Could Disney unload the ABC O&Os?

[channel2 869]

Disney should really unload the ABC network itself, not just the O&Os. It's in shambles and it has pretty much nothing to do with Disney's present focus; they've kind of let it fall by the wayside.

[24994J 5269]

 

Disney should really unload the ABC network itself, not just the O&Os. It's in shambles and it has pretty much nothing to do with Disney's present focus; they've kind of let it fall by the wayside.

 

And an added plus, we wouldn't have to hear the "ABC# is owned by the Disney Company" for every little mention of the mouse. :lol:

[TSSZNews 1046]

This may have some teeth to it, it turns out. Apparently the Post was just able to get someone to talk on the record about things.

 

And even worse--

 

 

Now that it’s out there, let me give you the other half of the rumor: An investment group possibly backed by Citicorp would buy the O&Os, and it would hire Sinclair to run it. One variation has the investors buying the network and the stations in a package.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/71337/abc-cats-out-of-the-bag-but-is-it-for-real

 

Ruh-roh.

[NewsMaster 226]

This may have some teeth to it, it turns out. Apparently the Post was just able to get someone to talk on the record about things.

And even worse--

 

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/71337/abc-cats-out-of-the-bag-but-is-it-for-real

 

Ruh-roh.

It won't happen. That's just too much for the bozos in Baltimore to handle.

[Breaking News 802]

Scripps would gut ABC O&O all of them carry Wheel/Jeopardy! Those shows would get the boot for The List & Let Ask America crappy shows. Scripps would slash budgets left and right. Look at their two biggest profitable stations WXYZ & WEWS both stations that was tops have fallen on hard times. No more Oprah as a lead-in. WXYZ fighting WJBK for #2

WEWS fighting with WJW, WKYC and sometimes WOIO for #2 and hitting #3.

 

Sinclair would relish the idea of owning some of the top broadcast stations in the country, but would never justified paying bloated salaries of many anchors. NYC anchors are paid really well, LA anchors are paid really well, along with Chicago, San Fran, Houston,Philly. They can preach the conservative rhetoric, but would gut those stations like a fish. Sinclair model is young and cheap and cut budgets left and right, but reap the profits in the process.

 

The biggest winner would be Cox Media Group they could position themselves and their company to be in the catbird seat if Disney was to sell their stations. Cox Media has an impressive track record with many dominate ABC affiliates in Charlotte, Orlando and their flagship in Atlanta. Having ties to LA, Chicago, NYC, Philly, Houston, etc...

 

The question why would Disney sell? ABC would have no O&O? CBS, NBC, FOX would, but ABC wouldn't....That makes no sense. ABC problem is their primetime lineup sucks, and there seems to be no investment, there daypart is very light which they wanted, and not sure about their late night with Kimmel/Nightline.

 

It be a sad day if KABC would be owned by Sinclair Broadcasting

[Mrtraveler01 737]

 

Disney should really unload the ABC network itself, not just the O&Os. It's in shambles and it has pretty much nothing to do with Disney's present focus; they've kind of let it fall by the wayside.

 

 

Unless you're female, ABC doesn't seem to be geared for you. All the programs now seem to be geared toward women and the fact that most of their sports programs are being moved to ESPN gives me even less of a reason to watch it.

 

Plus as I mentioned before, ABC News is going overboard with the fluff so much that it's pretty much unwatchable for me anymore.

 

ABC never did seem to be much of a priority for Disney for whatever reason and it shows.

[channel2 869]

They bought ABC because they got freaked out about the fin-syn laws being repealed and for the purposes of vertical integration (e.g. Touchstone Television/ABC Studios, One Saturday Morning) in the mid-'90s. Except for giving ABC Studios a guaranteed outlet for its programming, it's kind of outlived its usefulness for them; the real gems of that deal were ESPN and A+E Networks.

 

Running a network has never been Disney's strong suit and ABC still being in the portfolio is a remnant of Eisner's time as CEO.

[eyewitness_news 5]

ABC will have NO O&Os????? Oh noes!! The sky is falling!!!!! But seriously, selling WABC (NYC), KABC (LA), WLS (Chicago), or WPVI (Philly) would be a big mistake. But if they MUST sell any of their O&Os, the one(s) in smaller markets would suffice.

[A3N 996]

Scripps would gut ABC O&O all of them carry Wheel/Jeopardy! Those shows would get the boot for The List & Let Ask America crappy shows. Scripps would slash budgets left and right. Look at their two biggest profitable stations WXYZ & WEWS both stations that was tops have fallen on hard times. No more Oprah as a lead-in. WXYZ fighting WJBK for #2

WEWS fighting with WJW, WKYC and sometimes WOIO for #2 and hitting #3.

