Four paragraphs only:

"At the top of the list is assessing the traditional TV business, Iger said Thursday. Disney owns a portfolio of TV networks, from broadcast station ABC to cable TV channels like ESPN.

Disney is going to be "expansive" in its thinking about the traditional TV business, leaving the door open to a possible sale of the networks. "They may not be core to Disney," Iger said, adding the creativity that has come from those networks has been key for Disney.

Cable TV channel ESPN is in a different bucket, however. On that front, Iger said Disney is open to finding a strategic partner, which could take the form of a joint venture or offloading an ownership stake.

Iger said when he had left the company he had predicted the future of traditional TV and had been "very pessimistic," and has found since his return that he was right in his thinking, adding it's worse than he expected. "


https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/disney-ceo-iger-opens-door-to-unloading-tv-assets.html

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

Spot on. But it's tough to bring in a strategic partner/JV to a declining business that you're milking for cash, unless you price it on the cheap, give up something significant, or include a buyout option.

I'm trying to figure out who it would be, and what kind of JV would make sense that could make it past anti-trust.

I could see Google or Amazon partnering for ESPN. I'm not sure how the government would feel about (anti trust), but being the home for streaming live sports would be a huge marketing opportunity.

So no more idiotic social justice commercials during football games?

northeastag said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

Spot on. But it's tough to bring in a strategic partner/JV to a declining business that you're milking for cash, unless you price it on the cheap, give up something significant, or include a buyout option.

I'm trying to figure out who it would be, and what kind of JV would make sense that could make it past anti-trust.

---

Who says the business is declining? The revenue model is just changing from traditional cable to streaming. Showing sports on TV is a profitable business and ESPN is a good brand.

Iger no longer considers Fox, CBS or NBC competitors for ESPN content. He worries about Amazon and Apple. Disney had had a nice run with ABC and ESPN, but it may be time for someone else. They could also spin off the Broadcast division. Theme parks provide a steady cash, and then they can concentrate on content to hit home runs and for growth.

The broadcast stations used to be cash cows, but their viewership has been hammered. I remember when everyone watched Channel 13 Eyewitness News in Houston. Now I bet even with the growth in the Houston market the number of people watching the 10:00 news is a fraction of what is was 10 years ago. I am sure that the story is the same in New York, Chicago, LA and the other markets where ABC owns their local affiliates. The lack of must see network shows, especially for millennials, is a huge drag on viewership.

I thought sips were their partner!

LHN was the beginning of horribly bad decisions that is causing the spiral down.

Most media is suffering from declining revenue. As stated above, TV viewership is way down. The advertising is way down…election money has been their savior. Cable revenues are also significantly down because of declining carriage fees…they can't be supported by commercials alone. Streaming is knocking against stagnant viewership and they hope advertising will keep revenue growing. A lot of problems with media today…maybe temporary maybe not. What happened to the Sinclair RSNs should be a reason for caution.

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

AFAIK the network is in a different division. They're down to around 10 O&O TV stations, and I think 1 radio station that they basically tossed the keys to another company to run.

Disney also "only" owns 80% of ESPN. Hearst owns the other 20% and seeing as they've pulled back most of their broadcast ops, I doubt they'd be interested in taking more on.

Love the idea upthread of some streaming goliath like Amazon or Apple, etc. become part of a JV. It's probably going to eventually be some shady conglomerate fund that bankrolls a JV with Disney and they'll spin that off and after thousands of billable hours for the lawyers gets paid, we'll have a shell of a company that exists as a tax write off/ledger balancing number.

northeastag said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

Spot on. But it's tough to bring in a strategic partner/JV to a declining business that you're milking for cash, unless you price it on the cheap, give up something significant, or include a buyout option.

I'm trying to figure out who it would be, and what kind of JV would make sense that could make it past anti-trust.

---

Dump it on a Sinclair…

rootube said:

---

northeastag said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

Spot on. But it's tough to bring in a strategic partner/JV to a declining business that you're milking for cash, unless you price it on the cheap, give up something significant, or include a buyout option.

I'm trying to figure out who it would be, and what kind of JV would make sense that could make it past anti-trust.

---

Who says the business is declining? The revenue model is just changing from traditional cable to streaming. Showing sports on TV is a profitable business and ESPN is a good brand.

---

Igor said this himself.

The old tv model is much profitable than streaming. They used to get $7 a month from near 100 million households, many of which never watch sports.

They overpaid big time for rights to things like the NBA. And they will still have a fight on their hands when future sports deals come up (without paid for content, they are worthless and leagues know that).

And yet the content they buy (sports), is basically worthless when not live.

All told, it's becoming a tough business.

12Power said:

---

LHN was the beginning of horribly bad decisions that is causing the spiral down.

---

Ain't it great! SWC, Big 12, tu network, now esipn. Everything they touch becomes touched!

For me at least, broadcast TV has been crap for quite some time. Every TV series these days has a woke agenda, it's ridiculous.

Heaven forbid someone focus on the product and actually produce content targeted to a wider audience.

It's why shows like Yellowstone are so successful but you'd never see something like that on a broadcast network.

So we can buy the tu network and play the Kansas games on repeat 24/7!

HDeathstar said:

---

So we can buy the tu network and play the Kansas games on repeat 24/7!

