• 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

It seems logical although Sheri Redstone said no. CBS Sports Network lacks major sports because it's smaller than any other sports channel. If it moved to the Paramount Channel, it would be equal to NBC. Then you'd likely see more college sports as a start.

I don't see how a different channel will help, they would have to renegotiate with the providers anyway. What is the current rate for Paramount and how would it change if it becomes a sports network.
 
What is the current rate for Paramount and how would it change if it becomes a sports network.

That channel has changed brands several times from TNN to The National Network to Spike to Paramount. They never renegotiated as an individual channel. Viacom negotiates their package of channels. So obviously rebranding Paramount is easy.
 
That channel has changed brands several times from TNN to The National Network to Spike to Paramount. They never renegotiated as an individual channel. Viacom negotiates their package of channels. So obviously rebranding Paramount is easy.

When Comcast rebranded to Versus and then NBCSN they had to renegotiate as the programming was changing. TNN and Spike and Paramount were simple rebrands, not total shifts.
I believe Fox had to renegotiate Speed to FS1 as it was a change in package lineups.
 
TNN and Spike and Paramount were simple rebrands, not total shifts.

Going from a country music channel to a wrestling channel to a movie channel sound like total shifts to me. But yes all sports would likely put it into a different cable package. However, all they're doing is moving the brand from one channel to another, not starting a completely new channel. And then what do they do with the existing CBS Sports Channel?

We'll see what happens, but my point is that several Viacom channels will likely see new names and content under the merger.
 
Now that the merger is complete, I gotta ask: What will become of certain assets?

For instance, will CBS Television Distribution and Paramount Television remerge?

What about the CW network? Will it become "VCW" or "The VW"?


Right now CBS is in the process of opening the local CBSN's for their O&O's and its modeled after the National CBSN. I know WCCO, KPIX/KBCW, WBZ, KCBS/KCAL and WCBS/WLNY all recently open their local editions of CBSN though. But others such as KOVR/KMAX, KDKA, KYW, WBBM, WJZ, WFOR, KTVT, KCNC are subjected to open their local editions of CBSN in 2020.
 
On Pluto TV there is no CBS News Boston. And the newly merged company can St trimming the fat by either merging or shut down the multiple MTV and VH1 channels (who needs 3-4 MTV channels if they're not playing music videos)?
 
And the newly merged company can St trimming the fat by either merging or shut down the multiple MTV and VH1 channels (who needs 3-4 MTV channels if they're not playing music videos)?

They stopped playing videos about 20 years ago. What they replaced that with was lifestyle content aimed at particular demos. So you had Jersey Shore on MTV. You had various artist biographies on VH-1. You had Dallas Cheerleaders on CMT. All of that made sense. But that was 20 years ago and the concept hasn't been refreshed. That's what needs to be done.

One idea they came up with a few years ago was Palladia. It was a channel that played live concerts. It's since been renamed MTV Live. Great idea, but they've run out of new concerts.
 
They stopped playing videos about 20 years ago. What they replaced that with was lifestyle content aimed at particular demos. So you had Jersey Shore on MTV. You had various artist biographies on VH-1. You had Dallas Cheerleaders on CMT. All of that made sense. But that was 20 years ago and the concept hasn't been refreshed. That's what needs to be done.

One idea they came up with a few years ago was Palladia. It was a channel that played live concerts. It's since been renamed MTV Live. Great idea, but they've run out of new concerts.

MTV is living off of the name only. It's a legacy brand even if the brand itself is lost. I really wish MTV Live would get some new concerts to show. It's not like they don't exist.

VH-1 is just a lost cause. Pull the plug on it or rename it Washed Up Stars. WUS has a nice ring to it. :D
 
On Pluto TV there is no CBS News Boston. And the newly merged company can St trimming the fat by either merging or shut down the multiple MTV and VH1 channels (who needs 3-4 MTV channels if they're not playing music videos)?

Not all regional CBSN channels are available through Pluto TV, only NYC and LA. The rest are available through the dropdown menu at https://www.cbsnews.com/live/, on the CBS News app on the device of your choice, or through the individual stations' websites (though I do wish they were all on Pluto TV!)
 
MTV is living off of the name only. It's a legacy brand even if the brand itself is lost. I really wish MTV Live would get some new concerts to show. It's not like they don't exist.

VH-1 is just a lost cause. Pull the plug on it or rename it Washed Up Stars. WUS has a nice ring to it. :D


If MTV, CMT and VH1 were to go back to playing music videos today then they would have to confront the recording label disputes issues with artists, songwriters and touring staff and getting run over by Youtube, Vevo, spotify, Apple Music, Google Music over their audience size for certain concerts.
 
If MTV, CMT and VH1 were to go back to playing music videos today then they would have to confront the recording label disputes issues with artists, songwriters and touring staff and getting run over by Youtube, Vevo, spotify, Apple Music, Google Music over their audience size for certain concerts.

