For years, we’ve talked about the “creator economy” as if it exists somewhere outside of Hollywood. That distinction is collapsing. The recent partnership between TikTok and Tubi isn’t just another creator initiative or talent program. It’s more significant. It’s a signal that the infrastructure of the entertainment industry is being rebuilt quietly, efficiently, and right in front of us. And if you understand what’s happening here, you begin to see something I’ve been talking about for a long time through the STORYSMART® framework: The future of media belongs to those who originate, control, and develop their story IP—before anyone else does. The Headline Is Misleading—The Shift Is Not On its face, the announcement is straightforward. TikTok and Tubi are launching an incubator to help creators develop long-form series. Creators will lead the creative direction, TikTok will help identify talent, and Tubi will provide support and distribution. That sounds like a program. It’s not. It’s a system. What we’re witnessing is the formalization of a pipeline that has been developing organically for years: Short-form → Audience → Proof of Concept → Long-form → Monetization That pipeline used to be fragmented. It is now being institutionalized and that changes everything. A “New” Studio System Is Being Built To understand why this matters, it helps to zoom out. The traditional studio system operated like this. Studios sourced or acquired IP. Studios then developed the projects internally. They controlled production and distribution. Creators were hired to execute. In that model, power flowed downstream from the studio. What we’re seeing now is the inversion of that model. Today creators originate IP. They build audiences directly. Platforms identify what’s working and then invite creators upstream into long-form development. That’s not a minor shift. That’s a structural reorganization of the industry. Tubi isn’t just licensing content. It’s building a development pipeline fed by creators who already have validated ideas and audiences. They have built a following and are consistently engaging with that audience. TikTok isn’t just distributing content. It’s functioning as a global story testing engine. Put those together, and you don’t have a partnership. You have a modern studio system. Short-Form is the New Development Slate One of the biggest misconceptions creators still have is thinking of their short form content as the “end” product. It’s not. It’s the beginning. What used to be a script, a pitch deck, or a sizzle reel is now a feed. Every post is a test. Every series of posts is a proof of concept. Every engaged audience is a signal that there is an appetite for more. It is also validation of episodic entertainment. In Hollywood, development executives used to ask: Does this story work? Is there an audience? Can this scale and will we make money? Today, those questions are being answered in real time, publicly, on platforms like TikTok. The difference is speed and data. Instead of spending months developing a concept in a vacuum, creators are now essentially iterating ideas in public. They are refining tone, structure, and format. They are building an audience alongside the story, if you will. By the time a platform like Tubi gets involved, the risk profile has already changed. The story isn’t theoretical anymore. It’s proven. From Feed to Franchise This is where it gets interesting. Because once you understand that short form is development, you start to see the next phase: Episodic storytelling is the bridge from feed to franchise. Creators who succeed in this new ecosystem aren’t just posting content. They’re building narrative continuity. Think about it. They’re creating recurring characters, ongoing storylines, thematic consistency, and audience expectation. In other words, they’re doing what television has always done, just in shorter bursts. And that’s the key. The transition from short-form to long-form isn’t a leap. It’s an extension. When done correctly, a long-form series is simply a more expansive version of something that already works. That’s why this Tubi + TikTok model makes so much sense. It’s not about “teaching” creators how to make long-form content. It’s about identifying creators who are already thinking episodically and giving them the resources to scale. The Shift from Dependency to Leverage There’s another layer here that matters just as much. For years, creators have been dependent on platforms. Algorithms dictated visibility. Platforms controlled monetization. Distribution was the gate. That dynamic is shifting. What this partnership signals are that platforms are now competing for creators who bring something valuable to the table. They are looking for a built-in audience, fresh IP, and proven engagement. That’s leverage. All of this aligns directly with a core principle of our STORYSMART® philosophy. Don’t build your story on someone else’s platform. Build your story so platforms come to you. To be clear, that doesn’t mean ignoring platforms. It means using them strategically. I’m a big fan of the idea of non-dependent distribution. I’m inherently cynical about big monopolies and technology that touches us everywhere we go. But there’s a difference between being platform-dependent and being platform-leveraged. Creators who understand that distinction will be the ones who benefit most from these new models that are being pioneered. The STORYSMART® Lens: Why This Matters Everything we teach through STORYSMART® is built around a simple idea: your story is an asset. It is not content. It is not just a post or a one-off project. Your story is an asset that should be treated like any other asset. Like any asset, its value is determined by ownership, structure, how it is developed and how it is positioned in the market. What this Tubi + TikTok initiative validates is that the market is now actively seeking well-developed story assets originated by creators. But most creators aren’t prepared. They have content. They have audience. They even have momentum. But what they often lack is a clear story architecture and well-organized, copyright-protected source material with clear rights clarity and smart development strategy. That’s where the gap is. And that gap is exactly what the STORYSMART® framework is designed to solve. Because when a platform comes calling, the question becomes are you ready to scale your story or are you just reacting to the opportunity? The STORYSMART® Media Mogul Mindset This is where mindset becomes strategy. The creators who will win in this new environment are the ones who stop thinking like content creators and start thinking like media companies. That means treating short form as development, not output. It means building stories intentionally, not accidentally. Most importantly, it means understanding right and ownership from day one and structuring projects for long-term value. It’s the difference between “I have a following” and “I have an IP pipeline.” That’s the STORYSMART® Media Mogul Mindset. And it’s no longer optional. Because the industry is moving in that direction with or without you. Why This Moment Matters Right Now Timing is everything. We’re at a point where several forces are converging. Streaming platforms need cost-efficient, proven content. Creator platforms have massive talent pools and data. Audiences are already conditioned for episodic, bite-sized storytelling and technology has democratized access to quality production. That convergence creates opportunity. But it also creates competition. Because as more creators enter this space, the differentiator won’t be who can create content. It will be who can develop story. That’s a higher bar. And it’s where professionals such as filmmakers, journalists, and writers have an edge if they adapt. The Big Picture So no, this story isn’t really about TikTok or Tubi. It’s about the emergence of a new system where development starts in public, validation happens in real time, and platforms act as accelerators, not gatekeepers. Creators who understand story and smart deal structure will rise to the top. Hollywood isn’t going to disappear. It is decentralizing. And in doing so, it is creating more entry points than ever before. But access without strategy doesn’t lead to ownership. And ownership is where the real value is created. If you’re a creator, a filmmaker, a public figure, or someone sitting on a story that matters, this moment should feel both exciting and clarifying. Because the path is becoming more visible. Start with your story. Develop it intentionally. Build your audience. Structure your IP. Then scale. That’s how you go from feed to franchise. And that’s how you operate in a world where the new studio system isn’t coming. It’s already here. With the right media lens, you can see it hiding in plain sight.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

