QUESTION: What first brought you to the Caucus?
GREG STRANGIS: I honestly don't recall the circumstances that brought me to the Caucus. Certainly, I was influenced by the Caucus's mission to protect creative rights, and by the legendary men and women who were its members. And while I may not be able to remember exactly what first brought me in, I do know that it's the quality of the minds of its members that keeps me engaged.

QUESTION: The broad question is: What is the most radical, most notable change in the television industry between the time you began your career and where we find TV today? More specifically: what effect, if any, has vertical integration (network ownership of programming) had on the creative community in general and your career in particular?
GREG STRANGIS: Actually, there are at least two radical changes I think worth noting. First is the lack of meaningful ownership today's show creators retain. Back in the day, when Norman Lear created and produced a series, he actually owned that show and all the fruit it was destined to bear. Today, with few exceptions, the series creators and producers – while handsomely compensated for their efforts – have little or no stake in their shows beyond the initial run. Takes a lot of fun – and lot$ of incentive – out of the process.
Another radical change has to do with the size of the TV universe. In the old days, (not even 20 years ago), television was 3 networks and some syndication outlets. Now it's vast, with literally hundreds of broadcast outlets. Nevertheless, as large as it has become, it still seems like there are far fewer buyers of product.

QUESTION: The past few years has seen a tidal wave of reality programming. What's your take on TV's current love affair with so-called non-scripted reality shows? Where do you see this trend going? Was Paddy Chayefsky correct? Should the audience be "mad as hell and not take it anymore?"
GREG STRANGIS: As a 34 year member of the WGA, I don't like the idea of any television programming being "non-scripted." Besides, as most everyone knows, that "non-scripted" label is really just a euphemism for written programming where the writers aren't paid as writers. They're called story producers, earn 1/3 the money, receive no health and welfare coverage, and enjoy no Guild protections. DGA members suffer the same fate.
In truth, when the audience gets mad enough, it tunes out. When the audience tunes out, the networks change their programming. It has always been that way; I suspect it will always be that way. In the early 80s, sitcoms were dead, and then along came The Cosby Show. Lost and Desperate Housewives are recent proof that there is more to dramatic television than another iteration of Law & Order or CSI. This reality trend shall pass. Soon, I hope. Too much of any one genre is bad for us all. (Anybody remember Who Wants to be a Millionaire? three nights a week?)

QUESTION: Advertisers seem to be taking a greater role in programming, reminiscent of their roles in TV in the 50s. Branding is more apparent, and more and more advertisers are trying to step in as production partners and even owners of programming. Is this a good thing for the creative community?
GREG STRANGIS: I'm not sure this is really a good thing/bad thing type of question. Integrated advertising, branded entertainment, product placement and their like all offer the promise of bringing more money to production, increasing a producer's leverage, simultaneously improving production values and reducing deficits. That's obviously a "good thing." On the flip side, advertisers who write checks are entitled to influence the creative process. Too much influence would fall under "bad thing." Ultimately, as with most things in life, it comes down to maintaining a balance.

QUESTION: Would you say that advertisers are encroaching on what we Caucus members like to think of as our creative "turf?"
GREG STRANGIS: TV is a collaborative medium, and advertisers have always been part of that team, influencing – sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly -- the creative process. The simple act of choosing to buy commercial time on one show and not on another is influential.
Again, I think it's a matter of balance, of respect for the ideas of others. At its best, TV is entertaining, enlightening, inspiring, instructive, informing the mind and stirring the heart. At its worst, it's a self-conscious huckster to consumption. I can think of no good reason why advertisers and show creators cannot function as a viable, successful collaboration.

QUESTION: How has the Caucus's mission evolved over the years?
GREG STRANGIS: Short answer: the Caucus mission has evolved from creative rights to survivor rights. In the face of media consolidation, both vertical and horizontal, where all broadcast and content ownership resides in the hands of a very few, it's all about the survival of the creative voice.

QUESTION: Most Caucus members would describe themselves as entrepreneurs. In the face of media consolidation, vertical integration and advertiser competition, is there still a place in television for the entrepreneur?
GREG STRANGIS: There's always a place for the true entrepreneur. New technologies are opening up new avenues of broadcasting, non-conventional avenues. Whether it's IPTV (Internet Protocol Television), video over cell phones, or some other "next big thing," there is always a need for content. That's where the entrepreneur comes in: he or she finds out where there's a need, then figures out a way to step in and fill it.