David Ellison, producer of 'Top Gun: Maverick,' now leads the combined Paramount Skydance. Lia Toby/Getty Images Share on Facebook Share on X Share to Flipboard Send an Email Show additional share options Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share on Tumblr Share on Whats App Print the Article Post a Comment On Thursday, a trio of Hollywood Reporter staffers attended a presentation by new Paramount owner David Ellison, who sat alongside his investors from RedBird Capital and new executives at his company's Manhattan headquarters to lay out his vision for the embattled media firm. Ellison & Co. had just spent some $8 billion for the 113-year-old studio and have hopes - really, a need - to turn it into a tech company more equipped to handle the realities of the 2020's. Shortly after the meet-and-greet wrapped, the THR reporters debriefed on what they'd just heard (and didn't hear) from the incoming ownership. Related Stories Business Can Paramount Pivot to Big Tech? David Ellison Outlines His Silicon Valley Vision Business David Ellison Meets the Press Steven Zeitchik: So I have to admit, I came into the event feeling like it was just going to be more of the same - find efficiencies, unlock shareholder value, all that MBA snooze lingo - and was pleasantly surprised to actually hear a plan that kinda makes sense: combine the Ellison tech-savvy (and money) with all those iconic Paramount properties. Alex Weprin: It seems like they have a vision. Whether they can execute, that's a whole other question. But I came away thinking this isn't just a pure vanity play where they buy it and they don't know what they're going to do with it. They really think technology can change the entertainment industry, even if they were not as forthcoming as they could have been. SZ: A vision and also advantages no one else has. Like Google-YouTube and Netflix don't have the library or history Paramount does, and of course most other legacy companies don't have the tech savvy from their owner. They could argue they now have both in a way no company has before. AW: That's true, except if you look at Nielsen Gauge, YouTube is adding share of viewership on TV, and they're a pure tech company. So you may just not need to be a legacy TV company. But maybe there's room for an entertainment company to come in and say we can build a tech product too, a kind of pipeline that is consumer friendly and make people watch more of your stuff, whatever it might be, that can compete with YouTube and Netflix, which are a tier above when it comes to sucking up consumers' time. SZ: Totally. I felt like that was the real frustration talking to their team yesterday, like we spend all this money to produce Matlock and then we only get a viewer one hour a week while YouTube spends a lot less and they have them five hours a day. Erik, tell me if I'm being too credulous here. Did anything they say convince you? Erik Hayden: One thing I was struck by is how Ellison said I'm doing this for the next 20 years. Obviously it's hyperbole, but the exec team also said this is the first family since Walt Disney to put a lot of their own money into a company. They're framing themselves as an infusion into Hollywood rather than as an extractor. They're also framing the company as a long-term play. The problem is that David Ellison is now the CEO of a public company and he's going to have to react to quarterly earnings and the investor class, and is going to be hearing a lot of "are they big enough to compete with Netflix" and all the narratives we hear daily. SZ: Yeah, and those analysts don't care about what ol' Walt did but just about the business. And certainly all these legacy cable companies or even CBS is stuff that doesn't get them excited. So it's a little bit like Warner Bros. Discovery where Wall Street could just want cuts and a fire sale. The difference though is these guys may be too rich to care. Like seriously, does the stock price matter to them at that level. AW: You know, I don't think David Ellison or even new CEO Jeff Shell needs to hit their bonus numbers the way David Zaslav does. SZ: I think David Ellison got the bonus that mattered when he turned 18. AW: It's actually a meaningful thing; their compensation packages are lower at the outset. The salaries are in line, but their target bonuses are $1.5 million. Which really is below average in the industry. So I really don't think they have the reason to hit the numbers in a quarter the way other executives do. RedBird wants to see return but Ellison is in a different position. EH: I wonder if it would work better if they went private. AW: Given how much ownership they have it probably wouldn't take that much. Might be something they think about down the line. SZ: In the meantime let's not forget they'll be doing cutting too, which Wall Street always likes. They pretty much said that yesterday. Jeff Shell was asked what he was most excited about and he literally said efficiency. I cou