DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

How dare they hire someone who's experience and worldview is different from my own? I'm sure that makes her terrible at her job, despite the fact that I don't know how to direct movies. Only people like me truly understand Star Wars and can respect George's vision.

6853e229-ea88-4c45-a110-df68751a68f6_text.gif
If you don't like a movie that is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion..... but at least wait until the actual movie is out LOL....
 
I mean I get your drift, but is having a director engage in divisive type battle of the sexes conversations good for Disney or Star Wars? I have no issue at all with Sharmeen thinking what she thinks, but is that wise to say when the goal is to make a good financially viable movie?

I just believe having a male director saying he wanted to make females uncomfortable would not be a wise move, or the opposite of that said by a female director. How does being divisive help you make a good movie that appeals to a large / broad audience?
 
If you don't like a movie that is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion..... but at least wait until the actual movie is out LOL....

I know, right? I mean, I am not duper enthused about the choice based on Ms. Marvel, though she didn't direct every episode and it's hard to say who is responsible for what when there are so many hands in the pot. If people want to be critical of her body of work, that's fine - Ms. Marvel is the only thing I actually know and I wasn't that impressed, though that i smostly because of the last episode (which she did not have a hand in). That said, I am cautiously optimistic that they will get all the right elements in place.
 
I mean I get your drift, but is having a director engage in divisive type battle of the sexes conversations good for Disney or Star Wars? I have no issue at all with Sharmeen thinking what she thinks, but is that wise to say when the goal is to make a good financially viable movie?

I just believe have a male director saying he wanted to make females uncomfortable would be a wise move, or the opposite of that said by a female director. How does being divisive help you make a good movie that appeals to a large / broad audience?

Yeah, there would be a difference, because we live in a male dominated world. There would be no need for a male director to speak in such ways. I don't understand why it is so "controversial" to recognize the fact that males have an advantage in society. They do. It doesn't mean she hates men or anything, she just wants to be able to have the opportunity to do what she loves, and if that makes some males uncomfortable, she doesn't care. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, then she's not talking about you.
 

Maybe so, I still don’t think it is wise to say that in an interview. Why give people on YouTube a reason to throw shade towards you? There is now doubt this will give them ammo to potentially hurt her movies box office.

I don’t want Disney to be engaging in potentially divisive mess, I want them to just focus on making great content.
 
Maybe so, I still don’t think it is wise to say that in an interview. Why give people on YouTube a reason to throw shade towards you? There is now doubt this will give them ammo to potentially hurt her movies box office.

I don’t want Disney to be engaging in potentially divisive mess, I want them to just focus on making great content.
where does she say anything offensive in that interview? Is there another interview?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/20...istan-obaid-chinoy-123111aseg3-cnni-world.cnn

Please provide a link to her saying she wants to make people or men uncomfortable... her direct words and NOT someone's opinion of her. I just watched the interview only thing she says is about it being timely for her being the first woman/first person of color to direct a movie for Star Wars... why is that offensive?.... Folks are really reaching for something to be upset about...
 
where does she say anything offensive in that interview? Is there another interview?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/20...istan-obaid-chinoy-123111aseg3-cnni-world.cnn

Please provide a link to her saying she wants to make people or men uncomfortable... her direct words and NOT someone's opinion of her. I just watched the interview only thing she says is about it being timely for her being the first woman/first person of color to direct a movie for Star Wars... why is that offensive?.... Folks are really reaching for something to be upset about...
found it... I can see how it will make certain folks upset... but I think that is a good thing.

Here is the quote in its entirety (a different interview than the other link)

In the video, Chinoy is asked during a Women in the World Foundation panel, "What is the balance of activating a force for change, but also trying to permeate that patriarchy, that power structure, and is that a part of the calculation of your art as well and what's been the reaction to that?"

Chinoy replies: "Oh, absolutely. I like to make men uncomfortable. I enjoy making men uncomfortable ... it is important to be able to look into the eyes of a man and say, 'I am here' and recognize that. And recognize that I am working to bring something that makes you uncomfortable, and it should make you uncomfortable because you need to change your attitude.

And it's only when you're uncomfortable, when you are shifty, when you have to have difficult conversations that you will perhaps look at yourself in the mirror and not like the reflection and then say, maybe there is something wrong with the way I think or maybe there is something wrong with the way I am addressing this issue."


https://www.newsweek.com/sharmeen-obaid-chinoy-director-star-wars-disney-boycott-1857598
 
Last edited:
It’s an older clip, but it’s out there. Do a quick google search as there are about 15 articles with the quote in it as of this morning.
This is a film maker whose background includes being from Pakistan. I can respect that the treatment and challenges facing females around the world is not equal or the same in all countries. In some places it is VERY difficult to be a female. Considering that... her comments are not really that out there. She is heavily involved in female education initiatives in Pakistan.
 
This is a film maker whose background includes being from Pakistan. I can respect that the treatment and challenges facing females around the world is not equal or the same in all countries. In some places it is VERY difficult to be a female. Considering that... her comments are not really that out there. She is heavily involved in female education initiatives in Pakistan.
I understand that and even agree with you on that I have engineers that work for me from that part of the world and their views on things like this are drastically different from ours in the West.

Like I said I just want Disney to not engage in this divisive mess and make great movies. I don’t care your race or gender or gender identity. I want good Star Wars content, and for you to understand and respect Lucas’s vision for this universe.