In fact, it was MTV and CMT that created the first online players for music videos on their sites. That was partly why they stopped playing videos on their channels. This was before YouTube, Vevo, or any of those other services. MTV and CMT created this whole idea of on-demand viewing of music videos. And then other companies came along and beat them at their own game.
 
In fact, it was MTV and CMT that created the first online players for music videos on their sites. That was partly why they stopped playing videos on their channels. This was before YouTube, Vevo, or any of those other services. MTV and CMT created this whole idea of on-demand viewing of music videos. And then other companies came along and beat them at their own game.


Also during the time CMT, VH1 and MTV were attempting to make an online player for music videos was this killed off due to Sumner Redstone splitting CBS from Viacom.
 
If MTV, CMT and VH1 were to go back to playing music videos today then they would have to confront the recording label disputes issues with artists, songwriters and touring staff and getting run over by Youtube, Vevo, spotify, Apple Music, Google Music over their audience size for certain concerts.

The labels want these videos getting to as many people as possible. That is how they promote these artists.
 
The labels want these videos getting to as many people as possible. That is how they promote these artists.

Labels will go to Iheart app, Youtube and Spitify as the biggest ones today to promote the artists. The last time labels would have seen MTV and VH1 as major factors of an artists success was from 2004-2006 prior to Viacom and CBS splitting up by Sumner Redstone.
 
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/bob-bakish-viacomcbs-merger-complete-stock-1203446344/

And here is a profile on the current leader of Viacom

Nobody in the vast media universe is more excited to see the new year dawn than Bob Bakish.

The president-CEO of ViacomCBS is eager to get moving on growth initiatives that have been on the drawing board for months.

The biggest change to come from the reunion of Viacom and CBS Corp. – two halves of the Redstone family empire that formally merged on Dec. 4 – is that the company is streamlining all advertising sales, content licensing and distribution activities under three key revenue-generating leaders.

“It gives us a strong hand to play and will make it easier to do business with us,” Bakish told Variety. “We have an extraordinary collection of assets that are irreplaceable by any other company.”

Bakish remembers the last time that Viacom and CBS were under the same roof – from 2000 through 2005 – and back then there was definitely no effort to approach the market in a cohesive way. This time around, Bakish is convinced that establishing streamlined operations for advertising sales (headed by Jo Ann Ross), content licensing (Armando Nunez) and distribution (Ray Hopkins) that stretch across the company’s broadcast, cable and digital properties will help ViacomCBS better leverage its considerable market share.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/viacomcbs-talks-acquire-stake-miramax-1261401

Update Viacom/CBS is in talks to have a deal with Miramax

The studio's titles include 'Good Will Hunting,' 'Pulp Fiction' and roughly 700 more.
Newly minted ViacomCBS is in talks to take a minority stake in the Miramax library, an asset that Viacom had previously kicked the tires on prior to its recent merger with CBS, insiders confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter.

Miramax, the studio founded by Harvey and Bob Weinstein, was purchased in 2016 by beIN Media Group and has valuable titles in an era when upstart streamers are vying for content as they go head-to-head with Netflix and others.
 
https://digiday.com/media/bid-reinvention-mtv-turns-youtube/

People move slowly as they age. So do media companies.

While individual video creators and digital video networks like AwesomenessTV were turning YouTube into a TV replacement for younger viewers, MTV was trying to get the platform’s audience to tune into its TV network. It began by posting clips of its linear shows to YouTube. Then it started producing linear shows featuring YouTube stars. But over the past two years, the company has begun producing digital-only offshoots of its linear series and, more recently, original digital shows starring social media influencers.
In July, MTV premiered an original documentary series on its main YouTube channel starring lifestyle influencer Tana Mongeau called “No Filter: Tana Turns 21” that attracted 134,000 new subscribers to the channel within 24 hours of the show’s debut. Now the company is looking to repeat the feat with an upcoming season of “No Filter” that will star beauty influencer Bretman Rock and a holiday special starring Mongeau that will air on Dec. 23.

MTV is far from the first media company to try to attract younger viewers by creating original shows starring influencers for its YouTube channel. But even if the strategy is dated, it’s not out-of-date. In the short term, MTV has been able to grow its audience on YouTube and turn a profit from its original programming, according to Rory Brown, head of digital and social at MTV. But more importantly, over the long run the ViacomCBS-owned network is developing a slate of original shows.


As MTV enters its 40th anniversary within the next 1.5 years there is a piece out there showing MTV and rebranding itself for the current audience.
 
It's current audience watches everything on YouTube.

And the people who run the channel understand that and create sponsored content for YouTube. A great example was the recent MTV VMAs. They had more interaction via social media and YouTube than they ever had on cable. They're also focusing on Pluto and other streaming sites.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom