Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Max (Streaming Service)

There's definitely benefits (international expansion is another, Discovery has a big presenxe overseas) but I feel like from T's point of view this is mostly a convenient way of getting some debt off its ledger.
 
NBC/Comcast going after Viacom makes a ton of sense as MTV and CBS have a ton of long-running and really popular reality shows (The Challenge, Survivor, Big Brother, Amazing Race, Ru Paul's Drag Race, Love Island, etc.), which NBC or Peacock really doesn't have much of. They have unscripted, but they don't have really have reality competition shows too much.

I guess the question at this point is who's gonna pick up Sony? Because I just feel like at this rate it's bound to happen. I think Amazon or Apple make the most sense. Both have the resources to make that kind of purchase and they both would benefit from the back catalog that Sony has.
 
Right now there are 3 mammoth streaming services: Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+. Those 3 have worldwide scale and 100+ million subs.

In the next tier is everyone else: HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+/Showtime/CBS All Access, Discovery+, etc.


Bluntly, this makes clear that NBCU/Peacock/Sky is subscale. Even with the addition of Sky for European media assets, the reality is just that Comcast needs a lot more content and a more to scale service (i.e. one with 100+ million subscribers) than just a minor ad supported service like Peacock.

Peacock is almost an afterthought or what you do with a streaming service if you're not willing to compete on content spend with the rest. That's not going to work looking out 10/20/30 years.

AT&T realized that to really compete with HBO Max, they'd have to spend 3-5 times what they are willing to spend given their current spend on 5G and telecom competition. AT&T just can't afford to spend crazy money at both especially with HBO Max in an uncertain state of whether it can reach the Amazon/Netflix/Disney+ tier.

I'd have thought Comcast executives would want HBO/Warner to join to NBCU, but it seems they've passed (for now). Probably because they're not even sure what they want to do with streaming and NBCU/Sky. I hate to say it but this is not a great sign for NBCU.

Never say never to anything, but NBCU probably does need to be joined to CBS/Viacom (if it's possible to put NBC and CBS under the same roof for antitrust?) or NBCU needs to eventually join this Discovery/HBO/Warner situation to create some kind of mega streaming service that can reach 100+ million subscribers and be able to spend $10 billion on content annually.

Maybe the best outcome would be Discovery turns HBO Max into a much bigger/broader service with much higher sub numbers and then Comcast realize they need HBO Max instead of Peacock and we see some kind of big merger between NBCU/Sky and Discovery/Warner/HBO.
 
Last edited:
It's highly likely that a WarnerMedia+NBCUniversal tie-up would've involved some form of spin-off that Comcast was just not willing to countenance. Discovery is paying less than Comcast ever would but AT&T still owns 70% of the company.

At the end of the day I don't see how a tie-up between Discovery and WarnerMedia is evidence that NBCUniversal+Sky is subscale, especially given the latter's pole position in Europe. If Warners ever dominates the streaming market like Disney+ and Netflix, I'm pretty sure it won't be the Discovery content that's make or break, as nice to have as it is; it'll be better usage of its existing assets and properties.

Side note: 55 billion in debt is a little high for a media company that's about to ramp up spending for the streaming wars. Yeah that's where Disney is, but their FCF in 2018 was 9.83 billion. Also 3 billion in synergies is kinda nuts and a little scary when Disney only promised 2 billion in their merger with Fox.
 
Last edited:
It's highly likely that a WarnerMedia+NBCUniversal tie-up would've involved some form of spin-off that Comcast was just not willing to countenance. Discovery is paying less than Comcast ever would but AT&T still owns 70% of the company.

At the end of the day I don't see how a tie-up between Discovery and WarnerMedia is evidence that NBCUniversal+Sky is subscale, especially given the latter's pole position in Europe. If Warners ever dominates the streaming market like Disney+ and Netflix, I'm pretty sure it won't be the Discovery content that's make or break, as nice to have as it is; it'll be better usage of its existing assets and properties.