This type of division between the fan base is not good for the long term health of Star Wars in my opinion. Let’s bring folks together and not push them apart please.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...mount-sale-shari-redstone-suitors-1235778461/

The Vultures Are Circling: Who Will Walk Away With Paramount?
As Shari Redstone decides how to part with her empire, a number of players have emerged as suitors — all with varying, and conflicting, motivations to make a bid for the historic studio.

by Alex Weprin
January 4, 2024

The most consequential entertainment business story of 2024 was kickstarted by two pro operators having a pre-Christmas meal. The Dec. 19 lunch between Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav and Paramount Global CEO Bob Bakish, held at Paramount’s New York office, instantly ignited a firestorm of “what ifs,” as the future of the storied studio was suddenly in question.

Is Paramount for sale? Or is controlling shareholder National Amusements? Or both? But the future of Paramount — and for that matter WBD — may be defined by a cast of characters straight out of central casting: A trio of scions forging their own path in the footsteps of their mogul fathers (Shari Redstone, David Ellison, Brian Roberts); a pair of self-made billionaire investors who find their fortunes tied up in the debt-laden companies at the heart of the deal (John Malone, Warren Buffett); and a handful of pro- fessional executives seeking moguldom — or at least a healthy return — on their own terms (Zaslav, Bakish, Gerry Cardinale).

THE DECIDER
Shari Redstone

Title President and CEO of National Amusements Inc., non-executive chair of Paramount Global
Paper value of Paramount holdings About $1 billion
Companies controlled National Amusements, Showcase Cinemas, Paramount, CBS
Family connection She inherited the media empire founded by her father, Sumner Redstone.

In August 2019, when the boards of Viacom and CBS officially decided to recombine the separate pieces of Sumner Redstone’s media empire, Shari Redstone used the opportunity to tout the saying her father was most famous for: “Content is king.”

“Never has that been more true than today,” Redstone said of the merger.

When the deal was announced, the combined value of the companies was about $30 billion. As of the end of the year, it was just below $10 billion. With Disney’s scale, Netflix taking off like a rocket ship, WBD’s finances improving and NBCUniversal benefiting from Comcast’s fire hose of cash, Paramount seems to be the odd man out, with analysts concerned about its debt and its ability to continue growing.

For Redstone, selling the company would be about securing whatever cash she can from her father’s empire, but also letting her forge her own legacy through her venture investment firm, Advancit Capital, exiting the family business to focus on other endeavors and allowing the rest of the Redstones to reap whatever financial rewards can be secured. As one connected source notes, Shari’s debt is only $1 billion at the National Amusements level, but that debt was being serviced by Paramount profit. When Paramount went all-in on streaming, the dividend that helped fund the Redstone family was slashed and NAI was under pressure, leading to a $125 million investment from the merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners. As for the leaks about the WBD meeting and Skydance dalliance…it always helps to spark some interest in the market.

THE OPPORTUNISTS
David Ellison & Gerry Cardinale

Title Founder and CEO of Skydance Media; founder and managing partner, RedBird Capital
Key holdings and investments Skydance, Skydance Sports, Skydance Animation, RedBird IMI, the UFL, SpringHill, Artists Equity
Family connection Ellison is the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison and brother of Annapurna Pictures founder Megan Ellison.
Thanks, partner Skydance has partnered with Paramount on films from the Star Trek, Transformers and Mission: Impossible franchises.

Larry Ellison made his billions as a technology mogul, founding the software giant Oracle. His children, however, have had their eyes on Hollywood for years. With Skydance in the midst of a significant expansion, David Ellison now covets the Paramount studio itself. Ellison’s Skydance partnered with RedBird Capital founder Gerry Cardinale, a former Goldman Sachs banker, to kick the tires on an acquisition of National Amusements, the Redstone family holding company.

If WBD is the obvious megamerger partner, Skydance and RedBird are the opportunists, seeking to buy control of Paramount at a discounted price (NAI owns only 10 percent of Paramount’s equity but controls 80 percent of its voting shares). If they were successful and wanted to split up the company, the Paramount studio and lot would turbocharge Skydance, while the CBS, sports and media assets would fit nicely into RedBird’s portfolio. Or if Ellison and Cardinale want the whole thing, two former media executives are already in the RedBird fold: Jeff Zucker, the ex-NBCUniversal and CNN chief who runs the fund RedBird IMI, and former NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell, who has been holding talks to join Cardinale’s firm. But as one source noted, if Ellison is successful, “Then what do you do? You would have to explain what you’re doing differently.” And in a challenged media environment, that’s easier said than done.

THE DEALMAKER
David Zaslav

Title CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery
Notable deals Scripps Interactive ($12 billion), WarnerMedia ($43 billion)
Signature moves Synergies and creative cost-cutting
Symbolic move Zaslav works from Jack Warner’s desk when he’s in Los Angeles.

David Zaslav’s career as a CEO has been defined by deals, from Scripps Networks to the golf emoji that kick-started the $43 billion WarnerMedia merger, giving him control of a Hollywood and sports power player.

So it should not be much of a surprise that when Zaslav strolled into Bakish’s office, he was happy to talk Paramount. After all, Zaslav already owns the late Robert Evans’ home in Beverly Hills — why not complete the package by securing his office, too?

But one well-connected source wonders: Does Zaslav really want all of Paramount? They think he has his eyes set on the CBS broadcast network, its local stations, CBS Sports and CBS News. Such a deal would bring a broadcast network into the WBD fold (important for deals with sports leagues), bring WBD into the mix with the NFL, reunite the March Madness rights under one roof and add other big sports rights, like The Masters, to WBD’s portfolio.

Zaslav’s bread and butter — cost-cutting and efficiency-hunting — could be let loose on the sports and news sides of the business, merging CBS News and CNN and CBS Sports and WBD Sports. Another source speculates that Zaslav might have other goals in mind, especially as rumors of an NBCUniversal/WBD tie-up have swirled: “If you’re Zas doing a deal with Comcast, you’re not in charge. If you’re Zas merging with Paramount, you are in charge.”

THE OPERATOR
Bob Bakish

Title CEO of Paramount Global
Key IP Star Trek, Mission: Impossible, SpongeBob SquarePants, PAW Patrol, South Park
Big bets Taylor Sheridan, Chris McCarthy, Pluto TV
Linear cutbacks Paramount has folded Showtime into Paramount+ and shut down such classic media brands as Showtime Sports and MTV News.

Just before Thanksgiving, before the Zaslav meeting, before any rumors of a Skydance dance, Paramount stock rallied thanks to a golden parachute.

The company revealed in a securities filing that Bob Bakish now has a change-in-control severance protection plan, colloquially known as a “golden parachute,” which would pay out in the event of a sale of the company. The disclosure fueled speculation (accurate, it seems) that Paramount and Redstone were thinking of their options.

Bakish rose to the top of Paramount thanks to his operational skills abroad and the trust he earned from Redstone. But his track record has been mixed: The Taylor Sheridan universe has been a bona fide win, but the reluctance (so far, at least) to sell off pieces like Showtime and BET has troubled Wall Street.

“You would have a massive clusterfuck to buy the studio,” one source says. “Could be a bidding war.” Does the strategy change at Paramount ahead of a sale? Or does he stay the course until there’s a new owner in town?

THE STRATEGIST
John Malone

Title Chairman of Liberty Media, board member of WBD
Net worth $10 billion, per Forbes
Nickname “The Cable Cowboy”
Also famous for Finding creative ways to avoid taxes, being the second-largest private land owner in the U.S.

In a media landscape filled with the children of moguls and wannabe moguls, John Malone is the rare self-made billionaire. He earned the nickname “The Cable Cowboy” for his aggressive M&A strategies in the telecom space and for his public fights with the FCC. Nowadays, he may be best known for owning more than 3,400 square miles of land in nine states, including Colorado, where he lives, and for his love of tax-avoidance strategies. (A recent CNBC interview saw an extended riff from him on grantor retained annuity trusts, or GRATs, a favorite tax scheme for the ultra-wealthy: “Estate planning is just driving me nuts these days,” Malone said.)

But beyond his holdings, Malone is a major shareholder in WBD and a mentor and adviser to Zaslav. The deal to merge WarnerMedia and Discovery required his blessing, and it was his suggestion of a Reverse Morris Trust transaction (and its tax-free benefits) that put WBD in its current unusual position: WBD can’t do any major deals until April to keep its tax benefits, but Malone has spoken frequently about the need for legacy media to consolidate in order to take on big tech.

Malone, 82, is firmly in legacy-building mode: He helped build the modern media industry via the consolidation of the cable TV sector, and now his protégé is running an entertainment powerhouse. He may want to shepherd one more deal — as long as it’s tax-free, of course.

THE EMPIRE BUILDER
Brian Roberts

Title Chairman and CEO of Comcast
Net worth $2.1 billion, per Forbes
Companies controlled Comcast Cable, NBCUniversal, Sky Group
Family connection Roberts took over Comcast from his father, founder Ralph Roberts.

The media industry has its share of scions turned moguls. Rupert Murdoch inherited his father’s Australian newspapers and turned them into a global conservative media empire. Brian Roberts took over his father’s regional cable system and turned it into a $175 billion cable and content behemoth. In a world where Paramount, WBD and NBCUniversal are seen as subscale compared to Netflix, Disney and Amazon, NBCU has one thing going for it: Comcast and its endless cash flow.

Roberts, like Zaslav, has long been eager to expand Comcast through M&A. The NBCU acquisition was a big success, though its 2014 attempt to buy Time Warner Cable failed (Charter ended up taking home the prize). Roberts is a big believer in the “transformative” deal.

But is Paramount or WBD the right deal to be had? Comcast president Mike Cavanagh told investors at a recent UBS conference that “the bar has to be really high” for a deal. Would WBD or Paramount meet that bar?

Or is Roberts holding out for something bigger, like a deal involving a video game company? Comcast and Electronic Arts previously held merger talks, though that deal fell apart over questions of valuation and control (Roberts wants his family to retain it). Perhaps other players in the space could be open to dealmaking.

One source thinks that Roberts was waiting for a bargain: “[He] was saying, ‘Let me watch Shari’s ice cube melt some more.’” But the WBD talks could ultimately spark something with one party or the other.

Or he could play spoiler using his company’s “fire hose of cash,” just as he did with Disney’s $71 billion Fox acquisition, which Comcast bid up before focusing on the Sky assets: “Roberts could jump in, or at least try to bid it up for whoever does buy it.”

THE CENTIBILLIONAIRE
Warren Buffett

Title Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway
Net worth $120 billion, per Forbes
Nickname “The Oracle of Omaha”
Key stock investments and owned companies Apple, American Express, Coca-Cola, Dairy Queen, Geico

The founder of Berkshire Hathaway has quietly amassed the largest economic stake in Paramount, with Berkshire holding more than 20 percent of the company’s nonvoting shares. When Berkshire first disclosed its Paramount purchase in May 2022, it caught even senior executives at the company off guard, sources say.

Executives at Paramount viewed Warren Buffett’s investment as an affirmation of their strategy. But the billionaire seems to have soured on the company.

Onstage at the CHI Health Center Arena in May in Omaha, Nebraska, Buffett was asked about the Paramount investment as part of his annual marathon Q&A session with Berkshire shareholders. “It’s not good news when any company cuts its dividend dramatically,” Buffett said of Paramount.

He was similarly bearish on the streaming business: “There are a lot of companies doing it, and you need fewer companies or you need higher prices, or it doesn’t work,” Buffett said. “You’ve got a bunch of companies that don’t want to quit. Who knows what pricing does under that?”

Now Buffett appears to be looking for an exit, and a sale could be the ticket to profitability for his investment…or at
least to break even.

As it happens, Buffett’s connections to the deal run a bit deeper: Buffett and Malone have known each other for decades, and Berkshire has poured billions into Malone-backed companies, including Liberty and Charter. And remember BDT & MSD Partners? It was co-founded by banker Byron Trott, who counts Buffett among his most notable clients.
Kim Masters contributed to this report.
This story appeared in the Jan. 4 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...erlmutter-jay-rasulo-fight-disney-1235777572/
Bob Iger Prepares for Ike’s Pirate Ship to Fire at Disney
As ousted Marvel mogul Ike Perlmutter and activist investor Nelson Peltz enlist former Disney exec Jay Rasulo in their quest to reshape the studio, the CEO faces a somewhat more credible challenge to his reign.

by Kim Masters
January 3, 2024 12:33pm PST

“You broke my heart.”

That’s what former Marvel Entertainment chairman and CEO Ike Perlmutter said to Bob Iger, according to The Wall Street Journal, when Iger made it clear in 2015 that he was not going to name veteran Disney executive and Perlmutter favorite Jay Rasulo as his eventual successor. (He anointed Tom Staggs instead, and Staggs was out the following year. Being a potential successor was hazardous duty at Disney, at least in those days.)

Iger’s relationship with Perlmutter went sharply downhill from there and last March, after incrementally stripping Perlmutter of his duties at Marvel, Iger ejected the contentious billionaire from the company altogether. Even before that happened, Perlmutter had backed his friend and Palm Beach neighbor, Nelson Peltz, in his quest for a seat on Disney’s board, which Peltz and Perlmutter argue is too cozy with Iger to be effective.

Peltz dropped that first run at Disney after Iger pledged to slash costs and lay off thousands of employees. But with Disney stock still languishing, Peltz and Perlmutter are back, having added Rasulo to the team. The goal is to get board seats for both Peltz and Rasulo and — one must suspect — eventually to install Rasulo in the CEO job that eluded him years ago. Presented with Peltz’s first run at the company, it would seem very possible that shareholders would dismiss him and Perlmutter as two 81-year-olds driven by Perlmutter’s quest for revenge.

But with Rasulo on board, they’ve added a respected longtime Disney executive. Rasulo had largely disappeared from the public eye, serving on various boards including iHeartMedia and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. In a Dec. 14 statement announcing his alliance with Peltz and Perlmutter, Rasulo said, “The Disney I know and love has lost its way.”

Says one Disney veteran, “Jay has credibility. He’s not some Palm Beach crank. He’s a very legitimate voice about where Disney was eight years ago. Ike is angry and eating three nights a week at Mar-a-Lago but Jay showing up on that side is a very significant event.”

Iger appears to be taking the challenge seriously, enlisting reinforcements of his own: On Jan. 3, Disney secured support from the Mason Morfit-led investment fund ValueAct Capital Management, which has agreed to back its board of director nominees as part of a strategic consulting deal. Meanwhile, shareholder and investment firm Blackwells Capital LLC may be a wild card in the mix. While a Blackwells exec stated Wednesday that Peltz should “end his peacocking,” in a nod to backing Iger, the firm also plans to nominate its own board members — Jessica Schell, Craig Hatkoff and Leah Solivan — something that holds no appeal for Disney.

The question for Disney shareholders is whether they are antsy enough at this point to take a chance on the more credible Perlmutter-backed dissidents, whose talk of love and broken hearts is at odds with their cold-blooded reputations. Peltz is an activist investor who has swooped in on a broad assortment of companies that were seen as undervalued. Perlmutter is a controversy magnet with a well-established reputation for squeezing a dollar until it begs for mercy.

Rasulo was just the sort of tough executive Perlmutter would favor: One Disney veteran describes him as effective but also as “sort of a blunt instrument” as he made tough budget cuts and sometimes referred to other executives as “children playing at business.” A Disney insider rolls his eyes at Rasulo’s claim that he is jumping into the fray out of love for the company. “If that was really his motive he wouldn’t try to engage in a fight along with Nelson frigging Peltz and Ike Perlmutter,” he says. “Ike wants retribution and Peltz wants a fast buck. They don’t give a **** about the company.”

Perlmutter’s longtime attorney, John Turitzin, bristles at that. “It’s an absurd suggestion to make,” he says.

“[Perlmutter] has got, I don’t know how many billions of dollars tied up in Disney. He’s not going to [play] a revenge game with the majority of his personal wealth.” (Perlmutter became one of Disney’s largest individual shareholders when he sold Marvel to Disney for $4 billion in 2009. Turitzin says he has never sold a share.)

Perlmutter is very much a self-made man who was never a natural fit at Disney, which has always tried to front executives who present a friendly face to the public. Before Disney and the other legacy entertainment companies were engulfed in troubles, Iger was the smooth, deft embodiment of that idea. For most of that time, Perlmutter presented no face at all: Photographs of him were all but nonexistent until Donald Trump appointed him as an adviser on veterans affairs. (That led to a ProPublica investigation and an allegation from House Democrats that Perlmutter and two other Mar-a-Lago associates had illegally tried to influence government officials “to further their own personal interests.” At one point Veterans Administration officials, ringing the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange during an event to promote suicide-prevention, were startled when Captain America turned up beside them on the podium as Spider-Man waved from the trading floor below.)

For years, Perlmutter made waves at Disney, in part because of thrift that was extreme to the point of fishing paperclips out of waste-paper baskets. And there was more. In 2012, Financial Times reported that he had driven several executives out of Disney’s consumer products division, including the chairman of the highly profitable unit, and three African American women who sought financial settlements. Another woman was moved to a different division after alleging that Perlmutter had threatened her, saying he had a bullet with her name on it. Both Disney and Perlmutter declined to comment at the time. (Perlmutter, known to carry a gun, was named in a 2018 bribery trial when former NYPD Sgt. David Villanueva testified that he had helped expedite the renewal of Perlmutter’s gun license.)

When Marvel replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle in the 2010 Iron Man sequel, Perlmutter was reported to have told a Disney executive that the move saved money and no one would notice because Black people look the same. Turitzin says Perlmutter has told him that he never made that comment.

In his memoir, Iger wrote that Perlmutter had stood in the way of two of Marvel’s groundbreaking films. “I called Ike and told him to tell his team to stop putting up roadblocks and ordered that we put both Black Panther and Captain Marvel into production,” Iger wrote. At that point, Marvel’s Kevin Feige was said to be on the brink of leaving the company. Perlmutter’s attorney Turitzin says the mogul resisted Black Panther, which was the first to go into production, “not because [he was] racist but because it had never been done before” and its success wasn’t guaranteed.

In the year since Iger returned as CEO, Disney has faced numerous well-documented challenges: losses at the streamer (which Iger has pledged will be profitable in 2024), a faltering performance from animated films, a Marvel slump and more. Above all, the stock is still stalled. Major institutional shareholders are waiting to see what specific proposals the Peltz triumvirate will present in the weeks ahead, before Disney’s still-unscheduled annual meeting.

With the company’s array of problems that don’t lend themselves to quick fixes, will shareholders be drawn to Peltz’s pitch? One longtime Disney exec thinks Rasulo will make all the difference. “It’s going to be a long, cold winter at Disney and these guys are going to make the most of it,” he says. “They’re going to go for it and they’re going to get something.”

A version of this story appeared in the Jan. 4 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.
 
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/groupm-nbcu-disney-roku-youtube-streaming-commercials-1235860893/

Jan 4, 2024 6:00am PST
by Brian Steinberg

GroupM Teams With NBCU, Disney, Roku, YouTube in Bid to Bolster Streaming Ads

One of the nation’s biggest investors of ad dollars wants to push big large streamers to work together when it comes to commercials.

GroupM, the large media-buying unit of European ad conglomerate WPP. is launching a group that aims to make the process of buying and placing ads in streaming environments easier for marketers. GroupM has formed a partnership with media owners Disney, Roku, NBCUniversal and YouTube, along with ad-tech firms including KERV, BrightLine; and Telly. This consortium aims to press for new advertising formats on streaming services, which attract a coterie of viewers who are eager to avoid commercials as much as possible, and then will urge for standardized measurement elements that can be used no matter the platform on which the ad appears.

“We have an opportunity right now that is similar to the opportunity we have with measurement, to really define what the next five to ten years look like,” says Mike Fisher, executive director of investment innovation at GroupM U.S., during an interview.

As more consumers abandon traditional TV watching for streaming video on demand, Madison Avenue is eager to follow them. But the migration is wreaking havoc on the economic underpinnings of the media sector. Advertisers that once created a single commercials and played it across dozens of different networks must now tailor a new slate of interactive or addressable pitches to the varying technology at play on, say, Peacock, Netflix and Hulu.

The looming launch of a new ad tier for Amazon Prime Video only threatens to create another venue that will require navigation. According to a GroupM ad-spending forecast, ad dollars placed into connected TV will rise 14.9% in North America in 2024, up from 9.4% in 2023.

GroupM hopes to add more media sellers to the new partnership, says Fisher. But it sees the venture as benefitting only clients at GroupM agencies, which include Mindshare, Wavemaker and EssenceMediacom.

The hope, says Fisher, is that the new partnership can prod media outlets to be more in tune with what advertisers need. “We are going to push them on proving this stuff works. We are going to ask them for data that they have that proves this stuff works beyond simple click rates or engagement time or duration. We want true qualitative measurement on the impact this has on our clients’ advertising.

The new group will start its work in early 2024. Partners have agreed to hold quarterly meetings to establish goals; to launch pilot programs in the first quarter of this year; to jointly create ad formats that can be used across media outlets so that all parties can test and research them; and to determine a new set of standards and practices upon which the new advertising can be judged.

Working group members will collaborate with GroupM advertisers expressing interest
in testing new formats and processes. Benchmark testing will be finalized in early 2024 ahead of planning that must take place for the industry’s next upfront market, when media companies try to sell the bulk of their commercial inventory for their next cycle of programming.
 
