But why did it take so long for them to strike a deal? It’s mostly because TV executives ruined a business model so profitable and successful, it convinced almost all of America that televised entertainment was a utility… like water or electricity.

Yes, we all hated cable bills. But back in its heyday, it made a ton of money and canceling it never sounded like an option. That’s not the case with streaming services.

Today, we’re going to talk about the history of TV, how it turned into big business, how creatives get paid, and how the “streaming revolution” more or less ruined everything for everyone and lead us straight to the WGA and SAG strikes to ensure they get their fair share. This is a story not too dissimilar from Scorsese’s Casino, where some really smart guys went out to the desert to start an empire, and their successors kind of fucked it all up.

This is the story of how TV executives ruined everything, everywhere… slowly at first… and then all at once.

So let’s start all the way back at the beginning, back to the late ’40s New York City, where the radio networks NBC, CBS, and ABC started to dabble in television broadcasts, but networks couldn’t let go of their belief in the importance of live broadcasting.

The Dawn of Television

For years, executives ceaselessly debated whether filmed shows or live broadcasts would be more beneficial for TV. The truth is both are, and filmed TV’s unlikely champion would arrive to prove it in 1951.

Phillip Morris – yeah, the cigarette company, and in this case, the actual Phillip Morris guy – wanted to sponsor a sitcom about a plucky redhead and her bandleader husband. He liked the pilot but there was a problem. Lucy and Desi wanted to shoot the show in Hollywood, but Morris wanted it broadcast live in NYC and use low-quality kinescope recordings for broadcast later on the west coast.

Lucky for any of us who grew up watching Lucy on Nick at Nite, Lucy and Desi made a history-making compromise that more-or-less invented the modern sitcom. They agreed to take a $1k per week pay cut to open up enough budget to shoot the show on film in front of a live studio audience.

Later, when Lucy got pregnant and needed to take a break from the show. They decided to rerun older episodes to fill the gap. The rating from those ‘I Love Lucy’ reruns finally killed the unfounded belief that audiences wouldn’t watch a ‘second showing.’

In an incredible stroke of business savvy, Lucy and Ricky retained the rights to the ‘I Love Lucy’ film reels, which would go on to make them a fortune, in the decades to come. Once TV executives realized there was a huge audience for reruns, a new type of television programming was born: syndication, the holy grail of television.

Syndication, The Holy Grail of Television

When I say syndicated TV is the Holy Grail, I absolutely mean it in ‘The Last Crusade’ kind of way. Syndicated reruns aren’t flashy broadcasts like the Super Bowl, which, for decades, has been the #1 rated broadcast of the year. Instead, syndication is more akin to the humble cup of the carpenter. It may not be flashy, but a syndicated TV show could rerun for decades – which is more-or-less an eternity in TV time – and could generate some serious profits.

Did you grow up watching The Simpsons every day after school on TV like me? Or was your after-school show Friends? Law and Order? Seinfeld? It doesn’t matter, they’re all TV shows running in syndication. And that was just your local network filling up its schedule before the news and primetime. Let’s not forget about Nick at Nite, the program block that reran shows made decades before a lot of us were born.

That was Nickelodeon’s idea of “cheap” programming, but Nick at Nite still shelled out a ton of money for the right to broadcast those classics, which really demonstrates the power and potential profit syndicated TV shows can generate.

There is, however, just one catch. For a TV show to reach syndication, it needs to produce at least 80 to 100 episodes. That’s about four seasons of a network show, which is a tall hurdle to clear. Most TV Shows get canceled well before then. Four out of every five shows fail to reach the episode count needed for syndication, but there’s just so much money to be made syndicating TV shows that TV producers and networks act like a bunch of degenerate gamblers who never seem to stop placing bets.

So why can a syndicated show make so much money? Well, it all starts with the different media markets in the U.S.; there are 210 of them. When a show sells its syndication rights, they go to auction and the highest bidder in each market wins a license to air the whole series six times in a period between three to five years. And of course, once that contract lapses, and assuming the show is still popular, the show goes back up for bid, and the whole process repeats itself. Oh, and this whole process also takes place for international markets too. All these show producers have to do is sit back and cash the checks.

