annenberg report on diversity in hollywood

8/19/2019 Annenberg Report on Diversity in Hollywood

1/27

STACY L. SMITH , PhD ,MARC CHOUEITI,

KATHERINE PIEPER,

PhDwith assistance from ARIANA CASE and ARTUR TOFAN

INCLUSION or INVISIBILITY?

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, &SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

Institute forDiversity andEmpowerment at Annenberg (IDEA)

Comprehensive Annenberg Report onDiversity in Entertainment


2/27

February 22, 2016Dear Friends, Colleagues, Industry Employees, and Activists,

We are proud to reveal the rst Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment (CARD). Thisreport is the result o over a year o data collection and analysis by the scholars and students at the Media, Di-versity, & Social Change Initiative (MDSC) at USC’s Annenberg School or Communication and Journalism. Withover 100 research assistants working in our lab per year, we engage in and tackle issues surrounding inclusion inentertainment.

As academics, we are set apart by our solution-oriented approach - we seek out previous research and theory todiscover empirical answers to complex social problems. Ultimately, our goal is to accelerate the advancement oa media environment that represents the world we inhabit-- where the voices and visions o a diverse populationare valued and visible. The nancial support o the Institute or Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA)has allowed us to take a bold new step in pursuit o this goal.

CARD: An Industry First

For the past 10 years, we have quantied disturbing patterns around the lack o media representation concerningemales and people o color in lm. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged.

We are o ten asked two questions ollowing the release o our lm studies: “ but aren’t things better in television? ”and “ how are different companies performing? ” This report is our public answer to both o these questions.And, or the rst time, we have ranked companies on their level o inclusivity on screen and behind the camera.This is also the rst time our research team has looked rom CEO to every speaking character across lm, televi-sion, and digital content.

We believe that evaluating company output is a crucial aspect o pushing the conversation on media inclusionorward to create real change. Accountability and awareness can only take us so ar, though. This report is not

about shame or punishment. Rather, our aim is to help companies align their products with the values they hold.

Our location on a University campus means we are no strangers to evaluation. It is a hallmark o the academyand one o our most important undertakings. The Inclusion Indices in this report are designed to serve as anevaluation tool or organizations. The Indices offer companies a metric to understand their scores in two specicways. First, their per ormance relative to entertainment industry norms. Second, their per ormance relative toproportional representation in the U.S. population. Armed with in ormation, media businesses can take steps toimprove casting and hiring practices in the months and years to come.

Shi ting rom invisibility to inclusion is no easy task. Companies have the opportunity to dismantle the structuresand systems that have guided decades o exclusionary decision-making. Yet, these organizations do not ace thistask alone. We at the MDSC Initiative are available to develop and implement concrete solutions, monitor prog-

ress, and celebrate success with you.

There is more to do, and we look orward to continuing the conversation. Our work to oster inclusion in storytell-ing will continue until the landscape o media characters and creators is as varied as the audience it serves.

Onward,Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper


3/27

The Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity (CARD) assesses inclusion on screen and behind the camerain ctional lms, TV shows, and digital series distributed by 10 major media companies (21st Century Fox, CBS,Comcast NBC Universal, Sony, The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Viacom, Amazon, Hulu, and Netix).

Movies theatrically released in 2014 by the major studios or their art house divisions were included in the sample,provided they met a certain threshold o domestic box office per ormance (see Appendix A).¹ Prime-time rst runscripted series as well as digital offerings airing rom September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015 were sampled onbroadcast, popular basic cable, premium channels or streaming services associated with the companies listedabove (see Appendix B).² In total, the sample included 414 stories or 109 motion pictures and 305 broad-cast, cable, and digital series .

The major unit o analysis was the speaking or named character.³ Each speaking character was assessed or role,demographics, domesticity, and hypersexualization.⁴ Behind the camera, the gender o directors and writers oeach lm and every episode within a sampled series was evaluated.⁵ Race/ethnicity was assessed or directors o

movies as well as those helming the season premiere episode o television/digital programs.⁶ Finally, the gendercomposition o CEOs, members o executive suites, boards o directors, and employees at the Executive VicePresident or Senior Vice President level or above in lm, TV, or streaming divisions was scrutinized.⁷

Below, we present an overview o our key ndings within our major areas. For a detailed overview o the study,see the Executive Report online at the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative site.

GENDER

Prevalence On Screen

Across the 11,306 speaking characters evaluated, 66.5% were male and 33.5% were emale. This calculated intoa sample wide gender ratio o seeing 2 males to every 1 emale on screen, which varied by media plat orm.⁸ Fe-male characters ll only 28.7% of all speaking roles in lm . For scripted series, less than 40% o all speakingcharacters were girls and women (broadcast=36.4%, cable=37.3%, streaming=38.1%).

The percentage o lms and TV/digital series with “balanced casts” was also assessed, or those stories with girlsand women in 45-54.9% o all speaking roles. Only 18% o stories evaluated were gender balanced, with lm(8%) the least likely to depict balance and cable the most likely (23%).

Turning to leading characters by media plat orm, almost three-quarters o the leads, co leads or actors carryingan ensemble cast in lm were male (73.5%) and 26.5% ( n=41) were emale. This is in stark contrast to TV/digitalseries. A ull 42% o series regulars⁹ were girls/women. 10 Streaming eatured the most emales in the principalcast (44.2%), ollowed by broadcast (41.6%) and cable (41%). 11 Given the ndings in Table 1, it is clear thatfemales are still underrepresented on screen across the ecosystem of popular ctional content .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


4/272

Portrayal On Screen

One o the most politicized areas in Hollywood pertains to casting women 40 years o age or older. Our ndingsshow that 35% o all characters evaluated on this measure were in this age bracket. The vast majority o theseparts go to males, however. Men ll 74.3% o these roles and women 25.7%. Film was less likely than broad-cast or cable to show women 40 years of age or older. 12 Streaming was the most likely, with females lling33.1% of roles for middle age and elderly characters .

