Is TCM in trouble? (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Headlines about what Zaslav is offering to sell from the music library are often misstating or sensationalizing what’s being offered and why.

In short, Zaslav is looking to sell depreciated assets from Warner’s music publishing business to another music publisher. The reason for this is two-fold: these assets are declining in value and have little viable use to Warner itself, while the costs of maintaining and administering the rights to those assets comes at significant cost to Warner. Warner is not a major player in the music publishing industry; there are other publishers that are better equipped to administer the usage of this kind of material. This is basically equivalent to bringing material that’s been collecting dust in your attic for decades to a consignment shop.

If copyright protections hadn’t continually been extended well beyond the original intent of copyrights in the first place, the vast majority of this material would have been public domain years ago anyway.

 

[RobertMG]

Headlines about what Zaslav is offering to sell from the music library are often misstating or sensationalizing what’s being offered and why.

In short, Zaslav is looking to sell depreciated assets from Warner’s music publishing business to another music publisher. The reason for this is two-fold: these assets are declining in value and have little viable use to Warner itself, while the costs of maintaining and administering the rights to those assets comes at significant cost to Warner. Warner is not a major player in the music publishing industry; there are other publishers that are better equipped to administer the usage of this kind of material. This is basically equivalent to bringing material that’s been collecting dust in your attic for decades to a consignment shop.

If copyright protections hadn’t continually been extended well beyond the original intent of copyrights in the first place, the vast majority of this material would have been public domain years ago anyway.

Headlines about what Zaslav is offering to sell from the music library are often misstating or sensationalizing what’s being offered and why.

In short, Zaslav is looking to sell depreciated assets from Warner’s music publishing business to another music publisher. The reason for this is two-fold: these assets are declining in value and have little viable use to Warner itself, while the costs of maintaining and administering the rights to those assets comes at significant cost to Warner. Warner is not a major player in the music publishing industry; there are other publishers that are better equipped to administer the usage of this kind of material. This is basically equivalent to bringing material that’s been collecting dust in your attic for decades to a consignment shop.

If copyright protections hadn’t continually been extended well beyond the original intent of copyrights in the first place, the vast majority of this material would have been public domain years ago anyway.

Brutal article about Zazlav https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...7?cvid=3e0849a4b4c74ed7a35fbc522c2999f4&ei=13

 

[RobertMG]

That could very well be it. But on the flip side, it could be that TCM has raised the fee they charge per subscribers to a place where the demand isn’t there to make it universally available and that those operators can’t afford to keep it in a lower tier package if their customers aren’t watching it enough. The whole cable infrastructure is imploding so the TL;dr version of my post is that basically every cable channel is facing the similar problem of how to survive when cable itself as a method of content delivery is declining.



Ok. If that’s an accurate number of their revenue, then the next question is, what are their expenses? How much do they spend to license the thousands of films they show each year? Is their revenue and viewership remaining static, increasing each year, or declining each year? $262 million sounds like a lot in a vacuum, but in context of what their operating expenses are may be a very different story. You can cherry pick any number and say “see, that’s a lot of money” but without context those numbers only tell part of the story.

"By studio metrics, that’s a modest investment: I’m told the annual budget averages out to less than $45 million to cover everything from licensing fees to the festival and the salaries of the team. That’s a fraction of the production and marketing budget for “The Flash,” only this product delivers on the hype."

 

[benbess]

....If all of the studios partnered together and provided a new version of TCM - one that didn’t depend on declining revenue from antiquated cable systems for survival, one that was easily accessible to 21st century viewers - and filled it with programming that cost TCM nothing because the partner studios provided the licensing at no cost, with there being some kind of tax benefit to temporarily donating those rights to a PBS-like version of the service, that sounds like a long-term, sustainable way of putting it on solid footing long term....

What we have now is a situation where studios like Warner own thousands upon thousands of titles that are commercially meaningless at this point, but also unwilling to give away or share that material because it’s against the nature if corporations to give things away....

The idea of a non-profit TCM run by competitive corporations is appealing, but unrealistic from my pov.