In 1989, something unusual happened in Hollywood. An actor who was already one of the biggest stars in the world decided to take less money. That actor was Jack Nicholson. The film was Batman. And the role was the Joker. Nicholson could have demanded a massive paycheck. At the time, he was already commanding salaries around $10 million per film, extraordinary money in the late 1980s. Instead, he negotiated a different kind of deal. He took a lower upfront salary and asked for something far more interesting: A share of the upside. Specifically, Nicholson negotiated participation in the film’s gross box office, along with revenue from licensing and merchandising tied to the character and the film. While estimates vary, the consensus is that his deal ultimately earned him somewhere between $60 million and $90 million. For a film released in 1989, that was staggering. But the bigger story isn’t just how much money Nicholson made. The real lesson is how he thought about value. Nicholson wasn’t just negotiating as an actor. He was negotiating like a partner in a story. And that mindset of understanding the economic value of storytelling offers a masterclass for anyone working in the creative economy today. A Time When Batman Was a Risk It’s easy to forget how uncertain the project looked at the time. It was a different world then. It wasn’t a foregone conclusion that the film would be successful. Today, Batman is one of the most valuable franchises in entertainment history. But in the late 1980s, the character’s most prominent screen appearance was the campy 1960s television series starring Adam West that I watched in syndication growing up in 70s and early 80s. The darker, cinematic version we now associate with Batman didn’t yet exist. It was more “cartoonish” and cheesier. Rebooting Batman for the big screen was a risk. The studio taking that gamble was Warner Bros., and the director attached to reinvent the character was Tim Burton, who at the time had directed Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, was considered talented but unconventional. The film was a major bet. But Nicholson understood something important about bets. They become less risky when the right people attach themselves to them. He understood the leverage he had, as well as impact his involvement would have in the production. When Nicholson agreed to play the Joker, the project immediately gained credibility. His involvement signaled to audiences, investors, and the industry that this wasn’t just another comic book adaptation. It was an event. That’s the power of attaching talent to a project. Certain names bring legitimacy. They bring attention. They bring marketing gravity. And they often bring audiences. In other words, they bring financial value. It is what they mean by “bankable name.” Nicholson knew that his name would dramatically increase the film's chances of success. So instead of treating the project as just another acting job, he negotiated accordingly. Like a vested partner. The Bet That Paid Off The gamble worked. Batman became a global blockbuster, grossing more than $400 million worldwide, an enormous number at the time. It launched a new era of comic book films and helped establish the modern superhero franchise model. But perhaps even more importantly, it helped unlock the long-term value of the Batman intellectual property. That value didn’t end with one movie. It became a massive money-producing story franchise with all kinds of derivatives springing from that success. Over the decades that followed, Batman became a massive portfolio of storytelling assets: films, animated series, television shows, merchandise, licensing deals, games, streaming content, and more. The cumulative value of that franchise now reaches into the multi-billions. That is the power of story-driven intellectual property. It compounds. Nicholson understood that dynamic before most people in Hollywood did. By negotiating participation in the story's success, not just his performance, he aligned himself with the long-term economics of the franchise. In effect, Nicholson traded short-term certainty for long-term participation. And he won. He won big. Why This Deal Changed Hollywood Nicholson’s deal didn’t just make headlines. It helped change how creative talent thinks about compensation. For A-listers, it became a template. It impacted the talent market like how a big free-agent deal in baseball impacts other players entering free agency. The market is always moving. The entertainment industry is no different. For decades, actors were largely paid salaries. The studio took the financial risk and the studio captured most of the upside. Nicholson’s agreement demonstrated something different. He learned a lot from his One Flew Over Cookies Nest back-end deal. “Do I look like the kind of clown that can start a movement?” the Joker once asked. Well, Nicholson wasn’t crazy or joking. He started something. Looking back now, it is a masterclass lesson for us. When key talent contributes meaningfully to a project's success, sharing in the upside makes sense. It aligns incentives. It rewards creativity. And it encourages collaboration. It creates more “ownership” in an agency and incentive context. Today, backend participation is common for top actors, directors, and producers. It’s now an expected part of major deals in Hollywood. But deals like that didn’t appear out of nowhere. They evolved because people like Nicholson demonstrated that creative talent could think like partners, not just hired hands. That shift changed the economics of filmmaking, and it reinforced a fundamental truth about storytelling businesses: The story is the asset. All who contribute to it should share in the rewards. Why Story IP Matters More Than Ever This idea becomes even clearer when you look at the broader business context of the entertainment industry today. Major studios aren’t valuable just because of their production capabilities. Their true value often lies in their libraries of intellectual property, the characters, stories, and worlds they own and control. Those catalogs have generated revenue across multiple platforms for decades. Smart stewardship of IP is a critical cornerstone of how creators should be approaching their work in our modern media landscape. Anything otherwise would be malpractice in my mind. While the world is buzzing about two other letters – “A” and “I” – Artificial Intelligence, the smart folks are focused on two letters that are much more important – “I” and “P”. Intellectual Property. Big catalogs of IP are one of the reasons companies like Warner Bros. Discovery remain attractive targets for mergers and acquisitions. Their balance sheets contain something incredibly valuable: vast collections of storytelling IP that can be exploited to create wealth for decades to come. Every time a classic property is rebooted, adapted, streamed, licensed, or merchandised, the value of those assets continues to grow. Batman is one of those crown jewels. And Nicholson recognized that long before most people were talking about “IP portfolios.” He understood that when you participate in a great story, you’re participating in an asset that can live far beyond a single production. It can live on well past you. It can create profound generational wealth. I think about that a lot. A kid from Missouri drew a cartoon mouse and built an empire that now carries my Mizzou basketball and football games. That is the power of creative IP. The Lesson for Creators Today Jack Nicholson’s deal offers several lessons for creators working today, especially independent filmmakers, writers, and producers. First, creative contribution has economic value. Actors, writers, directors, editors, and producers all contribute to the success of a project. When their work meaningfully improves the story, it increases the value of the final asset. Second, attaching talent changes everything. Projects gain legitimacy when respected collaborators join them. Investors feel more confident. Audiences pay attention. Momentum builds. This dynamic plays out constantly in the film industry. The right director, writer, or actor can transform how a project is perceived. Third, shared upside creates alignment. When everyone involved in a project contributes to its success, they show up differently. The energy shifts from “this is my job” to “this is our project.” That difference can be enormous. And that principle brings me to something I’m experiencing firsthand. Building a Film the Nicholson Way I’m currently directing a documentary film that I believe has the potential to reach audiences meaningfully. Like many independent projects, it’s being produced on a modest budget. But one of the ways we’re approaching the project is directly inspired by the philosophy behind Nicholson’s deal. Instead of trying to pay everyone large upfront fees, which would be impossible on an independent budget, we’ve structured agreements that combine modest compensation with generous backend participation. In other words, we’re sharing the upside. That approach allowed us to attach talented collaborators who believe in the story and want to help bring it to life at the highest level. The goal is simple: Produce a film that looks like it cost ten or twenty times what it did. That becomes possible when people care deeply about the outcome. When everyone has a stake in the project's success, the creative energy multiplies. The Philosophy Behind STORYSMART ® This idea of shared upside isn’t just a tactic for one film. It’s part of a broader philosophy that guides the work we’re building with STORYSMART ® . Storytelling is fundamentally collaborative. Great stories are rarely created by a single person working alone. They are built by teams of talented people bringing their skills together. When those collaborators share in the story's success, everyone wins. Creators feel valued. Projects attract stronger talent, and the resulting stories become more powerful. Jack Nicholson may not have used the language of “story IP strategy” when he negotiated his Batman deal, but he clearly understood the underlying economics. He recognized that the true value wasn’t just the paycheck for playing the Joker. The real value was the story itself and the franchise it could become. By betting on that story, Nicholson didn’t just play the Joker. He rewrote the rules of creative economics, and more than three decades later, the lesson still holds. When everyone shares the upside, everyone cares more about the outcome. That simple idea may be one of the most powerful tools storytellers have. About the Storytelling for ALL ® Newsletter The Storytelling for ALL ® LinkedIn Newsletter is a biweekly newsletter examining how stories are developed, protected, and brought to life in today’s evolving storytelling economy. Every other week, I explore the creative, ethical, and economic forces shaping books, films, documentaries, and other story work through the lens of development, rights, collaboration, and long-term value. Written primarily for creators and collaborators, the newsletter also serves as a resource for story sources who want to understand how their true stories move from lived experience to finished work and how better structuring early leads to better outcomes later. For deeper studio thinking, tools, and updates, The STORYSMART ® Way is our monthly email newsletter for members of the Storytelling for ALL ® community. About Our STORYSMART ® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.

A Storytelling Geography Lesson Developed in New York. Set in St. Louis. Shot in Georgia. St. Louis, MO March 1, 2026 - When DTF St. Louis premieres today, the first question many people in St. Louis are asking isn’t about the plot. It’s about geography. “Why didn’t they shoot it here?” It’s a fair question. The title carries the city’s name. The setting signals Midwest specificity. For a region working to rebuild its production economy, it feels like a missed opportunity. But that reaction, while understandable, conflates three very different decisions that modern producers make. Story may be local. Production is not. DTF St. Louis is a clean case study in how contemporary projects move through the system. The underlying inspiration began in New York, a true-crime narrative centered on a dentist’s murder trial. That intellectual property was developed for television, reshaped, retitled, and ultimately relocated narratively to St. Louis. Then, when it came time to execute the production at scale, the series was shot in Georgia. New York. St. Louis. Georgia. Three geographies. Three separate strategic decisions: where the story originated, where the narrative would live creatively, and where the show would physically be made. In today’s industry, those rarely align. That isn’t dysfunction. It’s discipline. Projects evolve under commercial pressure. A long-form article becomes a development vehicle. A true-crime framework becomes a reimagined limited series. A coastal story becomes a Midwestern one because the tone, brand positioning, and thematic resonance work better there. Nothing about that process is accidental. IP is fluid. Development is iterative. Titles are market-tested. Settings are chosen for psychological effect as much as authenticity. And when a project finally receives a green light, the last decision — where to physically produce it — is not made on civic loyalty. It is made on math. That is the part of the conversation we tend to skip. If we want to understand why a series set in St. Louis was produced in Georgia, we must stop treating production as a cultural statement and start treating it as what it is: a capital allocation decision. The Evolution of the IP: From True Crime to Limited Series When I look at DTF St. Louis, I don’t just see a provocative title (I had to google “what does DTF mean?”) and a new limited series. I see a case study in how intellectual property moves through the development pipeline. The seed of this project was not Midwestern at all. It began as a New York true-crime story, a long-form magazine piece about a dentist accused of murder, wrapped in layers of betrayal, secrecy, and psychological ambiguity. That kind of storytelling source material is catnip for premium television. It has built-in stakes, moral gray zones, and a legal framework that lends itself to episodic tension. At that stage, the asset wasn’t a television series. It was an article. But in our industry, a well-reported narrative isn’t just journalism. It’s option-able IP. From there, the story entered the machinery of development. Talent attached. The concept evolved. The framing shifted. What began as a direct adaptation gradually became something looser — inspired by, rather than bound to, the original facts. Titles changed. Creative emphasis shifted. By the time HBO ordered the project under the name DTF St. Louis, it was described not as a strict true-crime retelling, but as a wholly original limited series. That shift matters. When I talk to creators about development, I remind them that IP is rarely static. A magazine article becomes a screenplay draft. A screenplay draft becomes a packaging vehicle. A packaging vehicle becomes a reimagined series. Each stage involves recalibration of legal exposure, tone, casting realities, market positioning, and network branding. The location moves from New York to St. Louis wasn’t random. It was strategic. Midwestern settings carry cultural shorthand. They suggest normalcy, stability, the illusion of order. That makes the moral unraveling feel sharper. More subversive. The title alone signals tension between surface respectability and hidden chaos. I don’t know if the fact that I had to google “DTF” to discover it’s intended meaning says something about me personally, my age, my demographic, or the fact that I live in the Midwest. I expect it may be part of the overall marketing strategy. My point is that each element of the project development is strategic. Development is not sentimental. It is iterative and commercial. And here’s the part many emerging creators miss. None of these evolutions betray the original story. They optimize it. They reshape it so it can survive inside a high-budget production environment. That’s the difference between having a story and having a producible asset. By the time DTF St. Louis reached the production stage, the creative geography had been decided. The tone had been locked. The cast had been attached. The network had written the check. Only then does the next question become urgent: Where do we make it? And that is where art gives way to arithmetic. Why Georgia? The Production Math Once a series is greenlit, the conversation changes. Development is creative. Production is financial. When you evaluate where a project should shoot, you shouldn’t start with sentiment. You should start with a spreadsheet. Georgia has spent more than a decade building one of the most predictable production environments in North America. The state offers a 20% base tax credit on qualified in-state spend, with an additional 10% uplift for meeting promotional requirements. Just as important, Georgia does not operate under a restrictive annual cap that forces productions to compete for limited allocations. That predictability matters. Investors price uncertainty. Producers avoid it. But incentives are only one part of the equation. Georgia has depth. It has crew density. It has established sound stages. It has experienced department heads across every category from cinematography and production design to post-production and VFX coordination. It has vendors who understand studio workflows. It has accountants who know how to audit credits efficiently. It has bonding comfort. It has repetition. That ecosystem reduces risk. When you are managing a multi-million-dollar limited series with A-list talent and compressed schedules, risk is the enemy. Delays cost money. Flying in department heads drives up per diem. Housing shortages inflate budgets. Thin crew benches increase overtime and burnout. Production friction erodes margins. In a mature market, those variables are more controlled. Now contrast that with a state rebuilding its incentive program. Missouri currently operates with a $16 million annual cap and split funding pools — one $8 million allocation for episodic programming and another $8 million for feature film. That structure exists for understandable “horse trading” legislative reasons. Compromise is how public policy gets passed. I’ve worked in that arena. I know firsthand that clean, elegant statutes rarely survive the negotiation process intact. Interests are balanced. Fiscal conservatives demand caps. Regional priorities get layered in. Language gets complex. When I first reviewed Missouri’s new tax credit law, my first reaction was that it was unnecessarily complicated and that complexity would introduce friction. And like the annual credit caps, that friction introduces risk. From a creator or investor standpoint, the question isn’t whether a program exists. It’s whether the program is durable, scalable, and operationally smooth. Georgia answers yes on all three, while Missouri is still proving itself. This is not an indictment. It’s a maturity curve. Georgia didn’t become a production powerhouse overnight. It built volume over time. Volume built workforce. Workforce attracted more volume. That flywheel effect is what transforms incentives from temporary subsidies into permanent industry infrastructure. Producers understand that. When a show like DTF St. Louis moves forward, the production team isn’t asking, “Where would we like this to shoot?” They’re asking: Where can we monetize the incentive efficiently? Where is the crew bench deep enough to avoid importing half the department heads? Where are stages reliably available? Where will lenders feel comfortable? Where does the schedule face the least volatility? Those are capital allocation questions. And capital, by its nature, flows toward predictability. That’s the production math. It’s not emotional. It’s not political. It’s fiduciary. For creators and investors who want their projects to survive, that mindset isn’t optional. It’s professional discipline. The Chicken-and-Egg Trap States trying to build a film economy face a brutal loop. They need tax credits to attract production. They need production to build a workforce. They need workforce depth to retain production. They need retention to justify the credits politically. Break any link in that chain and momentum stalls. If credits are capped, larger shows hesitate. If programs change frequently, lenders grow cautious. If crew depth is thin, productions import labor. When productions import labor, the optics weaken. And when the optics weaken, the political durability of the program weakens with it. Georgia escaped that trap through longevity and repetition. Missouri is earlier in the cycle. For creators and investors, the lesson is sobering but clarifying: a newly enacted incentive does not immediately level the playing field. Ecosystems mature over years, not legislative sessions. And capital does not wait for ecosystems to catch up. Production as Capital Allocation At a certain point in the life of a project, the conversation stops being creative and becomes financial. When you raise investor money, whether that’s private equity, gap financing, pre-sales, or your own retained earnings, you assume a fiduciary obligation. You are no longer just telling a story. You are managing risk. Where you shoot is one of the largest risk variables in the entire equation. The headline incentive percentage is rarely the real story. What matters is the net position after audit, legal, and monetization costs. Is the credit transferable? How liquid is the market for selling it? How quickly can it be monetized? Is there an annual cap that creates allocation uncertainty? How long has the program existed? How politically durable is it? Investors care about those questions. So do lenders. So do completion bond companies. Then there’s labor depth. A 30% credit on paper can evaporate quickly if you’re flying in department heads from Los Angeles or New York because the local bench isn’t deep enough. Housing costs rise. Per diems’ stack. Travel days multiply. Overtime creeps in when teams aren’t accustomed to the pace of a series schedule. Infrastructure reduces friction. Friction inflates budgets. When I look at markets like Georgia, Vancouver, Toronto, the UK, or parts of Australia and New Zealand, I see not just incentives, but repetition. Repetition builds experience. Experience builds efficiency. Efficiency protects margin. Margin protects investor confidence. There’s also timing. Episodic television operates on compressed calendars. If a capped program forces you to wait for allocation approval or introduces uncertainty about whether funds will still be available when you apply, that uncertainty must be priced into your plan. And uncertainty carries a cost. Creators sometimes resist this framing because it feels cold. They want authenticity. They want civic loyalty. They want to shoot where the story is set. I understand that instinct. But if the choice is between emotional alignment and financial viability, a professional chooses viability. That doesn’t mean geography is irrelevant. It means geography is evaluated through a risk-adjusted lens. When you start thinking this way, the map changes. Canada becomes a legitimate alternative because of stacked federal and provincial credits and favorable currency exchange. The UK becomes attractive for high-end television because of its stability and studio capacity. Eastern Europe enters the conversation because of labor competitiveness. Australia and New Zealand become strategic plays for large-scale productions. Production becomes jurisdiction shopping. That phrase can sound harsh, but it is simply disciplined thinking. Capital moves toward predictability. It moves toward environments where execution risk is minimized and margins are protected. If you are serious about building sustainable projects, not just getting one made, you must internalize that logic. Story is art. Production is strategy. And strategy, at its core, is the intelligent deployment of capital. The Global Production Economy If you zoom out far enough, the question isn’t “Why Georgia instead of Missouri?” The real question is: why assume the production needs to stay in the United States at all? We operate inside a global production economy now. That shift is not theoretical. It’s structural. Canada has been doubling for American cities for decades. Vancouver and Toronto routinely stand in for New York, Chicago, Boston — sometimes entire states. Producers stack federal and provincial incentives, benefit from favorable currency exchange, and tap into deep crew bases that have grown alongside American studio demand. To the audience, it reads as domestic. To the producer, it reads as efficient. The United Kingdom has built itself into a high-end television and franchise powerhouse. Long-term incentive stability, studio infrastructure, and experienced crews have made it a magnet for prestige series and tentpole films. Australia and New Zealand have leveraged similar strategies for large-scale productions. Parts of Eastern Europe compete aggressively on labor and service costs. Each region offers a slightly different financial profile, but the logic is consistent: predictability, scale, and operational maturity attract capital. This is not about chasing the cheapest option. It’s about optimizing the full stack — incentive structure, currency position, workforce depth, and execution certainty. When streamers and studios evaluate where to produce, they don’t start with sentiment. They start with a global map. They compare jurisdictions the way investors compare markets. They ask where the environment is stable, where the math is clean, where the infrastructure supports speed. Capital flows accordingly. That reality can feel unsettling if you’re thinking locally. But from a creator’s perspective, it’s empowering. The map is larger than your home state. Your project is not confined to one jurisdiction’s politics. You are not limited to one incentive regime. If you want your story to travel, you must think beyond municipal pride and into global strategy. The production economy is no longer regional. It is competitive, mobile, and international. And the creators who thrive in this environment are the ones who understand that mobility is not betrayal — it is professionalism. Emotional vs. Professional Response When a show carries your city’s name but shoots elsewhere, it feels personal. I want Missouri to win. I want workforce growth here. I want infrastructure maturity. But when I’m producing a project with capital at risk, my obligation shifts. My job is not to make a symbolic statement. My job is to deliver on time, on budget, and at the highest possible quality. The emotional response says we should support local. The professional response asks where this project has the highest probability of success. Sustainable creators learn to hold both truths at once. My STORYSMART® Message When I step back from DTF St. Louis — from New York to St. Louis to Georgia — I don’t see controversy. I see clarity. Stories travel. Intellectual property evolves. Production moves. Capital seeks predictability. I talk often about ownership and professional discipline. Owning your story is the first step. Developing it strategically and professionally is the second step. Producing it where the math works is the third. Story is art. Production is strategy. And strategy requires clarity. Geography is an input. Discipline is the key to making it all work. In a global production economy, that mindset isn’t optional. It’s the difference between chasing projects and building value that compounds over time . About Our STORYSMART® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.

