From View Masters to Virtual Reality at a Theater Near You

It's time for the final episode in this series of the Now & Next podcast, and it's all about VR and AR. Both VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) can be thought of as new technologies, but in many ways they’re not really new at all.

Early sensory simulation devices go back about 100 years. In fact those Viewmasters we played with as kids were a kind of virtual reality.

And not surprisingly the latest View Masters are being built and marketed as affordable consumer VR experiences. It's all about being able to see and experience things that aren’t there in our immediate physical world and using technology to help us do so.

On this episode of Now & Next we’ll hear from Alexis Macklin, an analyst with a San Francisco-based firm called Greenlight Insights that specializes in market intelligence on the VR and AR industries.

Alexis will explain where we’re at in the tech and content development cycles for VR & AR and how the use cases and consumer adoption for these enhanced experiences vary around the world, particularly for location-based entertainment.

Episode highlights

• Are VR & AR close to significant consumer adoption? (2:43)
• What are the emerging opportunities for content producers and creators (6:16)
• What are the key differences between Asian and Western VR/AR markets (10:08)
• What are the sought-after skillsets in the VR/AR sector (16:00)


Full interview transcript

LK: Leora Kornfeld
AM: Alexis Macklin

LK:

So VR and AR and all of these things that we’re talking about, they’re both new, and then they’re also really kind of not new. Many of these technologies have been around for not only years but decades. So, to quote the kids that are always in thebackseat of the car, “Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”

AM:

I would say we’re still years away from any sort of significant consumer adoption, that’s for sure. On the VR side, we’re a little closer than maybe those smart glasses for AR especially once VR in this next year becomes more accessible with standalone HDs. So we’re kind of just waiting for the significant content library and platform availability to come about for VR. We’ll see that come more into play when there’s honestly more things to do in VR. Right now, it’s kind of more gaming and video watching right now, but as they go around, more social platforms will come about more productivity tools and, honestly, more variety of content. Right now it’s kind of in for those first person shooters, but we’re seeing more and more different types of games and video content come about. So we should expect to see a more positivity I would say within the next couple years.

For AR and smart glasses, we definitely have already hit mass adoption for mobile AR since that’s already a pre existing technology. So everyone has mobile AR, the problem is no one really knows that they do have AR which is good and bad. It’s a natural technology feature set that consumers don’t realize that it’s a whole new type of platform and technology, which is really great. It’s very natural, it’s a very natural next step for the camera, the smartphone. But when we come into smart glasses, there is no perfect device yet. 

We’re definitely far away from seeing that consumer smart glass that is just going to take the world by storm. A big part of this is form factor, definitely second is cost. When we look at something like Magic Leap, it’s thousands. Look at HoloLens, it’s thousands. So it’s something that’s a bit out of reach for consumers to add in, especially since they don’t know why they would use it.

But we should expect to see 5, 10 years from now a more serious product launch for consumers in terms of consumer adoption, consumers understanding why they would need an AR headset, and better form factors.

LK: 

Now you mentioned, you said everybody has mobile AR. Do I have mobile AR on my phone, ‘cause if I do I don’t know.

AM: 

Exactly. So Snapchat is AR. When you’re putting those filters on your face, or putting that dancing hotdog in the environment, that’s AR.

LK: 

I refuse to put the cat ears and whiskers on, but but if I did, I would be doing mobile AR?

AM: 

Yes exactly. Or even Pokemon Go, I mean, it’s basic AR in terms of what we’ll eventually get to, we’ll be able to use it seamlessly and consistently across platforms eventually. But for right now, it’s a bit more of a gimmick, it’s a bit more of a—you know—a social aspect to it. So even the Google products now have AR 3D assets that you can take pictures of. 

Probably the most famous was when the Last Jedi was coming out for Star Wars. They had different 3D figures for Star Wars that you could pull up in your camera phone and take videos and pictures with. So it’s definitely more social right now. There’s some gaming, definitely a big ploy with marketing right now, very interesting marketing feature set right now that sets those mobile marketing experiences apart from the traditional ones. But we’ll see this come more into play as more feature sets come out. Hum, especially with Apple and Google, this year, they both released different improvements on their software to enable multiplayer.

So we should in the next year to two years see a lot of multiplayer AR games that,  you know, you’re playing maybe something like table tennis in AR with your phone with a friend. It’s something of a shared experience which will definitely put mobile AR on the next level. So we’ll start to see more consumer awareness with things like that, those will definitely gain, gain some popularity depending on the use case.

LK: 

But, didn’t it feel... I mean, I had to look this up, I wasn’t sure if the Pokemon Go phenomenon happened last year or two summers ago, it was two summers ago, in 2016. And didn’t it feel like, “Okay everything is changing now” because it did get mass adoption. Didn’t everything change at that Pokemon Go moment?

AM: 

I would say yes and no. So, it was a very exciting time because this huge game that enabled AR became massively virally popular, and that was really great. But I would say it also didn’t change that much as well for the AR community since consumers didn’t know that that was AR really, and they didn’t really get the point of it. It actually made it a bit harder to play in AR mode than regular well I guess it’s more of a 3D but the traditional smartphone way to play, to play it. So there was definitely a positive and a negative. It became this rush of developers thinking that “Wow Pokemon Go really worked, let me kind of re-skin that. Let me do something like that and I’ll be the next big hit”, but it just doesn’t work that way.

