ESPN’s John Skipper doesn’t see any benefits in new TV models – yet.
ESPN chief John Skipper is happy to talk to any of the so-called new over-the-top Web video players surfing around the fringes of the cable TV business. But he doesn’t see any major deals happening soon — if ever.
In a conversation with Reuters at this year’s cable show, Skipper was blunt about his skepticism over the idea his network – the best paid in the business according to SNL Kagan data — could work with a new Web partner, a tie-up that may in some way threaten the cozy $100 billion a year cable programmer-distributor relationship which feeds the entire industry.
“We have a significant stake in maintaining the current model. There’s no advantage to us in new models that undercut what we have today,” said Skipper, speaking from the NCTA Cable Show in Boston.
ESPN pays tens of billions of dollars every year in sports rights fees to major sports and college leagues — much of which is live programming that doesn’t lend itself naturally to the subscription video-on-demand model popularized by the likes of Netflix and Amazon, he points out.
The Disney-owned sports network is the envy of the cable television business, and several major rivals, like News Corp and Comcast Corp’s NBC Universal, would love to replicate its model.
Skipper was careful to play down recent bullish comments about ESPN’s strengths versus potential rivals. But he pointed out that, while he respects his rivals, it would be difficult for them to build a new sports network to the size, scale and fees that ESPN enjoys today.
He also disputed the idea that the rising cost of sports could one day see ESPN forced onto a sports tier.
Content everywhere? More like content nowhere
Will Big Media and Big Tech companies ever stop punishing their biggest fans?
Like many people, I woke up yesterday and reached for my iPad for my morning hit of news, entertainment and information, so I could start my day. (And like many, I’m embarrassed to admit it.) Padding to the front door to get a newspaper still sounds more respectable, but my iPad gives me a far more current, rich and satisfying media experience than a still-warm printed Times could ever produce.
Except, lately, it doesn’t. Yesterday morning, I saw the exciting news that Bill Simmons, ESPN’s most popular, profane and controversial writer, had secured an interview with President Obama. Simmons published his interview in podcast, text and video form on Grantland, a longform sports journalism website he founded last year under the ESPN umbrella. I clicked over to the story from my Twitter feed and saw three YouTube excerpts of Simmons with Obama. And that’s all I saw. When I hit play on the videos, I discovered ESPN had set them to be “unavailable” on mobile devices.
Moving on, I tried to read a New York Post headline that also found its way into my Twitter feed. But when I tapped in, the Post webpage that loaded was not the story I wanted to read. Instead it was a notice, which I took as an admonition, that to read New York Post content on an iPad, I would have to download the app, which retails for $1.99.
I want to make it clear that I’m not against paying for content. But what I’ve just described aren’t paywalls, where publications warn users that they won’t be able to consume content for free.
The situations I’m describing are blanket denials of content because of a choice I made about which device to use. With these tactics, media companies aren’t creating content paywalls, they’re creating content ghettos. Big Media, set my content free! Stop messing with the user experience to deny readers their content simply because you can detect what platform they’re on. And stop punishing users who are investing in the latest devices to consume your output. In other words, grant my hyper-advanced iOS device or my friend’s fancy new Android phone just as much access to the Web as my mother’s four-year-old Windows XP PC. Which one of us do you think wants to watch Simmons talk crossover dribbles with the Commander-in-Chief?
There’s one big issue with your article, and that is it doesnt’ touch on the advertising model of an iPad version vs a web version. Though it’s changing fast, advertisers were slower to adopt iPad platforms, and therefore, to the media company were perhaps less profitable. You can’t have an ad-supported or near-free model if there aren’t advertisers willing to buy on that platform.
So far, most of these digital platforms have not monetized as well as the traditional players, and that has everything to do with the decision making process.
Boycott an iPad advertiser? That’s silly. They’re the ones that are helping you out. You should be boycotting the advertiser that ONLY wants tos how up on their web site. There is also generally less real estate on the screen of an iPad app to unobtrusively show you ads as compared to your mother’s 4 year old XP system.
And $1.99 for a permanent application is hardly “through the nose” … How much does a single print edition to the NY Post cost? I can’t imagine that the app couldn’t pay for itself in a few days.
