Discovery/Warner Media Channels post merger?

[zeebre12]

What do you think will happen to the Discovery/Warner Media channels post merger? What channels will rebrand close? Could they sell off channels like they did with GAC?
TNT, TBS, TCM, CNN, CN and TruTV should stay as they are?
HLN- not sure as they already have true crime covered with ID
Cinemax channels- all close
HBO channels- reduction
Boomerang- not sure?
Discovery, Food Network, HGTV, Magnolia, OWN, Science, ID, Motor Trend, TLC, Animal Planet, Travel Channel stay as they are?
Discovery Life, Destination America, Cooking Channel, AHC and Discovery Family all close?
Could we get a rebrand of one of these to a 24/7 Adult Swim channel like in Canada?

 

[TheBigA]

My guess is that at some point they will sell CNN and its associated channels. Perhaps to Viacom/CBS.

HBO/Cinemax is a huge profit center. AT&T did a smart thing by launching HBO Plus.

But I agree with your premise, that they have far more channels than they can manage.

The main benefit from buying Warner was the studio and the catalog. Everything else is negotiable.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I wouldn't assume there would be consolidation among the few channels which have similar programming. I also doubt there are many buyers seeking existing cable networks.

But this will be a time for new executive teams to evaluate each network on its profits and how much investment it is worth going forward. If they determine HLN isn't worthwhile any longer, they will cut their losses, and turn it into a new concept, close it, or sell it.

 

[TheBigA]

If they determine HLN isn't worthwhile any longer, they will cut their losses, and turn it into a new concept, close it, or sell it.

From what I've seen, the Discovery team has done a better job of channel management than Warner. They did a pretty good job of strategizing when they bought Scripps. They understand show creation and development fairly well. Better than Viacom, that's for sure. In fact I think their team has already formulized a plan for the new acquisitions and is just waiting for the sale to be approved.

Here's what Discovery CEO has to say about the resignation of CNN's Zucker:

Discovery chief praises CNN ahead of merger, addresses ouster of network president Jeff Zucker

Discovery CEO David Zaslav praised CNN on Friday and said "news is going to be really critical" to the future of the soon to be combined Warner Bros. Discovery, despite the sudden ouster of CNN boss Jeff Zucker earlier this week.

edition.cnn.com

One aspect not mentioned is if the merger approval is predicated on the sale of certain assets or channels. That might make it even easier.

 

[Nathan Obral]

I’m curious about the fate of CNN+ now that Zucker got tossed. I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t launch at all.

 

[TheBigA]

I’m curious about the fate of CNN+ now that Zucker got tossed. I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t launch at all.

'
On the other hand, Zaslav sees the value in these OTT subscription channels with his own Discovery +. So what I'd expect to see is some form of combined marketing package of those channels to provide consumer value against the competition.

 

[Mgomrjsurf]

Cooking Channel stays.

 

[Deleted User]

we just got Cinemax added as a channel here at the casa Florida..... it was a "freebie" to us.

Do people actually pay to watch 30 year old crappy movies?

I have not seen anything I would watch.

FX and FXX have movies that are 3 years old

does "Skinemax" still show soft core porn at night?

 

[Nathan Obral]

'
On the other hand, Zaslav sees the value in these OTT subscription channels with his own Discovery +. So what I'd expect to see is some form of combined marketing package of those channels to provide consumer value against the competition.

OTOH, John Malone is both a traditional media advocate and had been a deeply outspoken critic of Zucker.

The concept of CNN+ isn’t necessarily bad—Chris Wallace and Wolf Blitzer wouldn’t be able to front straightforward newscasts on CNN because the audience doesn’t exist for it on CATV—but it’s both highly redundant because of HBO Max and Discovery+ and denigrates the value of the cable channel even further.

 

[TheBigA]

OTOH, John Malone is both a traditional media advocate and had been a deeply outspoken critic of Zucker.

Not sure what that has to do with this. You don't throw out everything that happened while Zucker was there. You instead evaluate each thing on its own merits. CNN+ isn't about Zucker, but rather about creating value for subscribers. That's what Disney+ is, that's what ESPN+ is, and even Amazon Prime. That's what all of these similar packages are about. Is it redundant? Who cares as long as subscribers want it. Because this is something that's outside the traditional ad-supported media-sphere.

 

[Cool_guy81]

we just got Cinemax added as a channel here at the casa Florida..... it was a "freebie" to us.

Do people actually pay to watch 30 year old crappy movies?

I have not seen anything I would watch.

FX and FXX have movies that are 3 years old

does "Skinemax" still show soft core porn at night?

Cinemax doesn't show soft core porn anymore at night and actually just air movies.

 

[Nathan Obral]

Not sure what that has to do with this. You don't throw out everything that happened while Zucker was there. You instead evaluate each thing on its own merits. CNN+ isn't about Zucker, but rather about creating value for subscribers. That's what Disney+ is, that's what ESPN+ is, and even Amazon Prime. That's what all of these similar packages are about. Is it redundant? Who cares as long as subscribers want it. Because this is something that's outside the traditional ad-supported media-sphere.

The fatal flaw with CNN+ is that it makes the cable channel irrelevant when the content on the SVOD is being marketed as better (which given how CNN deteriorated into a generic talking head channel, it’s not an inaccurate assessment). Why pay for cable?

HLN still has universal coverage but the channel has been zombified into a rerun farm with no ratings because the original concept—and the only purpose—of the channel became obsolete. Not sure it’s in anyone’s best interests to see CNN become a rerun farm because of CNN+…

 

[TheBigA]

Why pay for cable?

That's not CNN's problem. They're not in the cable business. If they can transfer you from paying Comcast to paying CNN, that's a win.

Once again, everyone is doing this. Consider ESPN. I love hockey, but I don't want to pay for ESPN+ to watch hockey. So I'm waiting to see what else gets bundled with hockey. They need to make it worth my while. In the meantime, as they beef up the value of ESPN+, it comes at the expense of the main channel. But that's OK because the main channel isn't where the growth is any more. Same with CNN.

 

[Mgomrjsurf]

When CB is over NHL back on ESPN channels.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Cooking Channel stays.

Agree. Since most of those channels have fairly broad coverage through cable and new OTT distribution methods, there is value in having the "space". That means that if there are two similar channels, they might keep both, refining the focal point of each to differentiate them.

It's pretty easy to develop different styles with cooking-based shows.

 

[TheBigA]

Interesting analysis of the pending Warner Discovery merger:

https://deadline.com/2022/02/david-zaslav-warnermedia-plans-cnn-warner-bros-discovery-1234955829/

 

[gr8oldies]

My guess is that at some point they will sell CNN and its associated channels. Perhaps to Viacom/CBS.

Merge with CNN and rebrand as CBS/N with some shows being "CNN Presents".

 

[DavidEduardo]

Merge with CNN and rebrand as CBS/N with some shows being "CNN Presents".

I wonder what the value of the CNN brand is today.

If the image is strong based on usage years ago, it has value. But if the current low viewership represents rejection and image deterioration, then it may be better to end it.

CNN is still getting lots of carriage fees from cable providers, but that is done as a package with all its family of channels. I can see cable systems saying, "we have MSNBC and don't need CNN so we are taking 10% off our offer this year".

 

[TheBigA]

If the image is strong based on usage years ago, it has value. But if the current low viewership represents rejection and image deterioration, then it may be better to end it.

No question the new owners need to make a decision about the direction of CNN post Zucker. That was mentioned in the article I linked. But to get rid of it completely is literally throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The name is worth billions even though the execution has been bad. Like a lot of older cable companies, some branded channels are in need of a fresh coat of paint, or perhaps a new direction. Viacom has the exact same problem with MTV. Then using the branding for new services that incorporate new partners might help revive the once proud name. There are people you can hire who know how to revive products, and then get a piece of the new money. That's how you reward people for their work. I see a lot of opportunity for revival in this merger.

 

[Michi]

Just kill TLC... what a horrid waste of bandwidth. Better yet, make it The Learning Channel again (and I don't mean learning how to pop pimples)...