Connect with us

Published

on

Striking Writers Guild of America (WGA) members walk the picket line in front of Netflix offices as SAG-AFTRA union announced it had agreed to a ‘last-minute request’ by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers for federal mediation, but it refused to again extend its existing labor contract past the 11:59 p.m. Wednesday negotiating deadline, in Los Angeles, California, July 12, 2023.

Mike Blake | Reuters

Traditional TV is dying. Ad revenue is soft. Streaming isn’t profitable. And Hollywood is practically shut down as the actors and writers unions settle in for what is shaping up to be a long and bitter work stoppage.

All of this turmoil will be on investors’ minds as the media industry kicks off its earnings season this week, with Netflix up first on Wednesday.

Netflix, with a new advertising model and push to stop password sharing, looks the best positioned compared to legacy media giants. Last week, for instance, Disney CEO Bob Iger extended his contract through 2026, telling the market he needed more time at the Mouse House to address the challenges before him. At the top of the list is contending with Disney’s TV networks, as that part of the business appears to be in a worse state than Iger had imagined. “They may not be core to Disney,” he said.

“I think Bob Iger’s comments were a warning about the quarter. I think they are very worrying for the sector,” said analyst Michael Nathanson of SVB MoffettNathanson following Iger’s interview with CNBC’s David Faber on Thursday.

Although the soft advertising market has been weighing on the industry for some quarters now, the recent introduction of a cheaper, ad-supported option for services like Netflix and Disney+ will likely be one bright spot as one of the few areas of growth and concentration this quarter, Nathanson said.

Iger has talked at length in recent investor calls and Thursday’s interview about how advertising is part of the plan to bring Disney+ to profitability. Others, including Netflix, have echoed the same sentiment.

Netflix will report earnings after the close Wednesday. Wall Street will be keen to hear more details about the rollout of its password sharing crackdown in the U.S. and state of its newly launched ad-supported option. The company’s stock is up nearly 50% this year, after a correction in 2022 that followed its first subscriber loss in a decade

Investor focus will also be on legacy media companies like Paramount Global, Comcast Corp. and Warner Bros. Discovery, which each have significant portfolios of pay-TV networks, following Iger’s comments that traditional TV “may not be core” to the company and all options, including a sale, were on the table. These companies and Disney will report earnings in the weeks ahead.

Strike woes

Scene from “Squid Game” by Netflix

Source: Netflix

Just a week ahead of the earnings kickoff, members of The Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists joined the more than 11,000 already-striking film and television writers on the picket line.

The strike – a result of the failed negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers – brings the industry to an immediate halt. It’s the first dual strike of this kind since 1960.

The labor fight blew up just as the industry has moved away from streaming growth at all costs. Media companies saw a boost in subscribers – and stock prices – earlier in the pandemic, investing billions in new content. But growth has since stagnated, resulting in budget cuts and layoffs.

“The strike happening suggests this is a sector in tremendous turmoil,” said Mark Boidman, head of media and entertainment investment banking at Solomon Partners. He noted shareholders, particularly hedge funds and institutional investors, have been “very frustrated” with media companies.

Iger told CNBC last week the stoppage couldn’t occur at a worse time, noting “disruptive forces on this business and all the challenges that we’re facing,” on top of the industry still recovering from the pandemic.

These are the first strikes of their kind during the streaming era. The last writers strike occurred in 2007 and 2008, which went on for about 14 weeks and gave rise to unscripted, reality TV. Hollywood writers have already been on strike since early May of this year.

Depending on the longevity of the strike, fresh film and TV content could dry up and leave streaming platforms and TV networks – other than library content, live sports and news – bare.

For Netflix, the strikes may have a lesser effect, at least in the near-term, Insider Intelligence analyst Ross Benes said. Content made outside the U.S. isn’t affected by the strike — an area where Netflix has heavily invested.

“Netflix is poised to do better than most because they produce shows so well in advance. And if push comes to shove, they can rely on international shows, of which they have so many,” said Benes. “Netflix is the antagonist in the eyes of strikes because of how it changed the economics of what writers get paid.”

Traditional TV doom

Disney CEO Bob Iger on linear TV: Disruptive forces are greater than I thought

The decline of pay-TV subscribers, which has ramped up in recent quarters, should continue to accelerate as consumers increasingly shift toward streaming.

Yet, despite the rampant decline, many networks remain cash cows, and they also supply content to other parts of the business — particularly streaming.

For pay-TV distributors, hiking the price of cable bundles has been a method of staying profitable. But, according to a recent report from MoffettNathanson, “the quantity of subscribers is falling far too fast for pricing to continue to offset.”

Iger, who began his career in network TV, told CNBC last week that while he already had a “very pessimistic” view of traditional TV before his return in November, he has since found it’s even worse than he expected. The executive said Disney is assessing its network portfolio, which includes broadcaster ABC and cable channels like FX, indicating a sale could be on the table.

Paramount is currently considering a sale of a majority stake in its cable-TV network BET. In recent years Comcast’s NBCUniversal has shuttered networks like NBC Sports and combined sports programming on other channels like USA Network.

“The networks are a dwindling business, and Wall Street doesn’t like dwindling businesses,” said Nathanson. “But for some companies, there’s no way around it.”

Making matters worse, the weak advertising market has been a source of pain, particularly for traditional TV. It weighed on the earnings of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery in recent quarters, each of which have big portfolios of cable networks.

Advertising pricing growth, which has long offset audience declines, is a key source of concern, according to MoffettNathanson’s recent report. The firm noted that this could be the first non-recessionary year that advertising upfronts don’t produce increases in TV pricing, especially as ad-supported streaming hits the market and zaps up inventory.

Streamers’ introduction of cheaper, ad-supported tiers will be a hot topic once again this quarter, especially after Netflix and Disney+ announced their platforms late last year.

“The soft advertising market affects everyone, but I don’t think Netflix is as affected as the TV companies or other established advertising streamers,” said Benes. He noted while Netflix is the most established streamer, its ad tier is new and has plenty of room for growth.

Advertising is now considered an important mechanism in platforms’ broader efforts to reach profitability.

“It’s not a coincidence that Netflix suddenly became judicious about freeloaders while pushing a cheaper tier that has advertising,” said Benes, referring to Netflix’s crackdown on password sharing. “That’s pretty common in the industry. Hulu’s ad plan gets more revenue per user than the plan without advertising.”

Are more mergers coming?

Last week’s ruling from a federal judge that Microsoft’s $68.7 billion acquisition of game publisher Activision Blizzard should move forward serves as a rare piece of good news for the media industry. It’s a signal that significant consolidation can proceed even if there’s temporary regulatory interference.

Although the Federal Trade Commission appealed the ruling, bankers took it as a win for dealmaking during a slow period for megadeals.

“This was a nice win for bankers to go into board rooms and say we’re not in an environment where really attractive M&A is going to be shot down by regulators. It’s encouraging,” said Solomon Partners’ Boidman.

As media giants struggle and shareholders grow frustrated, the judge’s ruling could fuel more deals as “a lot of these CEOs are on the defensive,” Boidman added.

Regulatory roadblocks have been prevalent beyond the Microsoft deal. A federal judge shut down book publisher Penguin Random House’s proposed purchase of Paramount’s Simon & Schuster last year. Broadcast station owner Tegna scrapped its sale to Standard General this year due to regulatory pushback.

“The fact that we are so focused on the Activision-Microsoft deal is indicative of a reality that dealmaking is going to be an enormous tool going forward to solidify market position and jump your company inorganically in ways you couldn’t do yourself,” said Jason Anderson, CEO of Quire, a boutique investment bank.

These CEOs won’t just do a deal to do a deal. From this point forward, it will take a higher bar to consolidate.

Peter Liguori

former Tribune Media CEO

Anderson noted bankers are always thinking about regulatory pushback, however, and it shouldn’t necessarily be the reason deals don’t come together.

Warner Bros. and Discovery merged in 2022, ballooning the combined company’s portfolio of cable networks and bringing together its streaming platforms. Recently, the company relaunched its flagship service as Max, merging content from Discovery+ and HBO Max. Amazon bought MGM the same year.

Other megadeals occurred before that, too. Comcast acquired U.K. broadcaster Sky in 2018. The next year, Disney paid $71 billion for Fox Corp.’s entertainment assets – which gave Disney “The Simpsons” and a controlling stake in Hulu, but makes up a small portion of its TV properties.

“The Simpsons”: Homer and Marge

Getty / FOX

“The Street and prognosticators forget that Comcast and Sky, Disney and Fox, Warner and Discovery —happened just a few years ago. But the industry talks as if these deals happened in BC not AD times,” said Peter Liguori, the former CEO of Tribune Media who’s a board member at TV measurement firm VideoAmp.

Consolidation is likely to continue once companies are finished working through these past mergers and get past lingering effects of the pandemic, such as increased spending to gain subscribers, he said. “These CEOs won’t just do a deal to do a deal. From this point forward, it will take a higher bar to consolidate.”

Still, with the rise of streaming and its lack of profitability and bleeding of pay-TV customers, more consolidation could be on the way, no matter what.

Whether M&A helps push these companies forward, however, is another question.

“My kneejerk reaction to the Activision-Microsoft ruling was there’s going to be more M&A if the FTC is going to be defanged,” Nathanson said. “But truth be told, Netflix built its business with licensing content and not having to buy an asset. I’m not really sure the big transactions to buy studios have worked out.”

–CNBC’s Alex Sherman contributed to this article.

Disclosure: Comcast owns NBCUniversal, the parent company of CNBC.

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending