Disney's Potential Sale of ABC Television Network???

[Mmoore29]

And yet… you keep bringing them up in a discussion about TWDC’s strategic choices.

Tell us again how paramount is a global conglomerate like TWDC? Or Comcast for that matter?

Those companies ARE global conglomerates, they have their fingers in a lot of different entertainment industry pies, Comcast in particular because of owning NBCUniversal and all its assets, especially the parks. They're not retrenching from all that; they need all those assets in order to bring content for their streaming strategies. Same applies to Disney.

If Disney sells ABC, that's a in the armor the other conglomerates will take advantage of.

All it takes is for the first domino to fall and the others follow suit......

Rumors have been swirling for awhile now about Comcast buying up Warner Bros/Discovery in 2024. If that happens you'll potentially see them selling NBC to help fund the deal.

Paramount has already begun looking at selling CBS assets this year -

CBS Broadcast Center in New York Up For Sale From Paramount

The complex on West 57th street is the headquarters for CBS News, and home to shows like 'Last Week Tonight,' among others.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

That is a deal that's never going to happen. Zaslav can't find a bigger fool to hide his financial shenanigans, and it would hardly be a good swap for NBC. Paramount is selling real estate, not main assets, with the exception of what they did with Simon & Schuster. Paramount will never sell CBS, it's been too much a part of Sumner Redstone's "content is king" strategy." If they sell it, that's them giving up on that strategy, which very much is going to outlive the entire Redstone family.

 

[Disney Irish]

Those companies ARE global conglomerates, they have their fingers in a lot of different entertainment industry pies, Comcast in particular because of owning NBCUniversal and all its assets, especially the parks. They're not retrenching from all that; they need all those assets in order to bring content for their streaming strategies. Same applies to Disney.

If Disney sells ABC, that's a in the armor the other conglomerates will take advantage of.

That is a deal that's never going to happen. Zaslav can't find a bigger fool to hide his financial shenanigans, and it would hardly be a good swap for NBC. Paramount is selling real estate, not main assets, with the exception of what they did with Simon & Schuster. Paramount will never sell CBS, it's been too much a part of Sumner Redstone's "content is king" strategy." If they sell it, that's them giving up on that strategy, which very much is going to outlive the entire Redstone family.

I'm just curious, you're so sure of these things not happening and have posting about it for months. But what if they do?

Linear TV is a dying medium, this much is clear. So one has to be open to the possibility that one or more of these companies will be exiting the linear TV space in the near future.

 

[Mmoore29]

I'm just curious, you're so sure of these things not happening and have posting about it for months. But what if they do?

Linear TV is a dying medium, this much is clear. So one has to be open to the possibility that one or more of these companies will be exiting the linear TV space in the near future.

Again, just because linear TV isn't growing is not the same as it "dying." It still has tremendous value, especially as a complement to cable and streaming, and that extends in all directions. Simply put, theatrical exhibition, linear TV, cable and streaming are businesses that can successfully coexist and reinforce each other, and are especially a great way to maximize value, especially for owning content.

That is all so glaringly obvious, and Disney clearly knows all this, that just because they are giving increased focus to streaming doesn't mean they can neglect or amputate the other businesses, especially in terms of having as much cash flow as possible. While certain assets are surplus to requirements (especially the overseas pay-TV assets, particularly India's), linear TV itself is still core to Disney's strategy. That is very much what the most informed reading of Iger's statements is: "We'll get rid of certain things we don't need in that sector, but we aren't leaving the sector itself." And given that Iger never said "ABC" in his comments, but the press just immediately jumped the gun to give that reading, this demonstrates how lies and rumors run sprints but truth runs marathons.

Disney will get plenty and enough cash flow from the overseas assets being sold that they don't need to scale down further. And the company has great space to run. They've already paid off the $5.5 billion in immediate debt; the rest won't mature until years later and these particular sales will get them significantly deleveraged. And they can do all that without getting rid of ABC and Disney Channel.

 

[flynnibus]

Those companies ARE global conglomerates, they have their fingers in a lot of different entertainment industry pies, Comcast in particular because of owning NBCUniversal and all its assets, especially the parks.