Something that’s very important with those VR and AR that is something to keep in mind is why Pokemon Go became so successful is because it’s this very interesting place of wish fulfillment, which is the best form of VR and AR of—you know—always wanting to travel to the depths of the ocean, but never actually wanting to go there, well now you can experience that in VR.

LK: 

Without getting wet. You can be a cat [Alexis: Exactly...] without being a cat. You can catch a Pokemon without having a Pokemon, yeah I like that. Wish fulfillment... [Alexis: Exactly...] Is that the sort of industry term that’s used for it?

AM: 

I would say it’s more, I’m not sure if it’s used that often to describe it, but it’s definitely, VR and AR is, within the industry definitely seen as this endless possibility, being seen as something that can really do the impossible, which is why for enterprise it’s so promising as well, ’cause you can do things that maybe are dangerous, hum, as far as training, like learning to fly a fighter pilot in VR... so you can not fall out of the sky and save some equipment at the same time, right? So there’s definitely this cool and possible scenario and wish fulfillment, and hum, even cost savings for, for enterprise. But that’s kind of what VR and AR, those promises of bringing you into a new reality.

Of course VR is more about the bringing you to a new world, and AR is about bringing the other world to you almost, bringing that, those 3D assets into the real world and eventually will kind of have a mix between the two where—you know—maybe you’re at work and you decide, “You know, this office space ispretty boring. Let me overlay an AR in my smart glasses, a view of Hawaii out the window so I can pretend I’m someplace else.” So that will become a bit more meld, but that’s even further off in the future. So we’re still pretty far away from that.

LK: 

So, until then, we have to just deal with the screensaver on the laptop that has the picture of Hawaii... I mean, that’s what people are doing now, so that’s a very, I guess, early version of that wish fulfillment that you talk about.

AM: 

Yeah exactly, yeah.

LK: 

Based on your work and what you see, and you’ve just been it, what was the event that you were at, VRS, is that what it was called?

AM: 

Yes, it was the VR Strategy Conference. So, I was in this conference that we held, hold every year in San Francisco to focus primarily on business strategy within VR and AR. So, for companies looking to get into VR and AR and wondering how to be profitable for them or why they should do it, and then those companies who are working in VR and AR how they can make their ventures better. So, a lot of networking, a lot of discussing about what works and what doesn’t and where we’re going.

LK: 

So, I’m, I’m curious to hear, ’cause this is exactly what I’m interested in, are there, are there specific white spaces, areas that are ripe for innovation and experimentation that people aren’t in yet that are, that could be really big opportunities for producers?

AM:

Yeah, that’s a great, great question. I would say for media and entertainment, VR eSports is really coming into its own. It’s still very early days, it’s only been professionally around for about a couple years or so. But, there’s this community that can be built around VR that can’t really be built around for traditional gaming. So this can be more of a sport gaming hybrid, if you will, so this is also active. Of course, there needs to be some developments on that. eSports is very grassroots grown, very community orientated. Hum, so it’s going to take a bit to grow that community before eSports, VR eSports can really take off. But that’s some place that’s pretty emerging within the VR media and entertainment industry. 

One of the, I’m going to call it the worst kept secret right now in VR, is location-based VR. So these are the VR arcades, VR in movie theaters. It’s still an emerging sector, especially for North America, it’s more developed in Asia, especially in China, Japan, Korea, hum, but this is more, if you’ve heard of The VOID...

LK: 

We have that here in Toronto.

AM: 

Yeah, there’s some in Toronto, I know that there’s some in movie theaters, in Canada as well, I think both in Vancouver and Toronto, some of those. But yeah, it’s this whole idea of adding in VR experiences into entertainment, at home entertainment venues. So, whether they’re their own standalone like The VOID or adding in some game experiences as well, 

I think the best example is the Dave &Buster’s, they have this experience where it’s I believe six people in a car, and they’re in a motion simulator with VR headsets, they have VIBE headsets, and they’re doing a Jurassic World experience. And so they’re all in this buggy and they’re exploring the world and some shenanigans begin. 

They deployed this originally at 114 locations at launch, which is probably the biggest deployment of VR installations in the world yet. But it’s been going smoothly for them. The Dave & Buster’s CEO has already talked about expanding the experiences, adding more content, adding to all the locations, it’s been very positive.

But this is completely different as well across the world since—you know—entertainment centres in North America are very different from the popular types of out-of-home entertainment venues that are in Asia or even western Europe based off of space alone. Real estate is really important for this factor.

LK: 

What would the differences be between what you see in the Asian markets and in the west?

AM: 

Yeah, I think the big, big one in—I mean wow there’s so many differences, even when you look at different countries. For the US, it’s very much a focus on family entertainment centres, especially with, I think, Dave & Buster’s is probably the most famous example. 

