept art for the show. As I told Ollie, I didn't think it was in the contract to deliver that. But I still shipped it to you anyway. To think that it all started because we were asked to donate art to support that Children's Cancer Camp. I think back and wonder if it was worth it had I known then that it would have caused such aggravation asking. But really, what would have been the alternative? To not support the kids with cancer? I don't know about you, Mike, but that would have made me feel. Well. Rapey.