For nearly a century, Hollywood wasn’t built on movies. It was built on exclusive distribution pathways and time windows. A film opened exclusively in theaters. Weeks or months later, it moved to pay-per-view. Then to VHS and DVD. Then to cable. Then to broadcast. Each step of distribution unlocked a new revenue layer. Each layer extended the life of the IP asset. Each distribution window created another opportunity for investors, studios, and creators to participate in the upside. This wasn’t nostalgia. It was economic structure of the industry that grew over time because of how the government regulated the industry. In early Hollywood, studios owned everything. The sound stages, the actors, the story, the marketing vehicles, and even the movie theaters. Then the government came along and said it was a monopoly and they couldn’t own everything. They broke it up. Theaters were separate. TV networks were separate businesses. The economic model for profitable filmmaking was based on making the most of each distribution window. Theatrical wasn’t just about popcorn and premieres. It was the ignition point of an economic flywheel. A strong run within cinemas created urgency. Urgency drove transactional sales. Sales strengthened licensing leverage. The model compounded over time. Streaming didn’t simply disrupt distribution. It collapsed the window stack into a single pane of glass. Now, with the proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. drawing scrutiny from exhibitors and lawmakers, the debate has shifted from convenience to consolidation. Cinema United, representing more than 31,000 movie screens, warned the Senate that the proposed deal with Netflix could be “economically and culturally catastrophic,” leading to fewer theaters, shorter windows, less revenue, fewer jobs, and fewer films. Beneath the rhetoric i s a harder question: what happens to filmmaking when distribution becomes vertically integrated under a subscription platform? The 45-Day Question At the center of the debate is the “window.” Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos had signaled support for a 45-day exclusive theatrical run. But exhibitors argued that 45 days traditionally means 45 days to premium video-on-demand (pay per view on demand - PVOD), not to subscription-based streaming like Netflix. Historically, streaming followed closer to 90 to 100 days after theatrical release. That difference is not semantic. It is economic architecture. PVOD captures high-margin transactional revenue while demand is still hot. Streaming folds the film into a subscription bundle where incremental revenue is opaque and participation becomes harder to trace. Compress the exclusive distribution windows, and you compress revenue. Compress revenue, and you compress risk tolerance and undermine a filmmaker’s ability to make ends meet. Why Exclusive Distribution Windows Matter Distribution structure determines economic outcome. In the traditional model, theatrical created visibility and prestige. That visibility fueled awards campaigns, international sales, and downstream licensing. PVOD monetized urgency at high margins. Physical sales and licensing extended the tail. Streaming became the final monetization layer — not the primary one. Each stage compounded value. Each layer created leverage. In a subscription-dominant model, the film moves quickly into a pooled ecosystem where performance data is proprietary and downstream participation flattens. The long tail collapses into a licensing event. Windows are economic discipline. They slow monetization just enough to allow compounding. Remove that discipline, and the financial logic of filmmaking changes, especially for mid-budget films that rely on layered performance rather than opening-weekend spectacle. Consolidation Narrows the Field Hollywood has seen this before. The original studio system vertically integrated production, distribution, and exhibition until antitrust intervention forced separation. Fragmentation followed, and with it came opportunity for independents. Consolidation eventually returned — through media conglomerates, cable expansion, and now technology platforms. Amazon acquired MGM. Disney consolidated its empire. A Paramount-Warner combination controlling a substantial share of box office or a Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros. would further concentrate distribution power. Cinema United warned lawmakers that consolidation historically leads to fewer films being made. That outcome is structural, not ideological. When distribution narrows, greenlights become conservative. Franchise IP dominates. Mid-budget films struggle. Original stories face higher barriers. Consolidation increases efficiency. It often reduces diversity. From Studio Economics to Platform Economics The irony is striking. Netflix began as a DVD-by-mail disruptor that once tried to sell itself to Blockbuster. Now the disruptor may acquire one of Hollywood’s most iconic legacy studios. This is more than a merger. It is a migration of cultural infrastructure from studio-driven economics to platform-driven economics. Traditional studios were built around asset libraries and layered monetization. Streaming platforms are built around subscriber growth and retention. In a studio model, individual titles generate downstream value. In a subscription model, content primarily serves ecosystem stickiness. Those incentives are not aligned. When the objective is subscriber growth, performance data stays proprietary. Monetization prioritizes platform value over title value. Economics shift from asset-based to ecosystem-based. The Theatrical Flywheel Theatrical exhibition has always functioned as a marketing engine. A strong theatrical run drives press, cultural conversation, and awards positioning. That momentum fuels PVOD demand, strengthens licensing leverage, and elevates streaming performance later. It is a flywheel. Shorten the theatrical window dramatically, and the flywheel weakens. Urgency fades. Scarcity disappears. Conversation compresses. For franchises, this may be manageable. For mid-budget dramas, documentaries, and original screenplays, it can be decisive. Theatrical exclusivity signals value. Without it, pricing power erodes. What This Means for Filmmakers For creators, consolidation changes leverage. Backend participation becomes harder to realize inside subscription pools. Transparency declines. Fewer buyers reduce competitive tension. Deal terms standardize. Asymmetry increases. The more concentrated distribution becomes, the more important upstream ownership becomes. When leverage downstream narrows, leverage upstream must strengthen. Structure Is the Response This is not a call for nostalgia. It is a call for discipline. If windows compress and consolidation accelerates, creators must structure differently. Intellectual property must be controlled earlier. Rights must be defined before financing. Audience must be cultivated before sale. Distribution pathways must be diversified. The future will favor creators who understand capital structure as well as story structure. Distribution volatility makes ownership architecture non-negotiable. When gatekeepers consolidate, independence requires design. Beyond the Mergers This debate is not ultimately about theaters versus streaming. Streaming is not inherently destructive. Theatrical exhibition is not inherently sacred. The real issue is concentration. When a single platform controls production, distribution, data, audience access, and monetization timing, the system narrows. And when systems narrow, career pathways narrow with them. Hollywood once dismantled vertical integration to preserve competition. In the streaming era, we may be rebuilding it with servers instead of soundstages. Whether this merger proceeds or not, the trajectory is clear. Consolidation is reshaping the economics of film. The strategic question for creators is not how to react to consolidation. It is how to structure themselves, so they are not dependent on it. The Media Mogul mindset recognizes this early. It assumes volatility in distribution and builds value upstream — through ownership, disciplined rights architecture, and diversified pathways to audience. Non-dependent distribution is not anti-streaming. It is anti-fragility. It is the decision to design projects so that no single platform determines whether your story lives, earns, or compounds. In an era of consolidation, structural independence is not ideological. It is strategic. About Our STORYSMART® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.