But there’s a lot of those, whether it’s Topgolf or even something like Chuck E. Cheese, a place where families can go together and spend hours doing different activities. That’s not something that’s as widespread or popular in Asia. So, in China, it’s probably a very famous pastime. Those in China and Japan is karaoke. So, a group of friends get together and decide to go out, and they—you know—pay for a room and do karaoke for hours,  they’re trying to do that as well with VR. China has a, a very widespread amount of VR arcade locations. So locations that are specifically focused on VR, they also have the free realm like The VOID. Japan has a very, both Japan and Korea have a very interesting culture to where they are kind of molding the two together of the VR arcades and entertainment centres.

So, there’s a couple of different centres that are just VR focused, but they’re huge like a Dave & Buster’s, so you can go try. There’s simulators to where you’re going up in a hot air balloon, there’s definitely the roller coasters, there’s definitely different games as well, there’s a VR Mario Kart. But, all the IP are pretty unique, so all the different games are very unique to the culture in Korea and Japan. They have a lot of original content that isn’t seen anywhere else. But also, when you look at India, they, there is a very interesting growth in theaters of especially with Bollywood films and different things like that, the theater industry is very interesting there. So they’re adding in more, hum, places where customers can go see a VR movie in a motion chair. Those are pretty widespread as well in China as well for the motion chairs, something quick.

So, maybe instead of a theater room where it’s a traditional theater setting with a digital projector, they have motion chairs in this room, and customers can come in and put on the headsets, so you can go with your friends into this room at the same time, with, maybe, as 50 other people and see a VR movie. So it’s definitely very different in different areas, which is really cool to see, it’s really coming into its own, it’s very unique, there’s a lot of opportunity there across the whole world, which is really exciting.

LK: 

And with uniqueness, with a heterogeneity in markets instead of just a VR theater is one thing, that’s why I’m interested to ask you about, we had a big announcement here, I’m sure you’ve heard about it, that Cineplex, in partnership with the Seattle company VR Studios, they’re going to be doing several [Alexis: Yes...] dozen VR installation arcades over the next couple of years. So what do you see is the significance of that?

AM: 

Yeah, actually that’s a great question. So, VR Studios actually was a major partner in the deal with Dave & Buster’s.So they were building the basically the whole hardware of the experience, building it together. I would say something that’s very significant about that is right now at movie theaters for VR especially in North America, it’s something where it’s a, a bit more a dollar per minute and they’re longer experiences. 

So, if you’re a family of four say, and you go and you watch a movie, maybe you’re spending 40 to 50 dollars depending on when you go and the type of movie you’re seeing. And then when you get out or come before, they’re trying to sell you—you know—30 more dollars per person to, to play a VR game. So that’s something that adds up very quickly, especially when you think about it that way. That, you know, you could spend upwards of, hum, around 200 dollars just for the whole family to go play VR.

LK: 

You haven’t even talked about popcorn yet either.

AM: 

Yeah exactly... So the VR Studios is a bit more of a their solutions are a bit more of a bite-sized way to do VR, so get a very quality experience at a shorter amount of time to where it’s an incremental pay. Hum, so for example, the Dave &Buster’s experience is 5 dollars for 5 minutes. Of course, it’s not saying 5 dollars for 5 minutes, it just says “5 dollars to go to Jurassic World and—you know—be transported there through this VR experience”. But, you know, that brings the cost down tremendously for a family to where they’re still doing a quality VR experience, they’re getting that opportunity without having a huge hurt on their wallet so that—you know—20 more dollars for the whole family instead of, you know, it could be 120 if everyone does the 30-dollar experience. 

So, it’s definitely something that’s more manageable, and, very profitable for a theater since that’s something that doesn’t take up as much room as setting up a whole VR experience, you can get people through pretty quickly, hum, and it’s fun to see, it’s fun to watch people do it. So it’s something that almost feeds into itself.

LK: 

And, from the content producer’s or the technology producer’s point of view, and I’m sure this is something that came up at the conference you were at, because you, they were dealing with the enterprise level, how different are the skills required for this area than for digital media in general? And I ask this because I was on a block chain panel recently, and there was a panelist from a blockchain company and he said, “You know, when we advertise for developers, we don’t advertise for block chain developers ’cause it’s too new, we advertise for really good software developers, and then we train them.” So is it similar[Alexis: Yeah...] for VR and AR?

AM:

You know, it’s interesting. VR and AR very much borrows from a lot of different expertise. So, if you look at some of the best studios right now that are doing VR and AR, they actually have a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds. So if you’re doing something that’s more free realm, more of a location-based experience, you may need theater, people with theater backgrounds to be able to think about setting up the set, then building props and thinking about how people would go about the space. 

You definitely need gaming background for those game engines, doing that quickly, but you would also need the cinematography background as well to know how to best bring up a shot, especially for those VR movies, but it’s definitely this different area where you need a lot of different skill sets. So when we look to the future, we’ll definitely need developers that are kind of more of a mix between the cinema Hollywood background and the gaming background, and even visual effects as well. 