Maybe the real problem is the group of whiney consumers (and blog writers) not willing to spend $1.99 on an app that gives them full access, when in the old days it would’ve been 50cents/day?
Cage, Witherspoon feature in box-office battle
Three new movies compete for filmgoers over the long President’s Day weekend in the United States. Nicolas Cage is expected to lead the pack of newcomers with Sony’s 3D action sequel “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.”
Box-office watchers project Friday-through-Monday sales in the United States and Canada could roar to $30 million for the follow-up to the original “Ghost Rider,” released over the same weekend in 2007.
Reese Witherspoon also battles for audiences with 20th Century Fox romantic comedy “This Means War.” Fox sees the story about two CIA agents (Tom Hardy and Chris Pine) trying to win over the same woman bringing in around $14 million over four days. Outside forecasters say it could go a few million higher. The movie pulled in about $1.7 million from Valentine’s Day showings.
The weekend’s other new film is Disney’s animated “The Secret World of Arrietty”, about a tiny family that lives under the floorboards of a country home. “Arrietty” is expected to debut with less than $10 million over four days, box-office forecasters said.
Holdovers from last weekend will also fight for top spots. They include love story “The Vow,” Denzel Washington action movie “Safe House” and family film “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.”
Photo Credit: Columbia Pictures
How long can Murdoch keep it up on Twitter?
You can say what you like about Rupert Murdoch, and most people have, but he doesn’t do things halfway. His decision to join Twitter on New Year’s eve has set the Twitterati and blogosphere alight not just because the 80-year old media baron joined but because unlike every other CEO or executive who’s joined Twitter, he’s actually expressed some real opinions — some of which are controversial given who he is. When Reuters asked CEOs at its Global Media Summit last fall most felt tweeting wasn’t for them.
In Murdoch’s first 24 hours he started off relatively gently praising an op-ed on Ron Paul in his Wall Street Journal, extolled the benefits of vacation, praised the founder of original founder of his New York Post and championed two of his Fox studios’ movies ‘The Descendants’ and ‘We bought a Zoo’.
He seemed to stick to some sort of neutral script for his first 24 hours but by Monday (Jan 2nd) he had praised President Obama for being “very courageous – and dead right” for his decision on terrorist detention, taken a poke at Glenn Beck’s old Fox News show and effectively endorsed Republican presidential candidate hopeful Rick Santorum: “Only candidate with genuine big vision for the country”. He also called on the “courageous” Obama to address what Murdoch sees as the United States’ biggest crisis, its education policy.
Murdoch’s tweets have been widely reported and analyzed by everyone from biographer Michael Wolff who said on Twitter he doubts Murdoch was writing them himself to various other Murdoch watchers.
The question is can the notoriously off-message Murdoch keep this up on Twitter without stepping in the proverbial and causing some sort of minor international incident with one of his off-the-cuff tweets. When you control large swathes of big media which impacts on everything from politics to sports whatever you say publicly will be pored over over for hidden meanings.
Think about what his communications team must be going through as they fret about what next the octogenarian maverick will tweet next from his iPad.
However, my bet is Murdoch will soon tire of the novelty and settle into using Twitter sparingly to supp0rt certain News Corp projects and positions. For the sake of news I hope I’m wrong, but it’s not like Murdoch doesn’t have a $45 billion business to run.
Wow, brutal headline…
Anyway, we doubt he’ll be able to keep it up like the Murdoch-obsessed Guardian (http://www.WeWereWallStreet.com/Opinion .html) but it should be fun to watch. He already “un-followed” Alan Sugar today, and Sugar, oh, sorry, Lord Sugar, whinged some.
It could all be great fun if they cat fight in public – what a treat.
Rupert Murdoch sells A shares, but still in control
News Corp Chief Executive and Chairman Rupert Murdoch sold off the bulk of his common shareholding according to a regulatory filing but, have no fear the 80 year-old mogul is still very much in charge both in terms of management and financial control.
According to the filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, from Nov 16 to Nov 17 Murdoch sold a total of 3.6 million News Corp A shares for between $16.76 and and $17.07 each for a total value of some $62 million. This means Murdoch”s A shares holding went down to just 381,000 from around 4 million. The elder Murdoch had made the disposals for “financial planning” reasons, according to a source. Back in February Murdoch had bought 2.8 million A shares for between $17.19 to $17.53.
News Corp shares got battered through the summer dropping as much as 25 percent as the parent of Fox, Wall Street Journal and Twentieth Century Fox reeled from an escalating phone hacking scandal at its UK newspaper arm. Murdoch did undertake some relatively minor buying and selling of A shares over the summer.
Despite the sell-off Murdoch remains fully in control of News Corp through his family’s 40 percent stake in the B shares which have voting rights and control the company (A shares do not have voting rights).
That’s rich, let’s see. I can preside over a mafia cartel, and then decide to sell my shares and make millions off of that. That sounds like a good deal¡¡¡¡ Where do i sign up??? Wait…that’s the privilege politicians and the media give to hacks. Yahooooo¡¡
Murdoch backs progressive U.S. immigration policy
News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch on Thursday said the United States should work harder at making itself a more attractive country for people to emigrate to, as an important route back to enabling economic growth. Murdoch, 80, who was born in Melbourne, Australia, became a naturalized a U.S. citizen in 1985.
“We have in our DNA the most entrepreneurship,” said Murdoch speaking at a conference on immigration sponsored by the Partnership for New York City and Partnership for a New American Economy. “It’s no accident that people over all over Europe want to come here…and from China. This is a great country.”
Other speakers like New York City Mayor Bloomberg, former Toronto mayor David Miller and New York Times writer Thomas Friedman all supported reforming the immigration system.
Murdoch said for the U.S. to get out of its economic slump there needed to be more certainty, less regulation and better tax codes. If that changed, combined with a better take on immigration policy, Murdoch said: “We’d soon be out of this trouble.”
In particular Murdoch was humorously critical of calls in some quarters to kick out an estimated 12 million illegal workers from Mexico.
“The idea of kicking out 12 million Mexicans it would cost $285 billion which we’d have to borrow from China to do it,” said Murdoch to laughs.
Murdoch pointed to countries like Britain benefiting from having a more open immigration policy simply because it is a member of the European Union allowing workers to move between countries. He highlighted highly skilled Polish construction workers as having an important role in building infrastructure for the London 2012 Olympics.
from Breakingviews:
Rupert Murdoch’s sham governance on full display
By Jeffrey Goldfarb The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
Rupert Murdoch still gets a kick out of the “fair and balanced” slogan used by his Fox News channel. He had a good laugh about it only last week at News Corp’s annual shareholder meeting. The results of a vote conducted at that gathering, released Monday, show that everyone’s now equally in on the joke about the company’s shameful corporate governance as they are the conservative bias of his TV news operation.
A majority of stockholders who don’t share the media mogul’s last name snubbed the nomination of his children, James and Lachlan, to the board. Without the support of Rupert’s nearly 40 percent control, three more directors also would have received less than a majority vote, meaning minority holders strongly rebuked a full third of the News Corp board. Strip out another 7 percent backing from Murdoch pal Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, and the sons, each of whom has at one time been considered a potential heir apparent, suffered a roughly two-to-one defeat.
Thanks to News Corp’s skewed governance, the vote is only symbolic. Murdoch, despite his stated humility over a British newspaper hacking scandal that has put a cloud over his $46 billion empire, retains a firm grip. He will be emboldened by the strong support from other investors for his presence on the board and their unequivocal rejection of a plan to split the chairman and chief executive roles. But there’s little comfort Murdoch and other board members can take from these votes.
News Corp investors -- like those at Viacom, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, Comcast and other U.S. media groups signed up for the cold shoulder when they bought into a company with a lopsided dual-share structure and a board packed with the chairman’s cronies. Yet while their voices can be disregarded on technical grounds, they have spoken too loudly even for Murdoch to ignore.
Whether on his own or because of the influence of his closest advisers, Murdoch has slowly come around on the use of News Corp’s capital, distributing more of it these days to shareholders instead of on reckless acquisitions. He may be a stubborn and cagey tycoon. But the old newsman also has rolled the presses on enough exposés to know when the jig is up. That time has come for Murdoch’s board.