For decades, iron lungs were used as a last resort. These massive negative-pressure ventilators were used by physicians in the 1940s and 50s to keep polio patients breathing when their muscles were paralyzed. It didn’t cure the disease, but it sustained life when the body couldn’t breathe on its own. At times, parts of the independent film industry have felt similar. Paralyzed by shifting distribution models. Dependent on artificial respiration from gatekeepers. Waiting for financing approvals. Waiting for festivals. Waiting for someone else to decide whether the audience gets to see the work. And then a self-financed, creator-led horror film called Iron Lung opened in theaters. This is a film powered not by a studio marketing machine, but by an owned audience. It didn’t ask for life support. It simply breathed on its own. When the box office numbers were released, you could almost hear the industry insiders gasping. I found myself asking what the story behind this film is. Then, as I dug into it, I realized it is a case study in a concept that has become a rallying cry and mantra for many of us in independent filmmaking generally, and documentary filmmaking especially. I’m talking about NonDē (Non-Dependent) Distribution, a concept pioneered by industry leaders like Ted Hope . What is NonDē (Non-Dependent) Distribution? In a nutshell, NonDē (Non-Dependent Distribution) refers to a filmmaking approach where creators retain total control over the financial, marketing, and release strategies of their films. They operate outside the traditional Hollywood studio ecosystem. The key principles are prioritizing career sustainability, audience ownership, and collaboration. Most importantly, it emphasizes leveraging direct-to-audience tools to manage release. It is all about control. The core concept is that creators should own their data, audience relationships, and creative control rather than licensing it out. That mindset goes to the heart of STORYSMART® and will be part of our operating philosophy with the studio I’m building. When I started digging into Iron Lung's success story, I quickly realized it is a wonderful case study for us. The Creator Behind the Case Study The film Iron Lung was written, directed by, and stars Markiplier, born Mark Edward Fischbach, one of the most recognizable creators in the YouTube ecosystem. Since 2012, he has built an audience in the horror gaming space. Not casually. Not accidentally. Systematically. That matters, because when he adapted Iron Lung, the 2022 indie horror game created by David Szymanski, he wasn’t “pivoting into film.” He was extending a lane he already owned. And importantly, Szymanski remained involved in the adaptation process. This wasn’t a cynical IP grab. It was a creator-to-creator collaboration that preserved trust with the fanbase. That trust is not sentimental. It is structural capital. The Budget, the Bet, and the Leverage The film’s reported production budget was approximately $3 million, while the reported worldwide box office so far is north of $40 million, nearing $50 million. To be clear, gross box office is not net profit. Theaters take their percentage. Your marketing spending matters. Your distribution splits matter too. But even conservatively, this is a profitable film. It isn’t a rounding error. This is a meaningful commercial outcome for a self-financed, creator-led film. And that’s where the real lesson begins. Crowdfunding vs. Crowd Distribution Independent filmmakers are often told there are two survival strategies. First, crowdfund your production. Second, hope that a distributor rescues you. Iron Lung did something different. Markiplier did not rely primarily on Kickstarter-style crowdfunding to finance production. He self-financed. I did a bit of research to see if he had investors, but I couldn’t get an answer. For our purposes of the case study, it doesn’t really matter because it is clear he controlled the production. When it came time to release the film he produced, he activated something far more powerful than a production campaign. He activated distribution demand by tapping into his existing fans. He entered the market with leverage. The film reportedly began with a limited footprint, roughly 60 theaters and expanded dramatically as fans requested screenings in their local markets. Wow! Think about that for a second. His fans wanted to go to a theater near them to see the film. Markiplier has over 38 million followers on his YouTube channel. That is more than the population of a few states or countries. Think about that. That is real leverage. What began as a small number of screens grew into thousands of screens because he used that leverage. Smart. Modern. Non-dependent. That distinction is critical. Crowdfunding finances production. Crowd distribution finances confidence. Theaters book films when they believe there is demand. Exhibitors respond to signals. They want butts in seats and sales at the concession stands. The key lesson here is that Markiplier didn’t need to persuade Hollywood. He let the audience persuade the exhibitors to want the film in their theaters. That’s a completely different leverage equation. Hollywood doesn’t own movie theaters (anymore). They are independent of the studios, while also dependent on them. Markiplier’s approach here is akin to how Angel Studios is de-risking distribution through their torch process and providing complementary tickets to Angel Guild members. There is less risk for a theater that chooses to book a film when it knows there is a built-in audience. The Structural Advantage of Owned Audience Studios spend tens of millions manufacturing awareness. I think they waste a lot of money with their shotgun approach to marketing. Super Bowl ads, tv and radio, billboards, newspaper ads, and online advertising costs a lot of money that I don’t think comes back to them with results. The creator economy is built differently. It isn’t shotgun advertising. There is a reason the creator economy is growing faster than legacy media. Creators who have built trust over a decade don’t manufacture awareness. They mobilize it. When you control direct communication channels, have a loyal audience base, genre credibility, brand trust, and what I would describe as authentic IP alignment you don’t enter theatrical as a question mark. You enter with validated demand. Real demand, not some perceived demand around marquee IP like a comic book-based film from a big studio. This is not about “influencers making movies.” From my point of view, it is about vertical integration. I’ll be the first to admit that up until a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Markiplier or even knew there was such a game niche as “horror gaming,” but I’m sure my 15-year son and his friends do. I asked Charlie. He said he knew about the movie, knows Markiplier, has watched a few of his YouTube videos, but isn’t a fan. “Some of my friends are,” he told me as he briefly looked up from his iPhone. The path to profitability in filmmaking may start with talking to your kids more. Figuring out how and where they spend their time. Media is changing fast. The problem with legacy media leaders is they look like me. The price that comes with being “seasoned” like me is that you grew up in a different era when media was different. Like me, I expect that many legacy media leaders grew up with pong and Atari. Video games were different. I went to arcades to play the good ones. 25-cents at a time. Media was different. My sports teams were on the radio, not TV, unless they made it to the shorter postseasons. There was a bright line between TV and film. TV was the stepchild of film, not the other way around. There was no such thing as a “creator economy” or “influencers.” Streams were places you used to go fishing in. They weren’t how you watched cinematic content or played games. You don’t buy cartridges or disks for games now. Anyway, my point is that it is all about vertical media integration. Here you have: IP alignment; Creative control; Audience relationship; Distribution leverage; and retained upside, all coming together. That business stack matters more than hype. What It Says About Our Film Economy The independent filmmaking ecosystem is under strain. It would be hyperbole to say it is paralyzed. It isn’t. But public media infrastructure is tightening. Streamers are recalibrating spend. Theatrical risk tolerance is narrower. Development capital is harder to secure. When capital tightens, the old model becomes fragile: Create → Sell to distributor → Hope THEY market it. I say “they” market it because most filmmakers don’t see it as their job to market it. That model requires oxygen from someone else. Someone else. “Not my job.” That filmmaker mindset is the old paradigm. What Iron Lung demonstrates is something different: Build audience → Develop aligned IP → Self-finance strategically → Release into validated demand. That is the new paradigm. The new model. That is not rebellion. That is disciplined economics. It is also STORYSMART®. This Isn’t About YouTube Fame The easy takeaway would be: “Well, of course it worked. He’s famous.” That response really misses the point. It comes from that “it’s not my job to market my film” mindset. Audience is not celebrity. Audience is equity. Audience is an asset. It takes more than subscribers to open thousands of screens. It requires trust, consistency, and years of alignment between the creator and the community. It requires a relationship. A sense of belonging. A real sense of mutual connection. This wasn’t a viral stunt. It was the monetization of long-term relationship capital. I urge you to go check out the website for the film (ironlung.com). I’ve included a few screenshots here, because it says a lot. This is far more replicable, and far more disciplined, than most people realize. The filmmaker is committed to a relationship with his audience. That YouTuber mindset needs to be adopted by others in our independent filmmaker industry. What it Means for My Work I’m not interested in chasing virality. I’m interested in structural durability and career sustainability. I’m embarking on the journey to build an independent studio in my 50s recognizing that I must let go of my 1980s pong mindset and embrace what is making driving the creator economy. Taylor Swift, Joe Rogan, and Markiplier are showing the way. When we talk about building our studios, we’re not talking about launching a vanity production company and hoping someone buys our films. We’re talking about owning source material, developing IP with discipline, building audience awareness intentionally, packaging projects strategically, de-risking with a NonDē (Non-Dependent) distribution approach that releases into strength rather than desperation. The lesson of Iron Lung is not that theatrical is easy. The lesson is that independence without ownership is fragile. But independence with owned audience, owned IP, and controlled development can breathe on its own. Studios historically controlled distribution infrastructure. Creators now control demand infrastructure. That changes the negotiating power dynamic. The Real Diagnosis The film industry is not