Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/1109293
1 2 P E R S P E C T I V E | M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 9 E D I T O R ' S N O T E Streaming Scenery B Y D A V I D M O R O N G , E D I T O R Most of the content for PERSPECTIVE comes directly from designers, either through my approaching them, or they reach out to inquire about submitting an article, but some pieces are pitched by publicists, either for specific films and shows, or tied to a production company. A publicist working with Netflix and pitching three or four shows she thought would be a good fit for the magazine recently asked what my limit is on content from any one network. I was caught off guard, I always consider the project, the design work done on it, and whether it would be of interest to readers, not where the content will play. But the question made me want to look back at the recent issues, and forward in the publication pipeline to see how the articles break down by outlet. The boom in content from streaming networks has led to a place where currently production is very HULU roughly divided into thirds, with one third of scripted shows produced for streaming outlets (think Netflix and Amazon), one third for broadcast networks (including FX, AMC, TNT and the major networks) and another third for premium cable (Showtime, HBO, etc.). The scorecard for shows featured in PERSPECTIVE over four issues, two past, this one and the next, is streaming outlets 7, (Netflix 4, Amazon 2, Hulu 1) broadcast 4, (Paramount 2, Disney 1 and AMC 1) and premium cable 3 (HBO 2, Showtime 1). So the streaming networks have a significantly larger footprint than their share of production. Given the small sample size, it may just be chance, or they may be more aggressive in their promotion. What is clear in the articles is that, like me, the designers pay little attention to the outlet they are attached to, many don't even mention it. What concerns them is the work they do and the people they do it with.