WBD stock lost a full point in value in one day due to a meeting between Bakish and Zaslav. Nothing more than a meeting. CEOs meet all the time. The story says they met to talk merger, but you don't meet with Bakish if you want to merge. You met with Redstone. She's the one who wants to sell. If something is going to happen here, it won't be soon. Redstone has better options. Options with deeper pockets.
-
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
WBD stock lost a full point in value in one day due to a meeting between Bakish and Zaslav. Nothing more than a meeting. CEOs meet all the time. The story says they met to talk merger, but you don't meet with Bakish if you want to merge. You met with Redstone. She's the one who wants to sell. If something is going to happen here, it won't be soon. Redstone has better options. Options with deeper pockets.
They're normal people who like wearing costumes. My parents ended up at a furry convention in San Jose that was being held at their hotel and met some of the furries, they all seemed normal to me. Didn't some radio stations use to have mascots?
There is a certain group of people on this forum who view everything through the lens of how rich it can make the business owner (augmented in some cases by how it may drive up their own personal stock holdings).
The other side of the coin is whether it is good for the general public. In too many cases, the motivations of Wall Street gamblers and one-percenter CEOs are good for only themselves, made with disregard, or even contempt for the public. And, in far too many cases, we see companies collapse under the weight of the debt from these ill-advised multibillion dollar mega-mergers anyway.
There are very few winners when this inevitably happens, but the CEO's golden parachute is always real.
www.theverge.com
Maybe Paramount should pay attention to the moral of their own story -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock, from Star Trek The Wrath of Khan
The other side of the coin is whether it is good for the general public. In too many cases, the motivations of Wall Street gamblers and one-percenter CEOs are good for only themselves, made with disregard, or even contempt for the public. And, in far too many cases, we see companies collapse under the weight of the debt from these ill-advised multibillion dollar mega-mergers anyway.
There are very few winners when this inevitably happens, but the CEO's golden parachute is always real.
A merging of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount would be very bad
The streaming prices will just get higher.
www.theverge.com
Maybe Paramount should pay attention to the moral of their own story -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock, from Star Trek The Wrath of Khan
There's a difference between observing reality and endorsing it. Yes, "investing," as done by Wall Streeters, is just a cleaned-up, socially acceptable form of gambling. I've observed that frequently, but saying what it is doesn't mean I endorse it.
It's a little more than that, but I don't think they're harmful either. It's just an odd subculture.
So talking with someone wearing a Sylvester The Cat costume isn't unusual?
Furries aren't the same as mascots.
Yeah, I don't think that was intended as a business slogan. It was a line from a movie.
There is a certain group of people on this forum who view everything through the lens of how rich it can make the business owner (augmented in some cases by how it may drive up their own personal stock holdings).
The other side of the coin is whether it is good for the general public. In too many cases, the motivations of Wall Street gamblers and one-percenter CEOs are good for only themselves, made with disregard, or even contempt for the public. And, in far too many cases, we see companies collapse under the weight of the debt from these ill-advised multibillion dollar mega-mergers anyway.
There are very few winners when this inevitably happens, but the CEO's golden parachute is always real.
A merging of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount would be very bad
The streaming prices will just get higher.
Maybe Paramount should pay attention to the moral of their own story -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock, from Star Trek The Wrath of Khan
You've just described government's role.
Absent regulation, the main, if not the only consideration of a business, especially a publicly-traded business, will be profit.
Last edited:
Do you think Apple or someone has more of a chance? Does this one stand much of a chance?
I don't see Apple buying any heritage media. This is more likely:
Apple and Paramount in talks to combine streaming services amid fierce competition
Apple and Paramount are reportedly discussing joining forces in the latest bid to bolster subscriber count by bundling their streaming services at a discount.
nypost.com
Isn't Paramount on the market though?I don't see Apple buying any heritage media. This is more likely:
Apple and Paramount in talks to combine streaming services amid fierce competition
Apple and Paramount are reportedly discussing joining forces in the latest bid to bolster subscriber count by bundling their streaming services at a discount.
The people at the furry convention weren't wearing costumes all the time. I know they aren't the same thing but they're doing the same thing, dressing up in a costume. One of the people my parents and I met at the furry convention used to be a mascot for a sports team.
@michael hagerty Didn't that KGB chicken get in a fight with somebody when he was in costume, or am I thinking of when it was the San Diego Chicken? That reminds me of when I lived in Iowa City, the Statue of Liberty mascot for a tax preparation business got in a fight with the Burger King mascot guy and someone else had to break them up. It was hilarious.
It's complicated. Shari Redstone is looking to sell her interest in National Amusements, parent of Paramount Global:
For those who don't know, the KGB Chicken and the San Diego Chicken are one and the same---Ted Giannoulas, who was hired to wear the suit for a KGB promotion in 1974. The relationship ran for five years, with Giannoulas becoming a big local deal.
Giannoulas came to regard the Chicken as his property, and KGB thought they had ended the argument by firing him in 1979. Trouble is, there was publicity around that, and when another guy in the Chicken suit walked onto the field at Jack Murphy Stadium for a Padres game, the crowd booed him.
Giannoulas sued KGB for ownership, and a judge agreed. The costume was altered from its original design, the "KGB" jersey ditched, and the San Diego Chicken was born.
The only fight I'm aware of is one that got Giannoulas, as the San Diego Chicken, sued---when he got into a fight with a bad Barney the Dinosaur lookalike (one he employed):
Coe Lewis: Raw Footage of the SD Chicken Fighting With Barney the Dinosaur | 101.5 KGB
I can't tell if this was a real fight or not. It starts off as a dance off, but I think the San Diego Chicken truly gets mad and fights Barney. Watch and tell us what you think.
Lyons Group, which owned Barney, filed a copyright infringement claim. The judge ruled in the Chicken's favor, saying it was clearly a parody.
What was the main reason Paramount was losing so much cash? Is it their linear channels? Not licensing enough?
I saw that, but why were they losing that much?
I don't want to divert the original thread with talk about unusual human subcultures. That's a different thread entirely.
Because—-as stated several times in this thread—-they lowballed their subscription rate in an effort to grow a subscriber base virtually overnight in an attempt to be competitive with Netflix and Hulu, who took more than a decade to get to that scale.
Makes me wonder how Max was able to turn a profit. I know from advertising, but how was that able to offset the losses everyone else experienced? (And they spent a lot on Friends, South Park, ect.)
- Status