local tv news ratings are useless nowadays. Like radio, tv‘s inability to fully monetize on streaming and online platforms is killing it. in 2023, ratings aren’t a barometer of a tv station’s success.
-
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
And that's dangerous. Well, it's actually probably too late to be dangerous---the damage has long been done.
But what I mean is that the moment mainstream commercial TV and radio stopped selling advertising access to their viewers and listeners, with the pricing based on how many more of whatever demo the advertiser wants to reach you have compared to the other guys, it opened the door to chasing revenue that is generated by things that chase viewers and listeners away.
The US Government should buy ABC from Disney.
straight up someone's opinions, let's be honest, the only ones likely to buy the spun off Disney properties of ABC/FX/ESPN would be Byron Allen, Nexstar or Endevour (to make sure WWE and UFC has a long time home to air without fighting with TV networks over broadcast rights), hell even Anthem (parent company of AXS TV and Impact Wrestling) could buy these networks out since the owner used to own a big media company in Canada.
Who Could Buy A Piece of ESPN? Here Are Seven Candidates
Disney CEO Bob Iger's open to a strategic partner for ESPN. Here's seven power players that could fit the bill as partner or equity investor.frontofficesports.com
Here are rumored candidates to get ESPN if approved.
That means that they may be worth more as ongoing businesses than as a salable asset. In that case, the strategy would have too be to use the ABC name recognition to transition to branded new media.
Yet vastly more prestigious a name (at least among old farts) is CBS and their streaming service took the Paramount+ name, which seems to be even less meaningful among younger generations.
Sidebar: when I was a kid in Ecuador, when a movie would start with either the Paramount or the 20th Century Fox emblems and pompous music, we'd all say, "ah, we already saw it!" (¡Ya la vimos!) and that was a running joke for years, sort of like a Monty Python moment.
From last night's Reliable Sources newsletter (Oliver Darcy, CNN):
(excerpt edited to meet fair use standards)
===================================================
Bob Iger is seeking to reassure an anxious arm of Disney's business.
In an off-site meeting on Tuesday, I'm told, the House of Mouse boss spoke to senior leaders of Disney's television businesses. The meeting came just days after Iger made decidedly candid remarks to CNBC's David Faber in which he said Disney's linear business "may not be core" to the entertainment giant — a comment that immediately sent shockwaves through the industry
The chief executive on Tuesday sought to quell some of this unease as he fielded questions submitted by senior company leaders assembled at the off-site. He told the personnel gathered that the content created by the company's television production teams is "incredibly valuable to our business," according to a person with knowledge of his remarks.
Of course, those comments are unlikely to entirely calm the rattled nerves of those working in Disney's television businesses. While Iger did not explicitly tell Faber that he wanted to sell the linear stations and networks, he effectively put that sector of the business on the market with his comments.
As one Disney insider told me on Tuesday, Iger's remarks to senior leaders were "the usual jewel in the crown stuff — except now we know that he's selling the jewel."
"It’s great to say he loves the jewel. It’s great to say that the jewel is important. It’s great to say that the jewel is fun," the Disney insider said. "But he has revealed the truth: he wants to get the highest price he can for the jewel because he can’t afford it anymore."
(excerpt edited to meet fair use standards)
===================================================
Bob Iger is seeking to reassure an anxious arm of Disney's business.
In an off-site meeting on Tuesday, I'm told, the House of Mouse boss spoke to senior leaders of Disney's television businesses. The meeting came just days after Iger made decidedly candid remarks to CNBC's David Faber in which he said Disney's linear business "may not be core" to the entertainment giant — a comment that immediately sent shockwaves through the industry
The chief executive on Tuesday sought to quell some of this unease as he fielded questions submitted by senior company leaders assembled at the off-site. He told the personnel gathered that the content created by the company's television production teams is "incredibly valuable to our business," according to a person with knowledge of his remarks.
Of course, those comments are unlikely to entirely calm the rattled nerves of those working in Disney's television businesses. While Iger did not explicitly tell Faber that he wanted to sell the linear stations and networks, he effectively put that sector of the business on the market with his comments.
As one Disney insider told me on Tuesday, Iger's remarks to senior leaders were "the usual jewel in the crown stuff — except now we know that he's selling the jewel."
"It’s great to say he loves the jewel. It’s great to say that the jewel is important. It’s great to say that the jewel is fun," the Disney insider said. "But he has revealed the truth: he wants to get the highest price he can for the jewel because he can’t afford it anymore."
If the US Government acquired ABC from Disney, it would be like CBC, The BBC, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. They could be allies with PBS and NPR.
Why?
The US has a law that prevents it from owning such a media company that feeds programming to the public. The US government doesn't 'own' NPR or PBS. It just appropriates some money. They own a couple of Radio Marti stations, but they program to Cuba.
My question is "why" such a broadcast company owned by the government is needed today. Many, if not most of the government radio and TV operations like the BBC and CBC began in the early days of radio and had, among their purposes, to extend the reach of, first, radio and then television to the entire nation, including sparsely populated areas.
Were legislation to be passed allowing a government broadcast, it might be strictly limited to strictly government activities in the manner of the broadcasts of sessions of the House and the Senate being done today. Of course, it would have fewer viewers than even the Congressional sessions.
Technically the government doesn't own broadcasts of the House or Senate. That's done by C-SPAN, a channel owned by the cable industry. The congress may own and control the microphones, but that's about it. Same with the white house. The mics are run by the wh communications office, but they hand off to the media for distribution.
I would really doubt this congress would approve the buying of a commercial media business. If they did, the courts would weigh in on the first amendment issues.
And that's why I used it as an example.
What we get into with any government entry into broadcasting is funding. If don non-commercially, then it is a tax-funded operation. Some other nations have fees on consumers such as implemented in the UK and which are vastly unpopular.
The real issue is whether there is a need for a government broadcast service or network. I see none today.
The House and Senate own the cameras, too. C-SPAN networks carry "switched feeds" from the House and Senate which are controlled by those entities.
That would depend greatly on who controlled Congress and the White House.
Good point. Right now the repub controlled House has a proposal to defund CPB, which funds NPR & PBS.
So chances are they don't want the government to pay for anything.
Last edited:
Netflix is ending shipping out DVD's this year.
No. Just no.
Whatever the long histories there, it’s not the same and would not be the same. A legacy network is not the same as coming in now in 2023.
It’s a politically disastrous idea if ever there was one. It’s a logistical nightmare for the affiliate business model. It’s pointless in every way.
I do wonder what the future of C-SPAN is as it’s owned and operated by cable companies. As there are more cord cutters and online viewing of CSPAN (at least through their app) is only available to cable and satellite customers, how long will cable companies continue to find this and how will the ever increasing number of people without cable access CSPAN?
- Status