A Comcastic Conflict of Interest?

Here’s what Hollywood Report published a few days ago (as reported in ACA’s Media Sweep): “Comcast CFO Michael Cavanagh [on] Monday touted growth in retransmission consent fee revenue at NBC, saying it will come in at around $400 million-$500 million this year, with the higher figure in line with a target cited in the past by NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke. Cavanagh also forecast $800 million in retrans revenue in 2016, well above the $4 million the company earned years ago when it first started receiving retrans fees from pay TV operators.”

Comcastic, indeed.  They certainly know how to negotiate great fee revenues.  Wonder what that’s done to other MVPDs?  Big and small ones alike.  Just check your MVPD bill; many now list a broadcast charge.  Satellite has been doing it since it got the right to rebroadcast (that’s what satellite does) local TV stations.

Gotta give ‘em credit … must be fun to negotiate both sides of an MFN!  (MFN = Most Favored Nation … agreeing not to charge others less for the same service.)

Random Notes:

My ongoing book "The Revolutionary Evolution of the Media" continues! Go here to read the latest chapter or here to read it from the beginning!

We pause this story for a note from our sponsors (well, writer); we’ll be back to the real question after this:

Can we drop the designation “cable” network?  It doesn’t make sense any more.  Indeed, what’s a network?  We can all agree that ABC and A&E are network companies as are CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, 21^st Century Fox and others.  Some networks are distributed via broadcast stations (which then charge cable subscribers for “free” TV).  Some are distributed to MVPDs … cable (Comcast, Charter and dozens of others) and telco (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and others) providers with franchises allowing the crossing of public rights of way plus satellite (AT&T’s DirecTV and DISH) and wireless distributors (T-Mobile’s BingeOn and more to follow).  The classic division of content and conduit … hard for one to financially exist without the other.  Some newer “networks” -- some with original content (Netflix, Amazon Prime -- complete with re-bundling Starz and Showtime! -- and others), some with repurposed other content (Hulu, Sling and others) -- distribute direct to consumers riding on any of the extant conduits.  Better than labeling something “cable,” perhaps we could rethink the variety of networks in designated tiers.  You know, Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.  Or, got some better ideas about labeling them?  Pass them on if you do and we’ll see if we can get one to work.

Back to where the broader network fights are going.  The competitions among the various kinds of networks are intensifying and the crux of the fights is going to revolve around how each brands itself.  As owners of programming license the programs to different sorts of networks the battles are going get more and more confusing until and unless the combatants thoroughly think through positioning.  That’s already happening to some extent. Take a look at some of the recent moves from Starz.  As some OTT networks license formerly successful prime time programming for what are essentially reruns, how will that effect the MVPD (hah! cable!) networks that rely on reruns?  Best guess, after some severe shake-outs, is more broadband bandwidth on MVPDs.  Just another reason linear networks with miniscule ratings will soon go away.

The opinions and points of view expressed in this commentary are exclusively the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of MediaVillage/MyersBizNet management or associated bloggers.