Pure fantasy, The FTC and FCC would never allow a media conglomerate that large and if a merger would be allowed the divestment of assets would be so large that there would be no point in merger therefore it will never happen.
1: CBS and before that Viacom where allowed to own 2 major networks (CBS + UPN), there is no reason why that should be the case.
2: Warner-Paramount would only have a 26% share of the box office in the US (and less overseas), that is not monopolistic
3: Same as above
4: It will face strong and growing comptition from Starz, Amazon and Netflix, maybe even Google and Apple in the future, along with Comcast
5: Again there is strong comptition for kids tv, which is the only overlapping issue apart from premium networks
A TimeWarner-Viacom merger would have been blocked 10 years ago, however the rise of Amazon, Netflix, Comcast and maybe even Google and Apple in the media market has made worries about comptition a loss less of a issue, 10 years ago a Comcast-TWC would have not been allowed, now it is happening...
Skins (the US version) and Teen Wolf, the first only lasted one series, the latter is made by MGM Television, so MTV might not automatically have the UK rights to the latter...
Hopefully but one thing that concerns me is VIVA is barely broadcast quality on Freeview. It looks absolutely horrendous on my television and I'm not exaggerating. If they think that's passable then--- ?
Viva's PQ is terrible even on Sky, so on Fuzzyvision it is bound to be worse.
I hope that final paragraph doesn't take us off course again.
This is something that many people think will happen. A US network buys another channel and programmes linked with them will suddenly be shown on their instead.
Programme rights bring in a lot of money for the networks, they are going to choose to get as much return as they can over putting it on of their channels, as doing this reduces the money they make.
Northern and Shell of course had no experience in running a mainstream tv network prior to acquiring Channel 5 but they have sold it on at a significant profit after only a few years.
Well based on their financial and content records they did not do anthing like enough to justify a 3 X increase in the value of the company.
They have experience as you say in films, reality tv and comedy plus children's programming. Looking at the existing C5 schedule there are clearly tremendous synergies between what C5 currently does and what Viacom specialises in. There are tremendous opportunities for cross overs and cross promotion between C5 and Viacom's UK and US channels.
I agree with this the ideas in relation to films, reality tv, comedy, children's programming and promotion, they should make the most of it
CBS Studios International is a sister company so relations there should open prospects with regard to some US series acquisitions (without any need for a merger!).
They need to make the most of this to fill the gaps in archive programming and drama...
Viacom has a turnover of around £1.5bn in the US and turned profits last year of over £300m. It is not some naïve start up but a major player. It has experienced managers and will no doubt keep some of the existing C5 team.
What I meant was mainstream network television, especially in the UK, hence they will need the current C5 staff
Viacom own some decent channels, paramount tv, comedy central, mtv... Will be really interesting to see if anything from those channels makes the transition.
Anyone know how soon we are likely to see change?
They also own Paramount Pictures, so expect a lot of films from them appearing on Channel 5
They also own Paramount Pictures, so expect a lot of films from them appearing on Channel 5
It does not follow, Viacom might get more from right sales from other channels, also itv owns lots of film rights but seldom air films from there library.
It does not follow, Viacom might get more from right sales from other channels, also itv owns lots of film rights but seldom air films from there library.
I think he was talking about archive Paramount Pictures, Pre-2009 Dreamworks, Pre-2013 Dreamworks Animation, Republic Pictures (which owns the libraries of several studios that are now no longer in business), plus My Fair Lady and It's a Wonderful Life (gusssing C5 will be showing it for Christmas every time...)
Viacom is keen to bolster links between its US and UK assets once it completes its £450m acquisition of Channel 5, ramping up coproduction opportunities between the British broadcaster and the likes of MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon. The US giant has committed to boosting C5’s spend on originations, but will do so with one eye on its global network.
The Viacom deal also paves the way for originated scripted series to return to C5, with UK projects receiving backing from US channels, and for C5’s reality and popular factual shows to air overseas. There will also be scope for C5, MTV and Comedy Central to work together on acquisitions. Viacom will look to bolster C5’s daytime acquisitions, which largely comprise older series such as Columbo.
Many of C5’s major US acquisitions, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and NCIS, are sold globally by CBS Studios International, a sister company to Viacom, also owned by Sumner Redstone, meaning that they are unlikely to be affected by a change in ownership.
