Does Iger have an ego issue or something? Why sell off ABC/ESPN, when we see the success Fox is having. Disney needs to sell off cable channels
-
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
Which success is that?
Of course he has an ego. Find a major media CEO who doesn’t…that’s a challenge. He would sell things off because they’re a drag on the business, have low growth prospects, aren’t core to the future, etc.
He’s keeping ESPN, but looking for a strategic partner. The non-Disney-branded cable channels would be for sale along with ABC.
And how is that an ego issue? I mean, of course Iger has an ego. Built the post-Eisner Disney, brought back by the board when his successor deviated too far from his path….but he’s recognizing that OTA and cable TV aren’t going to be the best businesses for Disney to be in, so he’s exploring a sale now instead of later and maximizing shareholder value.
Producing that hour isn’t that huge a cost, especially if it’s non-scripted, as most stuff in the strike will have to be.
But surrendering 14 minutes of commercial time every night for good—-that’s a significant revenue hit.
In this era, when seeing how “new Fox” became successful, they sold off many of their cable nets and added more live sports to OTA. Fox is raking in money, while laughing and learning from others’ mistakes in the streaming race. Why not protect ABC by using the formula Fox is using. ABC is partnered with the biggest brand in sports with tons of live sports rights. incredibly foolish to even threaten to cast away ABC
ABC is using that formula. They've co-branded OTA sports as "ESPN on ABC" for 17 years.
There's no "protecting" ABC. It and FOX (network and owned station group, as opposed to FOX News) are all on the same train to oblivion, along with NBC and CBS's OTA networks and station groups.
Iger rightly understands that the time to sell is while there's still arguably a business to be had for the buyer. And he, and whoever he partners with for ESPN, can provide that sports programming at a price to the next owner of ABC.
What would be interesting is the effect it has on Hulu. They carry shows from ABC, Freeform and most importantly FX, since they help build up their platform with the FX on Hulu hub. If different companies owned these, in the long term Hulu could look differently, unless it folds into their other streamer.
I'm not sure why Disney needs Hulu. I think you'll see Iger try to sell it (possibly to whoever buys ABC, though Comcast could really stand to beef up Peacock) and failing that, it gets absorbed into Disney+.
A "lot of us" (based on my questioning of family and friends) would like to shed the monthly burden of ESPN if we don't heavily watch sports on TV. Those without kids in the home can do without 90% of the Disney offerings, as we get tired of the 7th movie about each of their superheros and don't watch Hanna Montana reruns or whatever they are offering.
That leaves Hulu, and if it were separated from Disney and ESPN, it would be a rewarding expenditure without all the overhead from the other two providers.
I think there are only 2 or 3 Disney branded cable channels. Does it make sense to sell off everything else (broadcast and other cable channels except ESPN) and keep these 2 or 3 cable channels or just sell the Disney branded channels also and license the name and programming for a while?
Fox is hardly on the way to oblivion. Before the Fox News blunders that cost them billions, they were the healthiest of the groups after shedding unnecessary cable nets, and they gave their affiliates more life by adding more live sports.
To answer that, you'd have to know how many of your Disney cable viewers have migrated to Disney+. Might make sense to keep them, might make sense to offload.
It's all about value for the stockholder.
Dude, we're ALL on the way to oblivion. There's a point on the horizon when OTA TV is not going to be worth it. If it happens to FOX later, that's good for them, but it's kind of like being the last guy in the Ebola ward to die. Doesn't mean you're not going to.
The trick is to sell before it becomes too hard or goes too cheap. That's probably sooner for ABC than it is for FOX, which is why Iger's contemplating it. All these companies have fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders.
Hulu is a standalone service though, which you can subscribe to by itself. As of now, Disney is planning to buy the 33% stake from
Comcast.
OTA TV has way more life than we think. We’re now seeing pro sports franchises return to OTA sooner than any of us imagined. Just because local tv news shares are down from 20-30 years ago doesn’t mean the entire station is. Networks need to follow suit with what Fox is doing. They know how financially beneficial it’s been for Fox. No network head will ever admit, even internally, because their egos won’t allow it. Airing select Monday Night Football games on abc is a start. Now that we’re only premiering new shows on streaming apps, what else could you fill the time with? Have you seen what Nexstar is turning the CW into?
OTA ratings are down quite a bit from even a decade ago. I think CBS is the only one still pulling decent numbers, but for an older audience with crime procedurals. I wonder if NBC made a mistake replacing Leno (who didn't want to go) with Fallon in 2014, hoping to attract younger viewers. I don't think any younger viewer is watching him.
Not one, huh?
All of late night is in the tank compared to nine years ago (I'm talking about before the strike---they're all in reruns now). If Fallon had been markedly worse than the rest of the pack, he wouldn't still be there.
The budget for CSPAN is a rounding error on the books. There are much larger issues to cable companies than whether to continue funding CSPAN.
There is no such thing as OTA ratings. Ratings are ratings.
Do you have access to the numbers in major markets for the desired 25-54MF demos? Didn't think so. Pulling estimates out of your backside is worth every penny.
Fallon's ratings have exceeded Jay's several times. The reason Fallon is off the air is due to the writer's strike. Perhaps you heard of it?
- Status