4 ms·

> Before we blame Murdoch, I think it's worth remembering that NatGeo was in a bad position when it was sold off to Murdoch...that's why it was sold off in the

• Shivetya 11y ago
  either for nostalgic purposes or simply because they determined the name still has value and with some corrections could again be valuable?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• acveilleux 11y ago
  The TV channel.
  • protomyth 11y ago
    and the accumulated library of pictures, video, etc.
• mattzito 11y ago
  It's a largely unknowable question, since it's just in the eye of the beholder. It could be purely a "let's wring whatever value we can get out of the brand until it's a dried-up husk and throw it aside". Or it could be a, "Look, this isn't a very well-run business, there's a lot of redundancy, and a lot of investment in prestige initiatives that don't bring in a lot of revenue, so let's trim things down and focus on higher-margin operations, and then see how we can leverage the brand across the rest of the organization". I mean, both of my scenarios are effectively very similar, one just assumes malice, the other good corporate stewardship. It's hard to know.
  • mason240 11y ago
    Hopefully it is because they identified all things t2015_08_25 did in the top post, and they see it a currently under preforming and make a killing by implementing those changes.
• wheaties 11y ago
  The wildlift, historical and other such scenes are reuseable and repackageable to an extreme. That is, they are still relevant 30 years from when they are filmed. That makes those assets quite valuable over the long run as you can continuously extract fees from licensing. Compare that to tv shows and even reality tv which quickly become dated and have a short shelf life.
  • dredmorbius 11y ago
    Sadly, with the rate of wilderness, wildlife, and species loss, quite likely far more valueable in 30 years' time. Comparative analysis of human + domesticated animal terrestrial vertebrate biomass vs. that of wildlife is truly staggering. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112773623 http://www.democraticunderground.com/112773623
    • 13thLetter 11y ago
      The guy in that linked post just pulled his 10,000 BC biomass estimate out of thin air. I wouldn't go around making any major life decisions based on it.
• ridgeguy 11y ago
  Possibly because Murdoch noticed that Nat Geo's subscriber demographics skew towards older people with more money to spend? Maybe he thinks he can monetize the subscriber asset base better.
• ycosynot 11y ago
  If Fox backs neutrally positive enterprises, at the core of US identity, then it gains legitimity in the eyes of the Left community. So basically, it should make the right gain votes, at least in the long term, and if he doesn't kill the thing. Well, this is just a thought.
• brc 11y ago
  Frankly I have trouble believing the evil mastermind conspiracy theories that are so prevalent every time Murdoch, Soros or whoever buys something. People forget that it's not a personal plaything like a sports team, but a business investment. Sure, it's possible Rupert Murdoch personally structured a deal to buy this company, then gave strict orders to fire anyone who didn't watch Fox News. I find it far easier to believe that News Corp, as a publicly traded company, wants to increase its own equity value by allocating capital well. And that the executives who work there have shown skill at identifying big-brand media companies who have been mismanaged and are in terminal decline, and purchasing them for a price which makes it easy to streamline the operation, cut dead wood and make a profit on the transaction. The alternative is that the name and brand dissappears below the waterline forever and becomes something that people used to talk about.