• by January 31, 2006

THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BEHIND CW -- Does anyone else find it ironic that the first big move CBS makes after being deconsolidated to unlock market value, is cut a deal consolidating something to unlock market value? Surely, the broadcast network business was in need of some consolidation, but we haven't witnessed anything like this since the DuMont network signed off in 1956. If anything, the trend in broadcasting has been more, not less. Okay, so radio broadcaster Clear Channel has been trying to push less. And so now, it seems, is Les. Moonves, that is. The new CBS chief apparently has a different market vision than new Viacom chief Tom Freston. Whereas Freston is decentralizing his operations, Moonves is pursuing a unified theory of his media universe, consolidating assets, functions within CBS, and even its brand identity.

It was smart for CBS to put its golden eye on its radio and outdoor media assets. Smart,too, for it to unload the Paramount Parks business. It's a core message, built around a core proposition of delivering the best, most scalable media content that can only be done via an organization like Black Rock's, and a brand like CBS. The rest comes down to execution, staying on point, and sticking with the message. And putting a visionary like CBS research guru Dave Poltrack in charge of all those media assets is a good way to get the intel necessary to do that.

Oddly, Viacom is going the opposite root, decentralizing its brands, its infrastructure and its brain trust (see Riffification below) at a time when it might seem more important than ever for Paramount Studios to talk to MTV and for MTV to talk to BET. They may be positioned to different audiences in different ways, but they all have one thing in common: a need to understand how consumers relate to their brands, use their content and connect with their outlets. Well, it's a strategy anyway.

As for the consolidation of UPN and The WB into a new CW network, well, that's a smart move, but one that nonetheless has an air of desperation to it. Surely, the new network will have a better chance of breaking through to both consumers and advertisers, but we've got to wonder who really cares about networks all that much any more. It's about the content, the programming franchises, and the ability to distribute and promote them. We understand that. The CW comes out ahead on all those points, combining the best mix of shows and stations, as well as network management talent. But it comes just in time for broadcast distribution to become nearly irrelevant. Sure, we know that some U.S. households don't have and will continue to have no access to cable or satellite TV. But over time their access to unlimited multichannel programming options will change because of a far more important utility in their lives: broadband Internet connectivity.

Okay, so a lot of people will hold out on that one too. Which raises an even more important question: Why should we care about them? Seriously, we can only imagine the digital divide growing increasingly pronounced over time, unless the government steps in to correct that imbalance, giving everyone universal access to the ultimate pipeline, and eradicating the broadcast TV marketplace in the process.

That undoubtedly was an important factor in CBS' and Time Warner's thought process behind consolidating into the CW, and casting off numerous former affiliates. What was an affiliate land grab during the 1990s has turned into a survival of the fittest. Which probably explains why CBS and Time Warner don't fear another rival - say Rupert Murdoch - stepping forward to cobble together a new "sixth network." The action isn't on the ground. Terrestrial broadcasting is done. The new TV frontiers are either in the sky or on the Web.

But the most intriguing question of all to come out of the CW deal is whether Variety will have to discontinue using the term "weblets" in its headlines. And where exactly did that term come from? Clearly, it has nothing to do with the World Wide Web. Maybe it had something to do with the feet of erstwhile WB mascot Michigan J. Frog, who alas will be hopping back into that box, for who knows how long now?

RIFFIFICATION -- When last we riffed we inappropriately suggested that our favorite research diva Betsy Frank was "shown the door" by Viacom. Anyone who knows Betsy knows that could not be the case. But it wasn't until we heard from her that we got the real story behind her departure as Viacom research chief.

"It was a little over a year ago when I created this job with Tom [Freston] and it sounded like a great idea to expand the role I had in the company, and to make sure that all parts of Viacom were consumer-focused," explains Frank. "After we were spun off, it was clear that the company was going to be operated in a much more decentralized way, and I just didn't feel I was ready for that vaguely coordinating kind of job. I'm someone that is much happier being engaged and involved in the people I'm working with."

So Frank says she opted out, though she'll remain a Viacom consultant for a while, and will assist MTV Networks sales chief Larry Divney through the 2006-07 upfront sales season.

"It really was my thinking, my idea, just based on what I felt I could contribute to the business. At the same time, I'm having some conversations with some really exciting companies."