In his first public speaking engagement since leaving DirecTV for his return to News Corp No. 2 Chase Carey sat down for a keynote Q&A at the 2009 B&C/Multichannel News OnScreen Media Summit. Here’s what I thought was most pertinent, including that News Corp isn’t in acquisition mode because “I would rather be building businesses than buying them.”:
Q: One of the top stories in the news obviously is the talks—or whatever’s reportedly going on—between Comcast and General Electric. A lot of these reports say News Corp has been mentioned in one way or the other, so I’m going to ask you flat out: Is News Corp interested in being part of any deal to acquire NBC Universal?
Chase Carey: Anytime you have something of this size and scale going on, you’re not doing your job if you’re not thinking about it. [But] I don’t think it is something we are actively engaged in.Q. So do you think the Comcast-GE deal gets done?
Chase Carey: Neither one’s denying much right now. I think there’s a decent chance it will come to fruition. This is a deal that makes sense for GE today, and there seem to be reasons for both sides.Q. So is this a good deal for Comcast?
Chase Carey: I think [NBC Universal has] great assets, a unique set of assets. The cable channels are obviously the heart of it. They are run really nicely. A group of channels like that doesn’t come along very often. It is a truly unique set of businesses, and something that clearly caught the interest of Comcast.Q. Are you in an acquisition mode, and what would you be shopping for?
Chase Carey: Most of our success has been building businesses, not buying businesses. But I think where we can acquire businesses, you certainly want to acquire a business that you can buy at an early stage, get into and transform. If there is something that makes sense, we would look at it, but I would rather be building it than buying it.Q. Are the cable networks a good buy—maybe something like the Travel Channel? Just throwing that out there. Is that a good buy right now?
Chase Carey: I think cable networks are a great business; they have a lot of room to grow. The areas that would be at the top of the list would be international, which is a place to which we bring a unique set of strengths. In some ways, the international market is uniquely appealing. You always want to be an opportunist with the content businesses. There are ways to really expand that content portfolio. If I look at our cable group, it’s not where I’d like it to be today. I look at Discovery, it’s a road map of where I’d like to be.Q. Your boss says that the broadcast business simply can no longer be supported by ad dollars. So what happens next?
Chase Carey: It’s not rocket science. It starts with making it a dual revenue business. It doesn’t make sense that broadcast is only ad supported. It competes against other channels that are dual revenue businesses that are getting 1, 2, 4 dollars [per sub], while a network like Fox, it sits there with truly the best programming in sports and entertainment, so we need to move that business to a place where we are getting fair value.Q. There is one gigantic sports property with a big crossover appeal that is available right now, and that’s the next round of the Olympics. Yes or no, are you guys a player in this round?
Chase Carey: Like the comment about NBC Universal, I think we should be a player in things that potentially fit. It’s too early to say where the price will be, but when a franchise like the Olympics is up, is that something that we should be thinking about? We aren’t doing our job if we are not evaluating big franchises like that.Q. Is there any reason not to think, as I do, that Disney is going to land the Olympics? Their bids on other properties like the BCS are so above where other people, including yourselves, have come in.
Chase Carey: Yeah, I guess. Maybe they’re just buying everything. They’re supposed to be in [bidding for] March Madness and the NFL coming up, the Olympics, and maybe you just keep buying it all. At some point, do they decide that they’ve done enough? ESPN, that franchise clearly has built a great, great [business]. But it’s not my place to determine how much they want to keep doubling down and what are the consequences dealing with the [uncertainty] in the marketplace.Q. On the digital front, there’s a lot of talk right now about charging for content, something that has up to this point been given away for free. So let’s talk in general first. You guys have come out and said you are going to put up pay walls all over the place. Is that the right move? Do you think that the pendulum will swing back? Can you retrain the consumer?
