Comcast Considering Spinning Off Cable Networks

[ABC 7 Denver 1712]

1 hour ago, channel2 said:

Syfy really seems like a hidden gem to me, even though its audience was among the first to ditch linear TV. The name change being a perceived middle finger to the audience didn't help!

 

The move from science fiction to reality and fantasy based programming has damaged it too.

[mre29 1513]

7 hours ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

The move from science fiction to reality and fantasy based programming has damaged it too.

 

Science fiction and fantasy have always been joined at the hip -- both fall under the term "speculative fiction" -- so the fantasy-based programming has never bothered me.

 

Reality programming is a problem shared by nearly all channels, be they broadcast, cable, or streaming.

 

The real problem for Syfy at this point is more fundamental:  Is it even needed anymore? When the channel launched in 1992, the broadcast networks were still king, there were fewer cable channels (and even fewer with original programming), and there were few ways for a sci-fi or fantasy show to be seen. The best option was broadcast syndication, which usually meant airing at odd hours because shows were either on network affiliates that had obligations or independent stations that had no interest in giving up time slots they used for second-run movies. But the television landscape has changed radically in the 32 years since then, and there are more possible homes for genre programming than ever. It's possible, maybe even likely, that Syfy's time has come and gone.

 

[channel2 977]

6 hours ago, mre29 said:

 

Science fiction and fantasy have always been joined at the hip -- both fall under the term "speculative fiction" -- so the fantasy-based programming has never bothered me.

 

Reality programming is a problem shared by nearly all channels, be they broadcast, cable, or streaming.

 

The real problem for Syfy at this point is more fundamental:  Is it even needed anymore? When the channel launched in 1992, the broadcast networks were still king, there were fewer cable channels (and even fewer with original programming), and there were few ways for a sci-fi or fantasy show to be seen. The best option was broadcast syndication, which usually meant airing at odd hours because shows were either on network affiliates that had obligations or independent stations that had no interest in giving up time slots they used for second-run movies. But the television landscape has changed radically in the 32 years since then, and there are more possible homes for genre programming than ever. It's possible, maybe even likely, that Syfy's time has come and gone.

 

 

Nobody's ever said it outright but I'm pretty sure much of the reason USA ever put the Sci-Fi Channel on the air is because Kay Koplovitz loved the works of Arthur C. Clarke, and it just so happened that one of USA's corporate parents owned Star Trek and the other one a bunch of seminal horror movies. So of course they'd be willing to foot the $100 million bill that USA paid for a cash-strapped independent channel that had to keep delaying its launch!

 

The thing about Syfy is that the domain name "scifi.com" still redirects to their site. Which I think hints at Syfy being an asset that somebody could do so much more with!

[Georgie56 3292]

Full speed ahead.

And MSNBC/CNBC and NBC News are going spiltsville.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Georgie56

[NowBergen 679]

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

[atlnews2 590]

So they’re keeping Bravo, which they see as important programming aspect of peacock, but will dump everything else. 

I see this being extremely complicated from an operations perspective.

MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC News are all tightly interconnected when it comes to programming and news gathering. USA Network is tightly connected with NBC Sports for sports programming. Then there’s the olympics, where NBC uses its cable channels (USA, E!, CNBC, and golf channel) to air coverage. 
 

If you separate NBC Sports from USA and NBC News from CNBC and MSNBC you’re severely impacting both the “strong” NBC operation and the “weak” cable operation

Edited November 20, 2024 by atlnews2

[JTT 111]

It does not make sense to separate msnbc, cnbc, & USA from NBC.   The other channels,  I can understand getting rid of them.

[Jase 1042]

4 hours ago, NowBergen said:

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

 

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, JTT said:

It does not make sense to separate msnbc, cnbc, & USA from NBC.   The other channels,  I can understand getting rid of them.

 

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.

[AmericanErrorist 147]

On 11/18/2024 at 5:05 PM, channel2 said:

The thing about Syfy is that the domain name "scifi.com" still redirects to their site. Which I think hints at Syfy being an asset that somebody could do so much more with!

 

I believe that is due at least in part to the fact that the Polish channel is still named SciFi because Syfy is similar to the Polish language word for syphilis.

[NowBergen 679]

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.  

[HanSolo 143]

You know they all know these complications, right? They didn’t come into something like this without thinking through the complexities even if not every detail is laid out just yet. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by HanSolo

[Action Newsroom 1262]

It's official...More details emerge...SpinCo.

