-
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
ViacomCBS
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Why would you want to sell your top revenue producer? It would also make them a monopoly, and DOJ might object.
But it's also retaining some older Spike shows like Lip Sync challenge. Why isn't that on MTV? As I said, a channel in search of a concept.
If they're going to brand it with Paramount, why not put some Paramount copyrights on it? They own quite a few.
Why would Nick channels go to Disney? Disney right now has to wait for approval to get National Geographic Channel, Fox Sports West in Los Angeles, 20th Century Fox, and majority control of Hulu.
Not saying it would, but that would be a logical place for them. Nickelodeon is focused on kids programming and it would fit with the Disney Channel. Disney could put it's older ABC sitcoms on TVLand, well some of them were already on it. I don't think any of this happens but who else would buy them if some of Viacom properties were spun off.
There's no point in spinning off the main assets of a company. AFAIK, no one has proposed this at all. The reason Shari Redstone is trying to re-merge CBS and Viacom is to combine the content assets. If they sell those assets off, there's nothing to merge.
Will Les want the dead weight of the MTV Networks. Lets face it MTV is just full of crap reality shows and IMO has no purpose anymore. I don't know what their ratings are but with MTV and VH1 showing identical programing it makes sense to cut one loose. Viacom needs to focus on 4 cable networks and make the watchable. They can't do that with the huge portfolio they have now. Something has to go. Why would CBS do with so many dead weight cable networks.
I just went thought the guide and counted 17 Viacom cable networks.
Once again, you're seeing this through a narrow lens. The MTV networks are a core part of Viacom, and their channels are beachfront property, similar to Lifetime or TBS. Just because their programming is going through a down cycle doesn't mean their channels aren't valuable assets. Both MTV and Nickelodeon have film divisions that work with Paramount. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is just one of the Nickelodeon film properties. Les Moonves is running CBS as a content company. He needs outlets for his content. I see someone like Moonves as having no trouble reimagining the MTV networks into more profitable channels than they are. For example CBS could easily move its CBS Sports Channel on to one of the Viacom channels. It would get better cable carriage that way. Imagine a CSI Channel, with not only re-runs, but new episodes exclusive to the channel. CBS has put some new Star Trek content on its All Access platform. Imagine a Star Trek Channel. That's what's missing from Viacom: Imagination. Moonves has it, and that's why Shari Redstone wants to bring these companies together.
Moonves also knows that streaming in the future, that's why Star Trek is all access only, as a way to sell the new platform. Does CBS even need Viacom they are already highly successful under Moonves now. What happens when Sumner dies? What will Shari do with National Amusements? Could she spin everything away and just cash out?
Lots of questions. Les wants a movie studio. Viacom has one. Les wants outlets for his content. Viacom has 17 channels. CBS only has one. Les now has $2 billion from Entercom. He could do lots of things.
But wait CBS is also in talks to get Lionsgate films along with Viacom, Amazon and others.
Exactly...why should CBS compete against Viacom for Lionsgate? If CBS gets Lionsgate, it doesn't need Viacom.
Here's my question: Why didn't Viacom come up with this idea? They own the Star Trek copyright. This is just one example of the ineptitude that is Viacom. They own lots of brands and copyrights. Lots of ways to merchandise what they own. Yet they haven't done it.
It's owned by CBS Television Studios.
The original series is owned by Paramount Television but distributed by CBS Television Distribution.
I assume CBS has first rights for broadcast.
Actually the original series was owned by Desilu, which was bought by Paramount Pictures. All of the movies were released by Paramount.
Star Trek: Voyager, for example, was produced by Paramount Network Television. It was only distributed by CBS Distribution. But that was before the Viacom-CBS split.
Wiki says that Desilu owned it for the first 2 years, Paramount bought it I assume.
Desilu was the original studio, and they produced the series for NBC TV.
Paramount Pictures, located next door on Melrose, bought all of Desilu, including the land and their assets. That's how Star Trek got to Paramount.
So what is CBS's current agreement to air I Love Lucy.
It's complicated. CBS Television Studios was the old Viacom. Viacom used to own all of the CBS re-runs, including Lucy. Viacom got Paramount from Gulf & Western. When Viacom merged with CBS, it took the CBS name. When the companies split, Viacom got Paramount, and the CBS re-runs like Lucy stayed with CBS Television Studios. From what I can see, some of the Desilu rights are in that group. So I guess that's how CBS Television Pictures has access to the Star Trek copyright. However, Paramount owns the movies and produced Voyager and some of the other TV series. Based on what I see, either company could have come up with Star Trek Discovery. But CBS is the one that did.
Right, in it's original form, Viacom was the production house for most of CBS. Or at least the home video market.
- Status