Blogs and Stories

Kim Masters

The Ultimate Hollywood Deal

Tina Fey, Kyra Sedgwick L to R: Sara De Boer / Retna Ltd.; Everett Collection It's the most persistent rumor in the business—that GE will sell struggling NBC Universal to struggling Time Warner. Kim Masters reports on the deal that would change the entertainment landscape forever.

Earlier this week, the head of a film company told me to count on this: GE is going to sell NBC Universal to Time Warner. A spokesman for GE had no comment. His counterpart at Time Warner denied it.

I asked Rich Greenfield, the media analyst at Pali Research, about a deal between the two companies and he said he doubted it. Time Warner has only just spun off the company’s cable operations and the task of dealing with AOL is still at hand, he said. So Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is “just beginning to rebuild credibility” and hardly needs to undertake a giant transaction.

Despite obvious reasons why Time Warner might not want a mega-deal right now, some factors might tempt Bewkes. He’s been pushing a concept called TV Everywhere recently in which Time Warner movies and television shows would be available to paying subscribers on television, laptop, handheld device—whatever, whenever. A deal with NBC Universal would give him a lot of TV to put Everywhere.

You can’t put a value on the work of a creative person any more,” says an industry veteran. “How do you value work when people are giving it away on the Internet?

The main lure for Time Warner meanwhile, would be NBC Universal’s cable channels: USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi, and CNBC. Those would go nicely with Time Warner’s HBO, TNT and TBS. And while no one’s getting rich off news, CNN and NBC News could make a strong combination. Universal Pictures, on the other hand, would likely be folded since Time Warner—which owns Warner Bros.—has no need for another film studio. Yes, that would truly be the end of an era. But industry veterans believe that there’s every reason to expect a number of eras to end in the foreseeable future in the entertainment world, just as big names are vanishing in other industries.

A Time Warner source says he’s confident the company isn’t buying—though he allows that could change in a year or two. He acknowledges that the rumors have been persistent and suspects folks on the GE side of spreading them.

It makes sense that GE would want to stir up a deal. For one thing, GE has found—as companies like Coca-Cola did in the past—that entertainment assets can bring bad publicity that is wildly out of proportion to their significance to the larger parent company. This week, a lot of news coverage of GE’s annual meeting focused on shareholder carping about the politics at MSNBC, as if the company doesn’t have enough real problems to worry about.

A source told me that GE had been in talks with Time Warner several months ago, when NBC Universal’s upcoming coverage of the Olympics cast a rosy glow. But Time Warner couldn’t make the numbers work and passed. And no doubt GE would have put a very high valuation on NBC Universal, in excess of $40 billion. Since then, the economy tanked and NBC Universal just announced a 45 percent drop in earnings for the first quarter. And GE has a few issues, too. As entertainment analyst Harold Vogel puts it, “GE needs cash—C-A-S-H.” So it might be more flexible about the terms of a sale.

The fact is NBC Universal never fit in with GE anyway. That mismatch may have been fine when the economy was stronger but not so much now, when traditional media businesses have such a dubious future. The economic meltdown has brought the looming problems caused by the digital revolution into sharp focus.

Historically, when a new technology displaced an old business, it provided a new stream of income (most recently, the DVD). At this point, the Internet isn’t really giving back. And Hollywood, like many other longstanding American institutions, is reeling.

“You can’t put a value on the work of a creative person anymore,” says an industry veteran. “How do you value work when people are giving it away on the Internet? How do you evaluate a library when people can steal Wolverine?” He continues, “If you can’t figure out what it’s worth, then it has no value....That’s why GE is selling.” Or would sell, if there were any buyers.

Kim Masters is the host of The Business, public radio's weekly show about the business of show business. She is also the author of The Keys to the Kingdom: The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else.


Back to Top
April 24, 2009 | 5:53am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

Banjo1

The question that would effect most of us is whether a new owner of GE would rein in the ever-more apparent left-wing bias of NBC news. Judging from what Time magazine has become -- a Nation magazine on shiny paper -- the prospects would not be bright if Time-Warner was the buyer.

|
|
Reply
|
8:17 am, Apr 24, 2009

xbainx

There is no left wing bias. This is what as known as popular opinion. As in, the country elected the Democrats into office, and don't are if Fox News wants to smear them.

|
|
Reply
1:47 am, Apr 25, 2009

flyoverland

The cable channels might have some value, but the main brand has been so tarnished by he embarressing left-wing slant that half its potential viewers won't watch it. Any sale without a clean sweep of that attitude and a return to objectivity will be at a price much less than it could otherwise fetch. I am embarressed for Tom Brokow and others whose otherwise distinguished careers are being smeared with the brush of bias.

|
|
Reply
8:24 am, Apr 24, 2009

VenusMuse

Why would GE sell NBC? They have used and continue to abuse their power telling tv hosts, reporters NOT to go negative on Obama. They got their boy elected.