You mentioned Paramount.. which is ONLY in film and TV production... Tell me again how they are global conglomerates?
conglomerate - Definition - a number of different things or parts that are put or grouped together to form a whole but remain distinct entities

Paramount is a TV and film company that owns multiple brands and distribution channels through DTC and broadcast. It is not a diversified global conglomerate. Advertising and fees on those distribution channels are 80% of their revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Comcast is a cable company that also owns Sky and NBCUniversal. The only thing non-distribution or TV/Film is theme parks.. which represent just 6% of Comcast's revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Should I use crayons to describe what it would mean for Paramount or Comcast to sell a television brand and channels vs an actual conglomerate like TWDC?

 

[flynnibus]

Again, just because linear TV isn't growing is not the same as it "dying." It still has tremendous value, especially as a complement to cable and streaming, and that extends in all directions. Simply put, theatrical exhibition, linear TV, cable and streaming are businesses that can successfully coexist and reinforce each other, and are especially a great way to maximize value, especially for owning content.

In a company set on growth - Yes, 'not growing' is the same as dying. It's a strategic point of how you operate the business and what assets you keep and develop. The reason it has 'tremendous value' is the reason it even has a market to sell... and make money from selling content to those channels vs owning a segment that is only shrinking.

Disney will get plenty and enough cash flow from the overseas assets being sold that they don't need to scale down further.

Disney doesn't have a cash flow problem period. None of this is about raising cash.

They have a problem defining the future of consumer entertainment while they represent a significant portion of it - hence the market is down on their future and ability to maintain their growth and revenue while significant portions continue to erode.

TV is changing - you either get with change or get left behind. The market knows this and is looking to TWDC to lay out a convincing story on how they will exist in this transformed world.

 

[Mmoore29]

You mentioned Paramount.. which is ONLY in film and TV production... Tell me again how they are global conglomerates?
conglomerate - Definition - a number of different things or parts that are put or grouped together to form a whole but remain distinct entities

Paramount is a TV and film company that owns multiple brands and distribution channels through DTC and broadcast. It is not a diversified global conglomerate. Advertising and fees on those distribution channels are 80% of their revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Comcast is a cable company that also owns Sky and NBCUniversal. The only thing non-distribution or TV/Film is theme parks.. which represent just 6% of Comcast's revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Should I use crayons to describe what it would mean for Paramount or Comcast to sell a television brand and channels vs an actual conglomerate like TWDC?

You ever heard the phrases "You can lie with math" and "Economics exists to make astrology more respectable?"

TV is changing - you either get with change or get left behind. The market knows this and is looking to TWDC to lay out a convincing story on how they will exist in this transformed world.

Blame Wall Street for that. You all seem to say that "the expectations with streaming were unrealistic." Whose fault is that? It's really the fault of Wall Street for making them, not Disney's for trying to live up to them.

 

[TP2000]

Great discussion, gang. But now I'm going to Google to learn what "Linear TV" is.

Am I right in thinking that's just what we apparently used to call "network TV" that is broadcast over the airwaves? As in the Big Three, and then eventually Fox and a few others in the 1980's?

EDIT: Oh, I get it. Linear TV can even be cable and smutty channels you have to pay extra for. It's just that it's broadcast TV that is sent out over the airwaves at designated times; on Saturday, Love Boat at 9pm followed by Fantasy Island at 10pm, or on Tuesday, Happy Days at 8pm followed by Laverne & Shirley at 8:30pm. Etc.

 

[flynnibus]

You ever heard the phrases "You can lie with math" and "Economics exists to make astrology more respectable?"

What I hear is someone who can't backup their words when faced with reality. The dancing hall is 3rd door down on the right.

Blame Wall Street for that. You all seem to say that "the expectations with streaming were unrealistic." Whose fault is that? It's really the fault of Wall Street for making them, not Disney's for trying to live up to them.

Again, deflect and try to spin away. Meanwhile... the realities of where people consume their entertainment, in what form, and how advertisers are pursuing them all continues to change. Adapt or die.

 

[Disney Irish]

Again, just because linear TV isn't growing is not the same as it "dying." It still has tremendous value, especially as a complement to cable and streaming, and that extends in all directions. Simply put, theatrical exhibition, linear TV, cable and streaming are businesses that can successfully coexist and reinforce each other, and are especially a great way to maximize value, especially for owning content.

That is all so glaringly obvious, and Disney clearly knows all this, that just because they are giving increased focus to streaming doesn't mean they can neglect or amputate the other businesses, especially in terms of having as much cash flow as possible. While certain assets are surplus to requirements (especially the overseas pay-TV assets, particularly India's), linear TV itself is still core to Disney's strategy. That is very much what the most informed reading of Iger's statements is: "We'll get rid of certain things we don't need in that sector, but we aren't leaving the sector itself." And given that Iger never said "ABC" in his comments, but the press just immediately jumped the gun to give that reading, this demonstrates how lies and rumors run sprints but truth runs marathons.