 

https://deadline.com/2024/11/comcast-to-spin-off-cable-networks-in-major-restructuring-linear-assets-1236182014/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/comcast-nbcuniversal-cable-networks-spinoff-usa-msnbc-mark-lazarus-1236067237/

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/matt-strauss-donna-langley-lead-nbcuniversal-1236215272/

Edited November 20, 2024 by Action Newsroom

[nathannah 2401]

2 hours ago, NowBergen said:

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.  

It's escapism dreck that makes a lot of money and isn't ending soon, and Andy Cohen's made them a lot of it. I can't blame them for keeping that at least in-house, and I suspect if E! still had the Kardashians that network wouldn't have been spun-off later.

[Reweivvt88 46]

4 hours ago, NowBergen said:

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.  

 

I would say over the last few years MSNBC & CNBC have become much less intertwined with NBC News than before. While reporters appear on both NBC & MSNBC, most MSNBC anchors now stay exclusively to MSNBC. NBC's Andrea Mitchell announced she will no longer host an hour on MSNBC a few weeks ago, the only other MSNBC anchor who also anchors on NBC is Jose Diaz-Balart. I guess you could include Willie Geist who does both Morning Joe & NBC's Sunday Today, but even then that's 2 anchors for the entire network that share an anchor role with both MSNBC & NBC News. I would say NBC News Now is already directly competing with MSNBC as opposed to acting as a companion. They don't cross promote each other or collaborate at all. I watch MSNBC quite often and they don't even acknowledge NBC News Now exists. When it's a slow news day MSNBC Reports will check in with someone from CNBC but there is zero synergy between MSNBC & the NBC News streaming channel. It's even rare when anything from NBC News gets mentioned. Before NBC News Now was launched, NBC would use MSNBC for special reports when breaking news happened at unexpected times, but even that rarely happens now. When it comes to splitting staff and covering events, I think it will be much less difficult to separate them now compared to 5 or 10 years ago. It's kind of like NBC & MSNBC already divorced but have continued living in the same house even after NBC has already moved on with NBC News Now. 

 

As for why Bravo is staying, they probably feel losing the Bravo escapism dreck would harm Peacock, so they don't want to part with it. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Reweivvt88

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

The irony of MSNBC now being a useless acronym now that it's not only separate from Microsoft, but also NBC.

 

And the timing couldn't be any worse, given the "changes" that could take place next year....

[TVNewsLover 774]

The international version of the channel “USA” is known as “Universal TV”, so it is odd that it will no longer be under the NBCUniversal banner. I too agree that it would’ve made sense to keep USA, MSNBC, and CNBC, and spin off everything else, but what do I know?

[Glimmer 281]

At a town hall at MSNBC headquarters, Mark Lazarus brought up local stations as a potential acquisition target for the new company

[nathannah 2401]

1 hour ago, TVNewsLover said:

The international version of the channel “USA” is known as “Universal TV”, so it is odd that it will no longer be under the NBCUniversal banner. I too agree that it would’ve made sense to keep USA, MSNBC, and CNBC, and spin off everything else, but what do I know?

It's doubly bizarre as USA Network is launching in Canada on New Year's Day as part of their various cable network shuffles, but it's just Discovery with an anonymized coat of paint.

[channel2 977]

9 hours ago, AmericanErrorist said:

 

I believe that is due at least in part to the fact that the Polish channel is still named SciFi because Syfy is similar to the Polish language word for syphilis.

 

It's also a valuable domain name they wouldn't want to fall into the hands of a competitor. Especially since it's still a homophone!

[JTT 111]

Will Comcast still be the owner of the new company as well? 

[TVLurker 198]

14 minutes ago, JTT said:

Will Comcast still be the owner of the new company as well? 

no.

[AmericanErrorist 147]

12 minutes ago, JTT said:

Will Comcast still be the owner of the new company as well? 

 

It will be a spin-off to holders of Comcast stock, which means the Roberts will hold a third of it (as with Comcast), but it will be otherwise a separate company.

[Hometown News 53]

16 hours ago, JTT said:

It does not make sense to separate msnbc, cnbc, & USA from NBC.   The other channels,  I can understand getting rid of them.

 

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.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Hometown News

[tyrannical bastard 3931]

"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.

[NowBergen 679]

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.