dead. It is not terminal or paralyzed, but certain segments have grown dependent on artificial respiration. I’m talking about endless pitch cycles, speculative development, gatekeeper approval loops, and reactive financing. That is all artificial respiration. An iron lung sustains breathing when muscles fail. What Iron Lung the film demonstrated is something else entirely. Independent film can breathe on its own, if it builds those core muscle groups first. Audience is one of those muscles. Ownership is another muscle. Development discipline and non-dependent discipline are the other core muscles. You don’t need life support if you’ve built your lung capacity. The Playbook Going Forward Here’s the distilled lesson we can take away from this. First, build your audience before you need it. Second, align IP with your audience authentically. Then, control development from the start. Finance the project strategically and release into demonstrated demand. Be STORYSMART® by retaining as much upside as structurally possible. I think crowd distribution beats crowdfunding, but the two can go hand in hand. The real lesson here is owned attention beats rented attention. Owned attention gives you structural leverage. Structural leverage beats hopeful pitching to some gatekeeper who has control of the greenlighting process. The next generation of sustainable independent studios will not be built on festival miracles and chasing prestige. They will be built on disciplined ownership, audience alignment, and strategic release. They will replicate the pathway followed with this project. Iron Lung proves something important, which is that independent film doesn’t need an oxygen mask. It just needs to breathe on its own. About the Storytelling for ALL® Newsletter The Storytelling for ALL® LinkedIn Newsletter is a biweekly newsletter examining how stories are developed, protected, and brought to life in today’s evolving storytelling economy. Every other week, I explore the creative, ethical, and economic forces shaping books, films, documentaries, and other story work through the lens of development, rights, collaboration, and long-term value. Written primarily for creators and collaborators, the newsletter also serves story sources who want to understand how their true stories move from lived experience to finished work and how better structure early leads to better outcomes later. For deeper studio thinking, tools, and updates, The STORYSMART® Way is our monthly email newsletter for members of the Storytelling for ALL® community. About Our STORYSMART® Perspective We approach storytelling and filmmaking as a long-term, rights-first business rather than a project-by-project creative exercise. Our focus is on understanding how stories create value over time through ownership, disciplined development, and thoughtful risk management. The ideas shared here are intended to contribute to a broader conversation about sustainable, independent media, not to promote specific projects or investment opportunities.

If you are looking for the perfect movie for Valentine’s Day, I can recommend taking your special someone to Solo Mio . It is a heartwarming, thoroughly entertaining movie. My wife and I enjoyed seeing it at our favorite theater this weekend. It was the first time we took advantage of our free tickets as members of the Angel Guild. I’m glad we did. I had heard that the film’s production budget was only $4 million. The acting, pacing, story, cinematography, and music are magnifico. It feels like a film with a much larger budget, beautifully made by a talented team of collaborating creative storytellers. It is in that context, that I say there’s something misleading about the title Solo Mio . If you translate it, it means “only mine.” Singular. Personal. Solo. But like every film that makes it to the screen, especially one that finds its way into theaters, this movie is anything but a solo effort. It takes creative talent to make a film. It takes even more alignment to get it financed, distributed, and seen. And it takes something rarer still to make it profitable. That’s what makes Solo Mio worth paying attention to, not just as an entertaining romantic comedy released days before Valentine’s Day, but as a case study in how movies are beginning to move from idea to audience in a very different way. I went into this film expecting entertainment. I came out thinking about how it was made and what we can learn from it. That starts with recognizing that a whole bunch of Angels made it happen. Angel Studios I first became aware of Angel Studios a couple of years ago, the way most people did, through the impact they were making in storytelling. Friends mentioned The Chosen . Then there was all the industry chatter around Sound of Freedom . I paid attention to the name, but I didn’t stop to study the model. That changed in early 2025 when I was deep into writing STORYSMART® Storytelling for ALL. As I examined the current state of the film and entertainment industry, particularly the imbalance of power between creators, studios, and distributors, I found myself searching for real-world examples of alternative approaches. Not theories. Not manifestos. Actual operating models. Shortly after I published my book last summer, I watched a long-form YouTube interview with Angel’s founders. What caught my attention wasn’t ideology. It was their modern data driven infrastructure and thoughtful industry-lifting mindset. They weren’t talking about “fixing Hollywood.” They were talking about building a system that aligned audiences, creators, and distribution in a different order than we’re used to seeing. It is all about building a deeper connection and shorter pathway between creators and audiences. Yes. Yes. Yes! I love it! These guys really get it, I thought to myself. Candidly, I had initially assumed the name for the studio was a faith-based decision but learned that the name comes from the idea of early-stage Angel investors. The Angel Studio founders talked about how they funded their business, taking advantage of the Obama-era shift in SEC regulations that allowed a type of audience investment model wasn’t previously available. The Jumpstart Our Businesses Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 became effective via the SEC in May 2016. Angel Studios (originally under its predecessor brand, VidAngel), took advantage of the equity crowdfunding provisions. They used Regulation A+ to raise funds for the business and later used Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) to fund the first season of The Chosen, raising $11 million from 18,000 investors. Listening to the founders talk about their vision and journey to this point really shifted my thinking about our industry’s way forward. The fact that these founders came from a marketing background, understood data, and made it a point to talk to exhibitors about their data really opened my eyes. Having worked in baseball, which is all about selling tickets and getting butts in seats, I find it refreshing to hear film studio executives talk about the importance of theaters and the shared experience of seeing a movie. The fact that they are speaking to exhibitors, care about using data to make informed decisions and are driven by a mission as much as running a profitable business is heartening. After that podcast, I promised myself I’d do more research into their business model and learn more about their approach as I believe it offers answers for the documentary and independent film communities. Then a short time later, I heard about Truth & Treason through Daren Smith’s podcast. Watching that film sharpened my curiosity. This wasn’t just counterprogramming; it was evidence of a pipeline that could move projects into the world without relying on traditional studio greenlight rituals. After that, my wife and I joined the Angel Guild in November. Not because we wanted free tickets, though those don’t hurt, but because I wanted to understand how the machine works from the inside. If I’m going to spend the next chapter of my career helping filmmakers build sustainable storytelling careers, I need to understand this more deeply. Joining the Angel Guild While I’m not a big “joiner,” I joined the Angel Guild after seeing Truth & Treason . Being an Angel Guild member changes your relationship to movies in a subtle but meaningful way. Signing up is no different than subscribing to Netflix or Hulu, but you will notice the difference right away. It isn’t just a “subscription,” you are treated as a member. Expect to get a fair number of emails. It’s sort of like buying a ticket from the St. Louis Cardinals. Expect a lot of emails. You are a fan. The team wants to build a relationship with you. Email is central to that. But in the case of Angel Studios, it isn’t salesy stuff. You’re not getting spammed about Bobblehead nights and the latest coupon offer. The communication is about the stories. They also treat you a bit like a studio executive with their greenlighting process. How about that? You get the corner office next to Sal Saperstein and get to pick movies! Seriously, Angel regularly emails members about “Torches,” short proof-of-concept films submitted by creators for audience voting. I’ll be honest: I’m new enough that I haven’t voted yet. I’ve watched. I’ve read. I’ve observed how they communicate with me, but I haven’t engaged back yet. And that’s intentional. I joined not just as a viewer, but as a student of the model. I’m someone trying to understand what it feels like to be on the other side of the greenlight decision. From the audience’s perspective. From a filmmaker’s perspective. And ultimately from the perspective of someone actively thinking about how studios should function in a changing entertainment industry. Angel also offers Angel Guild members two free tickets a month for certain theatrical releases. That matters more than it might seem. It lowers friction. It primes attendance. And it reinforces the idea that going to the theater is part of participating in the Angel ecosystem. A few months into our membership, Solo Mio is the first of those offers we’ve been able to take advantage of. And it’s a fitting one. Solo Mio Is a Fascinating Case Study Solo Mio is Angel’s first romantic comedy. That alone makes it interesting. Rom-coms used to be a dependable part of the theatrical landscape—mid-budget films with recognizable stars, clear audience appeal, and a reasonable path to profitability. Today, they’re often pushed to streaming or dismissed as “too small” for theaters unless paired with massive star power. That’s because “Big Hollywood” typically relies on a spray it everywhere shotgun approach to mass marketing, rather than targeted audience outreach. They haven’t built a relationship with anyone. Our studio in Utah uses a different approach entirely. This film threads that needle. It stars Kevin James; someone my wife and I have enjoyed watching since his King of Queens days. My son Charlie has liked him ever since I took him to see Pixels.  Personally, I’ve always appreciated his comedic timing and his instinct for broadly accessible storytelling. If he’s in a film, I usually want to see it.