Side note: 55 billion in debt is a little high for a media company that's about to ramp up spending for the streaming wars. Yeah that's where Disney is, but their FCF in 2018 was 9.83 billion. Also 3 billion in synergies is kinda nuts and a little scary when Disney only promised 2 billion in their merger with Fox.
The reason I think it's evidence for a glaring issue with Peacock is that do you really think that AT&T would spin off/sell off HBO Max in this way if it was working (i.e. if HBO Max had taken off like Disney+ had)?

The reality is that HBO Max probably needs around $10 billion in content per year to compete with Amazon/Netflix/Disney+ to be a global streamer.

To justify that budget, it needs to have a clear and quick path to 100 million+ subs. It's currently at half that number and given it's higher price point, just looks unlikely to jump fast to the range it has to get to... And AT&T clearly doesn't have the financial capability to just take on a lot more debt spending on content while waiting for the subs to come.

Sky's position in Europe is strong, but I really do think you need a global service well situation in all 3 of Americas/Europe/Asia to work into the future. Amazon, Netflix, and Disney+ have all 3 and have content paths mapped out in all 3.

The problem for Comcast is that it hasn't really committed to streaming; yes they made Peacock, but Peacock is sorta just there as mostly an add on for Comcast cable subscribers at the moment.

It can't stand on its own.

I think the changes in media businesses have made clear that unless you can support a broad sustainable streaming service, there's no guarantee that your studio/channels have a path to future relevance.

AT&T didn't want to sit on HBO/Warner and risk another DirecTV situation where they bought an asset at a premium and basically spin it off worth nothing. At least there's still a ton of value in HBO/Warner at the moment.

I think NBU needs a real global streaming plan and other than a merger with this HBO/Warner/Discovery combo or CBS/Viacom, I just don't see how it gets from here to there.

And the fact that the Comcast executives haven't figure out how NBCU fits into a streaming world is a key problem. Like I said earlier, the best outcome might just be Discovery manages to really take HBO Max to another level with all of their unscripted content and gets it over 100 million subscribers and to the point where Comcast feels that it has to merge NBCU with that combo (either in a spinoff like AT&T or buying the whole combo for Comcast stock).
 
The reason I think it's evidence for a glaring issue with Peacock is that do you really think that AT&T would spin off/sell off HBO Max in this way if it was working (i.e. if HBO Max had taken off like Disney+ had)?

The reality is that HBO Max probably needs around $10 billion in content per year to compete with Amazon/Netflix/Disney+ to be a global streamer.

To justify that budget, it needs to have a clear and quick path to 100 million+ subs. It's currently at half that number and given it's higher price point, just looks unlikely to jump fast to the range it has to get to... And AT&T clearly doesn't have the financial capability to just take on a lot more debt spending on content while waiting for the subs to come.

Sky's position in Europe is strong, but I really do think you need a global service well situation in all 3 of Americas/Europe/Asia to work into the future. Amazon, Netflix, and Disney+ have all 3 and have content paths mapped out in all 3.

The problem for Comcast is that it hasn't really committed to streaming; yes they made Peacock, but Peacock is sorta just there as mostly an add on for Comcast cable subscribers at the moment.

It can't stand on its own.

I think the changes in media businesses have made clear that unless you can support a broad sustainable streaming service, there's no guarantee that your studio/channels have a path to future relevance.

AT&T didn't want to sit on HBO/Warner and risk another DirecTV situation where they bought an asset at a premium and basically spin it off worth nothing. At least there's still a ton of value in HBO/Warner at the moment.

I think NBU needs a real global streaming plan and other than a merger with this HBO/Warner/Discovery combo or CBS/Viacom, I just don't see how it gets from here to there.

And the fact that the Comcast executives haven't figure out how NBCU fits into a streaming world is a key problem. Like I said earlier, the best outcome might just be Discovery manages to really take HBO Max to another level with all of their unscripted content and gets it over 100 million subscribers and to the point where Comcast feels that it has to merge NBCU with that combo (either in a spinoff like AT&T or buying the whole combo for Comcast stock).
It’s actually not at even almost half of that, it’s way lower. The 44M or wherever it’s at number is total people that had access to Max through AT&T + paying subscribers. They only had something like 20M “activated” accounts.
 
The reason I think it's evidence for a glaring issue with Peacock is that do you really think that AT&T would spin off/sell off HBO Max in this way if it was working (i.e. if HBO Max had taken off like Disney+ had)?