---

That sounds like a money loser…and CDC himself made fun of playing old games on repeat in LHN…when he leaked the LHN would be shuttered…

Aston04 said:

---

rootube said:

---

northeastag said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

hockeyag said:

---

Just saw this, too. Is it a way to get around carriage agreements? Did ESPN pay too much for rights and wants a company to share the burden? Or are the assets as high as they are going to be and time to bail?
One or all the above? Interesting to find output.

---

I would guess they just don't want a declining business distracting from whatever Iger thinks is important. The strategic partnership / joint venture on ESPN suggests it is more of a cash cow. Also not sure if this includes the old cap cities stations and ABC network or not or if that is in the ESPN SP/JV.

---

Spot on. But it's tough to bring in a strategic partner/JV to a declining business that you're milking for cash, unless you price it on the cheap, give up something significant, or include a buyout option.

I'm trying to figure out who it would be, and what kind of JV would make sense that could make it past anti-trust.

---

Who says the business is declining? The revenue model is just changing from traditional cable to streaming. Showing sports on TV is a profitable business and ESPN is a good brand.

---

Igor said this himself.

The old tv model is much profitable than streaming. They used to get $7 a month from near 100 million households, many of which never watch sports.

They overpaid big time for rights to things like the NBA. And they will still have a fight on their hands when future sports deals come up (without paid for content, they are worthless and leagues know that).

And yet the content they buy (sports), is basically worthless when not live.

All told, it's becoming a tough business.

---

You are saying it's a tough business but you are lumping all media together and saying things are bad. People are not watching less sports. ESPN may not be able to charge 100M people $7 dollars. But they absolutely have a strong customer base willing to pay many times that to watch CFB and the NFL.

Must be something in here about Football. Please read WSJ

poor mgmt on the exec team - they had the right to sound of freedom in 2018 and shelved it...here we are in 2023 and it is booming under a new studio

No this is not a political post in anyway...just to show the ineptitude of disney execs

There may be a good size customer base, but is it big enough to justify the investment? I'm a media guy, not a business guy, but the evidence seems to be that sports fans numbers can't justify the rights fees alone. The rights fees paid to the NFL , to my understanding, are money losers for the networks . Their value is for cross promotional opportunities. There is a lot of sports chasing not enough eyeballs.

Class of 65 said:

---

Must be something in here about Football. Please read WSJ

---

Because getting $55million per year from ESPN isn't precisely about football…

It's worse because they went WOKE
Not for the reasons he thinks

Guy is going to tank Disney

pointer74 said:

---

It's worse because they went WOKE
Not for the reasons he thinks

Guy is going to tank Disney

---

He might. By treating them like a Hollywood company in a writer and actor strike…

ESPN has been overbidding on contracts for years

the NBA, the Monday night NFL package, etc..,

ALOT of companies overbid on sports contracts and now people are shying away and watching just highlights.

For the NFL and Baseball- too many commercials in relation to too little action.

CFB is seeing fewer eyes as well.

For the NBA- too woke, the last 2 minutes take an hour.

Soccer is still a big revenue getter world wide but is still breaking into the US market slowly.

A big part of it is saturation. All the leagues increased their number of games and the NFL added Thursday night games.

When there is a game every night it becomes difficult to justify spending four hours 3 nights a week watching.

The woke BS has hurt most of the brands as well and some of the olds just don't see the point in watching spoiled millionaires.

The Youngs have such a short attention span, getting them to watch a 3 hour match is an unrealistic expectation.

TBH the only reason the NFL has been having good nunbers has been Fantasy Football leagues and how that has kept people invested in the outcome of games and coaxed people to watch.

The NFL think it's their product that people are coming back for but it's not.

Since someone thought I was somehow reading WSJ from the CNBC portal…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-iger-pixar-streaming-8b6eaf8c

It's funny how people ***** and moan about ESPN. I say be careful what you wish for. You are going to miss them when you have so sign up for three separate streaming services to watch A&M games like they do in that B10 monstrosity deal.

rootube said:

---

It's funny how people ***** and moan about ESPN. I say be careful what you wish for. You are going to miss them when you have so sign up for three separate streaming services to watch A&M games like they do in that B10 monstrosity deal.

---

But they're W-W-W-W-WOOOOOOKE!

The Big Ten notionally has more over the air content than the ESPN deal, but your other point for streaming is spot on.

FUBO is the future. You can watch and bet at the same time.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

FUBO is the future. You can watch and bet at the same time.

---

If they can scale for big events which has been their Achilles heel so far.

rootube said:

---

It's funny how people ***** and moan about ESPN. I say be careful what you wish for. You are going to miss them when you have so sign up for three separate streaming services to watch A&M games like they do in that B10 monstrosity deal.

---

I think if ESPN was a stand alone package, separate from cable, the cost would be $25-70/month, if not much more. People used to complain about paying for a cable package because it had a lot of networks that people didn't watch, however they never complained that millions of people were also paying for ESPN that never watched it.
We used to complain about DirecTV or sling or these other cable/satellite providers pausing broadcast of a channel when having price disputes/negotiations with ESPN or other networks, but if ESPN is completely separate from the cable bundle, ESPN will regularly be raising the prices by more than what they were doing before.

ESPN was one of the first networks ever that had paid advertising as well as charging subscribers on a monthly subscription. It's one of the main reasons they blew up as big as they did.

If ESPN starts trying to charge that, look for them to die on the vine. The only way I would pay that is if they got rid of commercial breaks completely in live sports and allowed you to watch live without commercials, and then everyone else watched on a delay with commercials.