So Robert Redford Did It...

redfordgreenstill.jpgSo the Sundance Channel -- which showcases Robert Redford's annual film festival and reaches about 26 million viewers devoted to indie, world cinema, documentaries, short films, and original programming -- has been sold for $496 million, which was the top end of the price that it was expected to fetch. As expected, Cablevision's Rainbow Media, which already owns AMC and WE: Women's Entertainment and the Independent Film Channel, made the deal with the three co-owners: it's basically a stock swap with GE (whose stake is 55%)but does put cash in the hands of both CBS Inc (35%) and Redford (10%). In yet more media consolidation, it gives Rainbow Media more cable clout as it already owns the AMC Network and WE: Women's Entertainment networks and the Independent Film Channel as well as IFC films. But Wall Street analysts can;t make up their mind about the deal. Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Capital, told Bloomberg: "It's kind of the worst of all possible worlds. The $500 million is as much as all the free cash flow they will generate this year.'' But earlier he described it as "a positive long-term strategic move" for Cablevision. 

« URGENT! AMPTP Walks From SAG Talks; Repeat Of Big Media Arrogance Towards WGA; SAG & AMPTP Spar In Statements   SAG Contract Report #4: Actor Issues »

11 Comments »

  1. Wow. More media consolidation! Just what we f**king need. Why isn’t this kind of thing an issue in the presidential primary — oh, I forgot, our consolidated media isn’t about to ask any questions when there is so much more we need to know about flag pins.

    Comment by amazed — May 7, 2008 @ 10:15 am

  2. Greenfield’s an idiot.
    It’s a smart buy for Cablevision.
    Cable TV business is about serving niche audiences. Sundance is a very strong brand for indy niche auds and their content library is nothing to sneeze at either.

    Comment by reelbusy — May 7, 2008 @ 10:21 am

  3. Yeah…

    American media asked SOOO many questions back in the good old days, when we always had the inside scoop on government. You know, the glory days… When three giant corporations owned three networks. Rather than six giant corporations owning 200 channels.

    Comment by ckn8 — May 7, 2008 @ 10:27 am

  4. The film festival sold out long ago, why not the channel?

    Comment by Bobby Redford — May 7, 2008 @ 10:47 am

  5. Considering Redford only owned 6 % of the Sundance Channel that he founded in 1996 (and acknowledging that the SMF has sold out to corporate interests as well), with NBC owning the bulk of it (and NBC itself being up for sale), is it any wonder that is was sold?

    Maybe, with some luck, Cablevision will maintain the independent spirit of the Sundance channel, not unlike they’ve done with IFC, et al.

    At least Fox didn’t buy it. Be thankful for small favors.

    Comment by J.J. — May 7, 2008 @ 11:13 am

  6. Wall St. is the ruination of this country.

    The best way to diminish media conglomeration is to divest any media holdings in your portfolio, and support these companies as little as possible with your wallet

    Comment by Divest now — May 7, 2008 @ 11:16 am

  7. What great irony is the selling out of the “independent” spirit.

    Shame on Redford whom I’ve greatly admired until learning of this.

    Comment by Everyone's corrupt — May 7, 2008 @ 11:59 am

  8. ckn8’s comment is right on the money, except he or she leapfrogs over the Financial Syndication rules (FinSyn) that briefly prevented networks from owning the shows that they ran. Between the time of the three giant networks and today’s six owners of 200 channels existed a period of free trade, decent money, good employment and a diversity of ideas, all of which were wiped out in the name of so-called deregulation. Ten years ago, TV producers had 20 to 25 places to take projects. Now they have six, all of them vertically integrated and increasingly undistinguishable from one another. This is progress?

    Comment by Santayana — May 7, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

  9. Greenfield is not an idiot. If the price tag adversely impacts short-term free cash flow but is still a good strategic (read long-term) move then there is no conflict. It’s an investment that will hurt them this fiscal year but be a net positive going forward.

    Comment by Tom — May 7, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

  10. “The best way to diminish media conglomeration is to divest any media holdings in your portfolio, and support these companies as little as possible with your wallet”

    I think it would be very difficult to stop supporting these companies at all. I have no plans on boycotting the entire television, film, music and radio mediums anytime soon. Let’s come up with another plan.

    Comment by Bobby Redford — May 7, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

  11. To Bobby Redford’s comment: The plural of “medium” is “media” not “mediums,” unless you are defining “medium” as a size or as a palm reader. So, if you were referring to all of the famous clairvoyants involved in TV, film, music and radio, please disregard my correction.

    And on the topic of this post: The media are pretty worthless and clearly support the agenda of the huge corporations that control them. For example, when GE owns the network (NBC), is it any wonder that the debates have included few questions regarding the candidates’ environmental policy?

    Comment by mpagner — May 8, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML ( You can use these tags): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> .