TCM has apparently always been profitable. The Zaslav regime seems to be taking rather typical corporate steps to keep it that way. The Z regime similarly seems to be cutting costs when it comes to superhero movies, and so apparently we won't have actors like Cavill and Gadot who command $10 million or more per picture.

The most disturbing thing to me is the outright killing and burying perhaps forever of programs for tax write-offs, started by Warner, and now copied by Disney and Paramount.

But anyway, many old movies still do have some commercial value. In the Warner Archive podcasts they keep talking about how that very small branch of the huge Warner company is also profitable. Our purchases of Warner Archive blu-rays help fund the next restorations of old movies.

Like some of you, such as Josh S., I haven't had TCM for many years, since I quit cable.

Although there is a TCM collection on Max, it doesn't have the introductions and outros for the movies, so it's not really TCM.

I think a real TCM streaming service available through amazon should be profitable at around $8 or so a month, and I hope they do that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The Z regime similarly seems to be cutting costs when it comes to superhero movies, and so apparently we won't have actors like Cavill and Gadot who command $10 million or more per picture.

I would only amend this to say that they’re cutting costs on pictures that haven’t been profitable. I don’t think they’re opposed to spending money when there is a good reason to do so. But every single appearance by Henry Cavill as Superman came in films that underperformed at the box office. The majority of Gal Gadot’s appearances as Wonder Woman were in films that underperformed at the box office. I know all of those films have fans - I mostly like them too - but I don’t think it’s their salaries in a vacuum but the reality that most of their movies were not hits at the scale the studio needs to turn a profit on them.

The most disturbing thing to me is the outright killing and burying perhaps forever of programs for tax write-offs, started by Warner, and now copied by Disney and Paramount.

My opinion: some of this is overblown. The only things that were truly dead and buried were the unfinished projects that Warner Discovery used a unique provision of the tax code to jettison, that only applies when two companies in the same business merge and have redundant and/or unusable assets as a result. That’s Batgirl.

The rest of these are different kinds of tax write-downs that don’t require assets to be destroyed or taken out of public view and happen all the time. In those cases, the company essentially says to the government, “We spent $100 million to create this asset, but have discovered that it is only worth $50 million in the marketplace - therefore, we are now only valuing that as a $50 million asset on our balance sheet.” In those cases, removing that content from their service isn’t about complying with a tax law. That’s a separate decision that’s about removing the program from the service so that they’re not obligated to pay residuals/royalty payments since the content isn’t bringing in enough revenue to justify those payments.

All of the other stuff Warner has been getting rid of from their service isn’t truly gone. Westworld, for example, may not be on Max anymore, but it’s available for digital purchase on storefronts like iTunes, on disc, and being licensed for free ad-supported streaming.

Disney+ content seems more “gone” only because Disney hasn’t yet made a decision on how to market material once it leaves their service, as their initial conception of the service was for nothing to leave. It’s likely that content, like the Willow show, will appear elsewhere in due time.

Paramount+ has a very solid track record of releasing their content on disc. They have also spoken about licensing this content to other services. So this stuff isn’t really disappearing either.

But to play devil’s advocate - for nearly the entirety of television history, when a program failed to catch on, or went off the air, it became inaccessible to the general public. These newer streaming programs similarly are being taken down because they have not been successful. Is it really that wrong that things that don’t have a viable market are no longer offered? It happens all the time in every industry. The part of me that’s a collector loves the idea of everything being available always, but the realist in me also gets that it has never worked that way.

A think a real TCM streaming service available through amazon should be profitable at around $8 or so a month, and I hope they do that.

I think something like that would be great, although it would be a niche offering and when push comes to shove, the number of people who say they’re interested in supporting a niche is usually far greater than the number of people who actually pay up when the time comes. Another holdup with that is that TCM doesn’t license programming in a way that gives it a right to establish a paid subscription service like that, and the providers of the content they air sometimes overvalue that content in terms of such deals which makes them not viable. So whether it’s a non-profit venture or a for-profit one, long term, if all of the studios believe TCM is a public good worthy of being kept alive, they will have to put their money where their mouth is and find common ground for licensing terms that are more favorable to a goal of keeping TCM in existence than they are in extracting every last dollar for the rights holders. The studios are just starting to do that now with licensing older films to labels like Kino Lorber - a lot of the titles Kino puts out now are things that studios were unwilling to license several short years ago, because the studios valued the content at rates higher than what the physical media market would support. As physical media declines, they’ve had a change of heart and realized that getting a smaller licensing fee while discs are still financially viable was better than holding out for a larger fee that no one could have reasonably afforded to pay. There would need to be a similar paradigm shift for studios to be willing to partner with TCM for a stand-alone streaming service. I still think they should.