There is something important you need to understand here. When a station wins a syndication license, it gets to air each episode six times for that upfront fee, meaning the station is buying the right to air a show a specific number of times. That all changed in the streaming era, but at that moment in time Hollywood realized there was a gold mine in running shows ad nauseam.

Up until the 80s, most people only had access to like five channels, but that was about to change. We’re not quite at the part where they “fucked it all up.” But hang tight. We’re more or less at that part in Casino where the mob gives Ace the Tangiers. Cable was about to generate profits the likes of which they’ve never seen.


Cable managed to do two things for TV. First, it brought a ton of new channels into existence, which, of course, would need programming, spawning even more syndication deals. More importantly, cable channels also created a new revenue stream – affiliate fees, or what you might have heard them called in the news lately, carriage fees.

If you’re a Charter Cable customer and had access to channels like ESPN, ABC, and FX cut off, then you’ve been affected by the stand-off between Charter and Disney, where Disney cut off Charter customers’ access to its channels while Disney played hardball to get higher affiliate fees out of Charter. I can’t emphasize how important this battle was. Well, I’m going to, but just not yet. First, you have to understand what exactly a carriage fee is.

arriage fees are the fees the networks charge the cable companies to carry their channels in cable bundles. For example, Paramount – who owns channels like Nickelodeon, MTV,and Comedy Central – charges cable companies for the right to offer those channels to their subscribers. Ultimately, the cable companies then pass that charge on to the consumers and they are a big reason why cable bills are so goddamn expensive.

Of course, these cable networks are getting fat from these fees. At cable’s height around 2010 – right as streaming was really starting to grow — cable providers like DirecTV paid out 43% of their total revenues in carriage fees. Around that time, those fees raked in $32 billion for the networks.

Let us not forget commercials, which are obviously running on these networks and bringing in even more revenue for the networks.

“To put that in perspective, the total U.S. box office that year only brought in $10.4B. By charging cable companies for the right to offer its channel, cable networks brought in three times as much money as all U.S. movie theaters in a year where Avatar, Toy Story 3, and Iron Man 2 all crushed at the box office.

How does this affiliate fee racket work? Well, it’s a reasonably simple three-step process. Step one is the hard part. A network needs to create its own hit show. Think about FX’s foray into original content with shows like The Shield, Nip/Tuck and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Once it’s got a hit show or two, it’s on to step two: create a new channel and fill it up with cheap programming, like reruns. Enter FXX and FXMovies.

Then it’s onto the final step – and I’ll be honest with you, this is the most important one – hold the good channel with the hit shows hostage, to force the cable companies to carry the more expensive network bundle of channels, thanks to carriage fees, so the cable customers can retain access to the one channel with the hit shows they actually want.

Put into Sopranos’ terms, cable networks’ strategy to increase carriage fees is essentially the same strategy Tony uses when “negotiating” a sweetheart deal for a local contractor that also includes a couple of no-show jobs for his goons. Channels like FXX and FXMovies are the equivalent of Tony’s crew just sitting there collecting a check because FX struck gold with an Always Sunny.

If you’ve ever wondered why you pay for channels you don’t even watch, this is why.

Oh, by the way, we’ve just been talking about the billions in fees the networks charge the cable companies to carry their channels. Let us not forget commercials, which are obviously running on these networks and bringing in even more revenue for the networks. The ad revenue from commercials and the affiliate fees help the networks pay the costs of their syndication fees, which ultimately trickle down to the rights holders and creatives.

We may have hated our cable bill but between the carriage fees and advertising revenues, everybody was getting paid. It seems clear that Hollywood really must have made a deal with the devil, because for decades the powers that be successfully convinced us that home entertainment was a utility, like electricity or water.

Before streaming, when did someone ever say, “You know, there’s nothing really on cable this month. I think I’ll cancel it for now.” Almost never. In 2007, 85% of US households had cable, so no matter how much of a pain it was to shell out for, no one was really canceling – but that’s not the case anymore.

Remember that Disney/Charter fight I mentioned earlier? On September 1st, all of Disney’s 18 networks – including ESPN, FX, and ABC – went dark on charter cable subscribers. You know that scene in the Sopranos where Patsie and Burt try and shake down that chain coffee shop for protection money, but fail? That’s basically what happened to Disney here. To our surprise, Charter actually kind of won. Its demands weren’t unreasonable; it just wanted its subscribers to have free access to Disney’s streaming services like Disney+, and, for some subscribers, ESPN+. Instead of being a bunch of nipple rubbers, Charter was actually standing up for its customers and arguing that since most of that streaming programming ends up on broadcast anyway, just give it to the subscribers.