This is a film maker whose background includes being from Pakistan. I can respect that the treatment and challenges facing females around the world is not equal or the same in all countries. In some places it is VERY difficult to be a female. Considering that... her comments are not really that out there. She is heavily involved in female education initiatives in Pakistan.

I mean, that's the thing. her comments shouldn't be offensive to anybody. She didn't say anything bad about anybody. If they do offend you, then you are the problem, not her. People with attitudes like that should be challenged.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/01/04/ncaa-tv-deal-espn/

ESPN, NCAA strike $920 million deal to keep 40 championships on network
By Ben Strauss
January 4, 2024 at 11:45 a.m. EST

ESPN and the NCAA announced a new TV package Thursday worth nearly $1 billion that will keep the majority of college championships on the network for eight more years. The women’s basketball tournament, which is surging in popularity and has been undervalued as a TV property, is part of the new deal, despite some calls for it to be split off to maximize its potential.
The new deal covers 21 women’s and 19 men’s sports, among them baseball, softball and women’s gymnastics.

The NCAA’s previous deal was widely considered one of the most under-market deals in all of sports. ESPN, in 2010, agreed to pay $500 million to broadcast most of the association’s championships for 14 years, an average of about $35 million a year. The current deal will pay the association $920 million, or on average $115 million each year.

The men’s basketball tournament (eight years, $8.8 billion) and College Football Playoff (12 years, $5.64 billion) have their own massive television deals. Conferences control the TV rights for regular season games.

Two years ago, the value of the women’s basketball tournament became national news after players published a series of videos on social media about the substandard locker rooms and weight rooms for women versus their male counterparts. The NCAA at the time said the women’s tournament was worth about 15 percent of the value of its TV deal, or an average of less than $6 million annually over the 14 years. The NCAA commissioned a study in the aftermath of the tournament that found the women’s tournament could be worth more than $100 million as a stand-alone TV property. That figure, ultimately, proved too lofty. But according to a person with knowledge of the new deal, the NCAA has assigned the women’s basketball tournament a value of $65 million, a more than 10-fold increase.

Last year, the championship game of the women’s tournament, between Iowa and LSU and featuring star players Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, drew an average of nearly 10 million viewers, a sign of the sport’s continued growth.

“The NCAA has worked in earnest over the past year to ensure that this new broadcast agreement provides the best possible outcome for all NCAA championships, and in particular women’s championships,” said Charlie Baker, NCAA president. “Over the past several years, ESPN has demonstrated increased investment in NCAA championship coverage, and the Association is pleased to continue to provide a platform for student-athletes to shine.”
 
Maybe so, I still don’t think it is wise to say that in an interview. Why give people on YouTube a reason to throw shade towards you? There is now doubt this will give them ammo to potentially hurt her movies box office.

I don’t want Disney to be engaging in potentially divisive mess, I want them to just focus on making great content.

Yep Social media is a thing. It can be an unfair influence for all involved. Those of us that want to go see great content is fine and all, but if there's a related negative financial impact-its bad for everyone. I never understand feeding that beast-although I'm not sure what was said or implied. Either way Disney will eventually find out if it worked or not I suppose. I just want it not only great, but a very successful box office run. That helps the company and future projects the most.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mechanic

https://deadline.com/2024/01/bill-m...od-studio-sold-for-parts-1235693561/#comments

Bill Mechanic Argues Against Paramount Global Becoming The Second Fabled Hollywood Studio Stripped Down & Sold For Parts: Guest Column

By Bill Mechanic
January 4, 2024 9:11am PST

Editor’s note: Underplayed in the media intrigue over the prospect of Warner Bros swallowing Shari Redstone’s empire that includes Paramount and CBS is the gloomy reality that another storied Hollywood studio could go the way of Fox. That went from a vibrant, multi-faceted creative content-generating enterprise to a headstone when Rupert Murdoch decided to cash out for Disney stock. David Zaslav spent 2023 kicking employees and finished films to the curb to pay down debt just to get this far; chances are more blood will spill down Melrose if Redstone sells some or all the pieces of Paramount to be mashed into an existing studio. When Bill Mechanic was perched atop Paramount, Disney and Fox, he built Disney’s home video from a $30 million to $3 billion business and found ways to take risks and squeeze max returns from blockbusters from Braveheart to Titanic, Independence Day and many others. Who better to remind Hollywood that once a major studio dies, it never comes back, and that there might be better ways to squeeze better performance out of an established creative business with global pipelines?

Once upon a time, when the L.A. Times was home delivered and read by millions, movies were a dominant form of entertainment. Jim Murray, the legendary columnist, wrote at the time, Los Angeles is “a place where you get 100 days for murder but 6 months for whipping a dog.”

It’s also a place that was called the Movie Capital of the World, though by now that is the hollowest of crowns. Few movies are made here and fewer still are worth talking about. In fact, it’s quickly becoming a place where movie studios come to rest before dying.

In the last few years, independents have been shuttered and one of the Majors, 20th Century Fox, was dumped by Murdoch and devoured by Disney like a shark devours chum, a hundred years of history eviscerated. Rumors currently abound about another of the original studios, Paramount, being acquired by WB-Discovery. If that happens, you can stop looking for it on Melrose. Look instead on Boot Hill.