HBO Max had a huge quarter for net adds. 2.7 million is higher than Netflix ever hit in the US after it went past 40 million with a higher ARPU too. You can get rid of a thriving asset if it doesn't fit with your current strategy or if you have more pressing investment concerns (not saying Warners under T was thriving, just saying HBO Max had things going for it). That's what people weirdly ignore with AT&T - they're fundamentally a phone company, not a media company, and with 5g and massive debt there just isn't enough dollars in the coffers for Fiber, Mobility, HBO Max and their massive, massive dividend.

Comcast is not in this position. Their wireless service rides off of Verizon and requires relatively small capital expenditures since they're not nationwide. Cable is established with plenty of room to grow broadband. 5G (unreliable) and Fiber (expensive) are not existential competitors the way T-Mobile is to AT&T. Sure there's a DOCSIS update and the potential for Biden funding competition but overall, it's very different situation-wise, and that gives Comcast time.

Sky's position in Europe is strong, but I really do think you need a global service well situation in all 3 of Americas/Europe/Asia to work into the future. Amazon, Netflix, and Disney+ have all 3 and have content paths mapped out in all 3.

I see what you're saying, but in practice, Asia is tough as nails to crack. Netflix is barely staying afloat in India. I think people have outsized perceptions of how strong certain brands actually are overseas (besides Disney).

Discovery/Warners is not gonna affect Sky very much anyway until 2024, and possibly even further given how eager Discovery was to sign deals with Sky.

That having been said,

The problem for Comcast is that it hasn't really committed to streaming; yes they made Peacock, but Peacock is sorta just there as mostly an add on for Comcast cable subscribers at the moment.

I actually agree with you here to a certain extent. While I think people focus way too much on Netflix's volume and catching Netflix and how much Netflix is spending, there are some concerns about Comcast's streaming strategy. They articulated a brand strategy relying on unscripted, broad-based content, news, sports, and latino content from Telemundo. That's good and cheap and targets areas that no one else seems willing to capitalize on, but there still needs to be some focus. Letting go of NHL was a bad look, as were rumors of a Universal Film streamer.

I think Jon Landsgraf said it well. You can curate. Consumers pay for curation. FX and HBO have strong brands precisely because of that curation. That doesn't mean rotating out movies that define your service, but it does mean that Netflix's strategy of a firehose of content might not be the best. And the best part about curation is that if you do it well, it can be cheap.
 
Last edited:
The amount of value AT&T lost over just a 3 year span on Warner is crazy. They bought Time Warner for a whopping $85 billion, and now are selling it for pretty much half of the value at only $43 billion.

That's an insane loss in value.
 
Last edited:
The amount of value AT&T lost over just a 3 year span on Warner is crazy. They bought Time Warner for a whopping $85 billion, and now are selling it for pretty much half of the value at only $43 billion.

That's an insane loss in value.
And when you add the fact that they lost nearly the entire value of DirecTV to that (around $60-67 billion), you come upon just how disastrous the past decade has been for AT&T.

They took on around $100 billion+ in debt for those 2 purchases and have nothing but that debt to show for it. Yeah they can offload some to Warner-Discovery and DirecTV spinoffs, but they've overloaded their own books on debt as well.

That's money that could have been spent keeping up with Verizon/T-Mobile but won't be there.
 
Debt to Ebitda of 5x is effin insane. They're essentially setting up a zombie company.

Malone relinquishing his class A stock just makes me think the end goal is another sale. What a disgrace.
 
I just binged my way through Hacks and I love it. All three creators worked on Broad City, and one of them, Jen Statsky, has also worked on Parks & Rec and The Good Place. Michael Schur is on as an EP as well. You can definitely feel the influence of Broad City and Schur's shows here and it works really well.

The show has also already been picked up for a second season.
 
If you have not watched it in a while or ever and looking for a Super Hero show fix until Haweye, Justice League Unlimited season 2 last arc is sooooooo dam good

I will never get why they didn't hire the people who wrote BAT-Young Justice to outline the films for DC, those guys were soooo dam good at writing DC super heroes
 
Top