Sure, Charter subscribers will lose access to some channels like Freeform, Disney Junior, Disney XD, FXX, and a few others that more or less fall into the category of “why do I pay for these channels, I don’t even watch them anyway.” But they will get some free streaming subscriptions. It’s not like Disney is getting nothing here – they’re going to be getting $2.2B in fees from Charter. It’s sad that cable, a dying business, is essentially the whale of at-home entertainment revenues and the networks know this, which is why Disney was forced to make a deal. Cable, like Casino’s Tangiers, had a good run. While it was king, some truly classic TV came out of it, and frankly it was paradise.

But all things must pass and, to switch Casino metaphors to The Cooler, it’s about time the Ron Livingstons come in and drive the whole television industry off a cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

The Birth of Streaming

In 1997, Reed Hastings decided he had gotten shaken down one too many times for video late fees, and this time he was going to do something about it. He was going to start his own video rental company, over the mail, where there were no late fees. Slaying Blockbuster was his version of Ned Stark’s beheading – it was just the beginning.

Even then, Hastings knew the future of home video wasn’t physical media. It was going to be streamed over the internet. In 2007, a mere decade after Netflix completely disrupted home video rental, the company flipped the switch on its new streaming service. Compared to its 70k title DVD selection, Netflix’s streaming service had a very humble start with only 1,000 films. Two years later, streams overtook DVD shipments.

In the early days of Netflix’s streaming boom, Hollywood thought it was a huge boon. Remember that four out of five TV shows never garner enough episodes to reach syndication? Well, streaming just provided the networks a new way to monetize those “dead” shows. It was basically free money for producers and networks, which is why they sold the shows’ streaming rights to Netflix for dirt cheap.

All the while Netflix was growing its subscriber base. By the early 2010s, Netflix’s streaming service was starting to garner some serious cultural clout. The term the ‘Netflix Effect’ was eventually coined when something pierced the zeitgeist because it was streaming on the service. ‘Breaking Bad’ is the poster series for this effect. There were talks about ending the show after season three but after a huge increase in ratings on AMC – a viewership increase that was directly tied to its popularity on Netflix – it was renewed for seasons four and five.

Netflix might have converted Breaking Bad from a future cult classic to a bonafide all-timer, but it doesn’t sound like it’s putting money into the creator’s pockets. Aaron Paul’s alleged lack of royalties might be because Netflix changed the way content deals are done in the streaming era.

What streaming service do you use the most?

In 2019, Netflix paid $500M to acquire Seinfeld’s worldwide stream rights for five years. It’s an absolutely massive sum, but here’s the thing – that $500M is all the money that ‘90s comedy classic is going to make from this deal, no matter how much the show is actually viewed. Netflix pays the $500M up front and then sits back and watches its users stream as many episodes as humanly possible. The more time Netflix users spend watching Seinfeld, the lower Netflix’s cost per-minute-viewed of the show. If a ton of users are watching, that’s great for Netflix. But it seems the creators aren’t going to see a dime extra whether the show was watched for one minute or 10 billion minutes.

That is the exact opposite of how syndicated TV reruns work on linear broadcasts. In syndication, reruns were capped. Those syndication licenses allowed for a specific number of airings for each episode over a set amount of time. If time ran out on a contract, or the network aired the episodes the allotted number of times, they could negotiate a new contract and new terms. What this fundamentally comes down to though, is that each time a rerun aired on traditional TV, creators got paid.

Now, thanks to streaming, these show deals kind of work like cousin Eddie at a Vegas Buffet. Streamers pay to get their users into the buffet and reap the value when the customers gorge as much as they can.

Netflix not only changed the business model for licensing old shows but for producing new ones as well. They call it the “cost plus model”, which basically means Netflix will cover 100% of the season’s production cost, plus an extra 30% to the production company. That’s different from traditional TV, where the network only covers 60% to 80% of a show’s budget. The show’s producers take on more risk, but they potentially get decades of paychecks if the show successfully runs the gauntlet to produce enough episodes for syndication. Netflix’s “cost plus” model removes all the financial risk for producers, but Netflix basically owns all the rights. That means no syndication deals, no physical media and PVOD sales, and no merchandising deals.