CHARACTERS YRS OF AGE Film Broadcast Cable Streaming Total

% of males 78.6% 73.1% 70.6% 66.9% 74.3%

% of females 21.4% 26.9% 29.4% 33.1% 25.7%

The sexualization o characters on screen also was assessed (see Figure 1). Females were more likely than malesto be shown in sexy attire (Females=34.3% vs. Males=7.6%), with some nudity (Females=33.4% vs. Males=10.8%)and physically attractive (Females=11.6% vs. Males=3.5%). 13 Female sexualization differed by media platform(see Table 3). Female characters were more likely to be shown scantily clad and partially naked in broad-cast, cable, and streaming content than female characters in lms .14

%

FILM

RATIO 2.5 to 1 1.7 to 1 1.7 to 1 1.6 to 1 2 to 1

CABLE STREAMING TOTALBRO AD CAS T

% OF FEMALE SPEAKING CHARACTERS

Total ratio of males to

females

Total number of speaking characters

2:1

11,306

18%

33.5

Total percentageof genderbalancedcasts28.7

36.4 37.3 38.1

Table 1Gender of Speaking Characters by Media Platform

Table 2Characters 40 Years of Age and Older by Gender within Media Platform


5/273

SEXUALIZATION MEASURES Film Broadcast Cable Streaming

% shown in sexually revealing clothing 28.6% 36.4% 39.6% 34.7%

% shown w/partial or ull nudity 27.5% 35.3% 39.6% 32.5%

% re erenced as physically attractive 13.9% 10.2% 10.8% 9.6%

Figure 1Character Sexualization by Gender

Table 3Female Character Sexualization by Media Platform

%

SEXY CLOTHING NUDITY ATTRACTIVENESS

MALES

FEMALES

34.3

10.8

33.4

3.5

11.67.6

These sexualization ndings are troubling or two reasons. Theory suggests and research supports that expo-sure to objecti ying content may contribute to and/or rein orce negative effects such as sel objectication, bodyshame, and/or appearance anxiety among some emale viewers. 15 The results also suggest that with a higherprevalence o emales on screen a higher incidence o sexualization ollows.

Behind the Camera

Gender composition was examined in two key behind the camera positions in lm and scripted series: directorand writer. A total o 4,284 directors were assessed or gender across all episodes o 305 scripted series and 109motion pictures. A ull 84.8% o directors were male ( n=3,632) and 15.2% were emale ( n=652). This translatesinto a gender ratio o 5.6 males to every one emale behind the camera in popular media.

Director gender and media plat orm were related. 16 As shown in Table 4, only 3.4% of all lm directors werefemale ( n= 4). Among TV and digital series, broadcast had the highest percentage of directors (17.1%) andstreaming the lowest (11.8%) .


6/274

A similar analysis was conducted or writer gender. 17 Across 6,421 writers, a full 71.1% were male and 28.9%were female. This means that for every one female screenwriter there were 2.5 male screenwriters . Writergender varied by media plat orm (see Table 5). 18 When compared to streaming (25.2%), emales were the leastlikely to have screenwriting credits in lm (10.8%) and the most likely in broadcast (31.6%).

%

FILM

RATIO 8.3 to 1 2.2 to 1 2.5 to 1 3 to 1

CABLE STREAMING

TOTAL

BR OAD C AST

% OF MALE WRITERS % FEMALE WRITERS

Total number of writers: 6,421

28.9%

Total ratio of male to femalewriters:

2.5 to 1

89.2

10.8

68.4

31.6

71.5 74.8

25.228.5

%

FILM

RATIO 28.5 to 1 4.8 to 1 5.6 to 1 7.5 to 1

CABLE STREAMING

TOTAL

BRO A DCA ST

% OF MALE DIRECTORS % FEMALE DIRECTORS

Total ratio of male to femaledirectors:

Total number of directors:

5.6 to 14,284

15.2%

96.6

17.1 15.1

82.9 84.9 88.2

11.83.4

Table 4Director Gender by Media Platform

Table 5Writer Gender by Media Platform


7/275

Is having a emale behind the camera as-sociated with on screen patterns o repre-sentation in lm, TV, and digital series? Asshown in Figure 2, the relationship betweendirector gender and character gender wassignicant. 20 Stories with a emale directorattached had 5.4% more girls/women on

screen than those stories without emaledirection (38.5% vs. 33.1%). For writers 21 and creators, 22 the relationship was morepronounced (10.7% and 12.6% increase,respectively).

These ndings suggest that one solution toon screen diversity is to hire more womenbehind the camera. It may also be the case,however, that executives eel more com ort-able hiring women directors and screenwrit-ers when the story pulls emale. This latterexplanation is problematic and limits the requency and types o open directing/writing jobs available to women.

Summing up, the prevalence and portrayal o women in media has been a topic o much interest to the press andthe public recently. Females are underrepresented both on screen and in key behind the camera roles. Includingwomen behind the camera may be one antidote to the problem, though more research is needed on the effects ohiring women directors and writers or on screen depictions.

SHOW CREATOR GENDER Broadcast Cable Streaming Total

% o males 78% 77.7% 75% 77.4%

% o emales 22% 22.3% 25% 22.6%

Gender Ratio 3.5 to 1 3.5 to 1 3 to 1 3.4 to 1

Total Number 186 229 72 487

Note: This analysis only applies to television and digital series. Creator or developed by credit determined “show creator.” Creators ofsource material predating the development of the television or digital series were not included (e.g., characters created for a movie,novels turned into scripted shows).

Table 6Show Creator Gender by Media Platform

Figure 2

Percentage of Female Characters On Screen by Genderof Content Creator

In addition to writing and directing, the gender o series creators was assessed. A total o 487 creators were cred-ited. Almost a quarter o these creators were women (22.6%) and 77.4% were men. Show creator gender did notvary by plat orm. 19 O show creators, 22% were emale on the broadcast networks, 22.3% on cable channels,and 25% on streaming series.

NO BTSFEMALE

BTS FEMALE

33.5

33.1

30.4

41.1

%

CREATORS

DIRECTORS

WRITERS

46.1

38.5


8/276

Executive Suite

For the rst time, the MDSC Initiative examined the gender o executives at media companies ( n=1,558).23 Thisanalysis catalogued the leadership prole at the parent companies and corporate divisions o lm studios, televi-sion networks, and digital content organizations in our sample.

As shown in Table 7, women represent roughly 20% o corporate boards, chie executives, and executive man-agement teams. 24 Corporate boards consist o elected or appointed officials, while chie executives overseeoperations at the corporate level and have responsibility or all aspects o a media company, not solely lm ortelevision. In some cases, an intermediate team o executives (i.e., Amazon, Comcast NBC Universal, Sony) hadresponsibility or the media divisions o interest. Those were classied as the executive management team. At thepinnacle o some o the largest and most important media companies in the world, women are still roughly one- th o the decision-makers.

Females represent 39.1% o executives across the media divisions o companies evaluated. As shown in Table 8,roughly one-quarter or less o the top executives on all three plat orms are emale. 25 In television, near genderparity has been reached at the EVP level. Looking at the lower leadership tier o all media companies, a sizeablecontingent o women are working in SVP-equivalent positions. Thus, as power increases, the participation orrepresentation of women in executive ranks decreases .

Note: Top executives consisted of individuals at the head of movie studios or lm groups (Chairs, Presidents). When titles at the EVP orSVP level co-occurred with “Chief Officer” titles, they were held to the EVP/SVP level.