Why should any care what happens to Paramount, which barely even thinks of itself as a movie company these days? Because for those of us who work in movies as well as those who simply love them, the conglomerates, the pipes, that own the studios don’t give a rat’s *** about movies or the people that care about them. For the most part they’re all making the same pictures, surprised when something original like Barbie or Oppenheimer resonate in the world (the two biggest movies of the year is a fair amount of resonance). They don’t care about diversity or communal experience and they have about as much vision as Mr. Magoo (if he’s not a forgotten reference). When WB disappeared into the smothering embrace of AT&T, they put someone in charge who was too clever for his own good, in much the same way that MLB owners hired a bunch of book-smart but street-dumb Ivy League analytics experts who used statistics to run their teams into the ground. The AT&T/WB exec chased the White Whale of streaming and myopically put a dagger in the film world while dragging down WB’s own finances to the point it was wiped away by an opportunistic Discovery; the same one now trying to absorb Paramount clearly for reasons that have nothing to do with movies—the studio is simply collateral damage.

The damage to the movie ecosystem during the AT&T reign was far greater than either the pandemic or this year’s strikes. There is no question both hit the business hard, but like restaurants or grocery stores, it would have rebounded. The move to dump everything day-and-date destroyed the confidence of the “pipes” in the tried and true business of sequential distribution, narrowed the definition of what deserves to be shown in theatres, and destroyed the regular availability of a wide range of movies (not to mention severely injuring the exhibition business). The inconstancy in attendance is not because former moviegoers want to stay locked up in their homes chewing food while wondering how many episodes are left to binge. They can’t go to theatres because for what in now “suitable for theatrical” reeks of a sameness which tells them their choices don’t matter. There’s simply nothing to see. If you aren’t interested in superhero movies or animated films, then your only choice is movies with minuscule budgets, often depressing even when they’re exceptional. No surprise again last year when Everything Everywhere All at Once broke out since it had a big enough budget to be fun and ambitious even with some of the same subject matter as the so-called art films.

When the film business originally evolved, it was owned mainly by businessmen, the Moguls, who lived or died based on making films their audiences wanted. Ignore their wishes and you’d perish. When one indeed failed in the task of satisfying customers, inevitably they were bought by those who were successful in other businesses, whether that was parking lots or cigar factories. The movie business was more interesting. Made them more important. And yes, buried in there was a love of film.

Do any of the studios love movies today? Sure, there are plenty of good people in every studio but does the studio itself display that love? I’d argue not enough. Things are made because something else like it worked or it was based on a piece of high profile IP ( hate the term). To quote Fight Club, “a copy of a copy,” not what someone’s gut is telling them might just work. Every time something original breaks through, it’s because the talent is pushing it, not the studio. Without Margot Robbie, there’s no Greta Gerwig and without Gerwig there’s no originality to Barbie. Chris Nolan, who’s love and appreciation of movies and audiences supporting movies is a godsend, is the sole reason we were treated to Oppenheimer. It certainly wasn’t the studio looking for a three plus hour movie, partially in black and white, about the invention of the Atom bomb!

No, here’s the adage that I believe is a great truth, yet is often made light of: what works are good movies. Movies people want to talk about, want to tell others about, want to see with audiences, want to laugh or cry or sit in scared silence surrounded by people. Stop asking why the original pictures work—they work when they are good.

For the corporate owners of the studios, however, it’s a quest for content, a quest to own what flows through their own pipes so revenue doesn’t get shared. With talent. With theatres. With cable. Greed, as Gordon Gekko said, is good. Today, when a film doesn’t reach a billion in revenue, it’s a waste of resources. Good never enters the equation. If it breaks a billion and no one likes it, don’t worry. Make a sequel.

Size is viewed as a more important asset. Take over a competitor and you gain leverage. One plus one equals three in their minds; so far one plus one, however, doesn’t seem to even equal two. The Majors today are all losing hundreds of millions chasing Netflix and other streamers they ironically helped create (giving them all the product they needed flourish), most blindly barreling along that chase, thinking they see all despite groping the stairs unlit. They don’t realize movies aren’t fueling growth in streaming, but rather are victims of it. In perusing Netflix’s viewing data release, only eight movies are in the top 300 most watched and none are major films. As a consumer, I find it impossible to track down virtually any movie I might have missed in theatres.

This is not a piece against the streamers. They are doing a great job at what they should be doing, forging their place in today’s entertainment world, and Amazon through their purchase of MGM are actually giving theatrical life to some of their films.

No, as they say, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us. The studios control the life blood of movies and yet stopped caring about their offspring. Paramount, short of the Tom Cruise offerings, haven’t focused much at all on theatrical, so if it disappears, the result may be akin to the sound of a tree falling in a forest.

Industry pundits (few with actually experience in the business) will challenge whether a stand alone studio can flourish today. That’s the same thinking that led to so many to doubt that a stand alone electric car company could survive in the face of the Big 3, the Germans, the Japanese, and Korean auto giants. The answer is self-evident in both cases. There is room for the exceptional to innovate. Just don’t try to be like Mike; not only can’t you be like Jordan but copying him only makes it worse. Chart your own course and ignore whether someone’s bigger. Worry about being better. Size can be as much a deterrent to success as an enhancement. Big often leads to smugness, ignoring what the public wants, even it doesn’t know what it wants until it sees it. Big often leads to manufacturing and selling what’s sold before, not the next thing. Big can also lead to a bureaucratic miasma stifling innovation. Sound like our business?

Focusing on making and perhaps just as importantly on figuring out how to market and distribute movies in the cluttered entertainment world would need to become the priority business for a stand alone studio. Controlling costs, being nimble, and with no holds barred, being movie centric would make such a studio one that talent would gravitate to. Remember it’s not just trusting the studio head, but the owners, especially after the last few years of indifference to talent.