 

Sinclair would relish the idea of owning some of the top broadcast stations in the country, but would never justified paying bloated salaries of many anchors. NYC anchors are paid really well, LA anchors are paid really well, along with Chicago, San Fran, Houston,Philly. They can preach the conservative rhetoric, but would gut those stations like a fish. Sinclair model is young and cheap and cut budgets left and right, but reap the profits in the process.

 

The biggest winner would be Cox Media Group they could position themselves and their company to be in the catbird seat if Disney was to sell their stations. Cox Media has an impressive track record with many dominate ABC affiliates in Charlotte, Orlando and their flagship in Atlanta. Having ties to LA, Chicago, NYC, Philly, Houston, etc...

 

The question why would Disney sell? ABC would have no O&O? CBS, NBC, FOX would, but ABC wouldn't....That makes no sense. ABC problem is their primetime lineup sucks, and there seems to be no investment, there daypart is very light which they wanted, and not sure about their late night with Kimmel/Nightline.

 

It be a sad day if KABC would be owned by Sinclair Broadcasting

A group owner like Scripps would not be able to just step in and start slashing expenses left and right. First, shows like WOF and Jeopardy are under contract, so unless the station is in its last year of its contract- they would not be able to just come in and drop it unless they fork over $$$. Second, the ABC o&o's are profitable, so why mess with something that is working and making tons of money? In regards to WEWS and WXYZ, yes they have fallen on hard times. However, look at their location and you will see a reason why they struggle. Those are areas where the recession hit hard and add to that a weak programming lineup from ABC and you will see why they're are no longer on top. The thing about Scripps, is that they are very careful in spending/investing their money- but they do invest in their stations (just look at how much money they have poured into KGTV).

[Breaking News 802]

 

A group owner like Scripps would not be able to just step in and start slashing expenses left and right. First, shows like WOF and Jeopardy are under contract, so unless the station is in its last year of its contract- they would not be able to just come in and drop it unless they fork over $$$. Second, the ABC o&o's are profitable, so why mess with something that is working and making tons of money? In regards to WEWS and WXYZ, yes they have fallen on hard times. However, look at their location and you will see a reason why they struggle. Those are areas where the recession hit hard and add to that a weak programming lineup from ABC and you will see why they're are no longer on top. The thing about Scripps, is that they are very careful in spending/investing their money- but they do invest in their stations (just look at how much money they have poured into KGTV).

 

 

A group owner like Scripps would not be able to just step in and start slashing expenses left and right. First, shows like WOF and Jeopardy are under contract, so unless the station is in its last year of its contract- they would not be able to just come in and drop it unless they fork over $$$. Second, the ABC o&o's are profitable, so why mess with something that is working and making tons of money? In regards to WEWS and WXYZ, yes they have fallen on hard times. However, look at their location and you will see a reason why they struggle. Those are areas where the recession hit hard and add to that a weak programming lineup from ABC and you will see why they're are no longer on top. The thing about Scripps, is that they are very careful in spending/investing their money- but they do invest in their stations (just look at how much money they have poured into KGTV).

 

I understand the contract part, but if Scripps were to get those stations down the road they would cut ties for their in house shows, and in my book how long do they think they can keep those on the air?? I know there cheap, but they would look better on cable.

 

However yes the recession hit hard in Detroit and Cleveland where unemployment is high, but did the recession hit WDIV in Detroit, because their winning every newscast? Did the recession hit WJBK FOX 2 because their morning news does well and evening news are nipping WXYZ. The recession didn't hit FOX 8, because their ratings are tops and it becomes a dog fight with 3, 5, 19 for seconds and thirds. I understand the ad $$$ is not there, but I would think Scripps biggest stations WXYZ & WEWS would have carte blanche..

 

Scripps investing in KGTV which is good, because did McGraw Hill invest in any of their stations. Are they investing in KMGH/Dever or WRTV/Indy because those need an investment, but I would think Scripps would invest in all their stations, but stations that have been apart of the company for decades like WXYZ, WEWS, and what about poor WMAR and WCPO all (4) seem to get the scraps.

 

Also the question should be raised is Scripps even interested in their broadcast properties? Their cable channels seems to be more of an interest than anything.

[BehindNYNews 143]

All this is, is a rumor and it should be treated as such until it comes from Disney/ABC.

[CircleSeven 1944]

Also the question should be raised is Scripps even interested in their broadcast properties? Their cable channels seems to be more of an interest than anything.

Keep in mind y'all, that E. W. Scripps Company, spun off its cable properties in 2008, and became the Scripps Networks Interactive, which has nothing to do with E.W. Scripps Comany or Scripps Media, LLC for that matter.