Disney will get plenty and enough cash flow from the overseas assets being sold that they don't need to scale down further. And the company has great space to run. They've already paid off the $5.5 billion in immediate debt; the rest won't mature until years later and these particular sales will get them significantly deleveraged. And they can do all that without getting rid of ABC and Disney Channel.

This sounds exactly like those who were saying that analog wasn't dying. This even after everyone said that digital was coming and to switch. And then it happened and they were surprised and complained when their shows got cut off.

 

[TP2000]

Friday, September 15th...

Disney is never going to sell ABC...

Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. It's been that way since 1996, and it'll always be that way.

Monday, September 18th...

If Disney sells ABC, that's a in the armor the other conglomerates will take advantage of.

Do I sense a slight change of tone and tenor to your posts?

 

[Mmoore29]

Friday, September 15th...



Monday, September 18th...


Do I sense a slight change of tone and tenor to your posts?

No, that's clearly "If they did such a thing." Not saying that's a possibility.

This sounds exactly like those who were saying that analog wasn't dying. This even after everyone said that digital was coming and to switch. And then it happened and they were surprised and complained when their shows got cut off.

Not the same thing. That's over signals. This is about a general industry.

Disney doesn't have a cash flow problem period. None of this is about raising cash.

I know they don't have a cash flow problem, but there's a lot people who keep saying they do. This is aimed for them, not so much you.

What I hear is someone who can't backup their words when faced with reality.

I do nothing different than the rest of you. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not the same thing. That's over signals. This is about a general industry.

This is the same thing, the industry changed back in the early 2000s from analog to digital. This is a change from linear to streaming.

 

[TP2000]

As was my initial hunch, this rumor is creating panic at the ABC News offices in New York and DC. And rightfully so.

If this sale of ABC goes through, to Mr. Allen or anyone, a lot of highly paid people at ABC News who are now broadcasting very important words and deep insight to almost no one (who can find the remote) are going to have to find a new career.

"Anchors Robin Roberts, George Stephanopoulos, Michael Strahan and David Muir are paid handsomely, and a new owner without Disney’s deep pockets might not be willing to shell out eight-figure salaries to talent.

In July, Puck Hollywood reporter Matthew Belloni discussed how Disney could cut costs on his podcast "The Town." Belloni suggested TV networks that are clearly declining, yet still turning a profit, could be viewed similarly to the way investors looked at newspapers in recent years.

"They’re basically the new newspapers, when all these private equity firms came in and bought newspapers because they recognized that, ‘Maybe you don’t have to pay the anchors of ‘Good Morning America’ a combined $75 million a year to anchor a morning TV show whose ratings are probably not going to go up a whole lot in the new environment,’" Belloni said."

Disney’s potential ABC sale could have major ramifications for network’s news division, high-paid anchors

Some ABC newsroom employees are panicking after Disney recently “held exploratory talks" with TV station operator Nexstar Media about selling off ABC, per Bloomberg.

www.foxnews.com

 

[flynnibus]

I do nothing different than the rest of you. Pot meet kettle.

Congrats - You've reached the "I am rubber you are glue..." level of defending your arguments. Meanwhile, the actual points go unaddressed.

 

[Disney Irish]

As was my initial hunch, this rumor is creating panic at the ABC News offices in New York and DC. And rightfully so.

If this sale of ABC goes through, to Mr. Allen or anyone, a lot of highly paid people at ABC News who are now broadcasting very important words and deep insight to almost no one (who can find the remote) are going to have to find a new career.

"Anchors Robin Roberts, George Stephanopoulos, Michael Strahan and David Muir are paid handsomely, and a new owner without Disney’s deep pockets might not be willing to shell out eight-figure salaries to talent.

In July, Puck Hollywood reporter Matthew Belloni discussed how Disney could cut costs on his podcast "The Town." Belloni suggested TV networks that are clearly declining, yet still turning a profit, could be viewed similarly to the way investors looked at newspapers in recent years.

"They’re basically the new newspapers, when all these private equity firms came in and bought newspapers because they recognized that, ‘Maybe you don’t have to pay the anchors of ‘Good Morning America’ a combined $75 million a year to anchor a morning TV show whose ratings are probably not going to go up a whole lot in the new environment,’" Belloni said."

