In social media, people cannot build big followings organically unless what they are putting out to the world has value.
It's just as valuable to curate content as it is to create it.
When it's between the covers of a book, content is perceived to have literary substance - or more so that it might otherwise.
We're a content company. And if we create the best content, every distributor will want what we have.
The thing that concerns me most is that, in the digital age, if we fail to make efforts to maintain the value of our content, there is the high possibility for the value to be greatly reduced, as the history of the music industry has shown.
If something is a comedy for the sake of just comedy's sake and it doesn't have a good message, I don't have an interest in being part of it. If something is just serious and scary with no good message, I don't want to be a part of it.
I always tell people there's only one trick to writing: You have to write something that people are willing to pay money to read. It doesn't have to be very good, necessarily, but somebody, somewhere, has got to be willing to pay money for it.
Bloggers intent on self-expression which renders no service to readers don't get read.
Premium content matters.
It's hard to build community around mediocre and mundane writing.
Some estimate Hulu IPO could bring in $2 billion. What will the content providers get? Zero. What is Hulu without content? An empty jukebox.
Success is no longer content. It's how it sells.
Whether they're paying for it or not is not really relevant. They're investing a significant amount of time in our content. At some point, commercial opportunities will materialise for greater percentages of that audience.
If something is well-written, it has a chance to be good and if it's not well-written, it will not be good. It could even become popular, but it won't be good.
I think giving great content out to people is critical, and exclusive, cool content they've never seen before is the best way to go.
We tried to do the news without frills, without fluffy hairdos, without graphics. It does say something about our business that is not very pretty. It didn't matter how good the show was. What counted was money.
When companies get bigger they try to replicate their success. But they assume their magic came from process. They try to use processes to substitute content.
I often feel newspapers are just filling up space. Of course, I also know people who write really long books.
At the end of the day, TV is supposed to be entertaining. But it's important for me that there's some take-away value from it.
People say: 'Oh, but would you be happy for your show to go on BBC3 if it was just online?' If I was sat here telling you I had just signed a huge deal with Netflix you'd be going: 'Wow, that's amazing.' You can't see it as 'Oh, it's no longer a channel because it's not on TV.'
Digital platforms are worthless without content. They're shiny sacks with bells and whistles, but without content, they're empty sacks. It is not about pixels versus print. It is not about how you're reading. It is about what you're reading.
Sometimes if something is entertaining and amusing, people tend to think that it doesn't have the depth of something that's dramatic. I don't think that's true.
The digital world is one that has sort of a unique characteristic, where it's a place in which it's very easy for the value of content to fall.
Information about the package is as important as the package itself.
The videos are definitely as important as the music.