The one glimmer out there for Paramount is that Skydance is also interested in acquiring the studio. While they’ve largely focused on big action films, it’s clear that David Ellison, like his sister, Megan, grew up loving films and that puts them in a different category. The guess is any sale will come down to the biggest check, but one can hope that Shari Redstone, coming from a lineage of theatrical exhibitors and running the family chain for most of her professional life, will opt give us all a bit more life if the bids are close.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/2023-global-revenue-box-office-1235779026/

2023 Box Office: Global Revenue Clears Estimated $33.9B in 31 Percent Gain Over Prior Year

Leading London-based analytics firm Gower Street has issued its yearly estimate for total movie ticket sales across the globe last year.

by Pamela McClintock
January 4, 2024 2:29am PST

It was a Barbenheimer and Super Mario world in 2023.

Barbie, The Super Mario Bros. Movie and Oppenheimer led the pack of films propelling global box office revenue to $33.9 billion, according to estimates released Thursday by leading U.K.-based analytics firm Gower Street.

That’s a gain of 31 percent over 2022, but was 15 percent behind the average of the three years before the pandemic (2015-2019). Translated, movie ticket sales have yet to match the levels enjoyed before the COVID-19 crisis struck, whether on a global scale, domestically or internationally.

Leading U.S.-based firm Comscore said earlier this week that domestic box office revenue hit $9.05 billion in 2023, a 21 percent uptick over 2022 and a post-pandemic best.

Gower Street shows international box office revenue making a bigger comeback at $24.8 billion, a year-over-year gain of 35 percent.

Excluding China, foreign revenue was $17.1 billion in 2023, a 20 percent year-over-year increase, according to Gower.

China exceeded expectations in delivering $7.71 billion — an enormous 83 percent gain over 2022 and only 6 percent behind the pre-pandemic 2017-2019 average, according to Gower. China’s box office received a powerful boost in recent days from Shining One Thing.

Looking ahead to 2024, Gower is already predicting that box office revenue could trail 2023 levels by as much as 7 percent because of strike-related delays and massive disruptions to the release calendar.

In 2022, worldwide box office revenue was $25.9 billion, versus $21.3 billion in 2021. That pales in comparison to pre-pandemic global revenue, including $42.3 billion in 2019.

Two movies crossed $1 billion globally in 2023; Warner Bros.’ Barbie ($1.44 billion) and Universal/Illumination’s The Super Mario Bros. Movie ($1.36 billion), both of which shattered numerous records. Universal’s Oppenheimer followed at No. 3 on the global chart with $952 million, a record for a biographical drama. Disney and Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 placed fourth with $845.6 million — almost as much as the sequel — while Universal’s Fast X rounded out the top five with $704.8 million, fueled by overseas numbers.

The Asia Pacific region accounted for 39 percent of global box office revenue in 2023. China contributed the vast majority, or 32 percent, according to Gower. North America contributed 27 percent, as did Europe, Africa and the Middle East (combined). Latin America made up the remaining 8 percent.
 
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/disney-plus-bundled-free-charter-spectrum-tv-1235861655/

Jan 4, 2024 9:26am PST
by Todd Spangler

Disney+ Is Now Included Free for Charter’s Spectrum TV Select Customers
ESPN+ to join cable operator's lineup in the coming months as well

Disney+ is now included as part of the pay-TV bundle on Charter’s Spectrum TV Select tier.

Charter Communications and the Walt Disney Co. announced that the ad-supported version of Disney+ (called Disney+ Basic, priced normally at $7.99/month) is now available in all Spectrum TV Select packages nationwide at no additional cost.

Disney+ Basic launched on the Spectrum cable TV package under the companies’ new carriage agreement, reached in September 2023 after a 12-day blackout of Disney’s networks on Charter systems.

Spectrum TV Select customers can get more info and activate their Disney+ Basic subscription by creating an account for free at this link. Eligible Charter customers who already have Disney+ can go to the website or app where they signed up for Disney+ to manage their subscriptions and receive a credit for the service.

To access Disney+, Spectrum subscribers must use an internet-connected streaming device, such as the recently launched Xumo Stream Box or any other Disney+ supported device.

In addition to Disney+ Basic, Charter plans to begin including complimentary access to ESPN+ in its Spectrum TV Select Plus video package in the coming months.

Disney+ is the streaming home for movies and shows from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and National Geographic, as well as exclusive original programs, documentaries, live-action and animated series, and short-form content. Programming coming to Disney+ includes additional episodes of “Percy Jackson and the Olympians,” as well as the premieres of Marvel Studios’ “Echo,” “Doctor Who,” “Star Wars: The Acolyte” and other films and series from Disney.

“With the launch of the Disney+ Basic offer, TV Select customers can now enjoy access to Disney’s popular streaming content as well as their high-quality linear TV channels, all included as part of one video package,” said Tom Montemagno, EVP of programming acquisition for Charter.

The addition of Disney+ alongside a lineup of the Mouse House’s TV channels “brings the best of both worlds from Disney’s unrivaled entertainment portfolio to Charter’s video customers,” said Justin Connolly, Disney’s president of platform distribution, The Walt Disney Company. “Our goal has always been to meet consumers where they are, and these collective offerings will maximize value for Spectrum TV Select customers while simultaneously broadening the audience of our advertiser supported streaming services.”
 



New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top