St. Louis, MO – January 30, 2026 - When I first noticed The Rip climbing Netflix’s charts, I assumed it would be another well-made, star-driven crime thriller. I expected it to be entertaining, topical, and quickly absorbed into the ever-moving current of streaming content. Here today, gone tomorrow. That assumption wasn’t wrong. But it also wasn’t the point. What makes The Rip worth paying attention to isn’t just the story it tells on screen, or even the fact that it draws inspiration from real events. What makes The Rip notable is what happened behind the scenes. The business story behind the storytelling is what made me want to watch the film and write this. I’m talking specifically about how the film was financed, structured, and compensated. Quietly, without fanfare, The Rip has become a test case for something the streaming era has largely stripped away: shared upside for creators. It didn’t overturn the dominant streaming model. It didn’t restore traditional backend participation. But it did crack open a door that many in the industry had begun to assume was permanently sealed. And that’s why it matters. The Typical Streaming Deal Over the last decade, streaming platforms led by Netflix have normalized a model that most creators now take for granted: large upfront payments, no backend, and no performance participation. Streaming disrupted the Hollywood business model that had been in place for generations. It ushered in a new era that has profoundly impacted how creators make money. From a business perspective, the current model makes sense for streamers. They assume the risk. They write big checks. They remove uncertainty. In return, they retain the upside. For many creators, especially those trying to get projects made in an increasingly competitive market, this tradeoff initially felt reasonable. But over time, something else happened. The economics of storytelling flattened. When a film performs far beyond expectations, the creative team doesn’t share in that success. When it underperforms, they’re insulated. Everyone is paid the same regardless of outcome. This isn’t inherently exploitative. But it is structurally indifferent to excellence and basic market dynamics. When incentives are disconnected from results, collaboration becomes transactional. Development becomes compressed. And storytelling, particularly true storytelling, becomes more vulnerable to shortcuts. That’s the environment The Rip entered. What Makes The Rip Different Unlike most Netflix originals, The Rip deal with the production studio Artist Equity included a performance-based bonus structure tied to viewership benchmarks in its initial release window. If the film performed well, additional compensation flowed, not just to the stars, but across a broad swath of the cast and crew. It has been widely reported that roughly 1,200 cast and crew members, from above-the-line to below-the-line workers, are eligible for one-time bonuses if internal benchmarks are met. This structure is unprecedented for Netflix . More importantly, it demonstrates what becomes possible when leverage is paired with a coherent studio model. To be clear, this isn’t traditional backend participation. There are no residuals in the classic sense. No ownership stake changed hands. The bonuses are one-time, capped, and limited in scope. But they matter. They matter because they acknowledge something the streaming model often ignores. Success is the result of collective effort. And when success is shared, even modestly, it changes how people experience their work. Sharing in success isn’t ideological. In talent-driven enterprises, it’s simply sound business. Roughly 1,200 people who helped bring The Rip to life had a reason to care about how the film performed beyond professional pride. That may sound small. It isn’t. It’s a recognition that creative labor doesn’t end at delivery. Outcomes matter. Everyone has a stake in success and shares in the upside. The Role of the Studio Artists Equity This deal didn’t happen by accident. It happened because The Rip was produced by Artists Equity , the production company founded by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Artists Equity was created with a specific mission: to rebalance how value is shared in Hollywood by leveraging star power, transparency, and studio-level thinking. What’s important here isn’t celebrity. It’s structure. Artists Equity isn’t a vanity shingle. It’s a studio attempting to formalize principles many creators talk about but rarely operationalize—clarity, alignment, and participation. In the case of T he Rip , that meant using leverage to negotiate a deal that acknowledged performance. Not ownership, but outcome. That distinction matters. Why It Matters More for the Creators Than for the Stars It’s easy to dismiss this story as another example of A-list talent securing better terms. While it is true that Affleck and Damon could get a better deal than someone like you or me, that misses the point. Affleck and Damon didn’t negotiate this structure to increase their own upside. They negotiated it to extend upside to others. That’s a meaningful shift. For below-the-line creatives like editors, animators, designers, technicians, this kind of structure sends a clear signal: your contribution matters beyond delivery. You are not invisible once the check clears. For creators who have grown accustomed to flat fees and limited recognition, that signal restores dignity to the work. And dignity in creative collaboration isn’t abstract. It directly affects trust, morale, and long-term sustainability. It is the right way to do business. It aligns with our STORYSMART® Way. Why True Stories Raise the Stakes The Rip is inspired by real events. That alone elevates the conversation. True stories aren’t just intellectual property. They involve real people, reputations, families, and legacies. They live longer than release windows. They echo. When incentives are misaligned in true-story filmmaking, the consequences aren’t just creative, they’re ethical. Performance-based incentives won’t solve every problem in this space. But they do reinforce accountability. When success is shared, care tends to increase. Development tends to deepen. Decisions slow down just enough to matter. We’ve all seen what happens when true stories are rushed, underdeveloped, or extracted without alignment. The damage isn’t always visible on opening weekend, but it compounds over time. That’s why The Rip ’s deal matters more because of the kind of story it tells. What This Might Signal About the Future Let’s be clear: The Rip is not a revolution. Netflix hasn’t abandoned its flat-fee model, and performance-based bonuses remain rare. Most creators won’t suddenly gain access to backend-style participation. But this deal does signal something important: flexibility exists when leverage is paired with structure. Change doesn’t come from complaining about the system. It comes from building models that make alternative structures viable. Artists Equity didn’t ask Netflix to change its philosophy. They offered a contained experiment that aligned incentives without undermining the platform’s economics. That’s how real shifts begin. The Studio Lesson Creators Shouldn’t Miss The most important takeaway from The Rip isn’t the bonus pool. It’s the studio thinking behind it. Equity followed leverage. Leverage followed organization. Organization followed a studio model. This is why one-off projects struggle to negotiate better terms. They lack continuity, scale, and repeatability. Studios don’t. This is also why collectives, slates, and development-first models matter. They create environments where alignment is possible before contracts are signed and cameras roll. That’s not ideology. It’s infrastructure. My STORYSMART® Worldview I believe story development, not production, is the new power position in storytelling. The Rip reinforces that belief. This wasn’t a production-stage concession. It was a development-stage decision. Rights, incentives, and expectations were addressed early—before momentum made them inconvenient. That’s the throughline I see connecting The Rip , Artists Equity, and the broader shift many creators sense but struggle to articulate. For too long, value in this industry has accrued to middle layers while creators absorbed the risk. Distribution benefited. Creators scraped by. The most durable storytelling models I see emerging today share a common trait: they address development, rights, and incentives early, before value is diluted downstream. The Rip didn’t change the industry. But it reminded us that structure, not noise, is still the lever that moves it. And for creators, story sources, and anyone building for the long term, that signal is worth paying attention to. - - Ron Watermon , Founder & CEO of STORYSMART®

One of the central arguments I make in my book is simple, but it tends to unsettle people the longer they sit with it: A topic is not a story. It sounds obvious. And yet, in practice, this distinction is violated constantly, especially in documentary and true-story work. We talk about “important topics,” “timely subjects,” and “stories that need to be told,” often using those phrases interchangeably. But interest, urgency, or access do not automatically produce narrative. They produce material. A story is something else entirely. A story is designed. It has intention. It asks a specific question and leads an audience somewhere on purpose. When that distinction gets blurred, development becomes less about shaping meaning and more about accumulating content and hoping coherence reveals itself later. That confusion sits at the root of many projects that start with energy and stall somewhere between production and post. In my experience, most of the problems that show up late in a project, such bloated runtimes, unclear stakes, ethical discomfort, or editorial paralysis are not editing problems. They are development problems that were deferred. As a rule, I believe you should always begin a project with the end in mind. When it comes to filmmaking, that means you don’t fix in post, you fix in pre. How “ Fishing for the Story ” Became the Default Within documentary filmmaking, a particular development model has become widely normalized: begin with a topic, get access, start recording, and let the story “emerge” over time. This approach has real pedigree. Discovery-driven, observational, and vérité traditions have produced some of the most meaningful documentary work ever made. There is an honesty to sustained observation. It is organic. Not contrived. There is humility in admitting you don’t yet know what the story is. And yet, over time, this method has quietly become less of a choice and more of a default, especially in independent documentary culture. Many