Chase Carey: Actually, I think you can. It doesn’t mean just throw pay walls up everywhere. I think there will certainly be a part of the content experience that is always free. So I don’t think it means we just put on blinders and hide behind a pay wall. But on the flip side, I think certainly when you’ve got the ultimate fragmentation and customers jumping around the way that they do, I think the free model is very difficult. I actually think consumers will pay for value. And yes, you are going to have to fight; we won’t deny at all that we are going to have to deal with the fact that to varying degrees customers have gotten accustomed to it being free. Today it’s easy to make it free because it’s not really cannibalizing that much; the cannibalization is pretty small. But it’s gonna grow. And if you don’t get in front of it as it does start to cannibalize, the key business starts [getting cannibalized] down the road.Q. Another question on that. With something like Hulu, have you been training the consumer to go ahead and cannibalize your core product by presenting that free? Should Hulu start charging tomorrow?
Chase Carey: Hulu clearly needs to evolve to have meaningful subscription models as part of its business. We have partners, so [we all have to decide] where those lines are in terms of windows, content, etc. You can’t just put everything at Hulu behind a pay wall right up front, but I think you need to have a subscription model that really in many ways becomes increasingly the heart of the growth inside a business like Hulu. But I think we have to be realistic about where we are.






The NCAA would be a fool to give up CBS’s coverage of the Men’s Basketball Tournament after 2010. The present deal (worked out in 1999) is through 2013 and both sides will be ok with it. The one side that will not be ok will be ESPN. They are spending too much money on sports and I don’t think it is healthy. The reason for that is because ESPN has so much on the table that there is no way to broadcast everything unless you make more channels. Plus, with the economy going bad I think Bob Iger will force ESPN to opt out of some coverage and the BCS and other college bowls might be just the beginning.
Getting back to the NCAA Tournament, CBS might want to expand the tournament schedule wise with the first round lasting four days instead of the normal two and the Second round taking place on a Monday and Tuesday. This would allow for the Regional Semifinals and Finals to air on a national basis and the Final Four and Championship would take place in its current schedule.
The model alluded to by Carey–”dual revenue”–will likely succeed in helping the transition to the future of broadcast. It’s fairly easy to adjust the placement of pay walls, especially with online content. Marginal utility will triumph.
Pilots will remain part of the free content experience. Online audiences, starved for scripted shows, will watch the new programs, especially if their favorite shows are behind pay walls. If they like what they see, they can pay for them later. This might even give hope to the multitude of web series producers vying for a big break.
The unasked question, however, is the impact that this will have on culture. Cheaper programming, like reality shows, will remain the part of the free content experience. “Quality” will go to those who pay. Consider the slight “intelligence gap” already existing between the programming on the networks and on HBO/Showtime. That gap will widen substantially if networks move in the same direction. We call this the “entertainment industry,” but stories have instructional power as the conveyors of cultural values. What happens when we dump our reality shows on those who can’t afford better?
Mr Carey sez: “we are going to have to deal with the fact that to varying degrees customers have gotten accustomed to it being free”
Mr Carey seems unaware of his own business model, and of business reality. For one, cable isn’t free. (I’ll repeat that — CABLE ISN’T FREE.) People pay for cable, it isn’t free. I think Fox gets a piece of that (and if they don’t shouldn’t they fire somebody?).
Two, broadcast TV isn’t free. You don’t think the companies paying to advertise during the local or national news, or during daytime programming, were ever doing it out of the goodness of their collective hearts to keep our “free market” (ho-ho-ho) economy going, do you? You end up paying that money back to the advertisers because they add it to the retail price you pay in the store, right?
Three, the Internet isn’t free. I have to pay to connect to the Net, and so do you, unless you’re getting it expensed (in which case Whiskey will point out that you are 0.0005% of the population and thus statistically negligible).
Four, all News Corp needs to do to stop Google et al from “taking advantage” of their online news is to add a itty-bitty file called robots.txt to their website with the right contents. It takes ten minutes to make and their site will be invisible to Google. Are they really that incompetent or is this just a PR campaign like the Family Guy thing?
I’ll tell you one thing, playing whack-a-mole with the Internet is a losing proposition, there’s way more of us than there are of anybody except possibly China. (And that’s really the relevant metric for Rupert Murdoch — like Werner von Braun in Tom Lehrer’s song, you’d like to know if he’s learning Chinese to anticipate any change of citizenship on the part of this serial Australian/Briton/American to whom national allegiance is merely a flag of convenience.) Not that China’s net censorship is likely to work, see above.