MEDIA BUSINESS

No mousy deal: Murdoch’s Fox remains clever as ever in the deal with Disney

The Disney-Fox tie-up is smart because it deftly sidesteps the basic regulatory concerns.

A brief sequence in a 1998 episode of The Simpsons showed 20th Century Fox – the US cinema studio owned by Rupert Murdoch – being taken over by Disney, the quintessential American media company. Last month’s announcement about Disney acquiring the movie and TV properties of Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox demonstrated the enviable record of The Simpsons in predicting landmark events. The reportage on the deal has been mostly anxious and alarmist (and occasionally) optimistic, with much focus on the future of entertainment.

However, not enough credit has been given to the fact that this deal, now awaiting regulatory approval, is unusual but smart.

It is unusual because so far, major deals in the US media have involved content-producing majors, themselves a product of mergers between erstwhile TV and cinema giants, coming together with broadcasting or carriage majors. In the last decade, we saw NBCUniversal merging with the cable giant Comcast and the venerable Time Warner announcing its acquisition by the grand old telecommunication company, AT&T.

Contrasting such vertical accumulation, the Disney-Fox deal involves two content majors (though Fox also has stakes in key distribution companies in Europe and India). Fox is giving up their movies and TV production studios, cable channels including National Geographic as well as its existing stake in European satellite broadcaster Sky and India’s STAR broadcast network. But it retains Fox News, the Fox broadcast network, Fox Sports, Fox Business and regional TV stations in the US. In other words, the Disney-Fox case is a horizontal merger.

Precisely because of this, it is likely to arouse close regulatory attention because horizontal accumulation, which reduces the number of market players, directly impacts competition. Even in the free-market United States of America, such deals are subject to a series of evidence-based regulatory approvals, taking anywhere between 10 to 15 months. For instance, approval of the last mega-acquisition in the US media business – Time Warner by AT&T – that was announced in October 2016 is still pending.

Regulatory scrutiny particularly looks into risks of market power emerging from such mega megers and acquisitions, since these directly impact citizens, competitors, and the public exchequer.

Wily as ever

The Disney-Fox deal is smart because it deftly sidesteps the basic regulatory concerns.

The immediate anxiety arises because one of the Big Six studios of Hollywood is effectively being gobbled up by another. No doubt this will enhance market power in the cinema business. The combined Disney-Fox entity could account for almost 40% of the box offices in the US and the United Kingdom – one reason why this deal will be scrutinised by regulators in both countries. However, if the US government is to block this deal, it will have to unequivocally demonstrate a gamut of realistic threats arising from such prospective market concentration.

Unlike the cinema business, which is largely subjected to ex-post regulation in the US (based on results and not forecasts) the TV and cable businesses are replete with ex-ante regulation. Anti-competitive protocols are strong in the TV business, courtesy the Federal Communications Commission – the country’s primary authority for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable – which lays out that no company can own more than one of the major broadcast networks (Disney owns ABC while Murdoch has Fox News). By not selling its US broadcast assets like Fox News and Fox Sports to Disney, Fox has neatly sidestepped expressly palpable objections by the Federal Communications Commission.

In hiving off its cinema as well as TV production studios to Disney, Fox puts the onus on the deal’s likely critics to impeccably demonstrate any possible adverse impact on the business milieu and on public interest. The US government and media advocacy groups will have to convincingly show the enlarged movie-making assets of Disney being a threat to competition in the cinema industry. Even more arduous to prove will be the rise in overall media concentration as a result of Disney controlling a wide corpus of non-news content across cinema and TV.

In the UK, which has stronger cross-media ownership protocols than USA and where Murdoch has more newspapers, the Fox CEO seeks to pacify regulators by parceling out Fox’s share in Sky to Disney. Doing so will help Murdoch show his primary media assets are limited to newspapers, thus puncturing arguments of owning key assets across media sectors.

No timid retreat

The deal is smart beyond deft regulatory management. Far from being a timid retreat by Fox, it suggests a timely and tactical reorientation.

First, this deal allows Murdoch to focus on his core passion: news. In the Disney-Fox deal, the (predominantly American) TV news properties were retained by Murdoch’s company, and rightly so, because despite the globally fragile health of the news business over the last decade, Fox News was the undivided Fox’s biggest profit-driver. Along with Fox Sports, it is estimated to contribute to 76% revenues of the properties left out of the Disney deal.

Second, these properties are set to be combined with NewsCorp, the predominantly print media division of Murdoch’s global empire. This suggests he has chosen to retain and synergise assets that bring revenues and political influence in all conditions, shedding those yielding profit under oligopolist conditions. With such synergies, a more lean Murdoch looks to be preparing for another avatar in the global news business.

Third, combining a company twice its sixe gives Fox shareholders, which include the Murdoch family, a roughly 25% stake in the enlarged Disney. The Murdoch family trust is expected to become one of the largest shareholders (around 5%) in what will be the biggest and most globalised entertainment media conglomerate. It may be hard to visualise, but the fox has neatly ensconced itself in the belly of the mouse.

Vibodh Parthasarathi teaches media policy/business and is currently researching the Indian Media Economy.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Can a colour encourage creativity and innovation?

The story behind the universally favoured colour - blue.

It was sought after by many artists. It was searched for in the skies and deep oceans. It was the colour blue. Found rarely as a pigment in nature, it was once more precious than gold. It was only after the discovery of a semi-precious rock, lapis lazuli, that Egyptians could extract this rare pigment.

For centuries, lapis lazuli was the only source of Ultramarine, a colour whose name translated to ‘beyond the sea’. The challenges associated with importing the stone made it exclusive to the Egyptian kingdom. The colour became commonly available only after the invention of a synthetic alternative known as ‘French Ultramarine’.

It’s no surprise that this rare colour that inspired artists in the 1900s, is still regarded as the as the colour of innovation in the 21st century. The story of discovery and creation of blue symbolizes attaining the unattainable.

It took scientists decades of trying to create the elusive ‘Blue Rose’. And the fascination with blue didn’t end there. When Sir John Herschel, the famous scientist and astronomer, tried to create copies of his notes; he discovered ‘Cyanotype’ or ‘Blueprints’, an invention that revolutionized architecture. The story of how a rugged, indigo fabric called ‘Denim’ became the choice for workmen in newly formed America and then a fashion sensation, is known to all. In each of these instances of breakthrough and innovation, the colour blue has had a significant influence.

In 2009, the University of British Columbia, conducted tests with 600 participants to see how cognitive performance varies when people see red or blue. While the red groups did better on recall and attention to detail, blue groups did better on tests requiring invention and imagination. The study proved that the colour blue boosts our ability to think creatively; reaffirming the notion that blue is the colour of innovation.

When we talk about innovation and exclusivity, the brand that takes us by surprise is NEXA. Since its inception, the brand has left no stone unturned to create exclusive experiences for its audience. In the search for a colour that represents its spirit of innovation and communicates its determination to constantly evolve, NEXA created its own signature blue: NEXA Blue. The creation of a signature color was an endeavor to bring something exclusive and innovative to NEXA customers. This is the story of the creation, inspiration and passion behind NEXA:

Play

To know more about NEXA, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of NEXA and not by the Scroll editorial team.