filmmakers embark on projects by fishing for a story. They conduct dozens, sometimes hundreds of interviews. They collect years of footage. They hold off on decisive narrative choices because the process itself is meant to reveal them. Development, in this model, is not something you complete. It is something you endure. There are structural reasons this approach took hold. Grant cycles reward careful exploration, detailed journalistic discovery, and thesis-driven academic rigor. Festivals celebrate discovery. Culturally, uncertainty is often equated with authenticity, while intention is treated with suspicion. To pre-scope a story can feel premature, even cynical or contrived, especially when the subject matter carries moral or political weight. But normalizing this approach has consequences that often go unexamined. The material piles up. Editors are asked to “find” the story after the fact. Projects stretch across years, sometimes a decade or more. Momentum dissipates. Burnout creeps in. And by the time a narrative finally coheres, the marketplace and the filmmaker’s own life has often moved on. None of this means discovery-driven storytelling is invalid. It means it is expensive—financially, emotionally, and professionally—and someone must absorb that cost. Often, it’s the filmmaker. What Gets Lost When Development Is Deferred When development is treated as something that happens later, risk doesn’t disappear. It simply moves downstream. Unclear point of view becomes an editorial problem. Undefined scope becomes a budget problem. Ethical questions become crises rather than conversations. Distribution becomes an afterthought rather than a design constraint. Most importantly, sustainability becomes collateral damage. The question I find myself asking increasingly is not whether this or that documentary model produces good work. It’s whether it produces careers. Whether it allows storytellers to keep working, collaborating, and building bodies of work without starting from zero every time. This is where the conversation about development needs to mature. Because on the other side of the industry—inside media companies, studios, and commercial nonfiction production—development is treated very differently. Not because those organizations care less about truth or meaning, but because they are forced to account for costs, timelines, audiences, and outcomes early. They ask uncomfortable questions sooner. They constrain possibility to make decisions. Production is the result of the practical, pecuniary, and pragmatic. To many creatives, that approach feels contrived. Formulaic. Too neat. Constraining. But what it really represents is intentionality. And the false choice between endless discovery and rigid engineering has left many storytellers stuck in a system that is emotionally validating, but structurally unsustainable. The rest of this article is an attempt to map a third or new path forward: one that respects discovery, insists on discipline, and treats story development not as a hurdle to clear, but as the foundation of a sustainable storytelling career. Story Development with Intent On the other side of the documentary ecosystem sits a very different development culture, one that many creatives are taught to distrust. Media companies, distributors, and film studios tend to begin with questions that feel unromantic but are unavoidable: Who is this for? How long should it be? What format best serves the material? What does success look like, and when do we need to know if we’re off track? This disciplined, deadline-driven, distribution-focused business approach is often dismissed as commercial, formulaic, or overly cautious. And to be fair, it can be. Not every pre-scoped project will yield meaningful work. But the caricature misses something important. What these organizations understand sometimes better than individual creators are that constraints are not the enemy of storytelling. They are valuable tools for essential decision-making. By forcing clarity early, they reduce downstream risk. They protect timelines. They align collaborators around shared expectations. They design stories that can reach audiences, not just exist in principle. What creatives often label “contrived,” professionals are more likely to call “intentional.” The problem is not that one side cares about art and the other about money. The problem is that these two approaches have been positioned as mutually exclusive, when they are responding to different risk models. The False Choice Between Discovery and Design Too much of the conversation about documentary development gets stuck in a false binary. It is either this or that. Either or. Not and. There is belief in two extremes. On one end, you have open-ended discovery: gather everything, decide later, trust the process. Take all the time you need. Marinate on it. There is no rush to finish, no artificial deadline. Finish it when it is ready. On the other end, you have tightly pre-engineered narratives designed to satisfy distributors and algorithms. Defined. Distribution focused, and deadline driven. Neither extreme is particularly satisfying or sustainable. The alternative is not to abandon discovery, but to guide it. To make early decisions about what kind of story you are building, even if you remain open to what you don’t yet know. To define guardrails without pretending you already have all the answers. Professional development lives in that middle space. Begin with the end in mind, but don’t be blind to a better version of the story if or when it emerges in your work. It is all about building a process that allows you to pursue the best of both approaches. It’s the difference between saying, “We’ll see what we get,” and saying, “Here’s the question we’re exploring, here’s what’s out of bounds, and here’s how we’ll know if we’re getting closer to something meaningful.” Discipline does not eliminate discovery. It focuses it. What Professional Story Development Includes When people talk about development abstractly, it can sound like theory or paperwork. In practice, it’s very concrete. Professional story development means doing real work before production begins. It means clarifying point of view and authority. It means deciding what the story is about, not just what it touches. It means confronting ethical boundaries early, when there is still time to make thoughtful choices instead of reactive ones. It also means aligning scope with reality, including budget, access, time, and emotional capacity. It means understanding what format best serves the material and how that choice shapes everything downstream. It means being honest about what this story can become, and what it cannot. Most importantly, it means recognizing that development is not separate from collaboration. It is where trust is built or eroded. Where expectations are set or left dangerously vague. Where creative ambition is either grounded or quietly deferred until it becomes a problem someone else must solve. This work is rarely visible to audiences. But its absence is always felt. Story Development as a Sustainability Practice I’ve come to see development less as a phase of a project and more as a practice within a career. Documentary filmmaking is not an end in and of itself. It is one expression of a much larger true-story ecosystem, one that now includes books, podcasts, scripted adaptations, and hybrid forms that move across platforms and audiences. At the same time, the conditions around documentary work are changing. Funding models are in flux. Distribution is more fragmented. Competition for attention is relentless. Fewer creators can afford to spend years exploring a single project without knowing whether it will ever find a home. In that environment, development becomes a form of self-respect. It’s how you decide what to pursue and what to pass on. How you avoid pouring years of effort into work that can’t support you—or the people you collaborate with. How you build a body of work rather than a series of heroic one-offs. The question shifts from “ Can I make this film? ” to “ Does this project fit within a sustainable storytelling practice? ” That’s not a cynical question. It’s a responsible one. Collaboration, Ownership, and the Long Game Another thing professional development forces into the open is ownership—of ideas, of process, and of outcomes. When development is rushed or deferred, collaboration often becomes fragile. Roles blur. Expectations go unstated. Risk pools unevenly. And when things get hard, as they inevitably do, relationships strain under the weight of assumptions that were never clarified. Thoughtful development creates space for shared understanding. It allows collaborators to align around purpose, scope, and upside. It makes it possible to think beyond a single release and toward reuse, adaptation, and continuity. Sustainable storytelling is rarely a solo endeavor. It depends on relationships that can endure beyond one project, and on infrastructure that doesn’t have to be rebuilt from scratch each time. Those conditions don’t happen by accident. They are designed. STORYSMART® Story Development My thinking about development has evolved alongside my career. Early on, like many filmmakers, I was drawn to momentum—to getting started, to capturing material, to trusting that meaning would reveal itself along the way. Over time, I began to see how often that approach transferred risk forward and outward, leaving editors, collaborators, and even subjects to absorb the consequences. Today, I’m optimizing for something different. I care about career sustainability. About collaboration that lasts. About building story assets that can travel across formats and time. About creating conditions where serious storytellers can keep working without burning out, giving away control, or starting over every time. That requires a more intentional approach to development, one that respects discovery but insists on discipline. About the Storytelling for ALL™ Newsletter The Storytelling for ALL™ LinkedIn Newsletter is a biweekly newsletter examining how true stories are developed, protected, and brought to life in today’s evolving storytelling economy. Every other week, I explore the creative, ethical, and economic forces shaping books, films, documentaries, and other true-story work through the lens of development, rights, collaboration, and long-term value. Written primarily for creators and collaborators, the newsletter also serves story sources who want to understand how their stories move from lived experience to finished work and how better structure early leads to better outcomes later. For deeper studio thinking, tools, and updates, The STORYSMART® Way is our monthly email newsletter for members of our FREE Storytelling for ALL™ community .