News International loses top PR exec
If we were at Rupert Murdoch’s daily UK tabloid The Sun we’d probably have a headline today that reads: Will the last person to leave News International please turn off the lights?
Oh wait, The Sun already did that — but with Britain as its subject.
But we can’t help ourselves as News International executives drop like flies following the terrible phone voicemail hacking scandal which has rocked its parent company News Corp right to its core. Nearly 20 executives or journalists have either resigned, been fired or arrested since the hacking scandal escalated.
The Guardian today broke news that Alice Macandrew, the much liked, much respected senior communications executive at News International handed in her notice after falling out with News International top brass including James Murdoch about the handling of the communications strategy once the proverbial good stuff started to hit the fan this summer. We’ve since confirmed the news from our sources.
We’re keen to find out more details of what the disputes over strategy were. We’re especially keen to hear what Macandrew or indeed any other PR folks would have done much differently given the sheer weight of evidence and feeding frenzy around as the media sharks sensed Murdoch blood in the waters.
“Macandrew was personally appointed by Murdoch as his chief press aide in 2009, and was a key adviser on the company’s media strategy from the moment stories about phone hacking were revealed in the Guardian. She reported to Matthew Anderson, group director for strategy and corporate affairs.”
UPDATED: News Corp’s new independent director Breyer not so, says investor
Updated with official News Corp response below.
We don’t know what quite to make of this but CtW Investment Group, a union-affiliated shareholder lobbyist, is raising a stink about News Corp’s new independent director appointment, Accel Partners’ Jim Breyer.
CtW, which claims its affiliations represent pension funds of some 5.5 million Americans or some $200 billion in assets, says Breyer, a venture capitalist best known as an early investor in Facebook, isn’t as independent as the board claims.
In a 1,400-word letter addressed to Viet Dinh, chair of News Corp’s nominating & corporate governance committee, CtW lists a range of claims about Breyer’s relationships with News Corp, the Murdochs and his record as a director with major names like Wal-Mart and Dell.
A few highlights include:
- News Corp’s “close business relationships” with Accel Management Inc, of which Breyer is a partner
- An Accel investment in a MySpace subsidiary that employed Wendi Murdoch, wife of CEO Rupert Murdoch
from Breakingviews:
James Murdoch stuck in limbo
By Chris Hughes The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
The challenge to James Murdoch's credibility remains serious.
Two former senior staff have repeated assertions that News Corporation's European boss was made aware, in 2008, of evidence that phone hacking at his UK newspapers involved more than just a single rogue reporter. Murdoch has strongly rejected that claim. The truth of the matter remains unclear.
The dispute turns on what was discussed at a meeting between Murdoch and his two accusers -- a former editor of The News of The World newspaper and a senior legal executive -- more than three years ago. The meeting lasted only about 15 minutes. The outcome was that Murdoch approved a jumbo settlement to an alleged victim of phone hacking. The size of the financial settlement leads some to think that News Corp was buying silence. The key question, however, is whether Murdoch was told that phone hacking was more widespread than the company had previously maintained.
Murdoch's accusers say that he was told. But the details are fiddly. Neither Colin Myler, the editor, nor Tom Crone, the lawyer, can recall the exact phrases used in the discussion. So Murdoch can say, and is saying, that he wasn't explicitly told in plain language that phone hacking went beyond one individual. The lack of decisive evidence regarding the 2008 meeting does not exonerate Murdoch. It is his word against the word of two others. He still has a case to answer and the allegation that he didn't act on evidence, and later misled parliament, is very serious. Another grilling is likely.
To his advantage, however, Murdoch's word has been more articulate and sure-footed to date. His explanation, that a 15 minute meeting could not have included any explicit references to such a serious matter, seems to have had force with at least one of the UK lawmakers investigating the affair.
Murdoch's position at News Corp may be his own hands, given the shareholder control exerted by his family. But he faces a vote at UK broadcaster, where he is chairman. The latest phone-hacking hearings won't do anything to settle the concerns of independently-minded investors at either company.
