Amazon interested in Fox TV stations

[The Frog 429]

Amazon is bidding for Fox's 22 RSNs, and may want something else on top of that.

Quote

There have been rumblings that Amazon also has an interest in Fox’s 28 owned-and-operated TV stations, which reach 37% of U.S. TV households. Those TV stations will remain with the new iteration of Fox that will emerge after the Disney transaction is completed early next year. Surprisingly, sources say Fox is open to discussing a deal for the stations because the company can still extract significant value from them, on top of a big one-time sale premium, if Amazon agrees to a long-term reverse-compensation Fox affiliation agreement.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/fox-regional-sports-networks-tribune-media-stations-bidding-1203036533/

I'm surprised Fox is entertaining the offer. A sign of things to come for the industry?

[ColtFromGulfcoast 708]

38 minutes ago, CRThell said:

Amazon is bidding for Fox's 22 RSNs, and may want something else on top of that.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/fox-regional-sports-networks-tribune-media-stations-bidding-1203036533/

I'm surprised Fox is entertaining the offer. A sign of things to come for the industry?

Are these the same people, who earlier this year, attempted to buy 7 stations from a Chicago based firm for close to a billion dollars? And were reported as waiting for the opportunity to do it again? Color me shocked. 

[Samantha 2895]

I think an Amazon acquisition of broadcast TV stations would be a bad thing for Amazon. Opinions on the company are starting to sour, particularly in an antitrust way, and the company buying major-market TV stations would attract regulatory attention beyond the usual actors. (Perhaps even hearings in Congress.)

Sinclair's greedy acquisitive tactics didn't get attention until they involved TV stations in New York and Chicago. That'd be an absolute lightning rod for Amazon with regulators, and honestly it would leave affiliates apprehensive about the future of the Fox television network.

[ColtFromGulfcoast 708]

12 minutes ago, Ramona said:

I think an Amazon acquisition of broadcast TV stations would be a bad thing for Amazon. Opinions on the company are starting to sour, particularly in an antitrust way, and the company buying major-market TV stations would attract regulatory attention beyond the usual actors. (Perhaps even hearings in Congress.)

Sinclair's greedy acquisitive tactics didn't get attention until they involved TV stations in New York and Chicago. That'd be an absolute lightning rod for Amazon with regulators, and honestly it would leave affiliates apprehensive about the future of the Fox television network.

It could be either a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm leaning heavily towards the latter. I agree that this would call the future of Fox as a network into question for so many reasons. One thing would be that maybe Fox could get the rights to broadcast edited versions of Amazon Prime programming as a way to entice viewers to subscribe to Amazon Prime. In exchange for that, Amazon Prime would get exclusive rights to broadcast any shows developed internally at Fox, similar to how The CW deals with Netflix. 

 

But why in the heck would a streaming giant want television stations?

[Rusty Muck 4374]

1 hour ago, ColtFromGulfcoast said:

It could be either a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm leaning heavily towards the latter. I agree that this would call the future of Fox as a network into question for so many reasons. One thing would be that maybe Fox could get the rights to broadcast edited versions of Amazon Prime programming as a way to entice viewers to subscribe to Amazon Prime. In exchange for that, Amazon Prime would get exclusive rights to broadcast any shows developed internally at Fox, similar to how The CW deals with Netflix. 

 

But why in the heck would a streaming giant want television stations?

60 years ago, we would be asking why a TV station operator would want to buy into radio. Same with newspapers wanting and/or launching radio stations in the 1920s.

After seeing Comcast's merger with NBCU and AT&T buying TimeWarner (the latter totally in spite of Trump) there's little that the DOJ could do to stop a deal like this. The FCC repealed the broadcast-newspaper rule, so the WaPo and WTTG under one roof is totally believable.

And then there's the question of if the Murdochs want to continue as media barons, at least in the US. If they give up their O&Os, that leaves just the Fox Broadcasting Company (where they will have to import any/all entertainment programming), Fox News (which has issues of their own) and Fox Sports/FS1/FS2.

[dman748 1256]

6 hours ago, CRThell said:

Amazon is bidding for Fox's 22 RSNs, and may want something else on top of that.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/fox-regional-sports-networks-tribune-media-stations-bidding-1203036533/

I'm surprised Fox is entertaining the offer. A sign of things to come for the industry?

Stranger things have happened before but, I just can't see the Murdoch's selling their O&Os to Amazon, maybe the RSNs but not the O&Os. If that happens 2 things are going to happen:

 

1. There's going to be intense (and I mean INTENSE) scrutiny from Washington (and that'll likely result in Congressional Hearings especially with Democrats taking control of the House and having the power to schedule hearings)

2. There will likely be station groups (and even Sinclair) that'll be calling a serious question into the future of Fox as a network

 

Those and likely many more other reasons will be the reasons why I just can not see the Murdoch's enduring a scrutiny far greater than what even the failed Sinclair/Tribune merger had

[TVLurker 198]

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon bought the New Fox company if they don't manage to thrive.

[mre29 1519]

20 hours ago, Myron Falwell said:

After seeing Comcast's merger with NBCU and AT&T buying TimeWarner (the latter totally in spite of Trump) there's little that the DOJ could do to stop a deal like this. The FCC repealed the broadcast-newspaper rule, so the WaPo and WTTG under one roof is totally believable.

Amazon doesn't own the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos owns it separately.

That's an important distinction.

 

[AmericanErrorist 148]

10 hours ago, mre29 said:

Amazon doesn't own the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos owns it separately.

That's an important distinction.

According to the company's last proxy statement, Bezos owns 16.3% of Amazon stock.

[MorningNews 1448]

Maybe Amazon can fund a new set for WNYW and KDFW. 

/sarcasm

[mre29 1519]

13 hours ago, AmericanErrorist said:

According to the company's last proxy statement, Bezos owns 16.3% of Amazon stock.

And his ownership of the Post is still separate from that. Your point?

[east-tx-tv 121]

16 hours ago, MorningNews said:

Maybe Amazon can fund a new set for WNYW and KDFW. 

/sarcasm

Not only does KDFW need new sets, but that back office/newsroom area is atrocious.

[Eat News 4745]

16 hours ago, MorningNews said:

Maybe Amazon can fund a new set for WNYW and KDFW. 

/sarcasm

I bet Amazon would deliver that shiny news set the next day...maybe even that afternoon if you are an Amazon Prime member.

[AmericanErrorist 148]

11 hours ago, mre29 said:

And his ownership of the Post is still separate from that. Your point?

Bezos has enough shares in Amazon to file with the FCC as an attributable owner should they take this path.

[Samantha 2895]

My mind went back to this again, and I want to emphasize a few of my concerns.

The problems I foresee with an Amazon/Fox stations tie-up are not at the FCC, but they are:

• Will brick-and-mortar stores, and particularly grocers, want to advertise on TV stations owned by Amazon? Amazon owns Whole Foods Market and is the primary competitor to many brick-and-mortar retail businesses (with the exception, importantly here, of automotive). There is something of a conflict of interest, and these are important ad categories. This isn't as much of an issue for other important categories including telecom, restaurants, services, healthcare, and of course, political. However, some ad buyers may have second thoughts.
• Would the deal give Amazon too much ad power? While Amazon's advertising platforms lag behind Google or Facebook, they exist, and Amazon would have the advantage of being able to integrate major-market TV stations into them. Particularly with addressable advertising as part of the ATSC 3.0 standard, there are privacy implications for such a combination of resources. This may be where a DOJ inquiry comes into play (an Amazon acquisition would almost certainly prompt a second request).
• The M&A itself will activate constituencies and actors that don't normally pay attention to the industry. The Sinclair-Tribune did this on a much smaller scale, and arguably, Sinclair failed because it got greedy with major-market TV stations. Fox and especially Amazon are much larger fish, and the incoming Democratic House will have a voracious regulatory appetite against Big Tech. This activity will not be limited to technology subcommittees but also could encompass antitrust ones. There are also Republican actors that are showing discontent with tech giants, though outside of Trump's tiffs with the Washington Post, Amazon has not been that much of a target (their concerns lean more toward perceived censorship on social media).
• Such a deal presents questions about the viability of the Fox television network as a going concern. In the T-Mobile/AT&T merger proceedings, one of the reasons the merger was not approved was a specific desire to have four national wireless carriers (something to be tested in the T-Mobile/Sprint proceedings). It could very well be that some actor wants to ensure there are four national commercial TV networks.

[TVLurker 198]

6 hours ago, Ramona said:

 

• Will brick-and-mortar stores, and particularly grocers, want to advertise on TV stations owned by Amazon? Amazon owns Whole Foods Market and is the primary competitor to many brick-and-mortar retail businesses (with the exception, importantly here, of automotive). There is something of a conflict of interest, and these are important ad categories. This isn't as much of an issue for other important categories including telecom, restaurants, services, healthcare, and of course, political. However, some ad buyers may have second thoughts.
• Would the deal give Amazon too much ad power? While Amazon's advertising platforms lag behind Google or Facebook, they exist, and Amazon would have the advantage of being able to integrate major-market TV stations into them. Particularly with addressable advertising as part of the ATSC 3.0 standard, there are privacy implications for such a combination of resources. This may be where a DOJ inquiry comes into play (an Amazon acquisition would almost certainly prompt a second request).
• The M&A itself will activate constituencies and actors that don't normally pay attention to the industry. The Sinclair-Tribune did this on a much smaller scale, and arguably, Sinclair failed because it got greedy with major-market TV stations. Fox and especially Amazon are much larger fish, and the incoming Democratic House will have a voracious regulatory appetite against Big Tech. This activity will not be limited to technology subcommittees but also could encompass antitrust ones. There are also Republican actors that are showing discontent with tech giants, though outside of Trump's tiffs with the Washington Post, Amazon has not been that much of a target (their concerns lean more toward perceived censorship on social media).
• Such a deal presents questions about the viability of the Fox television network as a going concern. In the T-Mobile/AT&T merger proceedings, one of the reasons the merger was not approved was a specific desire to have four national wireless carriers (something to be tested in the T-Mobile/Sprint proceedings). It could very well be that some actor wants to ensure there are four national commercial TV networks.

1. I'm guessing yes, since it wouldn't make sense for Amazon to promote a less available, more expensive grocery store over competition that'll make or break the deal for Amazon.

2. No. Facebook ads can be targeted locally and specifically to certain people and Google is more like spray and pray. There may be benefits but it'll be the same thing as marketing for a local TV station, in addition to them having to promote their own shows on the radio.

3. I do agree with this but we already have an industry that is consolidating itself wherever possible to save money and unfortunately there will be noise made.

4. I disagree with this. Amazon is more of a reliable programmer than Fox is and I could see them having enough programs to set up their entire television network if they wanted to. Plus you forgot about the CW which gives us 4+1 networks, 5 if the WB ever thought about programming their own TV network again.

[Conrad 113]

On 11/30/2018 at 7:41 AM, TVLurker said:

1. I'm guessing yes, since it wouldn't make sense for Amazon to promote a less available, more expensive grocery store over competition that'll make or break the deal for Amazon.

2. No. Facebook ads can be targeted locally and specifically to certain people and Google is more like spray and pray. There may be benefits but it'll be the same thing as marketing for a local TV station, in addition to them having to promote their own shows on the radio.

3. I do agree with this but we already have an industry that is consolidating itself wherever possible to save money and unfortunately there will be noise made.

4. I disagree with this. Amazon is more of a reliable programmer than Fox is and I could see them having enough programs to set up their entire television network if they wanted to. Plus you forgot about the CW which gives us 4+1 networks, 5 if the WB ever thought about programming their own TV network again.

Sorry to bump, but for 1, if Tribune were to be bought by Cerberus Capital Management and not Nexshit, would that mean certain Tribune stations would not show ads for any grocery store not owned by Albertsons(/Safeway) (Cerberus leads the investment group that owns Albertsons Companies)?

[MetroCity 248]

9 hours ago, Conrad said:

Sorry to bump, but for 1, if Tribune were to be bought by Cerberus Capital Management and not Nexshit, would that mean certain Tribune stations would not show ads for any grocery store not owned by Albertsons(/Safeway) (Cerberus leads the investment group that owns Albertsons Companies)?

 

Sorry, but this makes no sense. No station owner is going to turn away ads because they also own a competing business. May I remind you:

NBC and all its owned stations carry advertising for Disney parks and Disney movies.

ABC and all its owned stations carry ads for Universal parks and movies.

ABC, CBS and NBC all sell ads for Fox movies.

All networks and stations carry ads for cable networks, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime.

When RCA, and then GE owned NBC, you better believe they sold ads for Whirlpool, Westinghouse and Sony.

And the list goes on.

[Conrad 113]

15 minutes ago, MetroCity said:

  

Sorry, but this makes no sense. No station owner is going to turn away ads because they also own a competing business. May I remind you:

NBC and all its owned stations carry advertising for Disney parks and Disney movies.

ABC and all its owned stations carry ads for Universal parks and movies.

ABC, CBS and NBC all sell ads for Fox movies.

All networks and stations carry ads for cable networks, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime.

When RCA, and then GE owned NBC, you better believe they sold ads for Whirlpool, Westinghouse and Sony.

And the list goes on.

Alright.

 

I've actually seen a couple commercials for Nickelodeon on Cartoon Network in the mid-2010s on a TV at my previous dentist.

 

NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, and PBS NewsHour all sort of compete with NPR News. I've heard Universal Pictures, Focus Features, CBS, 20th Century Fox, and even PBS in funding credits on NPR. They all can support NPR.