POSITION Males Females

Board o Directors 81% 19%

C-Suite 79% 21%

Executive Management Team (i applicable) 81% 19%

Table 7

Top Corporate Executives by Gender and Position

Note: Three companies had executive management teams that oversaw their media divisions: Comcast NBC Universal, Sony and Amazon. In these cases, the C-suite designation includes the parent company and an additional line was created for individuals with governance over the media divisions of these corporations.

Table 8Female Corporate Executives by Media Platform

POSITION Film TV Streaming Total

% o Female Top Executives 25.6% 21.5% 20% 23.7%% o Female EVPs or equivalent 29% 45.3% 18.7% 35.9%

% o Female SVPs or equivalent 40.4% 50.4% 51.4% 46.7%

Total 33.1% 45.1% 32.9% 39.1%


9/277

Examining the executive ranks o major lm and television companies reveals that women are not represented inpositions o senior leadership in equal numbers to their male counterparts. Where women are well-representedis at the SVP level and in EVP positions in television. These ndings demonstrate that while the highest level o thecorporate ladder remains somewhat closed to women, at lower levels emales are waiting to ascend.

RACE ETHNICITY


We also assessed characters’ racial/ethnic identity. O those speaking or named characters with enough cues toascertain race/ethnicity ( n=10,444), 71.7% were White, 12.2% Black, 5.8% Hispanic/Latino, 5.1% Asian, 2.3%Middle Eastern and 3.1% Other. Thus, 28.3% o all speaking characters were rom underrepresented racial/ethnicgroups, which is below (-9.6%) the proportion in the U.S. population (37.9%). 26 The percentage o underrepre-sented speaking characters did not meaning ully vary by media plat orm (see Table 9). 27

The number o shows eaturing “racial/ethnic balance” was evaluated. I a show eatured any underrepresentedcharacters within 10% o the U.S. Census statistic, it was considered balanced. Only 22 stories depicted racial/ethnic balance on the broadcast networks (19%), 18 on cable (13%), 1 on streaming (2%), and 8 in lm (7%).Clearly, most stories fail to reect or match the demographic composition of the U.S .

Table 9Underrepresented Speaking Characters, Series Regulars & Leads by Media Platform

% OF UR SPEAKING CHARACTERS

% OF SHOWS WITH UR BALANCED CASTTOTAL OF STORIES EVALUATED

FILM

CABLE STREAMING

TOTAL

BR OA DCA ST

7

109 116

138 51

26.7

1329.2

229.4

1929.7

41412

28.3

The level o invisibility in storytelling was assessed via the number o shows and lms that did not depict anyspeaking characters rom two specic racial groups: Black/A rican American and Asian. Two trends are immedi-ately apparent in Table 10. First, streaming stories were more exclusionary o actors rom both groups than theother media plat orms. Second, at least half or more of all cinematic, television, or streaming stories fail toportray one speaking or named Asian or Asian American on screen . Undoubtedly, there is a vast underrepre-sentation o racial/ethnic minority groups that still plagues entertainment content.


10/278

Table 11Underrepresented Main Characters by Media Platform

Pivoting to leading characters in lm, 21.8% were coded as underrepresented, which is 16.1% below U.S. Census.The distribution o characters was gendered, with 65.6% o underrepresented characters male and 34.4% e-male. Focusing only on leads, the vast majority were Black (65.6%). Only 12.5% o underrepresented leads wereLatino and 6.3% were Asian. Roughly a sixth (15.6%) o all underrepresented leads were rom “other” races or

ethnicities.

Looking to television and digital content, only 26.6% o series regulars were rom underrepresented racial/ethnicgroups (see Table 11). Underrepresented series regulars were slightly more likely to occur in broadcast (27.6%)and streaming stories (29.6%) than in cable stories (24.6%). 28

% OF UR SERIES REGULARS TOTAL OF STORIES EVALUATED

CABLE ST RE AM IN GB RO AD CA ST

27.6 24.6 29.6

116 138 51

Table 10Number of Shows Without Any Black or Asian Speaking Characters by Media Platform

FILM: Out of 109 stories

CABLE: Out of 138 stories STREAMING: Out of 51 stories

BROADCAST: Out of 116 stories(18%) have no Black characters

Have no Black speaking charactersHave no Asianspeaking characters

20

(50%) have no Asian characters55

(23%)32

(51%)70

(37%)19

(63%)32

(16%)19

(51%)59


11/279

Table 13Female Character Sexualization by Race/Ethnicity

Portrayal On Screen

In terms o demographics, the gender distribution within different racial/ethnic groups was assessed. As shownin Table 12, Latinas and emales rom “other” racial/ethnic groups tended to be shown more requently thanWhite or Black emales. 29

Focusing on age, only 25.7% o all middle age and elderly characters were emale across the sample. O these,over three-quarters were White (77.8%). Only 20.9% were rom underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. 1.3% o

emale characters did not have a discernible race/ethnicity. Looking at the raw numbers, only 203 underrepre-

sented emales 40 and over were coded across the entire sample. This is less than 2% o all speaking characters.Surely, these ndings reveal that underrepresented females are largely invisible from 40 years of ageforward in lm, television, and digital series .

Related to sexualization, we only report on emale characters given the pronounced gender differences observedearlier in the report. For simplicity purposes we are only going to ocus on the highs and lows in this analysis.Female characters rom “other” racial/ethnic groups were more likely to be shown in sexualized attire, with ex-posed skin, and re erenced as attractive than were Black or Asian emale characters (see Table 13 or completedistribution by race/ethnicity). 30

Table 12Character Gender within Racial/Ethnic Groups

CHARACTER GENDER White Latino Black Asian Other

Male 65.7% 62.1% 66.1% 63.4% 62.3%

Female 34.3% 37.9% 33.9% 36.6% 37.7%

SEXUALIZATION MEASURES White Latina Black Asian Other

% in sexualized attire 34.8% 39.5% 29.5% 28.9% 41.6%

% with some nudity 34.2% 35.5% 28.6% 27.7% 39.7%

% re erenced attractive 12.6% 11.4% 7.9% 7.7% 15.3%

Overall, the landscape o media content is still largely whitewashed. Relative to the U.S. population, the industryis underper orming on racial/ethnic diversity o leads (lm), series regulars (TV/digital), and all speaking charac-ters. The number o shows missing two racial groups entirely is particularly problematic. The hashtag #Oscars-SoWhite should be changed to #HollywoodSoWhite, as our ndings show that an epidemic o invisibility runsthroughout popular storytelling.


12/2710

Underrepresented directors do not signicantly vary by media plat orm. Cable shows (16.8% o directors) tendedto attach an underrepresented director to their season premiere episodes more than broadcast (9.6% o direc-tors) or streaming (11.4% o directors) shows. Film held an intermediate position across media, with 12.7% o alldirectors across 109 motion pictures rom underrepresented groups. All percentages under index relative to theU.S. population norm o 37.9%.

