Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?

[TheBigA]

Regarding Disney and ABC, here's another analysis about problems besetting Disney. One of them is "linear TV"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/media/disney-iger-uncertainty-earnings-preview/index.html

As I said, everybody has an opinion. In addition to the ABC problem, they also have a streaming problem and the rising cost of content.

 

[Larry]

Assuming Disney retains control of ESPN (Iger has only mentioned strategic partnerships, not a sale), it would be up to them as to whether they wanted to do a deal with a new owner of ABC to continue linear carriage of their games.

It would also depend on contract obligations. Some ESPN/ ABC contracts might require games be televised on broadcast network, like the NBA Finals.

 

[michael hagerty]

It would also depend on contract obligations. Some ESPN/ ABC contracts might require games be televised on broadcast network, like the NBA Finals.

In which case, if ABC is under new ownership, the rights to broadcast carriage becomes a revenue stream for Disney.

 

[michael hagerty]

Regarding Disney and ABC, here's another analysis about problems besetting Disney. One of them is "linear TV"

Well, yeah. That's what started this whole thing---Iger in August. But that was more of a forward look:


“While linear remains highly profitable for Disney today, the trends being fueled by cord-cutting are unmistakable.”

In addition to the ABC problem, they also have a streaming problem

CNN mentioned that Disney has agreed to buy the third of Hulu it doesn't already own, but neglected to mention Hulu's profitability. As I've said in this and other threads, I think Disney+ gets folded into Hulu as an extra-cost add-on.

and the rising cost of content.

The piece you linked to focused on the box-office returns of Disney theatrical properties (notably Marvel's "Ant-Man" and the latest Indiana Jones movie) under "content concerns". Ultimately, they control the budgets of those films.

 

[Kelly A]

This just came out in Adweek today:
Warner Bros. Discovery Davis Zaslav says he hasn't given up on linear TV....yet (okay, I added that word)

Warner Bros. Discovery Laments 'Disappointing' Linear TV Ad Market

The company is 'not giving up' on linear, according to CEO David Zaslav.

www.adweek.com

 

[davideduardo]

The piece you linked to focused on the box-office returns of Disney theatrical properties (notably Marvel's "Ant-Man" and the latest Indiana Jones movie) under "content concerns". Ultimately, they control the budgets of those films.

Now in my 12th day of COVID, I have found solace in watching some of the newer / newest movies available on pay-per-view. Using the 2023 Ant Man and Indiana Jones releases as examples of many more, in all but one or two cases of 2023 movies I wish I had my money back.

The latest Indiana Jones was the best example, as I considered several times just "walking out" on the showing. Same for the 10th edition of Vin Diesel's action-without-a-story ongoing saga. A number of others disappointed me by never coming close to the "Oh, wow!" feeling of a Star Wars or Bridges of Madison County that combined great cinematography with a compelling story.

I recall going to the Gran Rex Theatre in Buenos Aires to see Thunderball in 1965 and leaving amazed and astounded by the feel of the movie. The films from this year I have seen did nothing like that for me.

Cine Teatro Gran Rex in Buenos Aires, AR - Cinema Treasures

The Cine Teatro Gran Rex opened on 8th July 1937, and the architect was Alberto Prebisch (who also designed the Obelisk). It is located in the San ...

cinematreasures.org

While my favorite movies are action an adventure flicks, I am still very fond of "art films" going back to my time in Ecuador when one of my FMs would do week-long film events, with a different movie by a single producer or a single writer or actor each night with a "pass" for all 5 sold together. My favorite was a series of Kafka movies, as Kafka was at the time one of my favorite writers as well.

 

[michael hagerty]

Now in my 12th day of COVID, I have found solace in watching some of the newer / newest movies available on pay-per-view. Using the 2023 Ant Man and Indiana Jones releases as examples of many more, in all but one or two cases of 2023 movies I wish I had my money back.

So does Disney---the budget for Ant-Man was $200 million---for Indiana Jones, $300 million.

Warner Bros. spent $145 million on Barbie. Universal got Oppenheimer done for $100 million.

There's always been a certain math to the movie business---the stiffs are going to outweigh the hits. The studios have started spending stupid money too many times a year and burning out their cash cows (lookin' at you, Marvel and Mission: Impossible).

 

[Weiserguy]

Now in my 12th day of COVID, I have found solace in watching some of the newer / newest movies available on pay-per-view. Using the 2023 Ant Man and Indiana Jones releases as examples of many more, in all but one or two cases of 2023 movies I wish I had my money back.

Funny use of the phrase "found solace". More accurate might have been "killed time".

I recall going to the Gran Rex Theatre in Buenos Aires to see Thunderball in 1965 and leaving amazed and astounded by the feel of the movie. The films from this year I have seen did nothing like that for me.

Not trying to be insulting (because I'm not very far behind you), but how old are you today, and how old were you in 1965? When we're in our teen years, we haven't yet had the life experiences to leave us jaded, and most things are new and unique. The really great ones elicit that "Oh wow!" that you alluded to (in the text I snipped out). But by now you've seen it all, done it all, and it's a lot harder to find something so new and unique that it can evoke that reaction. Just the nature of life, I guess.

 

[davideduardo]

Funny use of the phrase "found solace". More accurate might have been "killed time".

Nope. "Found solace" is a great description of my reaction during total isolation, akin to Cien Años de Soledad and the general dreariness of what gradually becomes the tedious river travel in Love in the Time of Cholera (fitting, as it's about the same situation but a different pandemic).

And "found solace" is right out of García Márquez. It means to find joy of sorts in the dissection of normal event such as a scientist does with samples in their field of endeavor.

Not trying to be insulting (because I'm not very far behind you), but how old are you today, and how old were you in 1965? When we're in our teen years, we haven't yet had the life experiences to leave us jaded, and most things are new and unique. The really great ones elicit that "Oh wow!" that you alluded to (in the text I snipped out).

In 1965 I was the owner and GM of the #1 and #2 radio stations in 45-station Quito, Ecuador, and had just built northern South America's first FM. I was 19 at the time. I'd been through a revolution in 1963 in Guatemala, and yet another coup d'etat while in Guayaquil in 1964. I think that trip to Argentina was just months after my first assassination attempt that caused me to travel with a bodyguard. You mature quickly in such situations.

But by now you've seen it all, done it all, and it's a lot harder to find something so new and unique that it can evoke that reaction. Just the nature of life, I guess.

Every day can still bring a surprise and novel situation depending on how you look at it. For example, walking around the Times Square area of New York City three weeks ago was amazing and enlightening. I lost track of the languages I could identify and the accents I recognized. The dress, mannerisms and gestures of different people were more varied than I had ever seen before, and the foods and items displayed in stores and restaurants reflected nearly the entire planet in microcosm.

Having been in a plane hijacked to Cuba, a bombing of the building I was in by the Sendero Luminoso, an attack by the FARN in El Salvador and even an armed takeover of my radio station by guerillas in Quito, I can't say that anything in life became dull or boring... and still is not.

 

[michael hagerty]

Not trying to be insulting (because I'm not very far behind you), but how old are you today, and how old were you in 1965? When we're in our teen years, we haven't yet had the life experiences to leave us jaded, and most things are new and unique. The really great ones elicit that "Oh wow!" that you alluded to (in the text I snipped out). But by now you've seen it all, done it all, and it's a lot harder to find something so new and unique that it can evoke that reaction. Just the nature of life, I guess.

I agree with part of that---a lot of stuff that I thought was great years ago doesn't hold up to a re-watching today.

But (and I'm only ten years younger than David), I find a lot of movies that will still impress me. Of the ones David watched, I only saw the Indiana Jones, and I thought it was the weakest of the installments. But I liked Top Gun: Maverick, so it's not a bias against big-budget franchises.

And at the same time, I'm a sucker for Wes Anderson movies---but I don't think Asteroid City was nearly as entertaining as The French Dispatch.

It's about quality and inspiration.

 

[Kelly A]

Now in my 12th day of COVID, I have found solace in watching some of the newer / newest movies available on pay-per-view.