I hope that final paragraph doesn't take us off course again...
All I am going to say is that Viacom's plans are starting to look good (although thin in detail for now), comedy/reality tv/kids shows wise, they already have a good start, along with showing classic and fairly recent films.
Now where there is a gap, is drama and archive content this can be adressed with CBS Television Studios, which produces a lot of drama and has a vast tv show archive, which includes pretty much everything made by CBS/Paramount Television/Viacom Productions/Desilu Productions/Pre-1973 ABC + NBC etc.
I hope the new owners sort our their demand five service, the amount of adverts on that is atrocious. My mum tried to watch a programme and it played five adverts, the sponsorship ads for the programme then it repeated the same adverts before the sponsorship adverts and It did that for 10 minutes before the programme finally decided to start.
I hope the new owners sort our their demand five service, the amount of adverts on that is atrocious. My mum tried to watch a programme and it played five adverts, the sponsorship ads for the programme then it repeated the same adverts before the sponsorship adverts and It did that for 10 minutes before the programme finally decided to start.
It's inconsistent.
It has been known for Demand 5 to carry no adverts at the start and very few if any during.
I thought the whole idea of these on demand services was to watch the programme ad free? Since when did adverts start invading these services?
Channel 5 obviously needs to pay for the catch-up rights somehow. If your pay-TV operator has a deal with Channel 5 then these may be advert-free but otherwise they will be funded by advertising. (I'm not sure what, if any, advert-free catch-up deals exist between Channel 5 and UK pay-tv companies.)
No UK Network has proper allifiates because of the size of our country.
ITV operated a lot like that when it was 15+ separate regional conpanies. Remnants of that structure remain, the ITV affiliate for Scotland is STV, and the one for Northern Ireland is UTV.
Technically, regional ITV was more like PBS, in that the regional broadcasters 'owned' the ITV network rather than the other way round. With ITV plc owning most (but not all) of the stations on the ITV Network, present-day ITV is much closer to the US Network/Affiliate model than it used to be!
ITV operated a lot like that when it was 15+ separate regional conpanies. Remnants of that structure remain, the ITV affiliate for Scotland is STV, and the one for Northern Ireland is UTV.
Technically, regional ITV was more like PBS, in that the regional broadcasters 'owned' the ITV network rather than the other way round. With ITV plc owning most (but not all) of the stations on the ITV Network, present-day ITV is much closer to the US Network/Affiliate model than it used to be!
Ok, I meant ITV was the only model that is left that resembles US Networks, but even that remains limited since ITV plc own nearly all the stations. I also think that if Scotland remains in the Union, ITV will also buy STV...
Apart from that I agree with what you have said...
Ah, thanks for the clarification.:) "CBS owned Showtime" should have had a hyphen between "CBS" and "owned." That would have made his/her meaning clear.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.:) "CBS owned Showtime" should have had a hyphen between "CBS" and "owned." That would have made his/her meaning clear.
What I was meant to was that:
CBS owned Showtime and AMC are rivals these days, I was not talking about CBS itself and AMC...
ITV operated a lot like that when it was 15+ separate regional conpanies. Remnants of that structure remain, the ITV affiliate for Scotland is STV, and the one for Northern Ireland is UTV.
Technically, regional ITV was more like PBS, in that the regional broadcasters 'owned' the ITV network rather than the other way round. With ITV plc owning most (but not all) of the stations on the ITV Network, present-day ITV is much closer to the US Network/Affiliate model than it used to be!
*Actually*.... the ITV Franchise owned the licence to broadcast using the IBA's VHF & UHF network.
this new CSI spin-off is going to be a really good test for the new Channel 5, I think the fact the latest series of CSI has not even started yet, is a worrying sign however.
this new CSI spin-off is going to be a really good test for the new Channel 5, I think the fact the latest series of CSI has not even started yet, is a worrying sign however.
Not remotely worrying. As soon as The Mentalist (which is normally fast-tracked anyway) was moved to Tuesdays where CSI traditionally airs, it was bleedingly obvious that it would be starting no earlier than late May/early June.
It means nothing.
That said, I'm not sure whether a spinoff focussing exclusively on cyber crime has legs personally, so I wouldn't be too alarmed were Five not to buy it. It may be for the best.
Comments
1: CBS and before that Viacom where allowed to own 2 major networks (CBS + UPN), there is no reason why that should be the case.
2: Warner-Paramount would only have a 26% share of the box office in the US (and less overseas), that is not monopolistic
3: Same as above
4: It will face strong and growing comptition from Starz, Amazon and Netflix, maybe even Google and Apple in the future, along with Comcast
5: Again there is strong comptition for kids tv, which is the only overlapping issue apart from premium networks
A TimeWarner-Viacom merger would have been blocked 10 years ago, however the rise of Amazon, Netflix, Comcast and maybe even Google and Apple in the media market has made worries about comptition a loss less of a issue, 10 years ago a Comcast-TWC would have not been allowed, now it is happening...
Skins (the US version) and Teen Wolf, the first only lasted one series, the latter is made by MGM Television, so MTV might not automatically have the UK rights to the latter...
Maybe they can show the US Version of Skins...
This is something that many people think will happen. A US network buys another channel and programmes linked with them will suddenly be shown on their instead.
Programme rights bring in a lot of money for the networks, they are going to choose to get as much return as they can over putting it on of their channels, as doing this reduces the money they make.
NO IT WON'T
Well based on their financial and content records they did not do anthing like enough to justify a 3 X increase in the value of the company.
I would count them as specialised channels...
I agree with this the ideas in relation to films, reality tv, comedy, children's programming and promotion, they should make the most of it
The "new" Viacoms track record for tv drama is thin, although they want to change this...
They need to make the most of this to fill the gaps in archive programming and drama...
What I meant was mainstream network television, especially in the UK, hence they will need the current C5 staff
I agree...
They also own Paramount Pictures, so expect a lot of films from them appearing on Channel 5
It does not follow, Viacom might get more from right sales from other channels, also itv owns lots of film rights but seldom air films from there library.
I think he was talking about archive Paramount Pictures, Pre-2009 Dreamworks, Pre-2013 Dreamworks Animation, Republic Pictures (which owns the libraries of several studios that are now no longer in business), plus My Fair Lady and It's a Wonderful Life (gusssing C5 will be showing it for Christmas every time...)
I hope that final paragraph doesn't take us off course again...
All I am going to say is that Viacom's plans are starting to look good (although thin in detail for now), comedy/reality tv/kids shows wise, they already have a good start, along with showing classic and fairly recent films.
Now where there is a gap, is drama and archive content this can be adressed with CBS Television Studios, which produces a lot of drama and has a vast tv show archive, which includes pretty much everything made by CBS/Paramount Television/Viacom Productions/Desilu Productions/Pre-1973 ABC + NBC etc.
It has been known for Demand 5 to carry no adverts at the start and very few if any during.
Then sometimes you get absolutely hammered.
The whole website really needs a makeover by the new owner, Viacom will be keen to do that as they will want to step there mark.
ITV operated a lot like that when it was 15+ separate regional conpanies. Remnants of that structure remain, the ITV affiliate for Scotland is STV, and the one for Northern Ireland is UTV.
Technically, regional ITV was more like PBS, in that the regional broadcasters 'owned' the ITV network rather than the other way round. With ITV plc owning most (but not all) of the stations on the ITV Network, present-day ITV is much closer to the US Network/Affiliate model than it used to be!
CBS does not own AMC.
He meant Showtime Vs AMC not the ownership
Ok, I meant ITV was the only model that is left that resembles US Networks, but even that remains limited since ITV plc own nearly all the stations. I also think that if Scotland remains in the Union, ITV will also buy STV...
Apart from that I agree with what you have said...
Ah, thanks for the clarification.:) "CBS owned Showtime" should have had a hyphen between "CBS" and "owned." That would have made his/her meaning clear.
What I was meant to was that:
CBS owned Showtime and AMC are rivals these days, I was not talking about CBS itself and AMC...
He's right though, your grammar and sentence structure was bad, and you've just repeated it here.
If you put the CBS-owned Showtime and AMC are rivals it would make a lot more sense.
*Actually*.... the ITV Franchise owned the licence to broadcast using the IBA's VHF & UHF network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6-Xdi5nN8
It means nothing.
That said, I'm not sure whether a spinoff focussing exclusively on cyber crime has legs personally, so I wouldn't be too alarmed were Five not to buy it. It may be for the best.