The relationship between the presence/ab-sence o an underrepresented director andunderrepresented characters on screen wasevaluated. 31 As shown in Figure 3, the per-centage o on screen underrepresented char-acters increases 17.5% when an underrepre-sented director is at the helm o a scriptedepisode or lm. Only 26.2% o characterswere underrepresented when directors wereWhite whereas 43.7% were underrepresent-ed when directors were rom racial/ethnicminority groups.

As with gender, the race/ethnicity o thedirector seems to matter. However, the direction o inuence is not entirely clear. Having an underrepresent-ed director may have acilitated more underrepresented characters being cast on screen in lm, television, anddigital series. It may also be the case that underrepresented directors were more likely to be hired on to projectswith more diversity on screen. Again, this latter explanation is problematic and suggests that hiring practices areaffected by who is on screen rather than the talent o the storyteller.

Figure 3Underrepresented Characters by Director Race/Ethnicity

% OFUNDER

REPRESENTEDCHARACTERS

43.7

%

UR DIRECTOR NOT UR DIRECTOR

26.2

Behind the Camera

The race/ethnicity o every lm director as well as those helming the rst episode o every live action televisionshow and scripted series was assessed. Out o the 407 directors evaluated (see Table 14), 87% were White and13% were rom underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Only two o the 53 underrepresented directors in lm andtelevision/digital series were Black women: Amma Asante ( Belle) and Ava DuVernay ( Selma ).

Table 14Underrepresented Directors by Media Platform

UR DIRECTOR STATUS Film Broadcast Cable Streaming

% o White Directors 87.3% 90.4% 83.2% 88.6%

% o Underrepresented Directors 12.7% 9.6% 16.8% 11.4%

Ratio 6.9 to 1 9.4 to 1 4.9 to 1 7.8 to 1

Note: This analysis only applies to the rst episode of live action series (n=280) and all lms (n=109; live action or animated) in thesample.


13/271

LGBT


O the 11,194 characters that could be evaluated or apparent sexuality, a total o 224 were coded as Lesbian(n=49), Gay ( n=158), or Bisexual ( n=17). Put differently, only 2% o all speaking characters across the 414 movies,television shows, and digital series evaluated were coded LGB. This point statistic is below the 3.5% o the U.S.population that identies as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual, as reported by the Williams Institute at UCLA. 32

A separate measure assessed whether characters were transgender. Only seven speaking or named charactersidentied as transgender sample wide, which calculates to


14/2712

ibility, intersectionality is also a problem. The majority o LGBT characters are White males, excluding women andpeople o color who are part o the LGBT community. A contradictory story emerged with regard to parental andrelational standing. LGBT characters can be shown in domestic partnerships or marriage but depicting this com-munity raising children on screen is largely avoided in media storytelling. These ndings tell the story o a groupstill ghting or inclusion in media.

COMPANY INCLUSION

Each company was scored with regard to multiple inclusion metrics. As with any report card, specic criteriawere used to measure progress and draw attention to decits. These indicators compare ve aspects o on screenand behind the camera prevalence to a particular standard. Combining all ve scores establishes an overall in-clusion rating per company or both lm and television/digital offerings.

On screen, two indicators ocused on emale and underrepresented characters. Companies were scored on thepercentage o all speaking characters as well as series regulars (TV/digital) and leading characters (lm) thatwere emales or underrepresented. These percentages were combined and standardized to orm on screenscores or gender and or underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. The results were judged against the proportiono each group in the U.S. population. For emales, this was set to 50%. 33 For underrepresented characters, thepopulation standard or comparison was set at 35% rather than 37.9%. This allowed or a margin o differenceto account or actors cast in roles in which the racial/ethnic background o the character and actor differ. It alsoallows or differences between coding judgments and real-li e race/ethnicity.

In lm only, the percentage o LGBT characters on screen was used to set a LGBT inclusion score. As television/digital characters reveal in ormation across a season, a single episode may be insufficient to reveal a character’ssexuality. For this reason, LGBT inclusion scores were not used in the ratings or television/digital companies. 34 The population standard or LGBT characters was set at 3.5%. 35

Behind the camera, inclusion scores were computed or the percentage o emale directors and writers hired tohelm and cra t lms and every episode o television/digital series in our sample. Additionally, the percentage o

emale show creators was calculated or television/digital series only. Using data rom one o our previous stud-ies, 36 the norm or directors was 30%. Guided by the prevalence o writers and show creators across the sample,the standard or these categories was 50%.

Table 16Grading Scale for Company Scorecard

GRADE

CATEGORY SCORE PROXIMITY TO STANDARD FINAL POINTSFully Inclusive 90% or higher within 10% 4

Largely Inclusive 80-89% within 20% 3

Partially Inclusive 70-79% within 30% 2

Barely Inclusive 60-69% within 40% 1

Not Inclusive 59% or lower 50% or less 0


15/271

Table 17Film Distributor Inclusion Index

Similar to an academic scale, scores in each category were assigned a grade at intervals o 10% based on theirproximity to the norm. Grades were awarded consistent with the scale outlined in Table 15. Each “grade” was

urther assigned points between 0 (Not Inclusive) and 4 (Fully Inclusive) and summed to establish an overall rat-ing, calculated as a percentage out o 20 points possible. Results are discussed below, rst or lm and then ortelevision/digital.

Note: A total of 109 movies were evaluated based on theatrical releases in 2014. Smaller divisions (e.g., art house, niche) were includ-ed from the following companies: 21st Century Fox (Fox Searchlight), NBC Universal (Focus Features), Sony (TriStar, Screen Gems, SonyPictures Classics), Time Warner (New Line Cinema).

COMPANIES

ON SCREEN PORTRAYAL BEHIND THE CAMERA

21st Century Fox

% OFFEMALECHARACTERINCLUSION

% OF URCHARACTERINCLUSION

% OF LGBTCHARACTERINCLUSION

% OFFEMALEDIRECTORS

% OFFEMALEWRITERS

TOTALCOMPANYNORM

Sony

Time Warner

26%NOT INCLUSIVE

21%BARELY INCLUSIVE


16/2714

Table 18Television & Digital Distributor Inclusion Index

be celebrated or increasing the overall inclusion scores at these companies. However, true inclusion not onlyinvolves lms about a specic racial/ethnic group. Inclusion also requires integrating characters rom multipleunderrepresented backgrounds across an entire slate o lms.

Note: The networks included per company are as follows: 21st Century Fox (Fox, FX, FXX); CBS (CBS, Showtime); NBC Universal (NBC,USA, Bravo, Syfy, E!); The CW; The Walt Disney Company (ABC, Freeform, Disney, Disney Jr.); Time Warner (HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT,

Adult Swim); Viacom (BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, Teen Nick, TV Land, Spike, VH-1), Amazon, Hulu, and Net- ix. Across these channels and platforms, 305 prime time and digital shows were evaluated.

COMPANIES

ON SCREEN PORTRAYAL BEHIND THE CAMERA

21st Century Fox

% OFFEMALECHARACTERINCLUSION

% OF URCHARACTERINCLUSION

% OFFEMALECREATORS

% OFFEMALEWRITERS

% OFFEMALEDIRECTORS NORM

NBC Universal

The Walt DisneyCompany

36%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

26%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

7%NOT INCLUSIVE

25%NOT INCLUSIVE

39%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

14%NOT INCLUSIVE

29%NOT INCLUSIVE

19%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

70%

13%NOT INCLUSIVE 25%


33%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

25%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

6%NOT INCLUSIVE

17%NOT INCLUSIVE

13%NOT INCLUSIVE 15%Time Warner

Viacom

Amazon

Hulu

Netix 37%

PARTIALLY INCLUSIVE

27%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

32%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

39%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

17%NOT INCLUSIVE

31%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

32%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

18%NOT INCLUSIVE

38%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

18%BARELY

INCLUSIVE

5%NOT INCLUSIVE

10%NOT INCLUSIVE

26%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

21%PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

70%

65%

50%

25%

65%

CBS / Showtime38%

PARTIALLY INCLUSIVE

25% PARTIALLY

INCLUSIVE

22%NOT INCLUSIVE

26%NOT INCLUSIVE


The CW

28%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

47%FULLY INCLUSIVE

30%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

40%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

40%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

50%FULLY INCLUSIVE

47%FULLY INCLUSIVE

35%FULLY INCLUSIVE

34%FULLY INCLUSIVE

40%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

40%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

28%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

44%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

28%FULLY INCLUSIVE

43%LARGELY

INCLUSIVE

45%FULLY INCLUSIVE


17/271

As Universal learned in 2015, investing in an inclusive slate can prove to be a lucrative endeavor or a lm distrib-utor. It also bolsters the awards pipeline or actors rom underrepresented groups. While not on the chart, CBSwas Fully Inclusive o LGBT characters. This was due mainly to one o their two lms, Pride , which ocuses on theLGBT movement in the U.K. during the 1980s.

While there is some inclusivity across race/ethnicity and LGBT indicators, lm offers women little access tocreative roles on screen or behind the camera. All conglomerates ail with regard to inclusivity o girls and wom-

en. On screen, no company earns more than Barely Inclusive when it comes to representing emales. Behind thecamera, scores are ar below standards set in this study. Improving the percentage o emales in directing andwriting positions may inuence the representation o girls and women on screen as well. This would require ad-dressing exclusionary hiring practices or emale directors in particular. These practices are related to genderedperceptions about the marketplace or lm, belie s about the number o qualied emale directors, and evenstereotypes about the masculine nature o the directing role. 37

While companies ailed on their lm scores, the television/digital scorecard paints an entirely different picture.Ten organizations were rated on television/digital inclusivity. O the 50 tests conducted, seven Fully Inclusive andnine Largely Inclusive scores were awarded. Companies earned 16 Not Inclusive scores across all tests. Althoughthese overall grades reveal that there is still room or improvement across these indicators, there are a ew verybright spots.

The Walt Disney Company and The CW Network are the top per ormers (70%) when it comes to inclusion intelevision. Disney succeeds in representing women and underrepresented characters on screen. Both companiesevidence hiring practices behind the camera or writers and show creators that approach balance. Given thatwomen ll a greater share o the writing roles on programs distributed by these companies, it is not surprisingthat more emales appear on screen. For instance, creators such as Lizzy Weiss ( Switched at Birth ), Susanna Fo-gel and Joni Lefowitz ( Chasing Life ), Jennie Snyder Urman ( Jane the Virgin ), or Leila Gerstein ( Hart of Dixie ) may

be one reason these networks eature more girls and women. Additionally, notable show creators like ShondaRhimes ( Grey’s Anatomy ), Kenya Barris ( Blackish ), and Nahnatchka Khan ( Fresh Off the Boat ) on ABC may con-tribute to the percentage o characters rom underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and Disney’s Largely Inclusiverating on this indicator.

Hulu and Amazon per ormed strongly (65%) due to their inclusivity o women. Amazon was the only companyrated Fully Inclusive or hiring emale directors. Here, the inuence o Jill Soloway (creator and director on Trans-parent ) is not the sole explanation or this score. The animated series Wishenpoof! hired a emale director acrossmultiple episodes, and other series eatured emale directors as well. Hulu was Largely Inclusive o emale writ-ers and Fully Inclusive o underrepresented characters. Clearly these streaming services understand the diversityo their audiences.

Viacom earned high marks or inclusion o emale and underrepresented characters. This is due to more than justViacom’s ownership o BET. Other networks across the Viacom amily (i.e., Comedy Central, TV Land, MTV, VH-1,Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite) also eature women ( Another Period , Barely Famous , Finding Carter , Review ) and peo-ple o color ( Bella and the Bulldogs , Broad City , Instant Mom , Soul Man ) prominently across their programming.Having a network ocused on particular underrepresented audiences is important, but not solely responsible orall gains in inclusion or this company.


18/2716

Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, and CBS all ailed to receive a Largely Inclusive or Fully Inclusive grade on anyo the ve indicators, resulting in total scores that ell at 25% or below. Across these companies, it is clear thatwhile a single salient example o an inclusive series ( Girls, Empire ) is important, it may create a misperceptionthat representation is better than the data reveal. For these companies, inclusivity must be implemented acrossall properties as series and programs are developed, cast, and aired.

Evaluating inclusivity by company offers a unique perspective on where the entertainment industry is succeeding

and ailing. This analysis provides consumers with the ability to ascertain which organizations need to improve.Comparing lm scores to television/digital yields a clear picture o where the industry as a whole has allen be-hind. What this also reveals is that lm is not beyond hope. While each lm distributor ailed on inclusion, severalcorresponding television/digital divisions reveal that improved per ormance is possible. These companies mustbe challenged to ocus their efforts on lm as well as television/digital, utilizing similar strategies—where appro-priate—to boost their level o inclusivity across all divisions.

CONCLUSION

The purpose o the CARD study was to assess the landscape o media content distributed by major entertainmentcompanies in 2014-15. We evaluated 414 stories distributed by 10 companies across lm, television, and digitalplat orms. In excess o 11,000 characters and over 10,000 individuals working behind the scenes were included.More than 1,500 employees were analyzed. Across each o these indicators, the evidence points to the realitythat has drawn public notice and vocal response: Hollywood has a diversity problem.

Major Findings

The lm industry still unctions as a straight, White, boy’s club. Girls and women are less than one-third o allspeaking characters, and comprise a small percentage o directors and writers o the major studio and art house

releases o 2014. Television/digital series are more balanced. Girls and women comprise 37.1% o characters and42% o series regulars. Females also work more requently behind the camera as directors and writers. Few wom-en ll top leadership roles in media companies, though they are more prevalent in EVP and SVP positions. Thus,as power increases, emale presence decreases.

Characters rom underrepresented racial/ethnic groups are also excluded or erased rom mediated storytelling.No plat orm presents a prole o race/ethnicity that matches proportional representation in the U.S. Over 50%o stories eatured no Asian speaking characters, and 22% eatured no Black or A rican American characters.The complete absence o individuals rom these backgrounds is a symptom o a diversity strategy that relies ontokenistic inclusion rather than integration.

Just 2% o speaking characters were LGBT-identied and a mere seven transgender characters appeared inthe sample o content— our o whom were in the same series. Moreover, LGBT characters were predominantlyWhite and male. While over hal o LGBT characters were depicted in committed romantic partnerships, less thanone-quarter were shown as parents or caregivers. This latter nding is problematic given recent U.S. SupremeCourt decisions and the gains made or LGBT amilies in the U.S.


19/271

Decide on target inclusion goals . Make these public andtransparent to allow or external accountability.Recognize and alter stereotypical thinking and imaginecounter-stereotypical examples be ore making a hiring de-cision or nalizing a script.Create checks and balances in the review o qualicationsand storytelling decisions by implementing a system thatrequires care ul processing to override cognitive biases.Build inclusive consideration lists or writers and direc-tors by ensuring they contain 50% women and 38% peopleo color.Counter mythologizing in decision-making with evi-dence , especially related to the nancial per ormance olms with emale or underrepresented leads and/or direc-tors.Continue to monitor progress . As with the CARD study,evaluation not only demonstrates where improvement isstill needed, but where achievement has occurred.

Company Findings

The company scorecard illustrates that lm distributors are ailing when it comes to representing their audienceon screen and in their behind the camera hires. In lm, only two companies (Sony, Paramount) managed FullInclusivity on any indicators—both due to their portrayal o underrepresented characters. Behind the camera,the conglomerates are sending a strong message to emales, especially women o color. That message is, “Yourtalents are uninvited.”

Four companies (The CW, The Walt Disney Company, Amazon, Hulu) demonstrated strong per ormances acrosstelevision and digital programming. While there are still places each organization can improve, representing

emales on screen is one arena where these companies are Largely or Fully Inclusive. Behind the camera, womenare included as writers and/or creators (The CW, The Walt Disney Company, Hulu) or directors (Amazon). Clearly,the contributions and presence o women are valued at each o these companies.

Solutions for Change

To achieve inclusion, companies need to embrace new approaches. These strategies must involve more thansimply “checking a box” when casting a lm, series, or episode, or go beyond making a “diversity hire” behind thecamera or in the executive suite. We have identied specic actions or lm, television, and streaming companiesto counter implicit and explicit biases.

The current state o media inequality requires multiple strategies, as different problems merit different solutions.On the whole, inclusivity requires creating an ecosystem in which different perspectives hold value and storiesrepresent the world in which we live.


20/2718

Finally, we would be remiss not to point out a ew limitations with the CARD study. First, we did not examinegenres o programming such as reality or talk shows. Second, content and director race/ethnicity were onlyevaluated or the rst episode o the series. Third, we did not include an analysis o producers. Lastly, the CARDstudy ocuses on distributors o content, but production companies may arguably play a more important role inhiring and casting. While the network level in television and distributor- ocused look at lm provide one way tothink about diversity, examining the production o content may illuminate other pit alls or pockets o progress orunderrepresented groups.

Ultimately, the CARD study serves a crucial purpose in the midst o ongoing controversy surrounding diversity inHollywood. Focusing on specic distributors, inclusion o cross-plat orm content, and examination o several di -

erent identity groups, the CARD study provides breadth and depth regarding the state o the industry in 2014-15.The ndings reveal that while Hollywood still struggles to create inclusive content, there are companies leadingthe charge. Continued evaluation, increased advocacy, and greater transparency are necessary to trans orm anindustry that has proted rom invisibility into one that can celebrate inclusivity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to many individuals that helped us carry this project through to completion. First, a heart eltthanks to Dr. Sarah Banet-Weiser or unding this investigation as the rst large-scale signature study o the Insti-tute or Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA). Such an enormous study could not have been tackledwithout the nancial support o IDEA. Dr. Carmen Lee was an incredible asset to our team during this process,and sacriced her time to serve as a checking buddy—thank you, Carmen!

Thanks are also extended to the public affairs team at USC Annenberg, with a particular nod toward GretchenMcCartney, Patricia Lapadula, and Jeremy Rosenberg. We consider you a part o our team and the release o thisreport would not have been the same without you. Many thanks to our development champions, Diana O'Leary

and Tracy Mendoza, or their support and riendship. ASC Tech and the amazing student advisors at ASCJ supportevery project we complete. The in ormation supplied by Geoff Elsner at Variety Insight, Alanna De Castro at theWGA-West, Michael Kinter at SAG-AFTRA, and Lily Bedrossian at the DGA was enormously help ul.

We also want to acknowledge our MDSC Initiative supporters. In particular, The Harnisch Foundation, Jacquelyn& Gregory Zehner Foundation, Julie Parker Benello, Mari and Manuel Alba, and Anne Erickson and Richard Pellettprovide the resources or our yearly research efforts and their commitment to us is invaluable. Our gratitudealso extends to our strategic consultant, Leah Fischman, who has helped us steer the MDSC ship into unchartedwaters or social change. Finally, we are completely thank ul or our amazing team o undergraduate researchassistants. Special mention goes to Angel Choi and Kevin Yao or their tireless efforts. Thanks also to our veteranresearch assistants who sacriced nights and weekends to the project. We could never do this without you! And,a special thanks to Meryl at VI.


