NowBergen

It’s not the first time.   I wish they leveraged sky news more. 

Details to be worked out. One reason they said it will take a year to implement. 

8 hours ago, bmasters1 said:

Shocking-- hardly knew he was even sick. 

Many choose to keep their private business just that: private.  They are under no obligation to make public disclosures.  We should respect that.

22 minutes ago, TennTV1983 said:

 

Logically speaking, if the spun-off NBCU properties are gonna be under a separate entity, going with Sky Networks as a name makes sense (Sky News America, Sky Business, etc.).

Sorry, that makes no sense.  They would have to license the name from Comcast which owns Sky. Sky isn’t part of the announcement. Just the US cable properties are being spun off as a separate company.  They will probably license MSNBC and CNBC names for a portion of time. 

On 11/22/2024 at 4:30 PM, mre29 said:

 

I'm not sure that really needs to change at all. For one thing, isn't Access Hollywood syndicated?

 

It’s produced by NBCU and sold to O&Os and on the sindie market.  I’m sure NBCU can produce E News for a fee out of the Universal lot. 

3 hours ago, Telly Genick said:

Well, at least now we know Ritter will outlast Scarborough in the anchor seat.

In being on the air.  Not in terms of total years in the anchor chair in DMA 1.  Chuck started in 1974.  For that the attention should be on Chuck's storied career.  Honestly, I'm not sure why Chuck's retirement from daily anchoring impacts WABC TV.  

Here is the article from their website including the NBC press release.  He will continue to contribute to special projects and events.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/chuck-scarborough-semi-retirement-wnbc-new-york/6006471/

They teased it at 6:23, he made the announcement right after sports and before the handoff to NNN in 1A.  Handled with class, and just wanted to say Thank You to viewers for now.  More testimonials and goodbyes to come.  The end of an era.  

Fox owns the name.  Disney modified the studio name to remove the use of Fox.  FX and FXX don’t use the Fox name. 
 

They did not say that.  Lazarus said the new company could be a buyer of stations without specifying any station groups. 

27 minutes ago, Dave Lampstein said:

This was interesting:

 

”He also suggested the company might look to such entities such as a TV-station group or a sports operation as potential acquisition targets, these people said.”

 

LET THE MINDLESS SPECULATION BEGIN! (Is there still a separate board for this?)

 

All speculation for now.  I would expect at some point in the future, both MSNBC and CNBC changes names, since both have NBC in them.  

37 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

"Spinco" was used before as a company that would have taken over the cable systems that would have been divested from the failed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger.

So?  It's just a place card while they figure out the actual name.  It won't be called Spinco Media.

1 hour ago, Hometown News said:

 

For MSNBC, it might be that their opinion shows are hurting the brand of both the NBC network news and the affiliates' local news operations by association while no longer bringing in enough ratings to justify it. I'm just guessing, but I do recall reading years ago that FOX affiliates have complained about viewers confusing them with FOX News Channel, so it isn't a farfetched idea.

 

I'm less sure what the strategy is with USA and CNBC. USA seems to just be a dumping ground now for the sporting events that used to air on NBCSN, so maybe they think they can just move all that content to Peacock and viewers will get used to it. There isn't an obvious replacement for CNBC and unlike the others, it's an international brand.

They could also license events to the new USA, which others have done.  I would assume there are some longterm licensing agreements across the board.  We got a year for them to figure this all otu.

5 hours ago, Jase said:

 

How many people are shared between them (NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC)? One would assume the resources of MSNBC and CNBC will be combined so, in theory, there shouldn't be a huge disruption in their day-to-day operation once this spinoff is complete. Plus, there's likely going to be licensing agreements (and the like) galore between all parties involved. Things should be interesting indeed.

 

 

 

While I agree, I think it comes down to how financially successful would this new company be without MSNBC, CNBC and USA in the portfolio. I do hope that there's an effort to strengthen USA and Syfy and return them to their former glory.

MSNBC and CNBC are completely intertwined in NBC.  Same news gathering.  Most anchors are also on NBC (exception is the evening hosts, but then again Ruhle has an NBC News role).  Their operation is intertwined into NBC News at 30 Rock. Even with licensing, how they split staff, how they cover events, how they even go about news gathering is going to be very difficult separation.  Then how does NBC News Now end up competing with a former sister operation, rather than being a companion piece.  As for USA, it thrives on NBCU repeats and gives NBC Sports, especially the very expensive US right to the Premier League Soccer, an outlet. Where will all that go?  And as someone mentioned earlier, it is a key station for Olympics coverage.

We may need more today (Wednesday) when the actual announcement is made.  I also can't fully understand the Bravo situation.  All of the cable stations have channels on Peacock. The reality is the Housewives of XXX is a bunch of escapism dreck and nothing more.  Why keep that when that would be valuable to the new company.  

Not sure MSNBC and CNBC can go it alone  without NBC News. Shared talent and news gathering.   Should be interesting. 

1 hour ago, carolinanews4 said:

 

I happen to come across this today from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/cable-news/

It shows that MSNBC is posting a profit of over 450 million against almost a billion dollars in revenue. The data also shows that MSNBC has been profitable since 2006 (the earliest year of data displayed in the chart). So, it is highly unlikely that Comcast would say, and that CNBC would report, that MSNBC has been losing money for quite some time. 

The comment, not sure it was a quote was not directed at MSNBC but all the many cable networks with low viewership that fill up our cable lineups.  I'm not sure why someone applied that directly to MSNBC, which is part of NBC News and plays a key role in news gathering, reporting and more.  If, and probably its a big if, since this is just floated as an idea for analysis,  it was to happen, MSNBC, CNBC, and USA, because of their tie in with the network and Peacock (news, business news, sports) may not be included.  Plus as you note MSNBC makes a lot of money, I expect  CNBC does and USA might.  What makes NBCU unique vs. WBD and Paramount, is they have not shied away from just shutting down cable networks.  

7 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

This is temporary MSNBC will come back. If Trump is president, liberal audiences will crave a news network breaking down his actions.

 

But I think MSNBC is losing ratings because: 

1. people are tired of a 24/7 News Network airing non-stop coverage of one man for nine years.

 

2. People could be realizing the pundits on MSNBC live in an echo chamber. The commentators think they know everything then act shocked when the election proves them wrong. 

 

3. Exhaustion and defeat. Many Democrats are stunned by the outcome of this election and can't deal with it right now so they're turning off the news. They're not in the mood to hear a panel discussion of why Kamala lost be overanalyzed for the next few months.

The first two are applicable to the fox channel as well.  As trump picks for his cabinet become more and more bizarre, enthusiastic viewers will return.  Net net, remember, the channels don't get the majority of tv eyes unless in times of a major disaster.  

5 minutes ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

Well, if you bring on a myriad of consultants who do nothing but blame Democrats for embracing social issues, instead of faulting them for embracing our corrupted capitalist model and for Dems leaning too far to the right, then you're going to lose viewership. Social issues didn't lose the Democratic Party this election. Campaigning with Liz & Dick Cheney and refusing to acknowledge that the fundamental economic wealth distribution gap is more important than stock market growth when 93% of the market is controlled by the top 10% (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html and the average home-buyer age is 56-years old (https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/first-time-home-buyers-shrink-to-historic-low-of-24-as-buyer-age-hits-record-high).


https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-distribution-in-america/

It's all temporary as they move on from the election.  I know many who just didn't want to watch any news, MSNBC, CNN, broadcast networks until they all moved past the election.  I wouldn't make wide conclusions only 8 days past the election.  

8 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

I was using leftist and liberal interchangeably but I suppose there is a difference.

There is.  MSNBC has its audience, outperforms CNN and at times (not all the time) in the evening rivals Fox channel.   Back to topic, MSNBC and CNBC (each with distinctly different target audiences) are integrated into NBC News (management, resources, reporters, etc) that spinning them off would probably be problematic.  USA is the same now with NBC Sports.  As for the rest, probably no longer as important to the network and company as they were 10 years ago.  The problem becomes, if any of the owners of multiple (and ever more generic) cable stations are up for sale, would there even be a buyer today?  

9 minutes ago, channel2 said:

 

I think Bravo is more popular than people here realize. The Real Housewives franchise, and the rest of their programming, holds a very strong appeal with a demographic advertisers love - and one that I suspect has little if any overlap with that of this board. Bravo plays a big role with Peacock as well.

 

Except when not airing any of the Real Housewives franchises, or Andy Cohen's show (which is part of that same universe), it airs the same movies you find on other NBCU outlets including E, USA and SyFy.  And that is the problem with so many cable outlets by Paramount, ABC and NBCU - the same shows and movies are broadcast on all of them.

4 hours ago, JTT said:

I was reardng the article thar mentioned msnbc as not being profitable that day,  but I can't find that article online anymore.  Has anyone else come across the article?

I believe the comment was about the low viewership cable channels in general, not MSNBC, CNBC, or USA specifically.  Think all those Paramount channels, ABC (ex Fox) and NBCU low viewership channels.  

2 hours ago, SDHIll1980 said:

 

Other examples on the opposite end of the spectrum are places such as Phoenix, Denver, Alburquerque, Salt Lake City, and to certain extent Los Angeles.  All geographically large DMAs that extend beyond each city's core metro area.

Some cover multiple states too.  DMA #1 is New York, covers not just the 5 boroughs of NYC but Long Island, more than half of New Jersey, SW Connecticut and a county in Pennsylvania (Pike).

5 hours ago, JTT said:

Comcast is considering spinning off their cable networks. 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/comcast-exploring-spinoff-cable-networks-124654274.html

 

I wonder why they would so this.  I would keep the most successful networks or programs and close the ones that aren't.   Or turn them into streaming categories & put it on peacock.

As I read in the Variety article, it would be very complicated.  MSNBC and CNBC are part of NBC News and helps pay for news gathering (they are very profitable).  USA is a vehicle for NBC Sports now that they shut down their own sports channel.  Plus they play a big role with Peacock. Universo is tied in with Telemundo, and hosts sports including Spanish simulcasts of SNF and probably SNNBA.  Could E!, Bravo, Oxygen and Universal Kids command enough interest in a spinoff?  They are right to look at it as an option, but anyone thinking this is a done deal is way too premature.

1 hour ago, MorningNews said:

Her answer is also weird but I’m probably missing the context. 

This was a clickbait article by the Murdoch owned paper.  Nothing newsy about it.  So yes, the co-anchor needs to have chemistry with the existing anchor.  That's not new.

43 minutes ago, Dave Lampstein said:

I don’t know that they really needed to go all out with new music and graphics and it’s not as if they had a lot of time. 

I’m not sure why some expected a total refresh. Basically Bally’s ended their naming deal and FanDuel stepped in. When (if) Diamond/Sinclair emerges from bankruptcy, FanDuel may invest but won’t be the controlling owner based on what has been disclosed. 

Not like CBS has had to pay over a billion in settlements for airing lies.  Can we see all of trump's outtakes from various interviews?  Should be good for a laugh and eye roll.