Next GE wants all the cap and trade energy deals - they will profit billions of dollars. This potential scandal and it's prior soft peddling Obama will be bigger than Watergate!

Based on GE's plan, it doesn't make sense for them to sell NBC.

|
|
Reply
9:52 am, Apr 24, 2009

newfilm2000

I'm not sure why it's OK for Fox to have an obvious, across the board right wing bias, but, it's not OK for MSNBC to have exactly ONE anchor (Rachel Maddow) who qualifies as a liberal, and another (Keith Olbermann) who qualifies as anti-Bush (I definitely wouldn't qualify him as liberal), along with a bunch of inside-the-beltway types (I guess Ed Schultz would count as a liberal, too, but, he's been there exactly two weeks).

The only people that think of Chris Matthews or David Gregory as liberal are the same people that thought John McCain was too left-wing for the Republican party.

|
|
Reply
10:56 am, Apr 24, 2009

pkimelman

First of all, the shareholders meeting disruption was from a Fox News employee. This was a setup by Fox to stir up fake trouble. The author of this piece should know that by now.
Second of all, the commenters above seem to be just echoing the "talking points" they hear on right wing radio, TV, and blogs. Good for you, you earn your little brownie points - you spewed the nonsense you were told to.
The NBC brand has not been tarnished. The losers, I mean Republicans and Fox News and Rush L and the like, have been continuing this drumbeat of "liberal bias". Note that they would claim CNN is also full of "liberal bias", so this would be no change for Time Warner. Of course, "liberal bias" just means that they they did not fawn over George W Bush and his cronies, they actually cover the news that the Right does not like, and they dare to notice that the Bush admin left the country in a financial mess.
If you watch Fox news, everything else looks like "liberal bias" since every show on Fix so badly slanted and one-sided; they even shut down conservatives that do not toe their current line. It would be like the Wall Street Journal only having the editorial page and getting rid of the journalism part. So, maybe some of you who see so much bias need to get off the Fox News drug for a while so you can actually see make decisions for yourselves.

|
|
Reply
|
11:11 am, Apr 24, 2009

steff47

Great reply, the republicans can't stand that they lost so now they are working a propaganda war like usual, People who think won't be fooled by that

|
|
Reply
|
11:44 am, Apr 24, 2009

peppermint

Hmmmm, and who is #1 in cable shows? Could it be the "people" who love Fox? Put that in your bong. The Bam might have won, but he'll be out in a few years, if not impeached.

|
1:08 pm, Apr 24, 2009

pkimelman

peppermint, I have no idea what your question is? Fox has some highly rated shows for the same reason that Rush is highly rated on radio - people who want to hear a certain message will listen/watch those shows. For people who want a more balanced discussion/debate (real debate, not yelling), there are many choices, so no one show will dominate.
Of course there are people who love Fox (Dick Cheney for example), since it does not challenge their views and does not ask them to think. Instead, it feeds them a pre-digested stream of Republican talking points and easy answers.

|
3:21 pm, Apr 24, 2009

Johnnyappleseed

Sold my GE stock when the Melt man was selling us to Iran.
This deal and the carbon tax scam will finish off GE, once a great name brand, became just another loser in todays economy.

|
|
Reply
|
11:28 am, Apr 24, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--jdavxc
|
|
Reply
2:16 pm, Apr 24, 2009

LarryMcD

Since you guys all love Fox so much, I sure hope you plowed all that GE stock money into News Corp. (NWS).

|
|
Reply
2:46 pm, Apr 24, 2009

Banjo1

Fox came into existence to fill the yawning gap when the MSM moved from the center to left. It is a classic case of the market adjusting to an opening. People realized they were being delivered tainted goods, so they sought news and information elsewhere. This is a freedom the left would dearly love to abolish. They want people spoon fed with what the elites think it is right for them to know. That is why talk radio enrages them so.

|
|
Reply
|
12:25 pm, Apr 24, 2009

willid3

and how is that different that at Fox? where they have as much as a slant to the extreme right.

|
|
Reply
1:38 pm, Apr 24, 2009

pkimelman

This is nonsense. The perception of the MSM moving to the left has been the complaint of the right for many many years. The right prefers one-sided discussions, no questions asked, etc. The right was saying the MSM was leaning left during the Nixon scandal because the MSM was covering it.
Fox came in because the social right has preferred to hear what they already believe (as is common in the mega-churches and the like). The intellectual right has been open to debate, but with the rise of the religious right, that got lost. So, Fox filled the vaccuum.

|
|
Reply
2:55 pm, Apr 24, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--jdavxc
|
|
Reply
2:18 pm, Apr 24, 2009

Barbara416

Banjo--thank God for MSNBC!

|
|
Reply
4:18 pm, Apr 25, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

The Ultimate Hollywood Deal

by Kim Masters

Info
RSS
Kim Masters
Emails
|
print
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |