As president and general manager of one of the country’s most recognizable specialties, Paul Lewis has some advantages his cable cohorts don’t enjoy. But that hasn’t kept him complacent. In fact, as the channel approaches its 15th year, the Discovery Channel topper believes it’s evolve… Or risk extinction.

It’s impossible not to start with anything other than the elephant in the corner: the economy. How has the downturn affected your day-to-day?

Frankly, from a financial perspective, I think it’s fair to say that for the first time in 15 years, or at least since I’ve been president for the last seven years, that because of ad sales we are actually trying to cope with a smaller amount of dollars on the programming side. That is a big challenge. We are [evaluating] a lot of projects that have been submitted to us over the last six months and really trying to focus on what we think are going to be the big hits.

Has that impacted this schedule?

I don’t think it had a huge impact this year because most of the programming had been lined up far in advance. What we were really trying to grapple with is next year.

We had a lot of projects in the pipeline and we’re trying to figure out early on which ones would be able to survive through the process and which ones wouldn’t. We have had to make tougher decisions because of that. Projects that we would have liked to have seen normally go into production or development, we have had to put on hold. We have had to be really judicious that way.

We knew that this was coming for a little while now, so it hasn’t come as a huge shock. And we have tried to prepare as much as we could and be as upfront with the producers as possible.

Does the strength of the Discovery brand insulate you?

I think that everybody is feeling it. The big anomaly here is: certainly advertising revenues are challenging for everybody, but at the same time we’ve had very significant audience growth this year, especially in primetime. The problem with this economy is that it doesn’t particularly matter if you are getting audience growth or not, you are not able to translate that into advertising revenue, which then gets funneled into programming dollars down the road.

We have to be a bit patient with the economy. It seems to be turning around a bit, but I think that it is going to take a while for that to trickle down to advertising revenues. And it will take a little time after that for us to be able to commission at the same level that we were a year or two years ago.

What’s been your adaptation strategy?

I think our strategy all along has really been to hunker down, and understand that recessions are cyclical. We are going to come out of this at the other end. We want to be stronger and in a great competitive position when the recession does end.

I think that’s really been an important part of our strategy in terms of commissioning – to really focus on what programs are going to maintain the brand, build our audiences and put us into that strategic advantage when things do turn around.

How do you do that, practically?

One thing is to continue to have a diverse schedule. And what I mean by that is to try to have several different tentpole series that fit within the brand, but are appealing to slightly different core audiences.

The second thing in terms of diversity is format. So we have live programming, we have quiz shows; we have magazine style and dramatizations, along with the classical natural history documentary. I think that diversity is really important. Audiences shift very quickly – a hit last year quickly fades the year later. We need to be prepared for that, and the best way to prepare ourselves is to have a diverse schedule.

The [other part of that] is to focus on series that build loyalty and our Sunday night two-hour specials, which are an opportunity to have our big blue-chip documentaries, and which are probably the biggest audience night for us.

How has the downturn affected your program buying?

There is no doubt we’re taking fewer risks than we normally would on our programming, but I think it is still important, strategically, to try new things. We’re trying to keep ourselves ahead of the rest of the television universe.

We’re blessed in that we have a very strong program supply that is primarily coming from Discovery U.S. They have really found their footing in the last couple of years, and the programs do extremely well for us. But, I gotta tell you that we also like to be the masters of our own universe.

When we look at where our audience growth has come from in the last couple of years, much of it has come from our Canadian commissioning, and that is something we have much more control over.

The best way for us to minimize our risk is to really understand our audience. It’s not acceptable anymore to say: ‘You know, we have adults 25 to 54, skewing male.’ We have really drilled down on that and we have done a lot of original research to figure out who the audience is; not just demographics, but their lifestyle, their trends, how they are connecting to our content. And, this is not just through TV but mobile and the Internet.

That is really the biggest tool we have now when we are meeting with producers. We share as much of that information as we can so that we really get something that is focused, not just at – I won’t just call ‘the audience’ – but the various groups that make up our audience.

Another way to offset our risk is to take successful formats and adapt them into Canada – whether that is Cash Cab, or Canada’s Worse Handyman or Canada’s Worst Driver (which Proper Television has produced for us over the years and has been highly successful).

How do you explain the complex nature of your viewership to producers?

It’s really like playing 3D chess. We are looking at it from a nightly basis, and what our competition is on each night. But we’re also looking at building the schedule each night from 7 p.m. though to 11 p.m., and figuring out what the correct flow should be.

