News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Comcast to Spin off MSNBC and CNBC

Started by bing101, November 21, 2024, 10:29:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101

https://apnews.com/article/comcast-cable-spinoff-cnbc-msnbc-0d012a413e6dd863966f8d7aa0a9624d

https://apnews.com/article/networks-cnbc-msnbc-comcast-new-company-00bf676f225f1c89026ef15bf8915ec9

This is to protect Peacock according to Comcast.

QuoteComcast's corporate reorganization means that there will soon be two television networks with "NBC" in their name — CNBC and MSNBC — that will no longer have any corporate connection to NBC News.
How that affects viewers of those networks, along with the people who work there, still needs to shake out. Their new corporate leader, Mark Lazarus, visited the set of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" as the plan was being announced on Wednesday and spoke to network staff members during a morning conference call to address concerns.
Comcast is spinning off most of its cable networks, also including USA, Oxygen, E!, SYFY and the Golf Channel, into a separate company. That recognizes how streaming is considered the future and the cable networks are a drag on the bottom line.
In the space of a lifetime, the networks went from upstarts aside a legacy operation like NBC to profitable superstars to castoffs.


brad2971

Even with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.

As for channels like USA Network, take away the occasional sports (which NBC will likely do), and the channel is MeTV with more recent Law & Order reruns.

bing101

Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.

As for channels like USA Network, take away the occasional sports (which NBC will likely do), and the channel is MeTV with more recent Law & Order reruns.
Also NBC built the NBC News Now feed as part of the move to initially to distinguish themselves from MSNBC and CNBC for TV apps. Also to boost attention to Peacock app. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/now?icid=now_hp_header&cl_system=mapi&cl_system_id=023690a4-ecd5-4638-a41c-a49435b263e2&clreqid=023690a4-ecd5-4638-a41c-a49435b263e2&kbid=159814

https://nbcnews.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4401797202971-What-is-NBC-News-NOW


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Talking

Here is the original name for MSNBC and its "America's Talking Network" that was born 3 decades ago it provided the framework where MSNBC talk shows run from. 

-- US 175 --

I don't see how spinning off CNBC will work.  All of NBC's business reporting is directly tied in with correspondents with CNBC, except with Christine Romans, who is billed as "senior business correspondent" with NBC News (she does regular reports on the Today show).  Even if CNBC really is spun off, the naming/logo would be a problem.

I don't see this spinoff/sale going well, much less very easily.  Another issue would be the possible acquisition of any/all spunoff channels (especially those really closely tied to NBC) by a competing media group.

mgk920

The next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.

Mike

vdeane

Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.
Would the journalists working for MSNBC not stay with the network when it's spun off?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

LilianaUwU

Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.

Mike
I'd buy them for $0.53... not even a dollar, that's how broke I am.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

SP Cook

This is really just a symptom of the changes to the TV industry. 

Previously "everyone" paid for the whole slate of channels.  Take it or leave it.  There really were just three sources, one and only one local cable company, DirecTV, and DISH.  And they were, at least in channel line up terms, 99% the same. 

So Big Media, such as Comcast, could spool up a package of channels and make "everyone" pay for them all.

Despite the fact that about 1M people actually watch MSNBC.  "Everyone" has to pay.

Now, choice.  There are plenty of choices out there for linear television delivery, and, with almost no infrastructure costs, more to come.  So you want a set of linear channels without MSNBC, or whatever channel you wish to name, it will soon exist, if it doesn't already.  DirecTV, which is the market leader, recently made a deal with Disney to allow it to sell channels in "genre packs".  As the contract with other companies expire and are renewed, this will be rolled out.  Don't have kids, don't have to pay for kids channels.  Don't like sports, don't have to pay for the sports channels, don't care about the news, don't pay for the news channels.

Not to mention the so-called cord cutters who do away with linear packages of channels and just watch the (vastly money losing) streaming services only.    And also not to mention that streaming really is the place that 1000th time over reruns should be, obsoleting channels like USA (TNT, TBS, FX, etc.).  These channels are now just toxic assets to their owners. 