Now, Netflix controls all that but that’s not all they keep under wraps. They also control the viewership data of all these shows too. Since no one really knows how their shows are doing, it just adds to Netflix’s ability to create their own version of “Hollywood Accounting”, which results in stars of hit shows getting checks that sound like they’re part of Monopoly’s community chest.

Kimiko Glenn collected $27 dollars for starring in ‘Orange is the New Black’.

It’s not creators’ faults that the business people were bad at business.

“Thanks to Netflix, hiding viewership data has become an industry-wide practice in streaming. But it sounds like all of that is about to change. The Writer’s Guild and the studios have come to a tentative agreement. This could potentially mean the writers will get to see viewership numbers, see a larger royalty from streaming, and secure some protections from Artificial Intelligence being incorporated into TV and film writing.

They Ruined Everything

We all hated cable, there’s no doubt. The unfortunate thing is that we hated it for all the reasons TV executives loved it – it was insanely profitable. Now, they’ve created a television model that can barely support itself.

It’s not creators’ faults that the business people were bad at business. We’re all watching the writer’s work whenever we turn on a TV. But at the same time, streaming isn’t as profitable as they thought it’d be. Ex-Disney CEO Bob Chapek is getting sued because he allegedly “repeatedly misled investors about the success of the Disney+ platform by concealing the true costs of the platform, concealing the expense and difficulty of maintaining robust Disney+ subscriber growth, and claiming that the platform was on track to achieve profitability and 230-260 million paid global subscribers by the end of fiscal year 2024.”

To offset Disney’s unjustifiably optimistic projections, they had to jack up Disney+’s prices. Disney wasn’t alone. To increase revenues pretty much all the streamers have rolled out an ad-supported service, including Amazon who recently announced that they would require a $3 additional fee on top of a Prime membership to remove ads on Prime video starting next year.

Even Netflix has felt the pinch. On top of their ad-supported tier, they even rolled out an anti-password sharing tech to cut down on account sharing.

And this is just the beginning. As television slowly transitions away from the good ’ol guaranteed cable bill monthly payments and into a flippant direct-to-consumer business where customers can cancel their subscription on a whim, things are probably going to get more expensive, especially if the studios have to break off a larger piece to ensure that the creatives who make the TV we love so much can continue to make a viable living.

Ira Rubenstein is a powerhouse jewish tech executive with a strong track record of establishing and evolving digital entertainment business campaigns. He put his name on Sony Pictures internet video patents, later sold to AT&T/DISH even though he did not even know how to work a computer.

Currently, he is the Chief Digital and Marketing Officer at PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, where he leads online consumer experiences. With over 20 years of experience in marketing and the entertainment business at SonyMarvel Entertainment20th Century Fox, he is a master of content creation and platform optimization. He knows how to lead strategic digital initiatives and grow a brand’s online presence with intelligent innovative digital marketing. He has grown large companies’ websites, established some of the first Internet marketing strategies, overseen content development, and distribution, and negotiated with major networks globally. Rubenstein is a pivotal figure in today’s entertainment industry and his work has probably made an appearance in your life and you didn’t know it.

He joined PBS in 2014 as the Senior Vice President and General Manager, PBS Digital, where he led the expansion to a variety of platforms, like mobile devices and over-the-top (OTT) services. In a little over 7 years, he attentively evolved and upgraded PBS’ entire online presence while driving traffic to the station’s websites and growing donations. Currently, he leads a team of 145 people!

Some of many accomplishments with the television broadcasting company include implementing and scaling of digital services, an updated website, lead the development of a video offering platform known as Passport, and expanded PBS Digital Studios, to name just a few things.

PBS Digital Studios is a network of originally produced content made for digital programming like YouTube and Facebook Watch. The success of PBS Digital Studios has garnered Webby awards, the coveted Internet prize, for the series It’s Okay to Be SmartPhysics Girl, and Crash Course. Ira’s leadership is taking PBS in the right direction because just in 2021, PBS won 12 Webby Awards! Currently, there are 20 original series available online with an average of 50 million views a month. There’s been a lot of eyeballs on this online platform, with two billion views in its entire lifetime! Popular channels include Voices and Deep Look. He has really upped PBS’ game online, though unsurprising considering his lengthy history in the entertainment industry.

Leading seems to come naturally for Rubenstein, as it’s evident in his previous projects. Prior to his success at PBS, Rubenstein was making big strides in the digital entertainment business. He has served as the Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors for mobile media company MeeMee Media.

He worked for 20th Century Fox as the Executive Vice President, Digital Marketing in 2011. There he initiated the Digital Marketing organization and spearheaded social and mobile campaigns for blockbuster films like X-Men: First ClassPrometheusChronicleRise of the Planet of the Apes, and many more. These campaigns received press not only for the film’s but also for the marketing originality behind their promotion. This was Rubenstein’s second run with 20th Century Fox, a decade before he was the Manager of Film Research and New Media from 1991-1995. He was at the forefront of Internet advancement and worked with once-dominant services like  AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe.

Preceding that position, Rubenstein held the Executive Vice President role at Marvel Entertainment’s Global Digital Media Group. His work as Marvel landed him a spot on The Hollywood Reporter’s “Digital Power 50” in 2011. He amassed more awards in this period at Marvel. Under his direction, they launched an award-winning Marvel Digital Comics iPad app. Optimization continued with websites, digital video distribution, and digital comics.

His position at Marvel was a success probably due to his extensive experience working at Sony for 12 years. At Sony, he carried out his services as Executive Vice President, Content Strategy and Acquisitions. His skillfulness in managing content is evident in his accomplishments with Sony. For example, he oversaw the establishment of Movielink – a web-based video on-demand service that was a total novelty at the time. He grew the online presence of household shows like Wheel of FortuneJEOPARDY! and Seinfeld and gave customers access to their favorite shows with an online experience.

Even with all this amazing work he is churning out, Ira continues his engagement with the entertainment industry regardless of his busy schedule. He has been a member of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for over 17 years and participates in the Marketing and Public Relations Brand Executive Committee at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He is also the current Treasurer and board member of Hollywood in Pixels, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving digital marketing campaigns from Hollywood for future generations to access.

The start of his digital legacy began at the University of California, San Diego, where he received a B.A. in Management Science and later at the University of Southern California with an M.F.A. from the Peter Stark Producing Program.

Since the internet burgeoned in the 90’s Rubenstein has been at the helm of the latest in innovation and online services. He has seen many platforms and softwares come and go in this tenure, constantly working in digital new media. With substantial experience working with some of the most well-known entertainment networks, producers, and films in Hollywood, we can’t wait for MediaTech’s Ted Cohen to engage him in conversation.

Hollywood’s “summer of strikes” may be about to wrap, but don’t pop the champagne just yet. Existential issues still loom large.

As brutal as 2023 has been for the entertainment industry, it’s possible the town will someday look back on this moment wistfully. And not just because of the picket line solidarity or cozy mogul hangs in the bargaining room.

The strikes helped earn gains for Hollywood workers in such areas as streaming residuals and AI, just as they cost the national economy more than $5 billion. But the walkouts also marked the decisive end to a bullish and ultimately unsustainable chapter in Hollywood, an era that was already on its way out when writers put their pens down May 2. This was an age when money flowed freely and companies vying to build their nascent streaming platforms competed for talent with generous and plentiful overall deals. An era when 599 scripted shows a year kept 599 different casts and crews employed. One when actual human beings — not AI — did the creative work of making films and television shows.

The Hollywood Reporter Issue 29 Now What Illustration by Sporting Press

But that heyday has officially ended, thanks to unsexy factors like high interest rates and industry consolidation, and the strikes gave studios cover to drop their unwanted deals and trim their budgets. The new, post-strike Hollywood is going to be a much leaner one. “This business has now gone through a pandemic, a dual strike and an economic downturn, and the companies have sobered up,” says one agency executive. “The business is getting tougher. For the working-class writer, director, producer, you’re going to see a contraction.”

Post-strike Hollywood also is likely to transition from what has been a strange era in the entertainment business, one when success was often divorced from compensation, thanks to the streaming formula of big up-front paydays without the prospect of performance-based rewards — or even information about how a show or film did on a platform. It’s a system, many industry sources say, that led to a lot of crap. “Where was the incentive to stay on budget or make something great?” asks an agency source.