Disney’s potential ABC sale could have major ramifications for network’s news division, high-paid anchors

Some ABC newsroom employees are panicking after Disney recently “held exploratory talks" with TV station operator Nexstar Media about selling off ABC, per Bloomberg.

www.foxnews.com

I'm wondering if some content creation assets like ABC News and such would be retained and both licensed back to the new owners and also made available on Disney's DTC services....

It would certainly be a win for Disney, but also a win for any new owner as they don't have to carry those heavy talent contracts.

 

[Stitch's Grandfather]

I'm wondering if some content creation assets like ABC News and such would be retained and both licensed back to the new owners and also made available on Disney's DTC services....

It would certainly be a win for Disney, but also a win for any new owner as they don't have to carry those heavy talent contracts.

Yes, exactly. People that think this ABC sale can't happen are looking wayyyy to narrowly. Disney can decide to structure the deal however they want, and buyers will price the assets accordingly. When Byron Allen says he would pay $10b for ABC, he's probably saying he'd buy the network AND content for that amount, but we have no idea the extent of what Disney wants to sell.

Disney probably does not want to sell any valuable content that fits their strategic aims. ABC News probably still has good strategic value, so I'm not sure they'll be included in any sale. What Disney no longer cares about is ABC as a form of distribution. They have multiple streaming angles they can use (including multiple that they own), and they no longer have a need to use the ABC channel itself to distribute their content. It makes little sense for them to keep that asset.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, exactly. People that think this ABC sale can't happen are looking wayyyy to narrowly. Disney can decide to structure the deal however they want, and buyers will price the assets accordingly. When Byron Allen says he would pay $10b for ABC, he's probably saying he'd buy the network AND content for that amount, but we have no idea the extent of what Disney wants to sell.

Disney probably does not want to sell any valuable content that fits their strategic aims. ABC News probably still has good strategic value, so I'm not sure they'll be included in any sale. What Disney no longer cares about is ABC as a form of distribution. They have multiple streaming angles they can use (including multiple that they own), and they no longer have a need to use the ABC channel itself to distribute their content. It makes little sense for them to keep that asset.

Yep, people that have this idea that the network must owned and operated by Disney and tied to the content creation like ABC Studios or ABC News doesn't understand how network affiliates work.

Disney can sell the network to anyone, and still own the content creation. This would be the best path forward for both Disney and ABC.

 

[TP2000]

I found this article helpful; it's a nice little primer that explains who Nexstar is (I had no idea they owned local San Diego station KUSI), and why they would want to buy ABC. Also a note at the end that says ABC is valued at about $4 Billion, but Byron Allen offered $10 Billion. Hmm...

Why little-known Nexstar wants to buy ABC from Disney

Nexstar, the largest owner of local TV stations in the US, is one of the prospective buyers of Disney's ABC network

qz.com

 

[donsullivan]

You mentioned Paramount.. which is ONLY in film and TV production... Tell me again how they are global conglomerates?
conglomerate - Definition - a number of different things or parts that are put or grouped together to form a whole but remain distinct entities

Paramount is a TV and film company that owns multiple brands and distribution channels through DTC and broadcast. It is not a diversified global conglomerate. Advertising and fees on those distribution channels are 80% of their revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Comcast is a cable company that also owns Sky and NBCUniversal. The only thing non-distribution or TV/Film is theme parks.. which represent just 6% of Comcast's revenue. Do I need to spell out for you how different that is for TWDC?

Should I use crayons to describe what it would mean for Paramount or Comcast to sell a television brand and channels vs an actual conglomerate like TWDC?

Isn’t Paramount still owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS?

 

[Disney Irish]

I found this article helpful; it's a nice little primer that explains who Nexstar is (I had no idea they owned local San Diego station KUSI), and why they would want to buy ABC. Also a note at the end that says ABC is valued at about $4 Billion, but Byron Allen offered $10 Billion. Hmm...

Why little-known Nexstar wants to buy ABC from Disney

Nexstar, the largest owner of local TV stations in the US, is one of the prospective buyers of Disney's ABC network

qz.com

Nexstar came into the news last year when it bought the majority stake in the CW network, which was co-owned by WB and Paramount (the old UPN).

Nexstar and Sinclair I believe as the largest network affiliate owners in the US.