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

[Rusty Muck]

To bulk up their streaming library. Spongebob itself would draw in kids.

As if the LOONEY TUNES weren't good enough?! Warner Bros. already posseses so much evergreen content as it is, far more than any normal human being could or should ever consume, and adding SpongeBob is the selling point here?

That is insanity. If Max can't sustain itself despite their voluminous existing output, then that's a problem no merger can solve.

 

[tall_guy1]

As if the LOONEY TUNES weren't good enough?! Warner Bros. already posseses so much evergreen content as it is, far more than any normal human being could or should ever consume, and adding SpongeBob is the selling point here?

That is insanity. If Max can't sustain itself despite their voluminous existing output, then that's a problem no merger can solve.

Beats me, but that is the reasoning behind it.

 

[michael hagerty]

Beats me, but that is the reasoning behind it.

While Paramount's library is an asset, it's not "the reasoning behind" the potential deal.

In a lot of ways it flows the other way---Paramount has IP (Titanic, Top Gun, Indiana Jones, Mission: Impossible---The Godfather----and he picks SpongeBob) that isn't doing well in streaming because it's on one of the least-watched streaming platforms that has very limited opportunities to become profitable in this competitive field.

It would likely be better served by being on a platform with more eyeballs. Even making it an ad-supported or paid tier buried inside Amazon would likely be better than what Paramount+ is doing now.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Beats me, but that is the reasoning behind it.

Warner Bros. has intellectual property dating back to the 1920s (much of which Ted helped bring back to them by 1996). That's nearly a century of output. Plus the MGM pre-1986 library, Hanna-Barbara, DC Comics and all their studio output, New Line Cinema, Lorimar, and so on and so on. Plus WB has television product dating back to 1954, almost all of it they own outright. And then there's all the Discovery Communications IP, which itself spans decades.

There is no reason to think they are lacking for anything.

 

[michael hagerty]

Warner Bros. has intellectual property dating back to the 1920s (much of which Ted helped bring back to them by 1996). That's nearly a century of output. Plus the MGM pre-1986 library, Hanna-Barbara, DC Comics and all their studio output, New Line Cinema, Lorimar, and so on and so on. Plus WB has television product dating back to 1954, almost all of it they own outright. And then there's all the Discovery Communications IP, which itself spans decades.

There is no reason to think they are lacking for anything.

Now you get dispassionate and logical? While replying to TallGuy and SpongeBob?

C'mon, Nathan. When has "enough" ever been enough in American business in general and showbiz in particular?

Especially when there's an evil mastermind with supervillain powers at the wheel?

 

[tall_guy1]

Warner Bros. has intellectual property dating back to the 1920s (much of which Ted helped bring back to them by 1996). That's nearly a century of output. Plus the MGM pre-1986 library, Hanna-Barbara, DC Comics and all their studio output, New Line Cinema, Lorimar, and so on and so on. Plus WB has television product dating back to 1954, almost all of it they own outright. And then there's all the Discovery Communications IP, which itself spans decades.

There is no reason to think they are lacking for anything.

I think they want to be the "next Netflix" though by acquiring asmuch as they are able to. There are rumors Disney and Netflix might band together as well.

While Paramount's library is an asset, it's not "the reasoning behind" the potential deal.

In a lot of ways it flows the other way---Paramount has IP (Titanic, Top Gun, Indiana Jones, Mission: Impossible---The Godfather----and he picks SpongeBob) that isn't doing well in streaming because it's on one of the least-watched streaming platforms that has very limited opportunities to become profitable in this competitive field.

It would likely be better served by being on a platform with more eyeballs. Even making it an ad-supported or paid tier buried inside Amazon would likely be better than what Paramount+ is doing now.

I didn't think Paramount was doing so bad looking at their subscriber numbers.

 

[michael hagerty]

I think they want to be the "next Netflix" though by acquiring asmuch as they are able to.

That's not being the "next Netflix". That's being competitive and able to survive against this Netflix.

There are rumors Disney and Netflix might band together as well.

No. It's a limited-title bundle deal. Disney gets revenue:

Here Are the 14 Non-Marvel/Pixar/Star Wars Shows Disney Is Licensing to Netflix

From "Archer" to "Lost," some popular ABC, Fox, FX, and ESPN shows will live on Netflix, Hulu, and the soon-to-be launched Hulu tile on Disney+.

www.indiewire.com

I didn't think Paramount was doing so bad looking at their subscriber numbers.

You just zoned that whole losing $250 million every 90 days for three years thing, though, huh?

 

[michael hagerty]

And by the way, I called this one wrong....despite Hulu being a much bigger streaming platform, the mothership will be branded Disney+, and Hulu will be a tier (they call it a "tile") inside.

Beta testing began a couple weeks ago:

Hulu on Disney+ Beta Launch

Beginning December 6, extensive Hulu content will be available on Disney+ in the U.S. for Bundle subscribers. This two-phased roll out will start with a Beta version before the official launch in March 2024. While both Hulu and Disney+ will still be available as standalone offerings, this...

press.disneyplus.com

 

[Rusty Muck]

Funny enough, Rich Greenfield of Lightshed Partners is outright saying that it is pure folly for the studios to even have these streaming services in the first place and published their findings hours before the WBD-Par talks broke: merging is not the answer, either scale back or cut bait.

Merging isn't the answer for WBD and Paramount, need to scale back streaming: Lightshed's Greenfield

Rich Greenfield, Lightshed Partners, joins 'Fast Money' to talk the latest news that Warner Bros. Discovery is in talks to merge with Paramount according to sources familiar with the matter.

www.cnbc.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737841404129447951

 

[tall_guy1]

That's not being the "next Netflix". That's being competitive and able to survive against this Netflix.




No. It's a limited-title bundle deal. Disney gets revenue:

Here Are the 14 Non-Marvel/Pixar/Star Wars Shows Disney Is Licensing to Netflix

From "Archer" to "Lost," some popular ABC, Fox, FX, and ESPN shows will live on Netflix, Hulu, and the soon-to-be launched Hulu tile on Disney+.

www.indiewire.com

You just zoned that whole losing $250 million every 90 days for three years thing, though, huh?

Well, they would be second place with the combined streamer in total subscribers to Netflix. I think Max is already too big...only thing I watch on there is a niche animated sitcom called Home Movies from 1999 (and that was with the 3 dollar Black Friday sale).

I know of that, but there are rumors Iger might team up with Netflix. Not sure how accurate, but some speculate if this deal goes through it opens the door for further mergers like that.

That might explain why Paramount cable stations run 30 minute shows for 35 minutes (with extra ads.)

 

[tall_guy1]

Funny enough, Rich Greenfield of Lightshed Partners is outright saying that it is pure folly for the studios to even have these streaming services in the first place and published their findings hours before the WBD-Par talks broke: merging is not the answer, either scale back or cut bait.

Merging isn't the answer for WBD and Paramount, need to scale back streaming: Lightshed's Greenfield

Rich Greenfield, Lightshed Partners, joins 'Fast Money' to talk the latest news that Warner Bros. Discovery is in talks to merge with Paramount according to sources familiar with the matter.

www.cnbc.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737841404129447951

Yes, but what Zaslav is doing is merging in order to survive.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Yes, but what Zaslav is doing is merging in order to survive.

He legally can't do anything until April 8, lest he be clobbered with a massive tax penalty from the WarnerMedia merger. So if Paramount sells itself before that date (which is honestly more likely than this) then it's a moot point.

