Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger has written several provocative reports in the five months since he began covering media for the investment company — but his blast today at Viacom ranks among his toughest yet. Juenger lowered his price target by $1 to $47 warning investors that, with the steep ratings declines at Nickelodeon and MTV, “it is no longer inconceivable that a distributor would drop Viacom, or at least engage in a public battle with them over price increases.” While the odds of a Viacom black out are low, the mere possibility could make a world of difference to Wall Street: If CEO Philippe Dauman can’t extract high-single digit annual fee increases from cable and satellite companies then “the Viacom story would unravel.” It’s hard to say when Viacom might run into trouble, if it happens at all. “The timing of (its) affiliate fee negotiations remain the best kept secret in media,” Juenger says. But he adds that prudent investors should lighten up on their Viacom holdings “before such an event took place.”
This isn’t Juenger’s first blast at Viacom: He has already championed an argument that Dauman disputes — that Viacom shot itself in the foot by licensing Nickelodeon content to Netflix. That contributed to the drop in Nick’s pay TV ratings, the analyst says. Viacom can’t afford to admit it made a mistake, he adds. The company’s earnings would fall far short of forecasts if it had to give up the Netflix revenues next year when the companies’ licensing deal is up for renewal. Meanwhile he says that Nickelodeon is opting for a dangerous quick fix, compensating for its lost ratings by packing additional ads into its shows. Over time “advertisers notice and it will cause CPM’s to go down.” In that context, Juenger portrays Disney’s recent decision to eschew junk-food ads on its kids’ networks as a Machiavellian masterstroke. Now Viacom and Time Warner (which owns Cartoon Network) will have to take a stand. Viacom “has much more revenue to lose if they start turning away this advertising, but if they continue to accept ‘junk food’ advertising they risk being considered unconcerned about kids’ health.”
Juenger also believes that Paramount won’t help to rescue Viacom. “Unfortunately for today’s investors, it is destroying value” — generating returns that are well below the company’s borrowing costs — the analyst says. Just to break even, the studio would have to increase its operating income by at least $55M over its fiscal 2010 results, and that job will become harder without distribution agreements for films by Marvel and (at the end of this year) DreamWorks Animation. “Paramount is the only major theatrical studio without a major TV Production arm, which is the most attractive line of business for the other studios,” Juenger says.


“Paramount is the only major theatrical studio without a major TV Production arm, which is the most attractive line of business for the other studios,” Juenger says.
It’s only a matter of time. I’m sure the ibanks and management consultants have been pitching this 8 ways from Sunday.
I think this will be hurting alot of kids when you remove some of these station kids enjoy watching spougebob and other station that mean alot to othrer
there is the disney channel they will live
Netflix isn’t Viacom’s problem. Cable is Viacom’s problem. Cable companies have moved every decent channel onto to their most expensive digital tier at the same time that users were cutting back to basic or cutting cable completely.
Customers cut cable, while cable migrated Sponge Bob away from the 70 percent of basic cable users at a time when their audience was going online for content.
This article is a headscratcher, it’s like Juenger still thinks it’s 1999. Weird.
The media coverage of Disney pledge to stop taking junk food ads is puzzling.
First Disney Channel doesn’t take ads, they take “sponsorships”, so junk food advertisers couldn’t advertise on Disney Channel anyway (and Disney XD is so tiny, it doesn’t matter.)
Second, Nick and Cartoon have been addressing childhood obesity for years, they both have programs encouraging active lifestyles.
Lastly, the junk food advertisers changed their products or their media to abide by the government restrictions. So Disney is way behind the curve on this one.
Why hasn’t anyone called this what it is, a bulls**t PR move?
This is stupid they should not take Disney and MTV everyone likes those shows that company is dum
What the heck i have 3 kids who love nickelodeon. Why take it off it will afect Direct tv .kids love spongebob !!!!!
it sounds like viacom screwed themselves and while in the process of covering their butts they are punishing the customers. and if they take the channels off it will affect dtv. i do not know about any else but i do not plan on paying the same price if most of the main channels that i watch are dropped… its not not right what viacom is doing.
Save my channels I need Tosh.O and cartoon channels
This is not fair,the rich keep getting rich,at all costs. These ppl could care less about us… Just about money
I don’t watch those crappy channels anyway. How do they expect to get more money?
I am really PO @ VIACOM, greedy, and making the kids suffer, my kids are flipping out, but they will just have to adjust & choose something else, it is not right how Viacom is doing us, resulting in direct getting a bad name for having to up prices, and we shouldnt have to pay more because either dtv & viacoms GREED, they re rich enough, nor should we b held to our contracts with Directv cuz they re not giving what I signed up for and doesnt this mean I should credited on my bill?
as a long time direct tv subscriber i pay extra for a tv package that have the shows that i am contractually obliblgated to pay for, so therefore, i should get the channels that i can not get anymore. i think directtv should continue to show the channels that i am not able to get!!! direct tv is screwing us for being so damn greedy!!! if i pay for the tier that has the proper channels, i should get them!! i sign a contract ahead of time and then directtv cancels their end of the agreement!! this is legally right!!
I don’t know who is at fault here I only know that my little girl who is only five is devastated and to upset a child who is innocent is bad business. My five year old knows Nick channels by heart. She came to me and I thought she had messed up her TV come to find out it was all about greedy people wanting more money. How does Viacom explain this to a innocent child who only wants to watch sponge bob and Dora.