 |
Jennifer Pendleton
Cable hung heavy in the air at the TV Critics Association's winter press tour last week, with broadcast executives dismissing cable networks' impact on their businesses and CBS executives talking about merging their news operation with CNN.
Indeed, it was clear from the comments of network executives that cable's presence is transforming the way broadcast television executives approach the business.
Network executives readily acknow-ledge viewer erosion as a fact of life and a trend that will intensify as digital television takes hold. But execs from both CBS and ABC said they see their mission is to remain broadcasters, as opposed to narrowcasters.
ABC, for example, shared details of a big-budget 2-hour movie featuring Diana Ross and Brandy, Double Platinum, and a $30-million-and-counting 4-hour mini-series, Cleopatra, both to air in May. It's a throwback to broadcasting's glory days, when ABC used blockbuster programming events, such as Roots, to attract huge audiences.
Clearly, those days are gone.
But broadcasting is still a force to be reckoned with, despite perceptions that dog the industry, according to Alan Wurtzel, ABC's SVP of media development, brand management and research. Wurtzel pointed out that during an average week in primetime, for the coveted 18-to-49 year-old demographic, ABC reaches 65.1 million individuals. He compared it to cable's top tier. WTBS, he pointed out, is 239% lower than ABC; TNT, as another example, is 274% lower than ABC in this regard.
Erosion, said Wurtzel, is going to affect everyone, including cable, which has nearly wired the country. "The increase in the penetration of the top cable networks was due to the upgrading of cable systems," he said. The rising popularity of direct broadcast satellites will probably cannibalize cable, he said.
Another perception to which Wurtzel takes exception: That cable is attracting audiences with new series with a creative, cutting-edge. "The reality is it's sports, it's wrestling, and it's old movies that attract audiences to cable," he said. Wurtzel pointed to the top 10 cable programs, a list ranging from Sunday Night Football, to NASCAR. "Hardly what you might call the most creative envelope of television," Wurtzel said.
Other points to emerge at the winter tour: So if cable is less of a threat to broadcasting than it seems, why have the broadcast networks turned to the cable industry in recent top executive hires?
CBS Entertainment President Nancy Tellem doesn't think Fox turned to Comedy Central's Doug Herzog or NBC to Turner exec Scott Sassa, because of their cable backgrounds alone. Rather, broadcasting's powers-that-be recognize the need for executive talent with insight into the changing television times. Said Tellem: "It is a new business and you have to look at things differently and you're looking for someone willing to take some chances."
Meanwhile, CBS and CNN executives have met to talk about the possibility of merging their news operations, but such a deal is far from a reality, at least at this time, according to CBS President-Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves and CBS News President Andrew Heyward.
They were responding to reporters' inquiries about a piece in the February issue of Brill's Content, in which Editor-in-Chief and Court TV founder Steven Brill lays out a credible argument as to why a merger between the two parties not only makes sense, but is "almost inevitable," as Brill puts it.
From the dais, Moonves acknowledged that CBS met with CNN officials, as did other networks, to discuss costs savings and other benefits. But, said the CBS president, the situation isn't as simple as Brill lays out. Yes, the combined two might save money in newsgathering operations, he said, but there's more to consider. "You're dealing with Ted Turner," Moonves said. "You know, that (CNN) is his baby. He (Brill) went a little overboard with the piece," Moonves said.
But when pressed, Moonves would not rule out such a combination. "I would never say nothing will never happen ever and ever, ever," he said. Heyward, questioned privately, also said there are reasons to consider it. "There's enough potential there to make it interesting," he said.
But without joint ownership, said Heyward, a venture of that kind seems un-workable. "Without joint ownership, there are a large number of complex issues that arise," he said. Editorial control, of course, could be a sticking point, plus there's a problem Heyward referred to as, "an identity issue." "CNN and CBS News really do different things," Heyward said. Heyward described CNN is a "kind of generic wire service-type news," in contrast to CBS News' forte, which is producing distinctive news programs.
In the increasingly cluttered television universe, it's what CBS must do, said Heyward. "To the extent to which CBS became more like CNN, generic, why would you watch CBS News," he said.
Heyward also said some points don't square in Brill's report. "The underlying assumption about how delicious this deal might be doesn't recognize that, increasingly, there isn't as much duplication in newsgathering dollars spent as Steve Brill thinks, or the conventional wisdom says," Heyward said.
"The broadcast networks, and increasingly, the cable news networks, rely on agencies and others to provide the raw footage...No one is dispatching crews to bring back all those pictures you see," he said.
"The way network news divisions make their mark is by having a Dan Rather there who can interpret and give a distinct perspective on the news," Heyward said.
He also mentioned an ambivalence on Time Warner's part. "If there was a firm commitment to explore this aggressively on the part of both companies, we would explore it aggressively," he said.
Like Moonves, Heyward wouldn't rule it out. "But I don't think we're going to see the Steve Brill formula anytime soon," he said.
Why was CBS Eye on People Cable sold to Discovery? Said Moonves: "It's who's controlling the distribution system and we couldn't get into the ballgame. We were coming into the game late with that, we couldn't get the number of subs we would have liked. Discovery had opportunities we didn't, and it proved to be a proposal that was going to continue to lose money in the future, while it was advantageous for them
Back to this issue
|
 |