And also not to mention that there are news/commentary channels out on the internet for FREE, funded by people with one axe or another to grind, mostly either to the right of FNC or the left of MSNBC, but a few that are not either.

At the end of the day, in this story, as with the collapse of the regional sports model, and the coming collapse of the national sports model, the "general rerun" channel model, and so on, we are right where we thought we were going.  Less choice.  Because the costs to produce the kind of entertainment YOU wanted took spreading the cost out across "everyone", many genres will simply go away and no longer be produced. 

We will look back on the cable era as the good ole days. 

Well, 95% of us.  There will always be a few old men who want to tell you how much money they are saving.  About which I don't care.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2024, 01:25:20 PMAt the end of the day, in this story, as with the collapse of the regional sports model, and the coming collapse of the national sports model...

It is going to be interesting to see how far off the national sports model collapse will be. Right now, I think the only thing proping up the traditional networks is the NFL. The NFL knows this and has almost all of the leverage in those rights. If a network lost the NFL now, I am not sure it would actually survive because there would not be enough viewership to prop up its infrastructure.

The problem is that Amazon, Apple, Netflix, etc. don't really need the NFL (or any other sports league)...at least right now. So the NFL really can't leverage them, and I think they know they can't go their own way. If the NFL went to its own streaming service, 1/2 of Americans would shrug their shoulders and do something else on Sundays.

bing101

https://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/

Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.

Henry

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on November 22, 2024, 02:40:11 AMI don't see how spinning off CNBC will work.  All of NBC's business reporting is directly tied in with correspondents with CNBC, except with Christine Romans, who is billed as "senior business correspondent" with NBC News (she does regular reports on the Today show).  Even if CNBC really is spun off, the naming/logo would be a problem.

I don't see this spinoff/sale going well, much less very easily.  Another issue would be the possible acquisition of any/all spunoff channels (especially those really closely tied to NBC) by a competing media group.
I assume that this would be similar to how the old Fox properties (namely, 20th Century Studios) were handled in the sale to Disney? And yet, the FOX network and ABC (Disney's flagship network) share Hulu for their programming streams, so it's rather ironic how things worked out there.

Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.

Mike
Stellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

brad2971

Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.
Would the journalists working for MSNBC not stay with the network when it's spun off?

MSNBC currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.

SSOWorld

Quote from: Henry on November 22, 2024, 09:56:19 PMStellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Then one would expect ABC to come out with their own device which they will restrict access to their programming to.
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Life in Paradise

Quote from: brad2971 on November 23, 2024, 12:40:47 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.
Would the journalists working for MSNBC not stay with the network when it's spun off?

MSNBC currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.
One might also think that NBC might slim down their news operation or at least the cost of it since they won't be able to spread out the cost amongst MSNBC or CNBC.  We've seen that at ESPN where they have cut some well paid announcers to pare down their costs.

bing101

Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 23, 2024, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 23, 2024, 12:40:47 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2024, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 21, 2024, 10:48:13 PMEven with the spinoff, it's not hard to see that the new company will pull the plug on MSNBC shortly after the transaction concludes. While MSNBC collects $350-$400 million in cable retrans fees, once you factor in having to rebuild a news gathering organization if someone else purchases the spinoff, MSNBC, as a business asset, is worth very little.
Would the journalists working for MSNBC not stay with the network when it's spun off?

MSNBC currently uses NBC news for its news gathering, as well as schedules a few NBC news journalists for their opinion shows (Andrea Mitchell is a prominent one, and Chuck Todd had MSNBC shows previously). While they say that NBC news will continue to provide news gathering for MSNBC and CNBC, the amount of time is undetermined.
One might also think that NBC might slim down their news operation or at least the cost of it since they won't be able to spread out the cost amongst MSNBC or CNBC.  We've seen that at ESPN where they have cut some well paid announcers to pare down their costs.