So, you know, when you think about all the big visual effects hubs in the world, from Vancouver to Atlanta to LA, you’ll definitely see... or even London as well, you’ll see a really great meld and need for that in VR since a lot of it is really a visual effects type of experience. So there’s a lot of need for a lot of different people. There’s going to be a lot of opportunity with it, within it, but yeah it’s definitely coming together. You’ll see a lot of different people for a specific company, from technology to cinema to gaming to theater, hum, even art background as well, humso you have a very diverse group working on one project.

LK: 

It’s interesting, it’s like, it’s from STEM to STEAM right, what is it science tech engineering and math but then you’ve got to add the A in there for art. Very important.

AM: 

Yeah, exactly, very important.

LK: 

Alexis Macklin of Greenlight Insights, thank you very much.

AM: 

Yeah, thank you so much for having me, it was a pleasure talking to you today.

Note: This material originally appeared at Trends

Paw Patrol: Taking a Portfolio Approach to Production

“You don’t know what’s going to be the next hit,” admits Ronnen Harary, CEO of Spin Master, the parent company to a basket full of toy and entertainment franchises, including PAW Patrol. Yes, even when you’re the company best known for a squad of CGI search and rescue dogs that are beloved the world over, you still need a backup plan.

Spin Master has been producing PAW Patrol since 2012 and, during this period, it has become the top show among preschoolers in the US. The show is available in 160 countries, and the franchise generates a large chunk of Spin Master’s annual revenue of over $1 billion.

Spin Master calls itself a ‘multi-platform children’s entertainment company.’ In many ways, the TV show—and most recently, its movie spin-off Mighty Pups—could be said to be an ad for the toys. New gadgets and outfits are constantly introduced, generating an almost non-stop cry of “I want one of those!” from kids around the world who don’t want to go on another day without the jetpack backpacks, the night-vision goggles or the remote-controlled drones that the puppies use to solve and fight crimes on their home turf of Adventure Bay and beyond.

And, as is usually the case in the world of entertainment, PAW Patrol’s runaway success was not anticipated. “Nobody expected it to resonate the way it did,” admitted Harary, speaking recently in Toronto. And it’s a good thing it did, because, after a 16-year run of growth, the company hit a wall. “We grew too fast,” he added. “We weren’t diversified enough, and we started seeing brackets,” referring to the accounting convention of using parentheses to identify losses in balance sheets.

The Company Reorganizes

After a few rounds of corporate restructuring and belt tightening, Harary and his partners made the decision to strategically diversify their portfolio. “We went for a variety of things, some of which would provide us with recurring revenue,” Harary explained. Spin Master then went on to a spree of acquisitions, buying Meccano (the snap together toy company) in 2013, followed by Etch A Sketch, in 2016, and plush toy manufacturer Gund, in the spring of 2018. Along the way, it also picked up a 60-year-old puzzle company as well as an Italian board game maker.

Whichever way the winds would blow in the unpredictable world of kids’ entertainment, Spin Master was covered. And the portfolio strategy certainly paid off. In 2018, Spin Master is one of the world’s largest toy companies, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Lego, Hasbro and Mattel. In addition to the massive PAW Patrol franchise, one of the keys to its success is its foothold in the lower-priced end of the toy market, which is populated by items such as miniature action figures, puzzles and small plush toys. As reported by Bloomberg News earlier this year: “Sales growth in the $10-and-under category is outpacing the overall toy market, with social media-fuelled crazes such as a line of miniature collectibles based on Hatchimals, tiny stuffed animals that ‘hatch’ from plastic eggs.” Yes, Hatchimals is a Spin Master product too.

The company's Chia Pet knock-off origins

The motto on the wall of Spin Master’s offices is ‘Spinnovation,’ a snap-together word that combines the company’s name with a reminder to always keep things fresh. While that may come across as a bit of a platitude, Harary insists that one of the company’s core values is to be open to ideas, wherever they come from, whether internally, at any and all staffing levels, or externally, i.e., from outside of the company. And much of Spin Master’s wealth has been built on ideas that originate elsewhere and are then finessed for global markets by the company. Its first product, in 1994, was the Earth Buddy, a creature inspired by the Chia Pets that sprouted ‘hair’ made of grass when watered. Harary received one as a gift from his grandmother who had visited Israel. The nylon-headed toy known as Grass Head had already sold a million units there, so she figured there could be an even bigger opportunity to be seized in the considerably larger Canadian market.

And just like that, Harary along with his University of Western Ontario friends, Anton Rabie and Ben Varadi, were in business. “My brother-in-law did the engineering and my sister did the manufacturing. We made 5,000 of them in time for Mother’s Day and sold them on the streets in Toronto. The problem was that we had about 4,500 left over.” Just as Harary was looking into transferring the unsold inventory to a closeout retailer, he managed to land a deal with K-Mart, which ordered half a million pieces. By the end of that year, 1 million Earth Buddies had been sold.
Partnerships pave the way for PAW Patrol

Now Spin Master was really in business and it charted its path by partnering with companies and inventors from around the globe, paying particular attention to Japan’s market, sometimes referred to as the ‘Silicon Valley of the toy business.’ Its first TV-related project was with the animated action adventure series Bakugan Battle Brawlers. For it, the company partnered with Japan’s Sega Toys and subsequently negotiated the licensing rights for the US market. The franchise—based on collectible metallic cards and magnetic marbles that shape shift into battling action figures—is aimed at 5- to 9-year-olds. Harary has estimated the value of the TV show and the toy line at about $1 billion. “What if we could do that for preschoolers?,” he wondered.

