Disney could soon sell its TV assets as Iger says business 'may not be core' to the company
Disney CEO Bob Iger appeared for an interview with CNBC's David Faber the morning after announcing a contract extension through 2026.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Iger floats possibility of Disney selling ABC
- Thread starter michael hagerty
- Start date
- Status
The short-term problem that he has is distribution (the network) is core to his content. So until streaming is profitable, the networks are still the best way to distribute their content. But they know traditional distribution is declining.
They can see that in the audio services they own. They just announced that ABC News Audio is leaving SkyNetworks. Starting in January, ad sales will be handled by Compass Media. They haven't announced a marketing & distribution partner. So my suspicion is it will be handled internally, as ESPN Radio is done.
They can see that in the audio services they own. They just announced that ABC News Audio is leaving SkyNetworks. Starting in January, ad sales will be handled by Compass Media. They haven't announced a marketing & distribution partner. So my suspicion is it will be handled internally, as ESPN Radio is done.
ABC has all the reason in the world to leave Skyview after they got hacked and stations were unable to get content or answers for days
Edit.
Last edited:
I'm sure there's an argument for selling while there's still something to sell. Especially the stations group.
That's always been on the table. ABC doesn't really own a lot of stations. But selling the stations means selling trademarks and other IP those stations use, and also means selling the affiliations in those markets. So how far do you want to go? When ABC sold the radio division, there were time limits placed on IP and affiliations. But those were attached to the ABC Network. So once again, how far do you want to go?
Darn fine question. I wonder if Iger has those answers yet.
I'm thinking that the whole ABC brand is not directly tied to Disney other than financially. So if the broadcast and traditional cable aspects can be spun, this might be a larger, more inclusive move away from traditional wired and broadcast media.
I've been curious as to why CBS did not use their heritage brand for their on-demand service which is called the rather unappealing "Paramount+".
"Paramount" reminds me of the era when movies were preceded by a newsreel, a cartoon, and a preview or two. Now, they are preceded by 30" minutes of pure previews and ads for the snack bar.
It is, of course, an amalgamation of Viacom brands. But, to me, "Paramount" has little strength and meaning today. And the "plus" thing is sort of like getting a "positive" on a blood test.
Any time a news story involving a Disney product is aired, the news anchors always say "Disney is a parent company of 6ABC". Plus they run promos and ads for Disney movies/shows during the broadcasts.
Disney, more than other media companies, is built on synergy. At one time, they had a VP of synergy who looked for ways to integrate various brands and grow the overall footprint. Disney is a content creator. That's the core business. Content is expensive to create and will become even more expensive after the strike. So just having one platform for the content is not cost efficient. If they're going to invest so much money in content, they need to be able to make money off it from multiple platforms. That's the only way it works.
Well, of course, Disney's streaming platform is "Disney+". And Iger's already on the record that he intends to consolidate Hulu into Disney+.
I'm old enough to have been working at an ABC affiliate when we got the word that Disney wanted to buy ABC and we were all wondering what they wanted it for. That was 28 years ago, when GE owned NBC and Westinghouse owned CBS. Yeah, FOX had been around nine years at that point, but a movie studio and theme park company owning a TV network seemed like a novel idea.
Now, Paramount owns CBS and Universal owns Comcast (or is that the other way around?).
The Paramount branding is tricky---I mean, they are the movie studio that brings us the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movies, but beyond that....
On the other hand, naming the streaming platform after the broadcast network is something nobody's done yet (unless you count the nod to NBC Comcast makes with "Peacock"). But CBS is the oldest of the old-school brands and lends itself to bad jokes like:
"Watch us and see BS!"
who'd interested in ABC or partnership in ESPN?
the names of movie studios have more glamour attached, and younger audiences have no attachment to the networks
Paramount+ started as “CBS All Access”. To say that name didn’t move the needle in streaming is an understatement (especially considering most here didn’t even know about it!).
The problem stemmed from “wait, I can see CBS for free, why would I pay for it” not realizing it was more than CBS.
I think the partner for ESPN will be a lot easier to find. There are media and ancillary businesses who still see glamour and value in sports. FOX has an option to buy 18.6% of FanDuel (I can't find anything that says they've exercised it yet) and I'm sure they see some synergy with FOX Sports.
Wouldn't surprise me if Iger's looking in the same direction as far as ESPN partners---and getting a toe into gambling could open new, lucrative avenues for Disney's resort business.
The network and station group is going to be a much tougher sell---a lot of real estate involved, a high price tag, all attached to a rapidly depreciating set of assets.
I think Iger's announcement this week that he's staying for four years instead of two is as much about how much work this is going to be as it is how long it will take to find the right successor. I think he also intends to get the tricky stuff done before he hands over the reins so the new CEO doesn't do it differently or wrong.
Last edited:
One more possibility on the network/stations side. John Malone is on the record as having said (prior to getting the keys) that Warner Bros. Discovery could be open to a merger with NBCUniversal, if regulators would allow it.
NBCUniversal owning Comcast cable would be a major regulatory complication. Some analysts at the time suggested a WBD/CBS-Paramount deal would be easier to get done, but Shari Redstone doesn't seem to have any interest.
Warner Bros. Discovery/ABC could be an easy deal with a willing partner. What's missing from that deal as opposed to the other two is the acquisition of another movie studio, but Malone didn't mention Universal as being key to the vision.
Moving ABC's West Coast operations 1.9 miles from the Disney lot to the Warners' lot would be pretty simple, as such things go.
NBCUniversal owning Comcast cable would be a major regulatory complication. Some analysts at the time suggested a WBD/CBS-Paramount deal would be easier to get done, but Shari Redstone doesn't seem to have any interest.
Warner Bros. Discovery/ABC could be an easy deal with a willing partner. What's missing from that deal as opposed to the other two is the acquisition of another movie studio, but Malone didn't mention Universal as being key to the vision.
Moving ABC's West Coast operations 1.9 miles from the Disney lot to the Warners' lot would be pretty simple, as such things go.
Last edited:
I agree. Partnerships with sports betting into ESPN make a ton of sense and probably will be the primary driver in being able to spin the network for real money rather than some sort of fire sale.
And that's the case with every O&O having the same backroom discussions. O&O plus affiliates depend on quality, competitive network programming. There's a reason Iger and other media CEOs are worried about the future of linear TV, with a big part of it being the cost of producing 20+ episodes of multiple expensive shows that may or may not stick.
I like Bob Iger. Whether you agree or disagree with all of the moves, he's a straight-shooter who's not afraid to have a tough conversation.
The last great advantage to O&O station groups was the revenue generated by their hours of local news, especially in major markets and especially in the era of 10, 20 and 30 shares.
That ship has sailed. They're wetting themselves over 0.9s now. The rate cards must be abysmal.
Last edited:
You're showing our age.
But I remember all movie theaters, inside and drive-in, used to show a 5-10 minute snack bar tease. For some reason the inside theaters always smelled so good but not the drive-in's.
- Status