21/2719

Christopher AllisonMcKenzie AmentoAlessandra AndersonKayla ArdebilchiKeana AsgariSharon BakoChristine Bancro t

Carson BeckSara BinderTara BitranDavid BlochAmanda BookerChristian BradleyXiangyi CaiGabriella CaliendoChristina CanadyCeline CarrascoDaffany ChanJason ChengKelly Ching

So Yoon ChoAngel ChoiEun Seo “Ellen” ChoiIsabelle ChuaAnna Cieslukowski

Samantha CioppaHaley ColemanBriana CooperDylan DeLucaAnne-Marie DePauwJessie DiRuggieroEmerald Douglas

Robert DuranMahima DuttJaime EdgeMichael EdgeSoa EliasJacob EllenhornMegan EmeLauren FerracoBreanne Nicole FloresTiffany Angela FongMaya GetterTucker GibsonAlayna Glasthal

Emani GleeBriana GrubbXinjia GuJing Jia “Lucy” GuoHoward Stephen Guy

Monica HamiltonMiranda HearstAlysia HendryPeyton HerzogKamali HoustonKoo Woun “Connie” HurJenni er Joh

Audrey JoungMaeve KennardRachel KrusenoskiEdward LauMikayla LeeMelody Scarlett LeeDerek LinKailin LuoWenting MaoAusti MarincovichJustin MarsdenAvae MasaniaiOriana Mejia

Kate MenneAnnabella MineghinoDaniella MohazababJanae Mon ortAmy Muramoto

Julia NeislossAlexa NicoleysonTaryn O’GradyJoy O oduOzodi OnyeaborAlexa PattersonLaura Phillips

Maria e PonceLily PuglisiSophia RendonGabriel RochaAlekxa RollinsLeah E. RubinJaeyoung Andy RyuSabine SaldanhaTeryn SampagaAlexandra SchwartzYujin SeoLeah ShamouniJulia Shapiro

Ariel SmotrichMichelle SperaSophia StalloneJaide StepterClaire Summers

Madeleine SundbergElla TabaresKayla TakemotoDanielle TodaArtur To anRachel TofflerAllison Toh

Karina TsangAmy TsengChasen WashingtonElizabeth WeirDennis WooJennica WraggZhiheng XuKevin YaoZoe YoungRachel ZacutoZacharie Star ZeeZhiliang Leo ZhaoXin Zheng

Madison Zlotolow

RESEARCH TEAM

APPENDIX A: LIST OF FILMS BY TITLE

22 Jump Street300: Rise o An EmpireA Million Ways to Die inthe West

A Walk Among theTombstonesAbout Last NightAlexander and the Terri-ble, Horrible, No Good,Very Bad DayAmazing Spider-Man 2,TheAmerican SniperAnnabelleAnnieAs Above, So BelowBad Words

BelleBig Hero 6BirdmanBlendedBook o Li e, TheBoxtrolls, TheCalvaryCaptain America: TheWinter SoldierDawn o the Planet othe ApesDeliver Us From Evil

Devil’s DueDolphin Tale 2Dracula UntoldDrop, The

Dumb and Dumber ToEdge o TomorrowEndless LoveEqualizer, TheExodus: Gods and KingsFault in our Stars, TheFoxcatcherFuryGambler, TheGet On UpGodzillaGone GirlGrand Budapest Hotel,

TheGuardians o the GalaxyHeaven is or RealHerculesHobbit: Battle o FiveArmiesHorrible Bosses 2How to Train Your Drag-on 2Hundred-Foot Journey,TheI I Stay

Inherent ViceInterstellarInto The StormInto the Woods

Jack Ryan: ShadowRecruitJersey BoysJudge, TheKill the MessengerLabor DayLEGO Movie, TheLet’s Be CopsLove is StrangeLucyMagic in the MoonlightMalecentMaze Runner, The

Million Dollar ArmMom’s Night OutMonuments Men, TheMr. Peabody & ShermanMr. TurnerMuppets Most WantedNeed or SpeedNeighborsNight at the Museum:Secret o the TombNo Good DeedNoah

Non-StopOnly Lovers Le t AliveOther Woman, TheOuija

Paranormal Activity: TheMarked OnesPenguins o MadagascarPlanes: Fire & RescuePompeiiPridePurge: Anarchy, TheRaid 2, TheRide AlongRio 2RoboCopSelmaSex Tape

Son o GodTammyTeenage Mutant NinjaTurtlesThat Awkward MomentTheory o Everything,TheThink Like a Man TooThird PersonThis is Where I LeaveYouTop Five

TranscendenceTrans ormers: Age oExtinctionUnbroken

What I When the Game StandsTallWhiplashWildWinter’s TaleWish I Was HereX-Men: Days o FuturePast


22/2720

APPENDIX B: LIST OF CHANNELS BY COMPANY

21st Century FoxFOXFXFXX

CBS CorporationCBSShowtime

NBC UniversalBravoE!NBCSy yUSA

Warner Bros. & CBSThe CW

The Walt Disney CompanyABC

Disney ChannelDisney JuniorFree orm

Time WarnerAdult SwimCinemaxHBOTBSTNT

ViacomBETComedy CentralMTVNickelodeon/Nick at Nite

SpikeTeen NickTV LandVH-1 Amazon Hulu Netix

FOOTNOTES

1. Film distribution was determined via Box Office Mojo and con-rmed via Studio System and/or IMDbPro.com. We stipulated,however, that movies had to make at least $7.5 million theatricallyi distributed by a major studio or $1 million i released by an arthouse division at the same company.

Eighty-three o the 2014 lms in our sample were included in our100 top grossing analysis released in August o 2015. A total o26 new motion pictures were evaluated in this investigation. Wedid not assess 2015 lms as the box office has not yet closed andsome o the movies (e.g., Star Wars , The Revenant ) were not le-gally available to stream or purchase on DVD as o January 2016.

2. Scripted series were determined by the plat orm. For ad-sup-ported content, all broadcast networks and “popular” basicchannels were selected. A channel appearing on Nielsen’s top 60ranking o prime-time channels o 2014 (12/30/2013 to 12/23/2014)

or 2015 (12/29/2014-12/27/2015) determined popularity (seerankers: http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cable-network-rank-er-2014/251092; http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cable-net-work-ranker-2015/280768). A traditional denition o prime timewas used, with content airing between 8:00 pm and 11:00 pmMonday through Saturday and 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm on Sunday.Only two non ad supported basic channels were included in thesample: Disney Channel and Disney Jr. Premium cable includedHBO, Showtime, and Cinemax. Only rst run series on the agshipchannels were included. Across all content, only shows airing

rom September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015 in the U.S. wereincluded in the sample.

Also, the aim o the study was to ocus on distribution not produc-tion. As a result, it did not matter whether a company produced oracquired rst run television, digital, or eature lm content. Thegoal was to assess what appeared on screen and behind the cam-era when these companies distributed stories. Future researchshould explore the relationship between production companiesand matters o on screen and behind the camera inclusion.

A ew additional notes on sampling procedures are important.First, we only sampled one show per season within every networkin our sample time rame. I a television or digital series airedtwo or more seasons (e.g., The Real Husbands of Hollywood , TheGame ) on the same network, we randomly selected one season toanalyze. Second, one show ended a season on one network andstarted a new season on another (i.e., American Dad! ). Becauseboth seasons were separate on two different networks, two epi-sodes o the series were included in the study. Third, some showsbreak seasons into halves or thirds (a, b, c). In these instances,we only sampled the rst episode o the entire season. Fourth, ian episode(s) o a series extended beyond December 31st, 2015, itwas not included in our behind the scenes analysis.

