Althouse: "HBO’s would-be minders are experts in distribution systems and profit margins who know little or nothing about the ego-fueled dramas that help put the show in show business."

June 14, 2018

"HBO’s would-be minders are experts in distribution systems and profit margins who know little or nothing about the ego-fueled dramas that help put the show in show business."

"Will these telecommunications executives be able to put up with the producers, directors and stars whose work gave the network 29 Emmys last year? 'HBO’s and AT&T’s cultures also come from a very different financial perspective,' said Gary Arlen, the head of Arlen Communications, a research firm that examines the media and telecommunications industries. 'AT&T comes from a legacy of rate regulations, and every expense has to be justified.'"

From "Will AT&T Be Able to Handle HBO?" (NYT). The article refers to AT&T as "a conservatively run company based in Dallas." I don't think "conservatively run company" should mean politically conservative, and I don't think there are any references politics in the story. It's more a contrast between numbers-oriented businessfolk versus the magical creatures who make art happen, but I'm guessing the NYT is concerned about the freedom of HBO to continue a left-wing mission, and that anxiety slipped out in the words "conservatively run."

26 comments:

Matt Sablan said...: "And on the personal level, how will the relationship go between Richard Plepler, the smooth-talking, perpetually tanned chief executive of HBO, and the man who would be his new boss, Randall Stephenson, a former national chairman of the Boy Scouts of America?"

-- I'd say the subtext is there.; 6/14/18, 11:24 AM
rehajm said...: Why can’t Bezos or Soros or the Obamas or Hillary! buy them!!!! Waaaaa!; 6/14/18, 11:27 AM
Michael K said...: I have not watched an HBO program in many years.

Not in my wheelhouse.; 6/14/18, 11:27 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Yeah, it isn't like Time-Warner didn't already have bean counting CEOs watching HBO's operations.; 6/14/18, 11:30 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Michael K,

You really should check out some of their programming. A lot of it is really good, well made drama.; 6/14/18, 11:31 AM
tcrosse said...: This is all we need: to have media concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Diversity is our strangth.; 6/14/18, 11:32 AM
YoungHegelian said...: The AOL-Time-Warner merger was already a record disaster among corporate mergers. I'm sure that adding another layer of management is going to ignite the creative passions of everyone involved.; 6/14/18, 11:45 AM
n.n said...: The NYT is known for its liberal exploitation of close associations to progress a framed narrative.; 6/14/18, 11:45 AM
Rob said...: Oh no, the dreaded "suits." As if the suits at Time Warner weren't already a factor at HBO.; 6/14/18, 11:45 AM
Seeing Red said...: What’s the beef? ATT now has access to Hollywood accounting.; 6/14/18, 12:13 PM
Jupiter said...: HBO? Isn't that the video rental company that went out of business about 20 years ago?; 6/14/18, 12:25 PM
tim in vermont said...: You really should check out some of their programming. A lot of it is really good, well made drama.

“You should try this wine, ignore the turds in the bottle, the wine is really good!”; 6/14/18, 12:27 PM
Roughcoat said...: If new management prioritizes the bottom line, will that result in the end of money-losing leftist movies the entertainment industry pumps out?

If so ... bring it on, I say.

Bring. It.; 6/14/18, 12:32 PM
tim in vermont said...: This is the same group of fans, remember, whose entire rant is rooted in their own personal politics and a desire to see their personal preferences projected onto the screen while nobody else is entitled to the same right or representation. That enraged reactionaries want to deny everybody else equal representation while demanding their own right to be heard and obeyed is hardly new or shocking, of course. These types of vulgar fans always existed, because fandom is just a portion of the population as a whole, and the population always includes angry self-entitled bigots.

In other words, it's fine to ignore them and to not care what they want or what they say, and to deny them the myopic whitewashed world they demand. They don't deserve representation of their ideas, since their ideas are backward, hateful, and devoid of merit in the first place. If you scream in anger about seeing other people represented, if you harass and insult and threaten marginalized people for daring to exist and to appear in movies, then you and your beliefs have no place in modern storytelling or modern society (except as villains to be defeated and cast aside forever). -Disney mouthpiece Forbes.

H/T Ace of Spades

I like the part about denying “equal representation” to a tiny percentage of the population which should, but rights, be represented as fully and completely as the other 90+ percent of the population who just want some entertainment.; 6/14/18, 1:00 PM
readering said...: This sounds like the concern when GE bought NBC. NBC survived fine.; 6/14/18, 1:10 PM
mccullough said...: AOL and Time are two brands that really don’t exist anymore. AT&T and HBO still have some cachet. Warner is still a strong name in movie and TV. They own Turner tv and CNN, which are still alive.

AT&T does have to worry that entertainers and producers will turn out to be like Cosby and Weinstein. Or mouth off like Roseanne and Samantha Bee. The corporate due diligence is now like sports teams investigating personal background of potential draft picks. Watch out for the rapists like Jameis Winston; 6/14/18, 2:27 PM
Darkisland said...: Michael,

I've not had hbo for 10 years or so. The few good shows like the wire, boardwalk empire or Treme I buy via Amazon or get them on Prime.