Also consider the other thing NBC is protecting Peacock as their flagship app. Plus NBC News just built NBC News Now and their local news equivalents like KNBC, WNBC, NBC Bay Area as their news feed on Peacock.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/22/cable-news-decline-column-00136657

This article showed that the median age for Cable News is between 67-71 according to this article. This is a partial clue why NBC wanted to spin off MSNBC and CNBC to another company.

QuoteYet the demographic claim that the cable news' aged audience will die off goes only so far. As Los Angeles Times reporter Stephen Battaglio recently wrote, the median age of the CNN, Fox and MSNBC audiences is, respectively, 67, 68 and 71. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the industry. The 50-plus age group constitutes 43 percent of the television audience. While it's true the older demographic's days are numbered, nature has a way of replenishing its ranks by turning people in their late 40s into cable news-friendly senior citizens. According to the Census Bureau, the numbers of baby boomers in the over-65 category won't start slowing until 2030, which will give the cable news business another decade to tinker with the formula before any demographic end game arrives. The demographic bulge of boomers may also explain why the median age of the cable news audience is old: There are just so many of them out there!

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2024, 11:25:32 AMThe next big question, 'Who will be interested in buying them?'.

Mike

I could see Disney/ABC buying them, merging MSNBC and CNBC into a single channel that does business from 9-5 and news/opinion the rest of the day. USA could absorb FX. Oxygen could absorb Freeform. ESPN could either keep the Golf Channel as is or absorb the programming into their other channels.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

vdeane

Quote from: SSOWorld on November 23, 2024, 04:15:20 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 22, 2024, 09:56:19 PMStellantis, maybe... (the joke would make sense, given that NBC is the Chrysler of TV networks, with CBS being Ford and ABC as GM)
Then one would expect ABC to come out with their own device which they will restrict access to their programming to.
That's already the case.  If you miss a show over the air, you can't watch online next day unless you have either Hulu or a cable subscription.  Free with ads has to wait a week.  This is true even for news (although they at least have next-day audio podcasts, at least usually).  NBC is similar, but excepts the nightly news, and Peacock had a free tier until last year.  CBS still allowed free with ads next-day last I checked, which is remarkable as they could have used that to push CBS All Access and later Paramount+.

I'm surprised there isn't a way to stream your local ABC station live on either Hulu or Disney+.  Peacock has a plan that allows it for NBC and Paramount+ has a plan that allows it for CBS.  But nothing for ABC.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

Quote from: bing101 on November 22, 2024, 09:03:16 PMhttps://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/

Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bing101

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2024, 09:03:47 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 22, 2024, 09:03:16 PMhttps://www.mediaite.com/media/elon-musk-floats-buying-msnbc-from-comcast-how-much-does-it-cost/

Interesting but the spin co is still putting their board and management together. How Elon Musk is making himself a candidate for one of SpinCo's brands is interesting.


Agreed CNBC and MSNBC are not on sale. 

SSOWorld

The NFL.

You want to watch it live outside Sunday Ticket? Can't be on a TV, or a computer, or even on a tablet.

you have to watch it (not cast it from) your phone!!! OVER CELLULAR!!!!
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Bobby5280

I think it's grimly funny seeing traditional cable TV go into a tailspin. The industry has been asking for it thanks to its price-gouging of customers for the past decade or so. Despite the growth of cord-cutting and younger adults shifting to alternative sources for entertainment the pay TV companies just kept raising prices. DirecTV is buying Dish Network, but honestly I can't see any kind of long term future possible for satellite TV.

If MSNBC ends up going defunct I'd say "good riddance." I'd like to see the other news-as-anger-pornography channels follow suit. They're at the core of what has ruined political discourse in this nation. The US could end up becoming an autocratic police state. These cable "news" channels put us on that path.

At the very least "MSNBC" is due for a name change anyway. I don't think Microsoft has been involved with the channel in the past 20 or so years. If Elon Musk gets hold of the network and flips it from being the main left wing "news" channel into another competing right wing "news" channel that may speed up the network's demise.

SP Cook

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2024, 09:26:11 AMDespite the growth of cord-cutting 

DirecTV is buying Dish Network, but honestly I can't see any kind of long term future possible for satellite TV.