All scripted ctional shows streaming on Netix, Amazon, andHulu were assessed provided that the entire series (not just thepilot) was made available during the study’s sampling time rameon the U.S. version o the streaming service.

Here is a breakdown o the total number o shows and channelsper company: Time Warner ( n=34; HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, AdultSwim); Walt Disney Company ( n=47; ABC, Free orm, Disney,


23/27


24/2722

median coefficient is reported as well as the mean and range: form =1.0 ( M=1.0, range =1.0), type =1.0 ( M=.99, range =.64-1.0),sex =1.0 ( M=1.0, range =1.0), age= 1.0 ( M=.94, range= .65-1.0),race/ethnicity =1.0 ( M=.99, range=. 66-1.0), role =1.0 ( M=.95,range =.63-1.0), parental status =1.0 ( M=.96, range= .43-1.0),relational standing = 1.0 ( M=.95, range =.65-1.0), sexually re-vealing clothing =1.0 ( M=.99, range =.61-1.0), nudity =1.0 ( M=.99,range =.63-1.0), attractiveness =1.0 ( M=1.0, range =.63-1.0), ap-parent sexuality =1.0 ( M=1.0, range =.82-1.0), and transgender =1.0(M=1.0, range =.81-1.0).

5. The behind the scenes analysis was conducted separately orlm and television. In ormation on directors and writers acrossthe sampled lms was pulled rom IMDbPro in January 2016. Allcredited directors and writers were assessed or biological sex.

For television and digital content, in ormation or each sampledseries was obtained rom IMDbPro.com in Fall o 2015. This in or-mation was updated in January 2016. When seasons were splitthroughout the year, only the rst hal (or rst portion) o the sea-son was included. When series were cancelled, only the episodesthat aired on television or cable networks (not online plat orms)were analyzed.

Research assistants identied all credited directors and writ-ers rom IMDbPro.com or each episode o the sampled series,according to the season sampled. When IMDbPro.com ailed tocredit a writer or director or an episode, Studio System/inBase-line was used. This could occur when there were no individualslisted as writer or director or when no individual was given thesolo “Writer” credit, or “Story/Story by” and “Teleplay” credits.Based on in ormation rom the Writers Guild o America West, the

“Creator” or “Created by” credit was not sufficient to designatean individual as the writer o an episode. Occasionally, the StudioSystem database did not provide a reliable indication o writingor directing credits (e.g., crediting the same individuals acrossthe entire season; missing in ormation). In these cases, researchassistants used screen shots rom the episodes to determine whowas awarded directing and writing credit. Screen shots were used

or every episode o a series when in ormation across IMDbPro.com and Studio System was not available or not reliable.

Creator judgments were made by examining listings in VarietyInsight, IMDbPro.com, and Studio System or individuals desig-

nated as “Creator” or “Developed by.” When sources disagreed,in ormation was sought to conrm the creator o the series. Thisincluded watching opening or closing credits o a show. Individu-als who were credited with the creation o source material (e.g.,novels, comics, characters, ideas, inspiration) were not consid-ered creators.

A ter directors, writers, and creators were identied, research as-sistants obtained in ormation about the biological sex o all 10,705credited indivduals. Industry databases (IMDbPro, Variety Insight,Studio System), online networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn),

and general web searches were utilized. Individuals were codedas male or emale based on pronoun use (he, she), photographs,or gender label (male, emale). Two individuals were contacteddirectly or their representatives queried to identi y their biologicalsex. Two individuals could not be publicly identied. In these cas-es, we utilized babynames.com to determine biological sex. Whenorganizations or companies were listed in any credits, the genderwas coded as “not applicable.”

6. To categorize race/ethnicity, several sources o in ormationwere consulted: 1) Variety Insight’s designation o race/ethnicity;2) Studio System’s designation o race/ethnicity; 3) other pub-lic sources o in ormation (e.g., news articles); 4) phone/emailcontact with directors or their representatives; 5) Directors Guildo America directory search or minority members. A ter each othese sources was utilized, the race/ethnicity o 9 directors olive action television programs and 2 directors o animated lmscould not be ascertained. In these cases, researchers utilizedphotographs as well as historical in ormation about amilies andbackground to render a judgment o race/ethnicity.

7. A list o executives or each company included in the samplewas obtained in late all 2015 and updated in January 2016. Thenames o each member o the Board o Directors at 21st CenturyFox, Amazon, CBS Corporation, Comcast NBC Universal, Netix,Sony, Time Warner, Viacom, and The Walt Disney Company wasobtained rom each organization’s corporate website. NeitherHulu nor The CW have a Board o Directors. Following this, thenames and titles o the executive officers at each parent companywere gathered rom each organization’s corporate website. Forthree companies (Comcast NBC Universal, Sony, and Amazon) thecorporate suites included officers or non-entertainment busi-

nesses owned by each company. The executive teams in chargeo the entertainment divisions o those companies were includedand are the Executive Management Team. At the lm and televi-sion level, we only examined those companies or divisions tiedto the distribution businesses in our sample. Thus, no produc-tion companies (even those held by the parent company) wereincluded in this process. However some businesses were com-pletely intertwined with and unable to be divorced rom the largerdistribution company (i.e., lm studio production; some cablenetwork production). Television studios (e.g., ABC Studios, NBCStudios, Universal Cable Productions) were not included. Individu-als working in production were ound within these businesses and

included in the overall analysis.

In ormation rom each company’s webpage and/or press site wasused to identi y the executive leadership. Additionally, in ormation

rom Variety Insight was used to supplement in ormation or eachcompany/division. Organizational charts were printed rom VarietyInsight and lists o employees used when organizational chartswere not available. For most companies/businesses we wereable to gather the executives or lm and television separately.Two companies (Warner Bros. Entertainment and Sony PicturesEntertainment) oversee both the lm and television businesses.


25/27


26/2724

and “Teleplay/Teleplay by” should be credited as the writers orthe episode.

18. The analysis revealed writer gender (male, emale) and platform (broadcast, cable, streaming, lm) were associated, X²(3,6,421)=52.44, p


27/27

might alter the coding o characters’ sexuality. As this in ormationwas not available in the episode sampled, the measure is not re-ported to allow or exibility in scoring or television and stream-ing companies.

35. Gates, G.J. (2011).

36. Smith, S.L., Pieper, K., & Choueiti, M. (2015). Gender & ShortFilms: Emerging Female Filmmakers and the Barriers SurroundingTheir Careers . Report prepared or LUNAFEST.

37. Smith, S.L., Pieper, K., & Choueiti, M. (2015). Exploring the Ca-reers of Female Directors: Phase III . Report prepared or SundanceInstitute and Women in Film Los Angeles Female FilmmakersInitiative. Los Angeles, CA.

annenberg report on diversity in hollywood

Documents