The Birth of the Paw Patrol Pups

So, around 2011, he put out a call for ideas and one of those who answered the call was Keith Chapman, the creator of Bob the Builder. Chapman came up with the idea of a pack of dogs on rescue missions. Spin Master then put together a team of animators, writers, producers, directors and voice actors—using almost exclusively Canadian talent. The resulting show was originally broadcast on TVO in Ontario and Nickelodeon in the US. A subsequent deal with Netflix and an official PAW Patrol channel on YouTube took the show to kids around the world.

And it wasn’t just the kids who loved it. Parents loved it also. People tended to respond to the PAW Patrol pups’ distinct personalities, with different people relating to different pups. Harary believes the pacing of the show also contributed to making it stand out. “It’s different from other preschooler shows. It’s faster paced and more exciting, and it doesn’t talk down to kids.”

With a hit on their hands, Harary and his partners at Spin Master, all well versed in international licensing arrangements for toys and related items, got the PAW Patrol merchandizing machine fired up. Harary points out that licensed products make up 26% of the toy industry—a $20 billion annual industry in the US and a $2 billion industry in Canada. Not surprisingly, an extensive line of merchandise followed: everything from PAW Patrol pyjamas and bed sheets to piñatas and paper plates for birthday parties. “And we developed our own shows out of necessity, too, to capture some of that 26% market share,” revealed Harary.

When asked if the company perceived technology—particularly handheld technology—as posing a threat by taking a bite out of physical toy and merchandise market shares, he was quick to respond: “It hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it’s going to happen. There’s a power in physicality. What’s profound about technology is the way we use it to market to kids. They’re not watching TV. They’re watching YouTube, they’re watching influencer and unboxing videos, and that’s how we reach out to them now.”

Note: This material originally appeared on Trends

Kids' Content & Competition in the Global Streaming Market

Content for the kids’ market is in its most dynamic phase ever. In addition to the broadcast channels, there are new opportunities with streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Kids watch one thing and the next thing you know they’ve got hours of programming served up with just seconds in between the end of one show and the beginning of the next.

Other new developments include the direct to consumer subscription offering on its way from Disney in 2019, and the companies around the world building kid-focused channels directly on YouTube that are racking up hundreds of millions to billions of views with channels featuring everything from animation to educational programming to singalong nursery rhymes. And that’s just linear entertainment. And we haven’t even talked about the competition from games and apps that comprise a global market valued at over $100 billion.

All of this begs the question: What are the ways in which producers of kids’ content can establish and differentiate themselves in such a highly competitive marketplace?

For JJ Johnson of Sinking Ship Entertainment, the guest on this episode of the Now & Next podcast, it’s all about doing what others are not. “We never think about what people are looking for”, says Johnson. “We think about what we want to say, and that has always been the driving force.”

On this episode of Now & Next, Sinking Ship’s JJ Johnson on taking the road less travelled, complete with the potholes encountered along the way, and building a kids’ entertainment company with shows in over 100 countries, translated into more than 50 languages.

Note: The transcript of this interview can be found below

Transcript:

LK: Leora Kornfeld
JJ: JJ Johnson

LK:

Okay, JJ. You have said, the quote was almost verbatim, "We don't make any shows that we are not terrified of doing." I just wanna know if this elevated level of fear or stress is a good business strategy.

JJ:

I think it's a good business strategy. I'm not sure that it's good for your life, but I think it's important to keep pushing yourself and reminding yourself that you're only as good as your last show, and so part of that is pushing yourself out of your comfort zone, whether it's with the storytelling that you're doing or the technology that you're using. I think it's imperative to be a little bit scared, otherwise I think you might be falling back on an easier path, and I just think, in this day and age, easy is not what tends to do well.

LK:

How did you come to that realization, that being sort of on-edge and filled with ... I don't know if fear is the right way to put it, but filled with that sort of, let's call it, positive stress, how did you come to that conclusion?

JJ:

I think, truthfully, probably, as I've gotten friendly with some of the network heads, or at least started to hear their perspective in terms of when pitches were coming in or whether they were getting kind of delivered the same thing from certain companies, it just started to fill in that other side of the equation, which is those people that you need to come on side with your idea, and then give them enough ammunition to sell it upwards, that it's not just their decision. More and more, these are becoming coalitions or bigger groups that need to decide whether a show's moving forward, and so part of being able to do that, I think, is to give them something tangible to sell to their teams, and a lot of that comes from being the first to do something, or pushing stories that no one else would do, or trying a new technique that people haven't done before.