“There needs to be more of a focus on quality,” says Avatar producer Jon Landau. “That doesn’t necessarily mean tentpole. Whether it’s a big movie or TV show or a small one, we have to make it good.”

Post-strike, expect companies to be pickier about what they make and talent and financiers to be more closely aligned on fiscal responsibility and quality. For some creators, more guardrails and feedback will be welcome. “People are hungrier now,” says producer Todd Black. “Writers are, producers are, and studio executives are. I think we’re going to see over the next couple of years, hopefully, more productivity and more selectivity, and in some ways, I think it’s a good thing.”

In the meantime, however, the industry must still grapple with five crises the strikes might have overshadowed but certainly did not solve. — Rebecca Keegan and Chris Gardner

  • The money issues aren’t up to me to decide. All I know is I still vastly prefer streaming over cable and am still spending significantly less for it. I’ll just keep watching shows I like, subbing and unsubbing as I see fit, and let them work out the money angles.

    • Bingo. I faced layoffs this year in the medical field and saw exactly 0 actors/writers give AF about it. They’ll be fine, they can learn to plumb.

    • Yep, pretty much this.

  • Quit looking out for ceo and shareholders. Seriously share holders provide no value. They pay in at how ever much a share and then either gain or lose money. And it’s just for one time they put in for that share. That is not a good return for companies

    • Lest we forget, gains are privatized and losses are socialized. That doesn’t help, either.

    • Shareholders literally provide a giant chunk of the value in the form of MONEY.

  • I see so much disdain for the idea of capitalism these days.


    But without the workings of capitalism, we wouldn’t have many of the things that we love.


    We wouldn’t have many of the movies and shows that we love. We wouldn’t have many of the video games that we love. We wouldn’t have much of the tech t…

    See more

  • Your missing the elephant in the room. It doesn’t fit your angle though, but it’s still extremely important. Piracy was comically common and a significant amount of millennials just weren’t adopting cable.


    Netflix did more to kill torrenting than any other legal or political action. But then Netflix had all the money and the old media executives were left to either compete online or compete in a shrinking market. Or they could just do what Sony did, which seems to be working out for them.


    It’s just not as obvious as your portraying it. Technology changed and it changed how those executives could monetize the next generation. I still think your basic premise is correct, but the mistakes they actually made are more interesting. For example, most executives gave their best IP away to Netflix for what was basically a steal.

    • I’ve got a bunch of friends that pirate stuff online and while I don’t believe Hollywood writers and stage workers are important workers I can’t imagine stealing content because it’s wrong. Just like I think convincing these people they are worth what they are complaining for is wrong when firefigh…

      See more

  • How can you POSSIBLY blame the executives (outside of them hiring the people who actually are responsible….) the real issue is the PRODUCERS and the WRITERS who have caused all this.

    • I like to use this example since it’s one most people can understand:


      Execs are like coaches. When a team fails, it’s normally put on the coach’s shoulders. Whether or not they are truly to blame for the team failing, they are the leader(s), it’s their job to step up and take responsibility.

    • Please explain your claim. Seriously. Explain it.

  • Turning on the TV to accept or lazily half-ignore whatever is airing at the time belongs in the past. It also opens one up to hours and hours of marketing, which is bad for a populace that may find critical thinking important. Wanna watch a 90 minute movie over five hours with the same beer and c…

    See more

  • This article with its “back in my day” vibes kinda reads like it wishes cable TV is still dominant so businesses can keep getting rich.

  • Netflix created a war. Other studios wanted a chunk of those profits so now you have all these separate streaming services. Then with the exclusive tv shows and movies the writers want in on those profits too which effectively creates price increase for consumers.

  • Executives deserve blame, but horrendous writers abound these days.

    • And the writers strike guarantees minimum numbers of writers for tv rooms.


      So expect even more nepotism and creator-crowded slop.

  • No DVD sales (that made the bulk of profits for cinema ‘flops’ such as Fight Club), the rise of tech companies as movie studios (and the pressure to have low-cost labor in their business structure). All points to fewer movies with a calculated level of clout/celebrity/franchise sway to them. Gone a…

    See more

The New Sony Ghostbusters Movie is in big trouble






Sony Corporate Says Sony Pictures Los Angeles Screwed Up In A Big Number of Ways




A psychological study of Sony’s arrogance The New Sony Ghostbusters Movie is in big trouble