Re: BCST--Is It the Holy Grail You Want, replytoo?
To replytoo (and especially, Friends of BCST):
I read with interest your Yahoo "dialog" with BCST's Mark Cuban on Monday (see links below).
(Yes, it was Mark himself. You know, it's virtually unprecedented for a leading public company's chairman to participate in a high-noise forum like Yahoo's message boards, so that alone should tell you something's very special about this firm. Let me know when Michael Eisner, Ted Turner, and Steve Case show up...)
I think he answered the substance of your questions and set the record straight, although his mission wasn't to convince you to become a BCST shareholder, let alone debate whether Michigan's infamous "Naked Mile" belongs on broadcast.com. (If, as you say, you've viewed or listened to the conference appearances of Wagner and Cuban, then you already have your answer.)
So what we're left with are responses to your commentary. I'll be brief:
1) BCST is not a "buyout candidate," and that's not relevant to whether it is a good investment.
2) CBS did, indeed, miss the boat with cable, among other tragedies. It attempted a half-baked cable project in the early 1980s and messed it up. Then, Larry Tisch raped and pillaged CBS, to which William Paley's response was to roll over in his grave. It is only now, subsequent to its acquisition by Westinghouse--one of the strangest transmogrifications in corporate history--getting back on its feet. But for CBS, it's a long, long way to deep "content" ownership. (Ditto NBC.) Unlike MSFT, however, CBS does *not* have $17B to throw around. That's why it spun off INF, and why its principal Internet ventures (MarketWatch, Sportsline, and the AOL relationship) reflect minority investments or "partnerships" and are not wholly-owned activities.
3) You are right, Content *is* King, and Mark Cuban agrees with you. Thus, BCST has secured long term, exclusive Internet broadcasting rights to a massive amount of broad-based content. Expect to see many, many more such deals. (In the meantime, do try to enjoy BCST's presentations of the Super Bowl, breaking news, college sports events, Turner Classics features, videos, live concerts and CDs, radio stations, the BBC, police scanners, Nasdaq corporate earnings conference calls, seminars, audiobooks, auctions, shopping, etc, etc.).
4) If you believe that BCST is about "owning" distribution, you miss the point. In the end, BCST is, well, an *arms merchant*. It's certainly an exhibitor (or hub or portal or host), and a very powerful one (say, 15mm+ visitors a month). Actually, it is said that BCST is now one of the 5 most influential Web sites in the world (the others: AMZN, AOL, MSFT and YHOO). But BCST is much more than that. It's an Internet broadcast *facilitator*, providing services that *make money* for content people (including, perhaps, you). BCST equips content players with immediate, targeted and interactive access to massive numbers of consumer and business desktops. Without BCST, most program people would have no *physical means of deployment* on the Internet, and that assumes people would *seek out* their content if they did. But, alas, people simply wouldn't. You see, consumers and businesses tend to follow the path of least resistance. Thus, the reality is that content must be "aggregated" (hate that word!) if it is to be made accessible. (Just ask Yahoo.) And that's why BCST has become the Pied Piper of Cyberspace. Some day, BCST will certainly develop a great deal of proprietary content, but that simply doesn't matter now. Or as someone recently said, "Some day, we'll all BCST this way!"
5) BCST's radio and TV clients don't have political, or cannibalism, or transfer pricing problems with their affiliates or O&Os. That's why they're *on* BCST. But the networks do, and that's why, with some limited exceptions (e.g., CNBC/Dow Jones Business Video, CNN, Turner Classics, Clinton testimony, etc.), they're not. You've heard Cuban and Wagner talk about this problem, and it will hound the broadcast establishment for years to come. When you think about it, you can easily see that the networks' Internet initiatives merely attempt to *enhance* their broadcast operations, not mimic or compete with them.
There's much, much more, of course, but this will get you started. Frankly, I don't understand why you were antagonistic; on second thought, you were rude. You'll not likely hear again from Mark.
To complete my response to you, let me point out a simple irony. In theory, at least, you could indeed broadcast Michigan's "Naked Mile" on the Internet. Hey, you could produce it, direct it, star in it and sell autographs! Just go to BCST's SimpleNet subsidiary and set up a Web site. (As you have a way with words, I'm sure you'll convince them it's not obscene.) Here's the link:
www1.simplenet.com
Finally let me reiterate something. It's not important to anyone that you invest in BCST. And BCST is not the Holy Grail. I invested because I believe in it. Maybe one day, you will, too.
BAM
post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com
post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com
post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com
post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com |
