Paramount Global is often characterized as late to the party and at best an underdog.
It’s helpful perspective to compare then to how mammoth Disney is managing through its transitions.
By all accounts it’s continuing to flail, and Bob Iger’s tone-deaf mid-July public statements seem to be pouring accelerant on a reported dumpster fire of internal morale.
The adage regarding bad strategy executed by “generals fighting the last war” comes to mind. Bob Iger’s attempt to turnaround Disney is seeming a lot like Wellington’s infamous disasterous Crimean War strategy in the mid 19th century.
Many of Disney’s problems come with the territory of running a sprawling media conglomerate in 2023: The once-lucrative tent pole of linear TV is rapidly crumbling, while its theoretical replacement, streaming, is burning through cash. Interest rates are taking their toll. Audiences are growing bored with the seemingly unending number of superheroes, spinoffs and sequels from the vaunted studio…
Iger was already getting called out for attending the Sun Valley conference, a confab known as the “summer camp for billionaires,” after laying off some 7,000 people across the company to save money. But instead of laying low, Iger went on TV and, against the backdrop of idyllic Idaho mountains under a pink sky, absolutely wrecked his comms team’s week.
In the interview, Iger told journalist David Faber that Disney’s non-ESPN linear assets, which include ABC, the Disney Channel, FX and National Geographic, “may not be core,” and that the traditional TV business model was “broken.”
" ... and that the traditional TV business model was “broken.”
Disney populates the ABC broadcast station's prime time programming with "reality" and game shows. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in not being interested in watching such a lineup. Yet, Mr. Iger then, unironically, says the above. As though Disney gave it their all, and ABC having a lower viewership than CBS, NBC, and FOX was beyond Disney/ABC's control.
I get the impression that the various studios decided to have their own streaming platforms using an, "if we build it, they will come ... and give us lots of money," business plan, with no further thought given than that. I think that streaming is a boon, and a great option. I don't think everyone uses streaming as their primary viewing source, despite statements to that effect.
Disney is following Netflix' path in planning to crack down on password sharing. Disney is also raising the cost of no ads subscription, while leaving ad supported sub cost alone. For now. I don't get the impression that streaming platforms know how far they can go, price increase wise, before too many people decide the cost isn't worth it. So much of it seems like they're just winging it.
Associated Press,
"Disney to boost prices for ad-free Disney+ and Hulu services and vows crackdown on password sharing"
ScreenRant,
"Disney Plus & Hulu Next Streamers To Crack Down On Password Sharing"
The Hollywood Reporter, posted May 25, 2023 2022 - 23 TV Season Ratings
"CBS finished the September-to-May season, which officially wrapped Wednesday night, with a primetime average of 5.96 million viewers. NBC finished second, about 700,000 viewers off the lead, with 5.27 million, followed by Fox (4.45 million) and ABC (4.14 million). Univision came in at 1.28 million viewers, Telemundo at 937,000, and The CW at 548,000."
Good points.
We still have cable, and prefer the premium cable CTV Sci-fi Channel for much of what we watch, including Star Trek and Syfy content. At least with premium linear we can record and skip through ads.
Which brings us to one of the major transformative issues, increasing competition for advertising spends and dropping advertising revenue in the entertainment industry. A lot of the revenue drop is from declining audiences, in part is because the targeting is weaker than on internet platforms and because people can skip or avoid ads on linear.
Low tier streaming with ads and ad-supported streaming like Pluto or other video on demand, including YouTube, are great for advertisers. Basically, the audience is captured in a way that it hasn’t been since the onset of VCRs.
I noticed some reports from last month quoting Iger musing about selling of ABC and their other linear assets. Again, not a lot of real strategic thinking there. Also, not a lot of interested buyers.
Paramount’s stock is punished because the Redman family wants to keep their firm together now that they’ve reassembled it. They may seem less well organized than Disney or the others but they may be the only player really looking at the long term game in terms of a sustainable business.
Paramount is becoming an interesting case study in how a family holding has different incentives than a large widely held firm such as Disney has become.