There's also the possibility that Zaslav is staging this entirely:

Why a Warner Bros.-Paramount Merger Does (and Doesn’t) Makes Sense (Published 2023)

A potential deal could bolster their streaming businesses and negotiating power with cable operators. But their crushing debt load could be a turn-off.

www.nytimes.com

Some observers think there’s a Kabuki element to these talks. CNBC’s Alex Sherman and The Information’s Martin Peers wonder whether Zaslav’s approach to Paramount, and its quick leak to the media, was a market trial balloon — or a way to draw out Comcast, whose NBCUniversal has long been considered a potential buyer of Warner Bros. Discovery. (NBCUniversal, with its deeper pockets, is financially a more attractive partner for Zaslav’s company, though it would also face antitrust concerns.)

 

[TheBigA]

Funny enough, Rich Greenfield of Lightshed Partners is outright saying that it is pure folly for the studios to even have these streaming services in the first place and published their findings hours before the WBD-Par talks broke: merging is not the answer, either scale back or cut bait.

I think if it was up to the companies, they'd gladly turn back the hands of time 15 years to when people were satisfied with cable TV. Back then Viacom stock was in the 40s. Now it's in the teens. Even after combining with CBS. But it's not up to the companies. The people want streaming, and if these companies want to be relevant, they have to play in that game. Same with radio companies. They'd rather it was the 1980s, and people went to bed with their transistor radios. But that train left the station a long time ago. So they can either give up and close down, or try to play in the new ballgame.

 

[tall_guy1]

I think if it was up to the companies, they'd gladly turn back the hands of time 15 years to when people were satisfied with cable TV. Back then Viacom stock was in the 40s. Now it's in the teens. Even after combining with CBS. But it's not up to the companies. The people want streaming, and if these companies want to be relevant, they have to play in that game. Same with radio companies. They'd rather it was the 1980s, and people went to bed with their transistor radios. But that train left the station a long time ago. So they can either give up and close down, or try to play in the new ballgame.

Unlike my furry friend I do not have anything against Zaslav, but how would it even be possible for WBD so far in debt that it is trying to cut costs to be able to buy another studio and take on even more debt?

 

[tall_guy1]

He legally can't do anything until April 8, lest he be clobbered with a massive tax penalty from the WarnerMedia merger. So if Paramount sells itself before that date (which is honestly more likely than this) then it's a moot point.

There's also the possibility that Zaslav is staging this entirely:

Why a Warner Bros.-Paramount Merger Does (and Doesn’t) Makes Sense (Published 2023)

A potential deal could bolster their streaming businesses and negotiating power with cable operators. But their crushing debt load could be a turn-off.

www.nytimes.com

It could not be Zaslav, but could be for investors to "show their hands" about the future of the industry.

 

[Kelly A]

Unlike my furry friend

Wow, that's right. Think he has the costume too?

 

[Rusty Muck]

The people want streaming, and if these companies want to be relevant, they have to play in that game.

They are and people have the right to sign up for a service and cancel after a month because they've seen all that they care to see. Welcome to the free market.

The environment is dyspeptic because the studios are trying to bring the cable model into the streaming world, while people want to get away from that model in the first place. If I don't want what's on Peacock, I don't sign up for it. If I want Prime, I do! It's not terribly complicated.

So they can either give up and close down, or try to play in the new ballgame.

Merging into one another like this screams of pure desperation. What's the breaking point? When we have ComcastParaWarners with one service for $100 a month and it still can't get past Netflix, Prime and Hulu?

Meanwhile no one seems to say this about Sony, which sold off Crackle years ago and licenses out their library to other streamers.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Wow, that's right. Think he has the costume too?

Jokes on you, I do! Lol

 

[TheBigA]

If I don't want what's on Peacock, I don't sign up for it. If I want Prime, I do! It's not terribly complicated.

But Prime is one thing. It's not just streaming. It includes free shipping on my purchases, free music and curated radio stations, and Thursday night football. You pay one bulk rate. Kind of like cable.

 

[Rusty Muck]

But Prime is one thing. It's not just streaming. It includes free shipping on my purchases, free music and curated radio stations, and Thursday night football. You pay one bulk rate. Kind of like cable.

And Amazon has Freevee, which is ad-supported and ... well ... free.