But anyway, many old movies still do have some commercial value.

Absolutely - and it’s all about aligning expectations with realistic valuations for what that is so that the business part of it can be successful.

Definitely a lot of uncertain waters ahead as everyone tries to figure out how to navigate this uncertain and rapidly changing terrain.

 

[Traveling Matt]

The loss of Robert was a huge blow to the channel, all the other new hosts since him are fun and enjoyable in their own ways; but Robert was the glue that held the network together so well.

He was a man of the era whose movies he introduced. The other hosts simply aren't.

 

[Tom St Jones]

To many people, TCM is much more than a cable channel, it's smth of a cultural institution. It's kind of like the Rock n' roll Hall of Fame (but in the form of a ongoing TV network) of classic cinema.

Does TCM have their own streaming service, like (eg.) Britbox? I don't currently use streaming (except YouTube) but certainly would consider adding a standalone TCM service if it existed.

(Edit: I didn't realize the topic of a standalone service had already been brought up [above]. Unfortnately, my phone sometimes loads the site incorrectly & I don't see all posts)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

(edit, never mind)

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I hope they will continue with TCM Imports every Sunday night. I did DVR many foreign films in the past 20 years and some watching them for the first time.

 

[compson]

Maureen Dowd manages to make the TCM news about her, and the Titanic, and OceanGate, but does report this: “Zaslav said he was keeping Ben Mankiewicz and the other TCM hosts and wanted to spend more money on the channel and market it better.”

Opinion | Save Turner Classic Movies

Movies from the past shape our present.

www.nytimes.com

 

[RolandL]

TCM is available on the following:

• Hulu Plus Live TV
• DIRECTV
• Sling TV
• fuboTV
• YouTube TV

 

[Josh Steinberg]

TCM is available on the following:

• Hulu Plus Live TV
• DIRECTV
• Sling TV
• fuboTV
• YouTube TV

Those services are great for people willing to spend $40-80 a month to have what’s the streaming version of a cable subscription. Unfortunately, for those us who are not interested in a cable subscription, that is a huge monthly fee to pay for a service that would offer tons of channels we’re not interested in just to get one we are.

 

[compson]

TCM partnered with Criterion to offer FilmStruck, a streaming service that lasted only two years (2016-18). There are streaming options, though. The Criterion Channel is more or less a successor to FilmStruck, with a tilt toward more serious movies but a lot of fun choices. Max (née HBO) currently has 573 titles under the TCM brand—no intros but a nice variety of movies.

 

[darkrock17]

Those services are great for people willing to spend $40-80 a month to have what’s the streaming version of a cable subscription. Unfortunately, for those us who are not interested in a cable subscription, that is a huge monthly fee to pay for a service that would offer tons of channels we’re not interested in just to get one we are.

You're forgetting those aka (the elderly) who aren't interested or can't afford streaming services. They tend to only be able to afford cable where TCM is usually in the basic cable packages these days now.

 

[compson]

They tend to only be able to afford cable where TCM is usually in the basic cable packages these days now.

To get TCM, Comcast subscribers must pay $9.95/mo. for a Sports & Entertainment package that includes, among other things, the NHL Network (the package is ideal for fans of hockey movies), in addition to the basic monthly fee.

 

[darkrock17]

To get TCM, Comcast subscribers must pay $9.95/mo. for a Sports & Entertainment package that includes, among other things, the NHL Network (the package is ideal for fans of hockey movies), in addition to the basic monthly fee.

