This is about "the Business of Television," whatever that means. Does it matter to very many people? I think not but if you like "show business speculation" it could be interesting to you.
I am a media person who sees a conspiracy behind almost everything that happens in the media today. As a rule this involves two or more companies who get together to "screw" a third company while at the same time keeping a close eye on one another, (their partners.)
There is a common thread in a good deal of this story that has been reported in the last couple of weeks.
Blockbuster has been reported to be in talks about taking a stake in the Viacom led premium television channel that intends to compete with HBO, Showtime and Starz. Blockbuster would get digital rights to the new channel's programming in return for an investment in the partnership, if you were to believe what they are saying.
Viacom, the owner of Paramount Pictures, said that it would join with Lions Gate and MGM to launch a new pay-TV channel. Purportedly they will show movies and original television series made by the three companies. The companies presently sell their movies to premium channel Showtime owned by CBS, but talks to renew their agreement fell apart when CBS tried to cut the price. (How dare they?)
The new partnership is purportedly in talks with cable operators and various companies with digital interests about deals to distribute the as-yet unnamed channel, which will debut in fall 2009.
Blockbuster, once owned by Viacom, has been casting its net wide for new partners as it attempts to increase its video-rental business model with new digital ventures."
My convoluted Question is:
Where is the common thread in this story?
Give up yet?
The Answer, drum roll please, is Sumner Redstone.
Sumner remains Chairman of Viacom,
Sumner remains Chairman of CBS;
Viacom was spun off by CBS almost 40 years ago.
Viacom merged with CBS a long time ago.
Viacom had at one time owned Showtime.
CBS now owns Showtime.
Viacom had once owned Blockbuster, and then spun it off.
Viacom and CBS became separate companies recently.
OK, and now to annoy a few people, MGM and Lions Gate are relatively minor players in the Major Motion Picture industry. Paramount's movies matter, and matter a lot.
If Showtime is unwilling to pay Paramount, MGM, and Lions Gate what they think they need for their movies, and HBO and Starz can "live" very well without these two companies, why not "threaten" everyone with a "we will start our own Pay service.
As an absolute outsider today who has only history on his side I say: "Sure they will."
The Pay business has been dominated by Time Warner's HBO forever, and for a variety of reasons, Pay Television is a diminishing business as it pertains to theatrical films. There is an untold story here, and I only wish I knew what it was. Not knowing is not a bad thing in that it allows you to speculate irresponsibly.
As a longtime studio guy, I would guess that it could all be a charade in order for the companies in question to make a better deal with Showtime or Starz. Is this scenario crazy? Perhaps it is, but it wouldn't be the first time something like this was attempted.
After participating in and observing some of the bizarre stuff that goes on in this industry they could be serious in what they are supposedly trying to do.
If they are serious, I think that they are nuts, but then again I was sure that Kerry would be our President now.
Anyone remember "Tri-Star" and how this company came into existence? Those Tri-Star partners invented "Pay Television Dealing Duplicity." And what company was "screwed at that time by this deal?
Another drum roll please. It was Viacom's Showtime.
As an aside, I wonder if the Democrats win the White House if they will reinstate the Anti Trust Division of the Justice Department? I doubt it.
Norman Horowitz
Once A CBS Executive, once a Viacom Executive