I think just not playing it safe, which, I think, for a time, is what they were seeing a lot of, or, for Canada specifically, I think, a push to creating things that were universal, and by getting ever more universal, started to lose their edge or had no edge at all, but they are appealing to everyone or aiming for the lowest common denominator. It became a little bit more like pablum or filler and not cutting-edge programming.

LK:

Yeah, I often hear people say, "Oh, what are so and so looking for?" whether it's Netflix, or Nick Junior, or whoever, and there's, like you say, that desire to figure out what it is they want, and then to deliver that, as opposed to a differentiation strategy.

JJ:

We never think about what people are looking for. We think about what we wanna say, and that has always been the driving force. Once we know that, once we know what we're willing to talk about, knowing that the process is painful and that we're willing to live with that idea for five years, then it's really about finding the partner that agrees with that message. Spinning your wheels in terms of thinking what someone wants, I think, is a recipe for disaster.

LK:

Speaking of that ability to really stick to the vision that you have, I wanna talk about your show Annedroids. That could not have been easy for you to dig your heels in with the US networks who, I think, across the board, said to you, "We like the show, but it can't have a little girl in the lead. It's got to have a little boy."

JJ:

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that was definitely a challenging time. When I get nos, and we get nos more often than we get yesses, oftentimes, I try to look for the silver lining in those, and most often, for us, at least, a no is because that thing has not been tried before, and so I know inherently that, as long as we can push it through somewhere else, it's going to be something different, because everyone else said that they wouldn't do, so it's just trying to find that path to get it made, because you know that everyone else has probably accepted that no and not pushed forward. I would say Sinking Ship, if nothing else, is a little bit petulant, and doesn't like to be told that it can't do something, and so we tend to fight harder.

Because this was an issue that I couldn't see why it would be an issue until we started to get nos and until networks were unusually honest that it was because it was a girl lead, we realized that problem was because there wasn't examples of a girl as a lead in a science-based show. Because there wasn't examples of success with that, that's where they were able to continue this fallacy that it doesn't work, and so it became a battle cry for us to prove them wrong.

LK:

You had the first mover pain.

JJ:

Yes, for sure.

LK:

It's funny, what you described. You know how they say tragedy plus time equals comedy, so I guess your equation is something like network no plus time plus Sinking Ship equals yes?

JJ:

Yeah, for sure. We talk about this, honestly, internally. We were lucky, at that time, that we were in production on another show, and so we didn't need that show to go right away. Honestly, at that point, I think we had 60 or 70 people on staff, that had been with us from the very beginning. I worry that, if we needed those resources then, would we have caved? It's something that I genuinely think about. It's always also become part of our strategy to make sure that we have enough going on that we will never become responsive to just one line of thinking or one set of notes.

LK:

Where did that hunch come from, that kids themselves wanted to see things other than what they were already getting on other screens?

JJ:

Good question. I think, for me, kids start off as kind of perfect people. When you work with kids, and I was lucky at the start of my career to work with a lot of really young kids, they are kind of these idealized, perfect little people that have a really strong sense of morality, of what's right and what's wrong, and over time, they learn to be divisive, and to not like things, or judge people, and so I think we've always tried to find that alley that still speaks to kids as these bright little beings that hopefully have shown an alternate view of the world, where it's not necessarily just about famous or acquisition of wealth, that there are other ways to live your life, that can be a little bit of a counter-message to everything else that's out there.

I would say, at its core, the production team, here, and the creative team, here, did not live the lives of what a lot of the shows out there, for kids, depict, and so it's very easy for us to want to fight for something that speaks more to our younger selves than what's currently available. Sorry, does that make sense?

LK:

Yeah. Does part of it have to do with the fact that you finance either a lot or all of your own pilots, so you can run your own market research and tweak things that way?

JJ:

Yeah, I mean, I think you never want to be beholden to one person. I mean, we try our best to not go into development deals with networks, because I think, also, it's just a basic psychology game. Once they know that they have you and you can't go somewhere else, then I think it's easy to fall down their pile, whereas, if you're kind of showing everyone, all at the same time, it breeds a little bit more of a sense of competition or that there's a chance that you'll end up somewhere else.

At the end of the day, I think, execs, their core job is to get that next big show or tap into that next great talent, and so to be under their thumb, or for them to feel that they've already got you, I think, takes away some of the fun and some of your maneuverability to jump ship if you find that, creatively, you're not on the same wavelength.

LK:

When you do the pilots in-house, as you do, do you bring in a little focus group of kids to give you feedback?

JJ:

No, I have a hate-hate relationship with research, in that I've had so much research, including that boys won't watch a girl lead, thrown in my face, that I don't put a lot of stock in it. I think that people can generate the research that they wanna generate. I think you need to stick with your gut. If you feel that this is the right message or that this message deserves to be out there, then you need to push that through. What's interesting with Annedroids is that they've since done research that little girls and boys ... They did a study in Germany, Canada, and the UK, and they showed two episodes to boys and girls that hadn't watched the show, and before they watched the show, they asked them what they wanted to be, and afterwards.