[A3N 996]

 

I understand the contract part, but if Scripps were to get those stations down the road they would cut ties for their in house shows, and in my book how long do they think they can keep those on the air?? I know there cheap, but they would look better on cable.

 

However yes the recession hit hard in Detroit and Cleveland where unemployment is high, but did the recession hit WDIV in Detroit, because their winning every newscast? Did the recession hit WJBK FOX 2 because their morning news does well and evening news are nipping WXYZ. The recession didn't hit FOX 8, because their ratings are tops and it becomes a dog fight with 3, 5, 19 for seconds and thirds. I understand the ad $$$ is not there, but I would think Scripps biggest stations WXYZ & WEWS would have carte blanche..

 

Scripps investing in KGTV which is good, because did McGraw Hill invest in any of their stations. Are they investing in KMGH/Dever or WRTV/Indy because those need an investment, but I would think Scripps would invest in all their stations, but stations that have been apart of the company for decades like WXYZ, WEWS, and what about poor WMAR and WCPO all (4) seem to get the scraps.

 

Also the question should be raised is Scripps even interested in their broadcast properties? Their cable channels seems to be more of an interest than anything.

 

I can bet you that all Detroit stations are not generating the same amount of revenue that they were making prior to the recession. Like I said, WEWS and WXYZ's revenues took a hit as a result of the recession and ABC programming. Just because a station is #1 doesn't mean that they aren't being affected by the economic downturn, viewing habits migrate depending on the content and we've seen this happen across the country.

[channel2 869]

KMGH does seem to have improved under Scripps's ownership. The morning newscast was revamped and it's made ratings gains, and the general production values of the newscasts seem a bit nicer than they were the last few years that McGraw-Hill owned them.

[NYNewser_676 26]

Looks like everyone can calm their speculation down... FOX business (owned by 21st century fox, sister company to news corp, owner of the NY Post) published an article citing another source that says Disney looked at the possibility but that the abc stations are "not on the block."

[TennTV1983 742]

It's speculation stuff like this that you have to take every rumor posted on here with a grain of salt. The only way I would see Disney no longer wanting to be in the O&O station business is if they spun off ABC as a whole into its own company (much like what happened with CBS after being spun off from Viacom).

[tyrannical bastard 3442]

If there's anyone who SHOULD be selling their stations....it's Comcast/NBC Universal.....when did it ever become legal for a cable company to own stations in the markets that they serve? Having a large slate of vertically integrated channels isn't too comforting either, especially when they all turn "green" for a week!

[Nelson R. 560]

Gannett would work for WTVD.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

If there's anyone who SHOULD be selling their stations....it's Comcast/NBC Universal.....when did it ever become legal for a cable company to own stations in the markets that they serve?

 

2003, to be exact.

 

And no, I don't agree with you. Comcast does so much better with NBC than Disney does with ABC. ABC is like the women's channel now pretty much. Everyone I know who watches ABC is a female. I think that strategy is OK for cable but not OTA, where the networks should try to be as broad as possible. It used to be that way but not anymore.

 

NBC tries to serve as broad of an audience as possible, CBS is the senior citizens channel (they tend to have very high ratings in the 54+ demo, even if its not a key one), ABC is the women's channel, Fox is the cool edgy men's channel, CW is the teenager channel. It used to not be that way and sorry if that sounds like a stereotype, but I have several sources who have backed me up on that observation.

 

Anyways...

[NYNewser_676 26]

I have to say, that the CW in no way, shape, or form, is at all appealing to teenagers. Go out on the street and ask a 12-16 year old "what channel is the CW?" Or "What is the CW?"' You most likely will not get the answer that you had hoped for.

[T.L. Hughes 746]

 

Looks like everyone can calm their speculation down... FOX business (owned by 21st century fox, sister company to news corp, owner of the NY Post) published an article citing another source that says Disney looked at the possibility but that the abc stations are "not on the block."

 

I'm guessing they cited this Wall Street Journal article, which inferred that as part of a strategic review “fire drill” (their words), that Aereo was the factor in why ABC considered selling its O&Os (briefly, mind you), but thought about keeping the network itself. A lot of people thought Fox was bluffing when their CEO stated that the network could go cable-only to combat Aereo, but it may not have been so farfetched as everyone thought if ABC considered going cable-only and ditching its OTA stations for a short time. But Disney management decided it lacked strategic sense to do it.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/18/in-aereo-battle-broadcaster-consider-abandoning-the-airwaves/?mod=wsj_streaming_stream

[LoadStar 363]

 

I have to say, that the CW in no way, shape, or form, is at all appealing to teenagers. Go out on the street and ask a 12-16 year old "what channel is the CW?" Or "What is the CW?"' You most likely will not get the answer that you had hoped for.

 

You'd be surprised. I work on a college campus, and I was overhearing conversation among a large group of female students excitedly talking about "The Vampire Diaries" and "Supernatural." I would say that The CW doesn't have a broad appeal, but their laser sharp focus on older teen and twenty-something female viewers does seem to work to some degree.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Unfortunately I can see this happening. IIger wants to capitalize on his "Brands" - Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and The Mothership. Do I think it'd work? Probably not. Do I think this is a good idea? No.

 

But consider the source -it's The Post. They had a possible disney time warner cover story years ago, pre AOL.

^ This in a nutshell. As you stated in the Allbritton thread: "Again, it all goes back to that Disney mentality under Iger. You can buy a television station group and grow your reach... or you can buy Marvel and build a Scrooge McDuck-style vault so you can swim in all the god damn cash you're going to make."

 

 

Disney should really unload the ABC network itself, not just the O&Os. It's in shambles and it has pretty much nothing to do with Disney's present focus; they've kind of let it fall by the wayside.

HulkieD very succinctly stated Disney's focus above. The ABC O&O group (and by extension ABC, the network) is so low on the totem pole at Disney it's really kind of an afterthought to them. It's just kinda "there" if you will. It serves it's purpose but, doesn't really comand the attention of the big bosses. ABC quietly goes about their business attempting not to make waves. More of a "keep your head down and your feet moving" way of doing things. Then, hope it's enough so that when they show up at the dinner table (boardroom) Mickey doesn't look over and say "Wait...your still here?".

 

 

They bought ABC because they got freaked out about the fin-syn laws being repealed and for the purposes of vertical integration (e.g. Touchstone Television/ABC Studios, One Saturday Morning) in the mid-'90s. Except for giving ABC Studios a guaranteed outlet for its programming, it's kind of outlived its usefulness for them; the real gems of that deal were ESPN and A+E Networks.

 

Running a network has never been Disney's strong suit and ABC still being in the portfolio is a remnant of Eisner's time as CEO.

Agreed.

 

In fact, I'm reminded of another comment from the Allbritton thread by wabceywitness: "The worst kept secret inside the Walt Disney Company is that they would unload ABC and its stations the moment they had a chance to." This really is all kinda of "old" news. Disney has been "quietly" looking unload the O&O's (and possibly ABC, too) for quite some time. Word started to leak out about the possiblity in 2008 (via Bloomberg). Futher fuel was added to the fire in 2010 with an insider-trading scandal that leaked info on a potential deal (via Reuters). So, the fact that this cropped up again really isn't that shocking.

 

If you don't think this could happen then I'd repectfully say, "You just aren't paying attention".

[tvjay 6]

 

Not if someone else stops them first. If you think that devilish creature so-called mastermind, Massa David, and his other little devils is invincible and can't be stopped, you have another thing coming. One would think that those dirty devils of Maryland would buy every station in the land, but they'll find out in the future that IT has its limits.

 

Okay, so who will stop them? I can totally see David Smith making another shell company backed by a loan from Sinclair to buy the ABC group (if it were for sale at some point in the future).

[CircleSeven 1944]

 

Okay, so who will stop them? I can totally see David Smith making another shell company backed by a loan from Sinclair to buy the ABC group (if it were for sale at some point in the future).

 

Either other buyers who have way deeper pockets than them devils like Tribune did with Local TV, or many of those other firms that have sent their petitions of denys, and DOJ/FTC would probably sit the docket out and not say a word. Those devils will cannot get every station in the land. And before you know it will be an even longer battle should anyone get the ABC stations, either that Massa David and his dirty devils or the other ones (which I think this is all a metaphor). And if it does, pray for every ABC employee on the network side and on those eight television stations, because all those devils are going to do is to gut every molecule of the station from top to bottom, and it would open season for the NBC & CBS to get on top. That would be (and I'm metaphorically speaking) a Suicide move if that ever occurs.

 

Anyway, I still don't think ABC will dump the stations despite challenges they have now, I just can't say ABC dumping their stations while they're on the top. It is stupid to get rid of the stations and not the network. I don't think it's ever heard of ever. The radio, I probably understood that, but the eight TV stations, which are cash-cows of their own, i just can't see any other group or an entirely new firm come and acquire the ABC stations as it with a price range that's not even close to the Tribune/Local TV deal. I just can't see it. If Iger is dumb enough to unload the stations, then he should spin-off the network too. Everything should be in one package deal and not separate. Possibly being the only network without O&Os. That's more foreign than most, I tell you.

 

Should the inevitability occur, Iger is making a gigantous mistake. But I don't think it's going to happen.