Brutal. Go to NYC to collect your award and get the travel bonus parting gift of COVID?
I got COVID from traveling late September and unknowingly brought it home to my wife. That's the main reason we're flying private for Thanksgiving this year. Both of us want to avoid that unpleasant virus.

 

[Mikey Radio]

Biggest issue I've got with movies of late is that, at their core, many of the story lines and plots seem quite similar in many ways and aside from maybe a different superpower or weapon of choice or particular life situation of the protagonist, many have become very predictable. I'm not a big movie or TV watcher but during covid we watched a fair amount as there was little else to do on weekends and evenings, and it was amazing how many movies and franchises "played it safe" and didn't really do anything truly creative or really shocking or throw in a completely unseen plot change or cliff-hanger. It also struck me that, going back even 20 or 30 years ago, you could find movies that were simply entertaining. They didn't make you think, didn't make you follow characters, viewers could just laugh along and be entertained. That seems to be missing as well in modern times. One upshot is that when they come out with news stories telling us that AI can be used to write entire movie scripts, that doesn't seem too difficult considering the lack of fresh plots and stories.

The last movie we actually went to a cinema to see was John Wick 4. So you mean to tell me that Wick took on and killed all those people and the one person he could never defeat throughout the movie and who finally ended him was a blind guy who couldn't even see his target? And I paid $15 to sit through that!

 

[kfbkfb]

MSN

I believe I asked this here before in rd.com - why have a TV network, just produce content that people want to hear (& see) and sell it to individual TV stations, Star Trek:TNG was successful this way over 35 years ago.

Without a TV network, the TV shows cost less (less layers of bureaucracy/approvals needed etc.), I don't care if 5 people instead of 10 people had to approve production of a certain TV show, if it's a good TV show, I'll likely watch it.

Maybe just 2 TV stations/market - P(ublic)BS & A(ds)+C(ommercial)B(roadcasting)S(ystem) with the latter offering local news and syndicated TV shows/movies only.


Kirk Bayne

 

[michael hagerty]

Some fresh intel on Disney via CNN's Reliable Sources newsletter Wednesday night:

Disney's stock surged more than 4% in after-hours trading after a strong earnings report and a pledge by Bob Iger to slash another $2 billion in costs, which is in addition to the $5.5 billion in cuts that had already been announced. Disney also managed to reduce Disney+ losses after raising prices, slimming it down to $420 million compared to $1.4 billion last year. "Our results this quarter reflect the significant progress we’ve made over the past year," Iger said. "While we still have work to do, these efforts have allowed us to move beyond this period of fixing and begin building our business again." More highlights:



► On the combined Hulu/Disney+ app: Iger said that Disney will put it in beta at first "so that we can prepare parents" for a catalogue that contains both adult and children's content. After best practices emerge from the beta test on this front, Disney will officially release the app. "We found that where we bundle, we lower churn," Iger said.



► On linear television: "We have been considering various strategic options for each of our networks, not necessarily all together, but each of them," Iger told CNBC's Julia Boorstin. Iger added, however, that a channel like ABC"provides a lot of strategic support for ESPN" and is "very valuable for streaming." Iger said that, additionally, the Charter deal "really changed the outlook about the business." He said that Disney is "looking in an open minded way" at what to do with each asset in its linear portfolio, but stressed "that shouldn’t in any way suggest that anything is imminent."

 

[michael hagerty]

MSN

I believe I asked this here before in rd.com - why have a TV network, just produce content that people want to hear (& see) and sell it to individual TV stations, Star Trek:TNG was successful this way over 35 years ago.

That's broadcast syndication. There are drawbacks compared to a network, one of them being the inability to guarantee a timeslot coast to coast.

You did hear yourself say "35 years ago", right? The world and television have changed immeasurably.

Maybe just 2 TV stations/market - P(ublic)BS & A(ds)+C(ommercial)B(roadcasting)S(ystem) with the latter offering local news and syndicated TV shows/movies only.

I was about to ask if you'd want to live in a market with only two TV signals, but I'm scared of what the answer might be.

That said, once the networks go full streaming and ditch linear affiliates, public broadcasting and independent commercial TV will likely be what's left.

 

[kfbkfb]

ST:TNG is an example of what was (and is) possible - good quality content doesn't necessarily need to be on a TV network, I don't know the whole story as to why Paramount decided to syndicate ST:TNG rather than try to get the show on a TV network.

KC had 3 channels (+ NET/PBS) until 1969-10 when an independent station came on, I was living in SE WY during the 1st half of 1967, there was 1 channel (CBS & ABC) out of Cheyenne WY.

2 OTA TV channels would be fine, so many people have TVs that can receive OTA TV (ATSC 1.0), OTA TV could be a fallback for when there's nothing on the streaming services or the Internet is down for some reason.

With DVRs, I'm not sure TV show scheduling is very important.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kelly A]

MSN

I believe I asked this here before in rd.com - why have a TV network, just produce content that people want to hear (& see) and sell it to individual TV stations, Star Trek:TNG was successful this way over 35 years ago.

Without a TV network, the TV shows cost less (less layers of bureaucracy/approvals needed etc.), I don't care if 5 people instead of 10 people had to approve production of a certain TV show, if it's a good TV show, I'll likely watch it.

Maybe just 2 TV stations/market - P(ublic)BS & A(ds)+C(ommercial)B(roadcasting)S(ystem) with the latter offering local news and syndicated TV shows/movies only.

Are you okay Kirk? Your posts are typically bizarre, but this one seems like a chicken typed it.

 

[Kelly A]

With DVRs, I'm not sure TV show scheduling is very important.

There's this thing called streaming now. It sends movies and programming to homes and businesses via this thing called the public Internet. It's replaced DVR's and VCRs for modern consumers.

 

[michael hagerty]

And a PS to the current Disney situation, again from last night's Reliable Sources newsletter:

A Mess to Marvel At: Marvel has a real mess on its hands. Its new offering, "The Marvels," is being savaged by critics. With 102 reviews in, the film is currently scoring an appalling 58% on Rotten Tomatoes, the third worst Rotten Tomatoes score in the history of Marvel. And the other movie Marvel released this year, "Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," is also in the bottom three worst-rated Marvel movies of all time, posting a horrendous 46% Rotten Tomatoes score. In other words, two of three worst reviewed Marvel films of all time have been released this year. It all points to a serious creative problem for the Disney studio, which once cranked out well-reviewed hits.

Buying Marvel just after it ran out of bankable ideas may be the biggest issue Iger has to wrestle with. It appears that more favorable retransmission deal with Charter gave ABC some more runway and Iger's comments to CNBC suggest that while he's still looking, the pressure is a bit lower.

 

[michael hagerty]

ST:TNG is an example of what was (and is) possible - good quality content doesn't necessarily need to be on a TV network, I don't know the whole story as to why Paramount decided to syndicate ST:TNG rather than try to get the show on a TV network.

Paramount wanted to keep the Star Trek franchise alive, but Shatner and Nimoy's salary demands for the last movie made another one potentially unprofitable.

The answer: Move the story ahead to "the next generation" with relatively unknown actors. But that was probably not gonna fly at the box office---so: Back to TV, where the whole thing started.

But reception from the networks was less than overwhelming. ABC and NBC offered to look at a pilot, but no guarantees. CBS said they'd agree to a miniseries with a regular series commitment if the miniseries performed well. FOX wanted the show, but wanted it too soon and would only commit to 13 weeks.

Paramount didn't want to risk the franchise they started out looking to protect and extend, so they chose to produce it without network partners and syndicate it.

The deal was structured to attract as many stations as possible---they'd get the show for free. Paramount would sell seven minutes of the commercial hour, the local stations would sell the remaining five and keep the money they got. And---critically---only those stations that ran TNG would have access to the reruns of the original Star Trek.

That was a deal that could only have been done with that franchise at that time.

Today, they'd produce it and stream it on Paramount+, using it as bait to drive subscriptions.