It's a sales and marketing tool. Similar to Radio Disney. The system itself is mainly heard on AM news/talkers.
-
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
Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
- Status
It's a sales and marketing tool. Similar to Radio Disney. The system itself is mainly heard on AM news/talkers.
If they opt to leave TV, it’s best to do it in one fell swoop than with a messy, incredibly problematic piecemeal sale. Especially the O&Os, given they are almost all on VHF digitally and not subject to the “UHF Discount” sham the Pai-era FCC waved around to instigate further mass consolidation.
I would be curious if Disney is willing to part with any production units like ABC Signature, which would hold little to no value for Disney itself if the network and stations are gone.
They have to figure out what their core businesses are. If they're going to continue to make movies and create content, then the TV studios are part of that. They also bought a lot of that production stuff from Fox. So if they did that, then it seems like TV production is a core business. But doing TV production without an outlet seems pretty silly. That's why I believe they need to reconfigure ABC in a way that isn't a 24/7 network, but rather a vehicle for video content. I think all of the networks are thinking about how to do that. They like creating and merchandising content. They don't like staffing 24/7 channels that only make money in certain times of day.
I miss the days when vertical integration didn't exist and prompted studios like Disney, WB, Paramount and MGM to syndicate their wares and shop them to all three networks. Absolute shame.
So rename Hulu as "ABC"? Good luck selling off the network after it's been grossly devalued like that.
I'm going to be bold here:
The 21th Century Fox deal was a horrible one that hurt Disney. It gave them content but fully turned them into a faceless blob with no direction, purpose or meaning. They can claim to be all about what Walt started 100 years ago but the company hasn't been in his family name since the 1980s, Roy aside. And I doubt Walt would be happy seeing his nameplate now affixed to a generic Marvel superhero movie sausage factory.
There is nothing unique or exciting or special about Disney; it is a company that goes through the motions, just like the purely forgettable theatrical trailer for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
Last edited:
Yeah, even paying $310M for the Weather Channel was too much. (which BTW was the asking price) Offering $10B for ABC is really swinging for the fences. I think it's going to be a tough sell to claim TWC and The GrioTV has increased that much in valuation under his ownership.
As @DavidEduardo alluded to, one of the angles Byron Allen has played repeatedly is to sue companies for not spending enough of their advertising $$ with "black owned media" or "minority owned networks". Of course, that doesn't mean they need to spend money on radio or TV advertising that will reach inner cities or large swaths of the black community - just "black owned media" which, in his case, conveniently means companies can spend more advertising dollars on TWC and they'd meet his qualification.
At one point Allen took his argument to the Supreme Court and it was unanimously tossed by all 9 justices. He then went after individual companies like Comcast and McDonald's. At least one settled with him and, in the end he likely gets what he wants, lest these companies risk him casting them in an unfavorable light.
At one point Allen took his argument to the Supreme Court and it was unanimously tossed by all 9 justices. He then went after individual companies like Comcast and McDonald's. At least one settled with him and, in the end he likely gets what he wants, lest these companies risk him casting them in an unfavorable light.
All good points about Byron, who (as far as we know) has the only attractive offer ($10B for ABC, stations group, FX and NatGeo) on the table.
That takes us back to pretty much where we started---even if Iger's selling, who's buying?
My opinion (and reasonable people can disagree):
If Iger's selling, and assuming someone buys, what happens to ABC once the check clears is irrelevant to Disney. It's someone else's.
Selling the owned stations but keeping the network just means you're producing content for a declining platform (linear TV---the specific thing Iger said may not be core to Disney's business) and getting the smallest part of the possible payday. Selling the entire package allows Disney to focus on Disney+ and Hulu (which I think merge into one platform within a few years).
Studio space for production isn't that big a deal---Disney moved ABC onto their lot in Burbank 24 years ago. They can play landlord for a while until whoever buys KABC (assuming there's a sale) finds new digs. After they do, the KABC building gets repurposed. Ditto any space on the lot that's tied to any part of the network that is sold.
Maybe Disney makes the Prospect Studios (ABC's West Coast facilities when Disney acquired it) part of the deal and KABC moves back in. Other than General Hospital, I can't find anything telling me what's currently being shot there. If Disney keeps Prospect, one multi-level parking garage would free up enough footprint for two or three more soundstages.
And in the other cities, how much production capacity that would be essential or even attractive for Disney minus ABC is there? Maybe New York, but is anything being produced there that isn't for ABC specifically?
That takes us back to pretty much where we started---even if Iger's selling, who's buying?
My opinion (and reasonable people can disagree):
If Iger's selling, and assuming someone buys, what happens to ABC once the check clears is irrelevant to Disney. It's someone else's.
Selling the owned stations but keeping the network just means you're producing content for a declining platform (linear TV---the specific thing Iger said may not be core to Disney's business) and getting the smallest part of the possible payday. Selling the entire package allows Disney to focus on Disney+ and Hulu (which I think merge into one platform within a few years).
Studio space for production isn't that big a deal---Disney moved ABC onto their lot in Burbank 24 years ago. They can play landlord for a while until whoever buys KABC (assuming there's a sale) finds new digs. After they do, the KABC building gets repurposed. Ditto any space on the lot that's tied to any part of the network that is sold.
Maybe Disney makes the Prospect Studios (ABC's West Coast facilities when Disney acquired it) part of the deal and KABC moves back in. Other than General Hospital, I can't find anything telling me what's currently being shot there. If Disney keeps Prospect, one multi-level parking garage would free up enough footprint for two or three more soundstages.
