Talk:Media conglomerate/Archives/2019

Broke up the examples table
Due to the insane and unmanageable width of the table in the former "Notable examples" section, I've broken it up into two tables based on the home country of the parent. (So, Media conglomerate and Media conglomerate. Along the way, I made some corrections:


 * 1) The column placement had been broken at some point, many of the rows had only 14 columns (not counting the first heading column), when they should've had 15. As a result, many of the cells towards the end of the row were in the wrong column. I believe I have corrected all of those and made sure that every company is attributed to the correct parent, but I would appreciate someone double-checking my work.
 * 2) Because the last row (annual revenue) was one of the ones missing a column, and because most of the entries are uncited, I had no way of knowing whether the US$14.70 billion listed was the revenue figure for Hasbro or Vivendi. (I know the US$207.6 million listed in the Vivendi column is not Vivendi's revenue, because it was listed as the TransCorp revenue, and TransCorp is owned by CT Corp.) Given the complete ambiguity of the Hasbro-or-Vivendi US$14.70 figure, I removed it entirely, and left the cell blank for both companies' revenue.

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing News Corporation
Does it even qualify to be included in US conglomerates? I mean yeah they really have minimum to no presence regarding channels in US and have no production studios in movies/tv. Infact compared to them we could've added Fox Corporation. I know media conglomerates is a term which multiple companies satisfy but for now i believe we can remove New Corporation to make it more concise. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I am removing News Corporation from the list. I'm for now also not adding Fox Corporation. Including those media conglomerates in the list which have significant presence in most of these areas: Movie/TV production, TV channels, Streaming Services (as these seem like one of the major future revenue streams for media companies), Publishing, Theme Parks, Gaming, Music, News and Sports.

--Shoxee1214 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we remove Access Industries?
I don't see any reason for keeping Access Industries in the list as its not that diverse and big? This list should have only have the major media companies otherwise this can become bloated. Maybe these companies: Discovery, Lionsgate, AMC, MGM are diverse and big enough to be included. Thoughts?

--Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we please set some minimum requirement for a conglomerate to get added in the article (IMPORTANT)!!!
Taking into account the current media landscape and the kind of diverse media companies that we have, how about setting some following conditions for a company to be included in the list to make this article more concise and clean? Following are some major media sectors. Please suggest others if i missed any.


 * 1) Production
 * 2) Movie Production
 * 3) TV production
 * 4) Distribution
 * 5) Media channels (Cable/Satellite/Broadcasting)
 * 6) OTT
 * 7) Live Production?
 * 8) News
 * 9) Sports
 * 10) Misc
 * 11) Publishing
 * 12) Theme Parks
 * 13) Music
 * 14) Games

Minimum requirement:
 * Company should have a major presence in both category 1 (Movie and TV production) areas
 * Company should have a major presence in one of category 2 (OTT or cable/satellite/broadcasting) areas. Netflix is among the biggest media companies with only digital distribution (OTT) and traditional distribution is not the target area that new/old companies are looking at majorly for their future. So a major presence in only one area is enough for a company to be included into the list?
 * Major present in category 3 (News/Sports) is OPTIONAL
 * Only big 6/7 (based on revenue or market-cap. whichever we all agree on) conglomerates should be added in the table to keep it from not becoming bloated.

Regarding Publishing/Parks/Music/Games: I can't seem to decide whether major presence in some or most of these areas should be optional or mandatory. These especially are the areas which only few companies have a presence. Comcast/Disney are big in Theme parks, Disney/At&T are big in publishing (Marvel/DC), only At&T is big in video games and similarly Access Industries is big in Music. So what do you suggest, should presence in all of these areas be optional?

Final word: Please remember that a company should have a MAJOR presence in specified areas. For instance, Lionsgate has major movie/tv production studios but it only has one major distribution network named Starz. And is it big enough (revenue/market cap) to be included in top six or seven media companies. Similarly i believe we should remove Fox Corporation as its a trimmed down company focusing on News/Sports only, it doesnt have a significant presence in movie/tv production to be included. Please share your feedback to set some standards, otherwise as of right now I don't think this article makes much sense. We have Access Industries but dont have Netflix (Movie/TV/OTT) and Discovery Inc. (Movie/TV/) in the table, which are big media companies. So maybe some standards are needed? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * TV, web media and publishing of News are more important than Entertainments for media conglomerate problems. Anyway, if mass media say "X is a media conglomerate", it should be enough to say a notable media conglomerate. --240B:11:43A0:4BF0:E109:2D08:A73:7948 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, Shoxee1214, mostly. The Misc. are primarily to show what other media areas that the conglomerates operate in and should consist of categories that many of the conglom operate in (say 50%+ of them). Theme parks, you have Universal, Disney and Warner (mostly out of country). There may be a conglom that may qualify by being a major music company with some operations in other category - Access Industries/Warner Music Group. Which is likely a rarity. I combed the Fortune 2000 list and it doesn't give us a concise list of media congloms, which should have appeared under diversified media category (only showing Live Nation). Would have made it easier. Spshu (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the Forbes list for world's biggest companies https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#industry:Broadcasting%20%26%20Cable_country:United%20States (I filtered on Broadcasting and Cable). Though its only for public ones. Anyways, coming back to media companies. I read about MGM, Discovery Inc., Lionsgate and AMC Networks as these are the other big media companies. But I have to accept these are nowhere near to what we currently have in the table. But If Hasbro is added then I think MGM really deserves to be added. Discovery has a lot of channels but I couldn't find anything related to its studios. Lionsgate also seems like a good candidate as it has a big movie studio, significant tv studio and a premium cable channel in Starz. AMC seemed like a small one. So I guess MGM, Discovery and Lionsgate do look like next probable candidates. I'll maybe soon add MGM as its obvious looking at the diverse assets in media that it has. But with the way that Netflix and Amazon have penetrated aggressively in media business, especially Netflix, do you think these should be preferred compared to MGM, Discovery and Lionsgate? I mean Netflix does have huge movie/tv content business along with world's top digital media distribution channel. Thoughts? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)