There is some good stuff on HBO but most seems to be dreck

John Henry; 6/14/18, 2:36 PM
Ralph L said...: GE bought NBC.
GE bought RCA.

"Conservatively run" normally means minimizing risk, which I imagine accurately describes AT&T's culture compared to that of the entertainment industry.

OTOH, they declined to do anything about the 6" tree limb deflecting their main wire for my end of town. They said they would only do something about it when the line came down. If I could reach someone local, I'd fuss at them to refund the money I paid the tree trimmers.; 6/14/18, 2:52 PM
AustinRoth said...: From someone that has dealt extensively with AT&T and Verizon executives.

There is reason for concern about the culture fits here. You move up the corporate ladder in those organizations by taking no chances, making no decisions until all other choices have been eliminated, ensuring you are isolated from any fallout from negative publicity or results, and are positioned to take all credit for anything positive. That is what the NYT probably meant by conservative - a 60s style corporate culture.

It will be interesting to see how the creative types deal with that mentality.; 6/14/18, 2:55 PM
rcocean said...: I was shocked to learn that EVERY anti-trust case can be decided by one Federal Judge.

It doesn't matter what the DoJ thinks, only ONE Federal Judge.

In effect, Anti-trust is taken out of the hands of elected officials and put in the hands of judges. Another end run around Democracy by the power elite.

Big Corps bribe the POTUS and a couple Senators, make sure the *Right* judges are appointed and presto-chango a toothless anti-trust law. Wall Street can then run wild. Clever.; 6/14/18, 3:03 PM
Mary Beth said...: One thing I like about HBO is that they were among the first (maybe the first?) to let viewers stream their channel online, without having to have a subscription to a cable TV service. I appreciate being able to purchase the channels I want to watch without having to pay for all the ones that I'll never use.; 6/14/18, 3:26 PM
dustbunny said...: This was the plot of Tina Fey’s 30 Rock. Alec Baldwin as the head of the microwave division of GE, was sent to rein in the creative chaos of the writers and actors.; 6/14/18, 4:35 PM
cubanbob said...: Revenue over expenses. As long as there enough surplus revenue over expenses thats all the suits will care about. The talent can be as hissy and dramatic as they like as long as they make the money. Once they don't, out the door they go.; 6/14/18, 6:41 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: Purely from a financial perspective, it seems unlikely that AT&T will be able to resolve the the clash between its culture and Time Warner's culture in a way that will allow for effective integration of the firms. Without that integration, the supposed financial benefits of the deal will not occur or will be substantially diminished. The WSJ today had a telling example of the different cultures: "AT&T will have to reconcile its culture, where all but nine top executives usually fly coach, with Time Warner’s Hollywood lifestyle, where most vice presidents and above fly business class and airport greeters are common." https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-t-beat-the-government-over-time-warnernow-comes-the-hard-part-1528927506?commentId=ad5ea807-7d0d-4855-9c7e-2e1a0354c111#comments_sector. It's not uncommon for the acquirer's efforts to squeeze the employees of the acquired firm into the former's mold to either drive away the talent or otherwise engender a lot of stubborn opposition to the smooth integration sought by the acquirer. The result is that the synergies on which the deal price were based never never realized. See, e.g., the failed acquisition by Kraft (buttoned down white shirts) of Celestial Seasoning (hippies).; 6/14/18, 7:36 PM
actual items said...: Verizon has owned HuffPo and Tumblr for over a year and nothing has changed at those sites. So AT&T could treat HBO similarly.; 6/15/18, 11:33 AM
Caligula said...: "AT&T comes from a legacy of rate regulations, and every expense has to be justified."

Except, the AT&T formerly known as "Ma Bell" ceased to exist over 34 years ago. The company that today does business as AT&T is a very, very different company: in some ways far better (e.g., forced to be competitive) and in others worse (e.g., regulators would never have permitted today's junk fees).

As for "every expense has [had] to be justified," that has a far different meaning for a regulated monopoly than for a competitive company. The old AT&T didn't much care what anything cost because, being vertically integrated, it didn't buy much of anything from anyone other than itself anyway. And "regulation," far from incentivizing thrift, created incentives to spend lavishly (i.e., if you're guaranteed a fixed-rate return-on-investment it'll always be in your interest to increase your costs).

And what is the relationship between today's AT&T brand, and the now long-defunct regulated monopoly? Very little indeed, other than the brand name itself.

In any case, Hollywood may sacrifice potential profits for political correctness, but it surely does not (has it ever?) sacrificed profits for the sake of making better art.

To be sure, there may be some culture clash. Entertainment companies depend heavily on blockbusters: it tends to be a high-risk, high-profit sort of business, as well as one in which rational financial analysis is of little value in selecting which investments are likely to be winners.

But, they're still not as far apart as all that. And to the extent that "phone companies" increasingly own the pipes that deliver entertainment product to consumers, some convergence is to be expected.

Because, truly, NYT, the Ma Bell world of giant factories producing rotary dial phones died some time ago. And so did the legacy AT&T that you seem to be confusing with the contemporary company that shares little with its predecessor other than its brand name.; 6/15/18, 4:30 PM