And in the other cities, how much production capacity that would be essential or even attractive for Disney minus ABC is there? Maybe New York, but is anything being produced there that isn't for ABC specifically?
Last edited:
If I were Disney, I'd ask Byron to submit an LOI to include how and if he intends to pay the $10Bm That would include a list of investors or lenders, and when the window of financing would expect to be open. Out of the gate, this would avoid unnecessary tail-chasing and legal expenses on the part of Disney for something that ultimately may be nothing more than a stunt on the part of Byron to get some attention from the press.
Especially in places like Los Angeles, it doesn't make as much sense to have large studio complexes taking up expensive real estate while studios sit silent much of the year. That's why you'll see studios being built in places like North Carolina and Georgia where land is more plentiful and unions aren't a factor. And studios no longer need to own the studios either. Let someone else build and own them, and you just book blocks of time. It's cheaper to fly actors in and out or put them up in apartments during production, than own studios in Burbank.
That sounds like the right approach.
Post-pandemic and apart from strikes, there's very little downtime for the L.A. studios. A lot of content is getting created for multiple platforms.
Disney has owned its Burbank lot since 1940. That's a keeper. But nothing says an ABC independent of Disney needs its own.
CBS sold both Television City and CBS Radford (Studio City) a few years ago and rent the space they need (including KCBS/KCAL at Radford). The new owners have embarked on huge expansions of both properties. But Paramount maintains its own lot.
Same situation with NBC, which sold its old home on Alameda in Burbank to a real estate company when it moved onto the Universal lot. This year, Warner Bros. Discovery bought it and has folded it into The Burbank Studios.
If Paramount ever divested CBS or Universal NBC, I don't think you'd see the new buyers trying to build or buy their own production facilities....they'd probably be tenants for however long they needed, move to an office building and rent studio space as needed from whoever was convenient and priced right.
Remember that just a few years ago, Disney bought 21st Century Fox, which includes a lot of television & film production studios.
screenrant.com
These assets were combined into Disney, not ABC, but they are television facilities. So that begs the question, are they selling ABC because the Fox assets they now own are better? Are they more useful and valuable for where the company is going? If so, what makes them better? Because on the surface, this purchase doesn't sound like they intend to get out of the TV or production business.
Here's Everything That Disney Now Owns From Fox (& What It Means)
It’s official: The Walt Disney Company now owns 21st Century Fox and its many assets.
screenrant.com
These assets were combined into Disney, not ABC, but they are television facilities. So that begs the question, are they selling ABC because the Fox assets they now own are better? Are they more useful and valuable for where the company is going? If so, what makes them better? Because on the surface, this purchase doesn't sound like they intend to get out of the TV or production business.
Not really. From that article:
"For the other elements of Fox that were not part of the deal, they are to be spun off into their own new group, which will be called Fox Corporation. This includes the Fox Broadcasting Company, their major Sports networks, the Fox News and Business Networks, and the legendary 20th Century Fox lot in Los Angeles, although Disney will be leasing that for the time being."
That article is from the time of the deal---which will be five years ago come March.
FX, which was part of the Fox acquisition, is also part of Byron Allen's offer, along with NatGeo.
Anything related to TV can, if Iger's serious about getting out of linear TV, be for streaming.
And there's a fair amount of heartburn over the Fox deal:
Disney got 'The Simpsons' and 'Avatar.' But some now see the Fox deal as a mistake
Disney's $71-billion purchase of Rupert Murdoch's entertainment assets, including 'The Simpsons,' 'Avatar' and Hulu, has also been a financial burden for the studio, which recently said it would eliminate 7,000 jobs to reduce costs.
www.latimes.com
Last edited:
Yes I know what was not included. But you ignore what was included:
How does that fit with existing ABC production and syndication companies, such as ABC Signature? Or was this just about buying shows and libraries, not actual production companies?
The original offer was for $61 billion in CASH. That increased to $72 billion, but then they sold some assets. If they had $61 billion in cash, that doesn't sound like they're hurting for money. Yes I understand there were other financial setbacks after that purchase caused by covid and the recession. But not because they bought Fox.
Are you trying to say this was all about buying Fox's third of Hulu?
I think most of what made FOX attractive was the libraries (film and TV) and intellectual property. Probably the biggest chunk of that IP that Disney couldn't resist was the Marvel franchise.
As noted in the Times article I linked to, the original deal between Iger and Murdoch was $52.4 billion, all stock. Comcast jumped in, started a bidding war, and the tab ended up at $71.3 billion (including $14 billion in Fox debt). Asset sales (the Fox stake in Sky that Disney got, Fox's regional sports networks) brought the net down to $57 billion.
Analysts quoted in the Times piece say Disney overpaid. This year, Disney is on track to trim 7,000 jobs and those analysts say overpaying for the Fox assets helped put them in that position.
No, if I were trying to say that I would have said that or something remotely resembling that. Given the current price of Hulu, five years ago, Disney probably thought a third of it was somewhere between $4b and $6b.
Cash or stock, it's not new debt. Given Disney's falling stock price, it was best done with stock.
Everybody is laying off staff. It's all related to covid and the falling stock price. Both of those are bigger issues than a purchase made 5 years ago.
I don't think you spend within walking distance of $9 billion for a third of something to scrap it. More likely what you'll see is the two platforms merging, with Hulu's branding and the extra-cost option of unlocking Disney+ within it---not unlike Paramount+ with Showtime, but absolutely more successful.
Last edited:
Fine. The Times found analysts that disagree.
- Status