Sheri Redman has wrested control back from her highly paid senior executives (especially Moonves) and is clearly will to dump senior management them if they underperform. (I keep wondering how long she’ll let Baklish stay as CEO if things don’t turn around. Everyone around and below him has proven expendable.) assets she’s much less willing to cut loose. The sale of publisher Simon and Schuster seems likely to be a one-off with a business line that was distant from the Redman family’s core experience with visual media and live events. The BET+ sale is looking less and less likely. The risk they took on buying Pluto and bringing its owner into a key strategic role shows a willingness to take risks as long as it aligns with their core. All very classic late 70s / early 80s business strategy.
Not advocating for families with incredible wealth here, just commenting on how the investment horizon of the publicly traded markets are not delivering good strategic management of these very large firms in an industry that generates significant employment and has an outsized impact in shaping culture.
In the past, I recorded programs on my VCR, intending to fast forward through commercials. What happened was I gained a huge library of taped shows that I never had time to watch. Recording one show while watching another looked good on paper. Eventually, I ended up only recording and watching a favorite show if I wasn't going to be home at the time. Granted, that's just my experience. I pay no more attention to commercials on streaming services than I do with broadcast TV. Commercials are when I get a snack, wash a few dishes, or just generally zone out from watching TV.
The broadcast TV model gets a bad rap as being antiquated, but it keeps going. In my area, there are 80 or so OTA channels accessible just using an antenna and a TV. For myself, 35+ of those channels have programs of interest to me. I think that some of the most successful streaming platforms (in terms of making, not losing, money) are the ones that copied that model. Pluto TV and Tubi are making money by being free to watch with minimal equipment, no account or subscription required, and being ad supported. By being streamed broadcast TV.
Where I think a lot of streaming studios are missing the point is with the situation of putting most of their new shows only on their streaming platforms. Hoping for, or manufacturing and paying for, that Internet buzz. Thing is, I think a lot of the new shows are no better than those that used to be premiered on broadcast TV. Some may have higher production costs, and have more gore, violence, or nudity than allowed on broadcast TV. But, they aren't always better. I question why more streamed shows aren't eventually available on Broadcast TV and Free ad-supported streaming television (FAST). Poorly thought out, ongoing contracts, maybe?
I've been re-watching DSC, and thought about what it would take to, one day, have DSC on broadcast TV. All I came up with is editing out some profanity and a brief Klingon on human sex scene. Yet, a lot of streaming platforms do not put their shows on broadcast TV; get more eyes on and interest in their shows. And, get that ad money. I've learned during the WGA/SAG-AFTRA strike that not wanting to pay the creative team (actors, writers, more) is probably part of the reason. But, if a show stays as streaming only, and fewer people watch it, is there still a profit to be made?
I read a NY Times article on the Shari Redstone and Les Moonves situation. I know that's just a brief take on what happened, but wow. I felt like I was reading a synopsis of a 1980s primetime soap. I'm with you on not being a cheerleader of incredibly wealthy families. Still, I found myself muttering, "you go, girl" while reading the article. Subjectively, I have the impression that a company greatly beholden to the whims of a group of investors has a too, "nose buried in the accounting books," approach to making decisions. So busy selling off this and disappearing that for a fast numbers bump on the quarterly report, and a pat on the head from Wall Street. Without considering the long term effects of those actions with consumers. Consumers who, if alienated, will take enough of their money elsewhere, to an extent that cannot be offset by "looks good in the moment" bookkeeping.
The article I read about the Redstones is linked below. NY Times allows the viewing of one of their articles per day for free. I spent my freebie reading the article linked below.
" ‘She Won’t Be Manageable’ They Said. Now She’s in Charge."
YMMV I understand that recording but not watching shows on a VCR or PVR/DVR was common, it’s just not something anyone I know well did.
Even the generation of my family now in their nineties figured out how to use early difficult VCRs and used them constantly to time shift their viewing and avoid ads. I recently helped a family member in their 90s to get set up on Pluto, and their immediate question was “What do you mean I have to just watch what’s on and can’t skip the ads? I haven’t done that since the 70s.”
All to say that, I’m sure the advertising companies have a good sense of the demographics of who saves, skips ads and watches later. Also metrics companies like Nielsen provide 3 and 7 day views for a reason.
Thanks for the article on the Redmonds. Will read with interest.
BTW, Discovery season one was broadcast as a summer replacement on CBS. It was actually better for the cutdown for broadcast.
It was great having a conversation with you. Be well.
Enjoyed it too. There aren’t so many here yet that are interested in musing about the broader context of the industry. And we’re just getting to recognize and remember the aliases and the voices here.