We’ll meet with key producers, we’ll share this information with them, and we’ll challenge them to come back to us with ideas.

Some cable and specialties have wandered from their original branding to attract audiences – how far can you stretch the Discovery brand?

I think the biggest risk that we run, and that we really have to avoid, is going off-brand. We have a really strong brand – one of the most recognized television brands in the world – and that is a huge strength for us. I think that we really do a disservice to our viewers and we really risk turning them away, in the long term, by doing what a number of other channels have done, where they don’t have the same kind of brand loyalty, and that is to go for the short-term hit. I think the most important lesson I have learned over the years is to go for long-term growth – which may be modest – rather than just that short-term blip.

That’s not to say that we’re rigid and it is just the same old programming. We have evolved. We are about to celebrate our 15th anniversary. We used to be known as the ‘bug channel’, the ‘monkey channel’ 15 years ago when we launched. If you don’t evolve, like all things, you risk extinction. And so we have evolved and we are contemporary. I think that some channels do go a bit too far off-brand, and I think that it will come back to hurt them in the long run.

Is the temptation to change a reaction to the evolution of cable?

Television [as a whole] is changing. It’s the increase in competition; trying to break through the clutter and make the connection to the viewer. And, I think the audience is becoming less aware of individual channels. I think there are a few exceptions to that rule, and we’re one of them.

But, in general, people aren’t surfing anymore by channel. They are using their electronic program guides to find specific programs that they are interested in. I think that is where a lot of programmers are trying to go – to find that one show that leaps off the electronic program guide, or when you are scheduling your PVR, you see the title that grabs people’s attention. And I think that is probably a very good strategy if you don’t have a good brand.

How else are you adapting?

When we are looking at projects, I would say: the more platforms, the better. We have been looking at some really interesting concepts that really break down the notion of the half-hour, the one-hour format. Can we make interstitials – three- or four-minute pieces – work on television as well as on the Internet? We’re reaching out to those loyal audiences that recognize our brand, and not just in new media, but traditional media, too. In the last year, we got into books and are trying to extend our Daily Planet show there. There are different ways to fight the clutter and break out.

Should producers arrive with those ideas?

I think it’s always preferential. I am much more impressed by a production company that has done all that thinking up-front. It just tells me that they are really understanding the marketplace right now. And you know, the earlier in the thought process the multi-platform has been thought through, I think the more successful the project at the end of the day. So, I really do urge producers to come to us with a fully fleshed-out plan.

Are producers hearing that message?

I would say that, definitely in the last six months to a year, producers are starting to get that message. But there are still producers who come to us and present us with projects that would have fit the Discovery Channel three or four years ago. You still see a wide range there. But the more savvy producers are making sure that they are not just in the television content business anymore, they are in the content business. They are storytellers, and that storytelling crosses multi platforms.

There’s much debate around how far you can push the factual format. Is that a concern for you? Is there a line?

You know, I don’t think there is a line anymore. I think some people are traditionalists and try to hold on to the traditional definition of a point-of-view doc. But, at the end of the day, does it really matter? The audience doesn’t differentiate. They just know the difference between a good story and a bad story. To me, if there’s a strong story with a beginning, a middle and an end, it is a documentary.

I think the definitions are sometimes relevant to funders and regulators, but I don’t think they are really relevant to us anymore.

Speaking of funders… does the less protective approach the CMF has to documentary concern you?

I certainly share the concerns [of the industry] and hope that, at the end of the day, the documentary is seen as a priority format. I believe it is and it should be.

While we do tend to focus a lot on the recent successes that Canadian drama has had in terms of finding a home in the U.S. and overseas, documentary has been doing that for years. Many of the programs that we commission – dozens and dozens – are seen all over the world. And the Canadian production community and the factual world are extremely strong. It has a great international reputation. It is carrying the Canadian flag around the world. And I really think that from a funding standpoint, and from a cultural standpoint, that really should be recognized more. I hope that the support continues.

With all that’s going on, what do you spend most of your time thinking about?

Just general angst… [laughs]. At the end of the day, my main focus right now is ‘What is the next big thing?’ I don’t want to miss out on the next big project. I don’t want to miss out on the next big format development. And technology. We are thinking a lot here about 3D, and what we might be able to do in that area.

But, in general, I’m pleased with the direction that we are taking editorially, that we have audience growth above and beyond what we projected this year.

So, if I had to funnel it down to two things that I concern myself with: one is to continue to grow audience; and the second is to keep crossing our fingers that the economy is going to turn around.