I did say usually, I have Cox and TCM comes with basic.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Warner Bros. Discovery Negotiating $500 Million Deal to Sell Film and TV Music Publishing Assets

Warner Bros. Discovery is negotiating to sell around half of its film and TV music-publishing assets for approximately $500 million, sources confirm.

variety.com

It really boils down to who has the raines of power, the ones with vision or the bean counters....considering the popularity of the TCM Festivals and the number of devoted fans it goes against the obvious to just shut down.

Granted the cable companies have held this channel over our collective heads to make more money by charging for the higher tiered packages, but for many it was too much for too little. Gaining the few channels that we really watched for the majority of dreck channels you pass through to get to the channels that you DO watch. That game got old, and for many it just wasn't good enough and we left!!

I still think that TCM can go out on thier own as a streaming channel, I'd be the first on to drop $6-8 a month for the live stream, but not with ads...then it just becomes a pricey TMC (The Movie Channel). If they can retain the spirit of the original and continue to present as they always have, not just the movies but the people and history of film with guest hosts and special guests and spotlighted themes...they will always have a winner!!

 

[benbess]

Of course, movie studios have always in part been about making money, going back to the classic studio days. So that's nothing new. But these mega corporations have seemingly been slowly taking that to new levels as the decades have passed.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s Noisy Week, From TCM And ‘The Flash’ To Netflix Talks And CNN Chatter, Highlights Media Giant’s Many Challenges

A week-long flurry of news spanning every corner of Warner Bros Discovery -- from HBO to CNN to TCM -- kept the media giant in the spotlight.

deadline.com

"....The flurry, which touched virtually every corner of the WBD universe, came as the company announced it will reveal quarterly financial results on August 3. The report will be the first to provide almost entirely apples-to-apples year-to-year comparisons since the Discovery-WarnerMedia merger closed (on April 8, 2022), ushering in a period of nearly non-stop flux. There have been cost cuts, layoffs and content write-downs in the service of a promised $5 billion-plus in savings. There have been industrywide shifts in the ad market, the box office and the pay-TV ecosystem. And there have been multiple rounds of restructuring.

Fourteen months in, the org chart is still coming into focus. On Friday, it emerged that Turner Classic Movies will be moved under Warner Bros chiefs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy. That news followed layoffs at WBD’s cable networks, including high profile departures at TCM that drew a high-profile protest from the likes of Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson. The leadership change Friday became public less than two days after CEO David Zaslav held an emergency conference call with the A-list filmmakers. Having film studio chiefs overseeing a cable network is hardly standard procedure at big media companies, but the setup will likely placate the filmmakers and other cinephiles who had voiced displeasure about the cutbacks and what they perceived as an existential threat to TCM. One longtime company veteran noted the film-focused network still makes sizable margins despite cord-cutting....

The costs of sports, and beyond, matters a lot to a company that had $49.5 billion in debt at the end of the first quarter. Debt is by far one of WBD’s biggest issues and it’s been chipping away at it, including paying down as much as $1.5 billion for the current June. Boosting cash flow is one way to pay down, asset sales are another, which is why it’s having conversations about selling all or part of its film and television music library, which the company is said to value at well north of $1 billion....“If there are any key objectives for investors, it’s to see debt reduction, with any acceleration through asset sales welcome,” said one investor....

WBD shares fell 2.5% Friday to end the week $11.97, up 22% since the start of the year but down from a 2023 high of nearly $16 in February. There may be “a little profit-taking. A reminder that David Zaslav and his team still have a lot of work to do,” said the investor.



Not sure how closely this parallels, but somehow reading this article brought to mind what Gordon Gekko said in 1987 in the movie Wall Street....

 

[Capt D McMars]

I'm sorry Josh, but I don't have time to read your entire post. However, I would say that some cable operators moved TCM to one of their higher tier packages which tells me they think it's a channel in demand.

Robert, you're right. But the "shell game" done by the cable companies gets old, when you have to pay for a hand full of channels that you do watch, in a sea of channels that you don't watch. It's kind of like buying the kennel when you only wanted one dog!! And is one of the reasons that there has been such an exodus of cable cutters in recent years.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

You're forgetting those aka (the elderly) who aren't interested or can't afford streaming services. They tend to only be able to afford cable where TCM is usually in the basic cable packages these days now.

For most people, Cable TV is more expensive than streaming.