Before, girls were singers, and actors, and what you would kind of typically think. After the show, and this is just after two episodes, I think it was 30 or 40% said they wanted to be engineers or create robots. They had asked the boys what they thought girls could grow up to become, and it fell down similar lines. After they watched the show, they saw this empowered girl, who was fearless in her knowledge, and suddenly that changed their view. It's such an easy reminder. I think it's all obvious to us that kids need to see it to be it. They need to see iconic characters that they can relate to or that represent themselves, and it's our job to give it to them. As producers, it's our job to see where there is absence of those messages and fit them in.

LK:

I was reading that Mattel is doing this thing with Barbie, because, I mean, when I was a little kid, Barbie, as a role model, first of all, she had the impossible physique. Nobody's built like Barbie, but all of the outfits were like, "Here she is as a waitress or a flight attendant," which, in those days, was called stewardess, or, "Here she is as a secretary," but now they're doing this project that teaches kids you can be female and intelligent, and you can succeed as a CEO, or as a scientist, or things like that. It's very much in the zeitgeist right now, isn't it?

JJ:

Yeah, I mean, I think we have so much further to go. I'm thrilled that gender diversity is something that's hitting everyone's mind. Obviously, ethnic diversity needs to be on that heel. For us, it's also economic diversity. Just showing wealth on screen, or people that don't worry about money, or don't have that challenge, I think, is unfair. I guess the next step for us, too, is neurological diversity, showing kids that actually have traumas and hurts, and trying to get some empathy that not everyone has it easy growing up. It is a step in the right direction, but there's a lot of room and potential to reach audiences that I think are still wildly underserved.

LK:

Now, there is an article about Canadian companies producing kids programming, that appeared not that long ago in The Globe and Mail. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on it. The headline was something like ‘Why Canada's Reputation as a Kids TV Production Powerhouse is Under Threat’, and the article talked about how there have been these changes in CRTC regulations that give broadcasters more flexibility in the way that they spend their money on Canadian shows, so rather than having to be mandated to spend money in a specific genre, they could spread that money out across different genres.

The argument put forth in the article was that Canada's reputation, as a result of that, as a producer of top tier kids programming, is somehow being affected, and not in a good way. Of course, there's a lot of other factors in there, not just funding guidelines but the way that kids are consuming media is very different. They have a zillion entertainment options, games, YouTubes, apps, mobile, all that kind of stuff. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the claims made in that article and what you're seeing out there.

JJ:

Sure, I mean, I guess, as a baseline, I don't think that any producer can complain when there are this many billion-dollar companies getting into the streaming service, whether it's Apple, or Facebook, or YouTube, or Netflix, or Amazon, all of them spending huge amounts of money. I think Canada, or at least how we've always looked at Canada, should always be a wonderful home base and a place where you can take some risks and get a piece of the pie, but it should never be the whole pie. We're not competing just in Canada. We're competing globally, and we should finance globally.

If that means that you need to change your strategies, in terms of what you're producing, to attract a global audience, and if that means that you need to maybe make some riskier content, then that should be the direction that we go, but there's more money in the system than there's ever been. I think, for me, where we're proud, as a company, is that we have a lot of networks coming to us, who are interested in our producing power, nothing to do with whether we have access to tax credits or whether we can make CMF-able. They wanna come to us because we're particularly adept at live action, CG-blended shows.

I think that's where everyone needs to position themselves. These companies are so large and have so much money that we cannot rely on the financial advantage that we may have once had, that now we need to be competitive with our content, and that means that we need to start taking some more risk.

LK:

At the same time, I saw a video of a talk that you did. I think you were talking about This is Daniel Cook, so that was one of the earlier shows you did, and I think you said you did-

JJ:

That was the first.

LK:

The budget was really quite modest. Wasn't it 13 episodes for, what, five-, six- hundred thousand?

JJ:

Yeah, and I think we had to defer half of that just because we weren't financed for the full amount. No, I mean, that was our first show. I remember the day after we wrapped. I was directing it and producing it with Blair and Matt, who are our business partners here, and the next day I had to go back to my waiting job, because there was no money coming in, because we had waived everything. We were lucky that Disney, in the US, picked it up, and once they picked that show up, all these other pilots that we had produced, just to kind of keep active and keep our minds open, suddenly got picked up as well. That American shine is wonderful. You just need to, once you have it, try to use it to its fullest.

LK:

The show, that was your first show, and it made it to Oprah.

JJ:

It made it to Oprah.

LK:

How does that happen?

JJ:

Oh, it was ridiculous. I mean, it was such a crazy experience, in that, A, that show was the simplest thing imaginable. It was following around a kid and seeing a kid as a real kid. Our inexperience was our greatest asset, so we didn't cut out the bad bits where he was kind of a brat sometimes or said something nonsensical, because we thought it was very funny, and so that show came off as very authentic. Yeah, it caught the eye of Oprah. I'll always remember, 'cause, after the first season, we made it our mission that we would only do PR things that appealed to kids, that we weren't just kind of looking at this as an interesting little character, and so we decided that we would always ask Daniel if it was more of an adult opportunity.

We asked him if he wanted to go on Oprah, and he said, "No." Everyone froze. He's like, "I don't sing opera." We're like, "No, it's Oprah. It's a TV show." He was like, "Oh, yeah, that's fine. I'll go on Oprah." I mean, it was a surreal moment to be there, watching him on the stage with her. Just thinking about it now still gives me chills. Yeah, it was incredible, but it was a whirlwind, as the last couple of years have been, truthfully.

LK:

I bet. You were there in the audience?

JJ:

Yeah, watching him co-host with Oprah. They were doing interviews with other interesting kids. He just held his own.

I owe him so much. When I met him, it was at a particularly low point in my life, and he was just this innocent little spirit, and was so funny, and he got me out of my funk and got me excited about making content for kids. That has persisted, and I think often about a lot of the original inspirations for what that show would be are still infused in the shows we make now, which is trying to be as honest as we can with this audience, because they deserve it.

LK:

I was gonna ask, where is Daniel Cook now?

JJ:

Yeah, so he's in law school. He has an eye on politics, still wants to be Prime Minister, and he works here in our accounting team over the summers to make some extra money. He's just a really brilliant ... I wanted to say kid, but guy, who's kept this kind of unique view on the world. I have no doubt that, if he decides he wants to be Prime Minister, he will be. 

And he's not the only one here. We have kids from Odd Squad that are now going to university, that come here for either internships or part-time. We have some of our kids that wanna be writers and directors. One of our kids, Jadiel, who played Nick on Annedroids, has written two scripts for Dino Dan. For me, 'cause you spend so much time with them, you can't help but become a little bit familial. It's so nice that they obviously had such a great experience where they wanna stay hanging around, and I can see that future, where they're running this company, having grown up in it.

LK:

And you're Uncle JJ, right?

JJ:

That's it, 100%, but I would love that. They're really interesting little people. Watching them kind of develop, and seeing what was in their characters then and how it's morphed or evolved, is ... I don't know, it's fascinating.

LK:

But it's kind of like that show 28 Up, which I'm sure you're familiar with. What did they say? Show me the boy at seven, and I'll show you the man at 28, kind of like that.

JJ:

I mean... They're way more sophisticated than we give them credit for. They have an absolute aesthetic, and they wanna be talked to at their level and not talked down to or just sold things to.

LK:

Not only that, unlike other generations, they know very well how to swipe and hit next, and hit forward, and hit delete. That's a whole different game.

JJ:

Yeah, and that, as producers, we need to up our game and meet them at that level. This is not an industry for the meek. This is not an industry that deserves to be overly protected. We need to stand on our own. We've got an immense creative talent pool here, but they need to be given direction, and that direction needs to be more challenging and to be more upfront. Canada is such an awesome place, that we need to represent that internationally, those morals and those ideals.

To me, that's what CMF and all of those funds and our network partners here are for, is to try to find a way to craft that message and make it appealing to the rest of the world.

LK:

I was watching ... It could've been a trailer or something on your YouTube channel, and it showed how there's a number of your shows that have been, I don't know if they were, translated or overdubbed into all sorts of languages, German, French, Japanese, just because you have shows that on in over a hundred territories. I'm just wondering, when you're developing shows, the extent to which you're thinking about global markets and what works globally.

JJ:

Yeah, you're right. It's something like, I think, 50 plus languages, and continue to get renewed. To me, the first pickup is important, absolutely, but when they're renewed for another four years, that's when you know that you've created something that has a chance at being evergreen or at least that the message is something that's resonating, because it didn't just hold its own for that little period of time, that it's something that, multiple generations, they think it's going to appeal to.

I think there is definitely a universality to kids, in that they are looking to be excited about their world, and they're looking to see people on screen who feel and look like them. In that level, I think there is definitely certain characteristics, that you can put in any show, that's going to appeal to a lot of kids. I think we're always trying to create shows that don't look or feel like other shows out there, and when you can do that, whether it's a girl scientist onAnnedroids, or whether it's four kids in the future trying to save the last elephant, or whether it's a little girl who loves dinosaurs, if you can find your own lane, where you don't have to compete with other people, because they're simply not doing it, it tends to make it easier than to get your shows in multiple countries.

LK:

With all of these new screens and platforms, viewing behaviors, and also thinking about global audiences, what do you see as the big challenges for producers right now?

JJ:

I would say to differentiate yourself, I think, trying to take a deeper look at your creative talent pool and see how they're being managed. Are you stepping in the way or are you bringing potentially antiquated ideas to the table, when it needs to be cutting-edge and leaning towards the future? I think that's a hard thing to do, I think, to take a step back and be like, "Have you tweaked up your team to be different?" If you look around the room and you see people that look and sound like you, I would hasten to guess that what you're creating isn't necessarily the most cutting-edge. It's about opening yourself up to different voices. We are certainly trying to do that with our writers and directors, not going back to the same group of people, constantly asking ourselves how we can change things, and listening to our cast. 

I mean, we're particularly lucky that the age groups that we are producing for are our kids on set, and so, when you give them a seat at the table too, and actually ask them about these lines, and do they make sense, and do they like the script, and what do they like and don't like, and then take that input and actually put it into your show, it only strengthens the project.

Note: This material originally appeared on Trends