Couple of things here.  We know where so-called cord cutting is.  EVERYONE who wants it, has it (leaving out the issue I will discuss below).  No one is sitting around and telling the wife "hon, in a year or two, we are going to be one of those 'cord cutters'"  Nope. If you want to be a so-called cord cutter and live on paid non-linear services alone, you do that now. 

And it loses money.  Billions of dollars. 

Since everyone who wants it, has it, that ain't changing.

Now on to satellite TV.  The government killed the merger, and DISH will probably now go slowly broke, but satellite TV will exist for decades to come. 

Why?  Well, back to almost on topic for the board.  Take a drive.  There are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery. 

While the satellite dish will become an anachronism in cities and even suburbs, it will be part of rural America for decades to come.   

SEWIGuy

Quote from: SP Cook on November 24, 2024, 09:43:54 AMNow on to satellite TV.  The government killed the merger, and DISH will probably now go slowly broke, but satellite TV will exist for decades to come. 

Why?  Well, back to almost on topic for the board.  Take a drive.  There are millions of people who live in flyover country.  People who cannot, and never will, get the type of internet that would allow them to replace DBS TV delivery. 

While the satellite dish will become an anachronism in cities and even suburbs, it will be part of rural America for decades to come.   


I'm not sure that's a viable business model. And my guess is that rural internet service will improve significantly over the coming years making other options much more appealing.

Bobby5280

#23
I missed the announcement DirecTV abandoned its takeover bid for Dish. In previous merger attempts the government stepped in to block it. This latest time the government was going to let it go through since the two companies now have much smaller customer bases. Instead bond holders of Dish and DBS pushed back, ultimately killing the deal.

Speaking of the future of satellite TV, I live in flyover country. Small cities like Lawton are doing sort of "okay." Small towns in Oklahoma are withering. They're dealing with worse problems than limited quality of Internet access. Many of these towns have lost their local police departments. They're struggling just to keep their lone public school open and staffed. Kids who are born and raised in these towns often leave for good when reaching adulthood. The median age of residents just keeps getting older and older. The local tax base shrinks. Taking care of things like keeping the streets paved turns into a luxury.

It costs a LOT of money for a pay TV provider to launch satellites into orbit. Then there's all the other stuff that goes with it (specialized hardware, technicians to install and aim dishes, etc). Both DirecTV and Dish have steadily shrinking customer bases. Any customers who can switch to a rival IP-based service like YouTube TV or Hulu Live is doing so. That leaves people who live out "in the sticks" paying ever more money to cover the business costs of a pay TV product that isn't very good. A bunch of people living in small towns can't afford the price hikes. They settle for whatever they can get from an outdoor antenna. Some who can afford the price hikes are splitting the difference, paying a premium to get Starlink Internet and then using that extra bandwidth to get services like YouTubeTV. The financial math just doesn't look for DirecTV and Dish going forward (especially Dish).

SP Cook

Well, of course, the original business plan for DBS was based on serving rural communities.  All of the cost considerations can be met with rural communities alone.  DBS became the fastest growing consumer electronics product in history, because, in the opinion of many people, it provided a superior product to what the local cable bandit did in suburban and even urban communities.  This surprised everyone, including the people that owned the DBS companies at the time. 

There is no real question that that is going away.  But the original math that said DBS can be profitable only with communities and individuals with out ANY cable service (and thus in today's terms with out ANY internet service either), which are millions of people, with many millions more "served" by a Rinky Dink cable company who provides the least service possible and which owes its existence to the fact that "whatever they can get from an outdoor antenna", is NOTHING AT ALL. 

And there is the point, isn't it.  There is no real reason that every single person in the country could not have, 70 years ago, gotten "all" the channels with an antenna.  Except the Bigs, be they Big Media, Big Government, Big Business, or whatever, didn't give a darn about if people in Appalachia or the Ozarks, or across the Plains or such like, had TV or not. 

I'm sorry, I don't think those people care if rural Americans (or poor urban Americans for that matter) have the internet or not.





Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.