Honda Stage Shouldn't Concern Cable Television

Japanese automaker Honda recently announced a new foray into the internet which is pretty monumental and has shocked many media observers. Here are the details from USA Today:

In a move sure to be closely watched, Honda said Wednesday it is committing millions of dollars to create its own YouTube music channel featuring recorded performances from dozens of live events and concerts.

Honda is teaming with concert promotors Live Nation, radio giant Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, Sean "Diddy" Combs Revolt, Vevo and YouTube in the initiative. 

Billboard describes why Honda made this move:

The automaker has found TV a challenging place to reach its biggest growth segment, 20-to-35-year-olds, who are increasingly on the go, on their phones (U.S. smartphone penetration reached a record 65.2% in 2013, per ComScore) and fast-forwarding through ads when they watch linear television at all (DVR penetration reached an all-time high of 49% of TV households in 2013, according to Nielsen). Honda is allocating its entire cable budget -- “and some more,” says the company -- into music this summer. 

According to reports, Honda and their partners will be teaming up together in the following ways:

• Live Nation events and artists will be featured prominently on the channel.
• Clear Channel will co-produce concerts featured on the channel once a month. The concerts will held at IHeartRadio Theatre in Los Angeles (whose stage is being renamed Honda Stage) and will be simulcasted on Clear Channel radio stations/IHeartRadio.
• Revolt's LA studios will also have their stage renamed Honda Stage and Revolt will co-produce concerts which'll be featured on the channel. 
• Vevo will be distributing all of Honda Stage's concerts throughout their platforms.

This venture is a major win for consumers. Millennials will have another option online to watch some of their favorite artists perform free of charge. It's also a win for the internet. In order for YouTube to eclipse television, they need advertisers to trust in their product and content creators to invest loads of money (they get the best of both worlds in this deal). Despite these benefits, I don't understand how this helps Honda, here's why:

• YouTube viewership is extremely sporadic. There is no guarantee who will tune in to watch a YouTube clip during a certain time period unlike in television where there is already a precedent set because of trends which have existed for years. Because of this factor, it may take longer for some videos to develop an audience which could make it harder to sell products in a timely manner. For example, a video promoting a 2014 model could pick up steam in 2015 or later.

• There doesn't seem to be any brand interaction between the products and the artists performing. Placing your brand name in connection with a concert isn't going to create brand affinity unless consumers actually see the product in action hence why commercials still exist. As much as everyone hates commercials, they're still a pretty effective way to get your message out there if produced correctly.

Cable networks shouldn't be concerned with this move because viewers still watch cable.......in the millions. There are many businesses and companies who still value the platform which cable provides which is why they'll never run out of advertisers. Here is a graph courtesy of TVNewser which proves that point. 

Independent cable networks such as Pivot or Fuse may be hurt by this move because it means there is one less established advertiser who is willing to take a risk on a network which doesn't garner high ratings compared to the ESPNs and USA Networks of the world. 

But the dearth in advertisers could help increase competition and creativity in the types of shows which get picked up by these independent networks. It's always great for television when a network owned by a non-media conglomerate is willing to take risks in an industry which has been known for being bland (blandness on TV has ironically helped the internet emerge).

Can Internet Sports Channels Rival ESPN? Part 1

For many years, ESPN has been the most dominant force in sports television. It's online, television and print offerings are high-quality and their throne has never been seriously challenged by anyone. Those who tried to challenge it usually fell short and ceased operations.

In this era where sports are bigger than they've ever been, there are more rivals for ESPN than ever before. Fox and Turner, who both started ESPN rivals in the 90s which failed to put a dent into ESPN's superiority, have come back with a vengeance in an attempt to accomplish this major feat. But, the most interesting rivals who've emerged come from the world wide web.

Internet sports channels have found a new way to connect with fans by providing an exclusive peek into the lifestyle of those who influence the games we watch. They've also provided viewers with videos featuring different stunts and tricks which will probably catch the attention of a younger audience more than two talking heads arguing about a topic. There is also a sense of uncensorship which the likes of ESPN couldn't commit to for various reasons.

The two big determinants to rivaling the likes of ESPN will be advertising and winning sports rights. As of now, none of these channels seem poised to acquire live games because of their dependence on YouTube which distributes their content. This conscious coupling forces the channels to split ad revenue with the video behemoth. If any of these entities were to ever become serious about competing for deals with television networks, they would need their own video player and their own infrastructure to pull it off in order to prevent having to split any profits with YouTube. The likelihood of splitting is slim to none because it's unlikely that any of these channels will be willing to leave the comfort of YouTube, the number one distributor of online video. It's hard to convince online viewers to leave YouTube for a different standalone video website no matter how good the content is. Previous attempts have been unsuccessful.

(On a sidenote - Online video distributor Google is considering a bid for Saturday night NBA games. If they win, it'll be interesting to see if Google produces those games in a traditional television style or if they end up as a free-flow internet style broadcast. I'm also curious as to whether they would import talent from Internet sports channels who aren't traditional journalists)

It's also hard for internet sports channels to garner television-style advertising deals because the Internet doesn't have an established ratings system like television. It is also more likely that advertisers will be exposed to a bigger mass audience on television than they would online because viewing habits and behaviors haven't transformed as much as we think they have....yet. Television still remains the dominant visual medium. 

"Blacktree TV," an entertainment program, recently moved from YouTube to actual television and they told StreamDaily that their profit from television overpowered their internet profit by far even though they're on a new television network (Soul of the South is currently available in 14 U.S. markets) which doesn't have as much reach as the internet.

“Eighty percent of our revenues came from YouTube 2 years ago, and now we’ve flipped it,” says BlackTree TV founder Jamaal Finkley. “We still appreciate what the YouTube ad sales revenue does for us, but traditional [TV] dollars are a better backbone for building a media business.”

This tells you that many traditional advertisers are still more comfortable investing in an obscure television show instead of a YouTube video even if the online video garners more views over time than the show does in it's scheduled timeslot. 

Advertisers want guarantees from television networks in terms of the number of viewers who'll tune in to a certain show during a certain time period. Online video can't provide that luxury to advertisers yet because viewership is so sporadic. Advertisers know what they're paying for with television networks but that same precedent doesn't exist with online channels.

Internet sports channels have a long way to go before they can seriously rival their traditional television counterparts but there's no question that if they continue to build up their fanbases and produce quality programming that they'll put a dent into ESPN and Fox Sports' profit margins sooner rather than later. Internet sports channels are focused on successfully producing something which has rarely translated successfully onto sports television: quality sports lifestyle and entertainment programming.

ESPN Getting Cozy With MSNBC?

When Dan Patrick began the second incarnation of his radio show, post-ESPN, he faced undeserved heat from the empire he most commonly refers to as "The Mothership." ESPN wouldn't let The DP Show include any of their employees as guests. It was a policy which reeked of bitterness and stupidity but it wasn't something which was mutually-exclusive to Keith Olbermann's better half.

ESPN didn't want to aide it's competition by allowing their employees to appear on non-ESPN shows or by allowing competitors on ESPN's shows either. Fortunately, things have changed over the years with ESPN's management. They've relaxed these policies and they're now sharing their wealth of talent with the entire media universe. Just over the past couple of weeks, Dan Patrick has featured Dan Le Batard, Sage Steele and Bomani Jones on his show.

The Connecticut-based sports empire has used unique ways to showcase their various faces for show and tell. ESPN has befriended national publications such as The Wrap, Hollywood Reporter and USA Today to promote their latest shows, products and personalities. The most intriguing move I've seen though is the proliferation of ESPN personalities on MSNBC.

Sports have played a role in the national conversation lately with all of the controversy surrounding Donald Sterling (which explains why MSNBC would need a guest/panelist from ESPN in the first place). But, it's still intriguing to me that MSNBC has relied on ESPN's personalities giving their perspectives when NBC has it's own sports department and their own personalities who're also capable of weighing in on issues (and need as much promotion as possible to have any chance at rivaling ESPN).

Over the last year, MSNBC has featured ESPN personalities such as:

• Jeremy Schaap
• Sage Steele
• Jemele Hill (6 appearances)
• Cari Champion 
• Jon Gruden
• Andy Katz
• Michael Smith (2 appearances)
• Matthew Berry

I personally love the idea of seeing cross-network appearances once in a while because you're seeing personalities interact with each other who wouldn't normally do so due to their places of employment. I'm just intrigued in the fact that it has happened so often in this scenario. 

Here's a list of the NBC Sports employees who've appeared on MSNBC during the same time period:

• Anita Marks
• Jimmy Roberts
• Bob Costas
• Jordan Schultz
• Rob Simmelkjaer

The most recent appearance happened recently on "All In With Chris Hayes". Jeremy Schaap was a guest on the show promoting an E:60 report he conducted about World Cup workers being taken advantage of in Qatar. This type of story is definitely interesting to MSNBC's prominently liberal audience due to the implications it has on worker's rights. 

It makes me wonder if ESPN would consider collaborating with MSNBC on these types of stories which delve into the intersection between sports and politics since they've seem to become so cozy.

It wouldn't be unprecedented considering ESPN almost collaborated with PBS on a documentary involving football player concussions, although I'm sure ABC News would reject any type of partnership between a major rival and their corporate cousin.

I also wonder whether these appearances are just another perk involved in the trade which ESPN and NBC agreed to earlier this year involving Michelle Beadle and Ryder Cup cable rights?

** It should be noted that other ESPN personalities have appeared on other cable news networks as well. Stephen A. Smith was on Anderson Cooper 360 on May 23rd and May 29th discussing the Donald Sterling situation.

ESPN spokesperson David Scott responded to this story with the following:

We have no problem allowing our talent on other networks and if there’s been an “increase” as you claim, it’s due to the recent news cycles that have caught the attention of news networks. When big sports stories break, ESPN’s experts are in high demand because of their insight and depth of knowledge they provide daily to fans of ESPN.

Source: MSNBC.com 

Quick Takes: Vice/Time Warner, Viacom/Defy, Ann Curry

- Vice/Time Warner

This deal poses a lot more questions than answers if it goes through:

1. How does Vice uphold it's place as being anti-establishment if it's owned by the establishment?

2. Vice shares a lot of ideals with HLN's new shows launching in the fall, but if Vice takes control of HLN, will it want to keep those shows or start anew with a fresh slate of its own branded shows?

3. Will Time Warner be willing to support two separate international news organizations or will FTVLive's rumors come to pass with CNN being sold. TW has shown in the past it is willing to let go of legacy brands (Aol, Time Warner Cable, Time).

4. How do CNN and Vice work together? Does an increase in Vice's international budget mean a decrease in CNN's? Can Shane Smith actually work with a network he has such disdain for (even though he partnered with them back in 2010)?

5. If HLN becomes Vice TV, will it be 100% news or will we see adequate representation from all of the branches of Vice i.e. Vice Sports, Creators Project, Noisey etc.

6. What happens to the CNN Center? Vice TV would presumably produce all programming in NYC since that is where Vice is located. This would leave CNN Center with only CNN's weekend shows and Turner Sports left as tenants. The control rooms for all of Turner's networks also exist in the building but those could just as easily transfer to NYC as well.

7. What happens to HLN's talent? Robin Meade beats CNN's morning show on many occasions but she surely doesn't fit Vice's strategy or demographic. Is she transferred to CNN or will she be a free agent? The same could be asked about Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell and Dr. Drew; each of whom I don't believe would find it difficult to attain another television position if they were released.

8. Does online success transfer to 24 hour cable news television? Vice is successful online and is able to garner millions of views daily. Their HBO show is also critically acclaimed but is Time Warner sure that Vice has enough content and brand loyalty to fill in 24 hours a day and turn in a profit? Vice's content closely matches Current TV, which is now six feet under, buried and forgotten.

- Viacom/Defy Media

The crossing of brands in this deal is limitless which makes it such a great partnership. Viacom's number 1 network, Nickelodeon, has had problems with viewership recently due to the fact that it's chief rival Disney constantly finds a way to build up big franchises and stars to anchor it's ship to victory. The same can't be said for Nickelodeon, where there are no big major stars synonymous with the network other than Spongebob. Defy Media gives Nick some new stars with a built in audience to mold their network around including YouTube's #1 comedy duo known as Smosh. Nick has already started using this strategy with members of AwesomessnessTV and The Fine Bros. and with this deal, it'll be much easier to connect with some of the Internet's rising stars. Tosh.o and Ridiculousness from Comedy Central and MTV respectively also gain a plethora of video content to use from Break.com while TeenNick will be able to find its own identity with Clevver News, which reaches a similar teenage girl audience as the network which mostly airs Degrassi and reruns of Nick shows. These are just some of the crossings which are possible through this deal.

- Vector Management/Eric Ortner Media Group

Ann Curry's manager just landed a new joint venture deal with Live Nation which could signal the route which Curry's next chapter will take. Eric Ortner promises to create new opportunities for his journalist clients to expand their presence. Curry's teary exit from "Today" will leave many networks weary of giving her a traditional anchor/reporter position which is why I expect Curry to utilize her following (1 million+ followers on Twitter) and her passion for stories to become her own brand which re-engineers how consumers get their news. Distributing stories in the same way Live Nation distributes it's music could be an interesting experiment that Curry decides to delve into. Does this mean in Curry's next endeavor, we'll see her moderate her own town halls/live discussions on major international issues? Another idea would be to launch her own documentary series which can be expanded into different ventures in the same vein as Ortner's other client Soledad O'Brien and her Black in America series.

The Intersection Between Branded Content And News Bites ESPN

The quality of human interest journalism which ESPN has produced over the years has caused tough guy sports fans to curl up on their couches weeping like 46-year-old mothers watching "Good Morning America." Specific segments such as a montage of soldiers coming back home to their families during sporting events and the story of two bonding wrestlers have been praised for their heartwarming themes which help viewers appreciate life.

As David Lloyd introduced an inspirational story featuring top football prospect Teddy Bridgewater during an afternoon edition of "SportsCenter," I prepared myself emotionally for what could possibly be another tearjerker. The introduction set up the story to have all the inner workings of a classic Chris Connelly "My Wish" piece except there was one big difference. This piece was produced by Spike Lee and Cadillac, not an ESPN news team.

"Spike Lee (and his company Spike DDB) has been a partner with us; of course his storytelling is completely unique. We were in a position to put the pieces together, and were pleased to do so," said David Caldwell, a spokesman for Cadillac. 

During the segment which turned out to be a mini-documentary, a graphic which read "Cadillac" to symbolize a courtesy was displayed on the top left corner of the screen. But other than that, no mention was made to viewers that they had technically just watched what is widely known as branded content, the "fusion" between entertainment and advertising. 

 

Whether "SportsCenter" should be airing branded content or not is another story for another day but I was surprised that there was no mention during the introduction or after the story concluded of the kind of role Cadillac played in the video besides the graphic which was shown. 

This isn't the first time "SportsCenter" has indulged in this practice but it usually makes it's intentions explicit. For example, to promote the release of NBA 2K, 2K Sports interviewed Michael Jordan and sent the exclusive video to ESPN before it was released on 2K Sports' YouTube page. Jay Crawford, a "SportsCenter" anchor, made it clear that the interview was part of promotion for the videogame. 

It is unclear whether this instance of branded content was added to the show after ESPN noticed how trendy the story became online or if it was an intentionally planned segment which ESPN would help become a trend. Some clues would lead to the ladder assumption.

• The video prominently features Disney employee Robin Roberts whose own story is very much in sync with Bridgewater's mother. Roberts' show, "Good Morning America," also dedicated a segment to the story during the morning of it's release (as is mentioned in Cadillac's press release involving the video). It would make logical sense for "SportsCenter" to purposely air a sports piece previously featured on "GMA" as long as it is relevant to sports fans. It also helps strengthen Disney's continuing commitment to synergy amongst it's TV outlets ("GMA" and "SC" are working together on a Father's Day project throughout the next year).

• Whenever ESPN pulls video from another source unaffiliated with their empire, a tweet is sent out through the @ESPNAssignDesk account asking for permission to use the content during its telecasts. There are no tweets from the day before the story was released or the day of (May 6th) from @ESPNAssignDesk asking Cadillac for permission to use this video. In the past, other companies such as Gatorade have been asked by ESPN through this account for permission to use their branded content on air.

When asked for comment, both PR teams from ABC News and ESPN had no recollection of the segment. 

If Cadillac purposely partnered with Disney's television outlets, they chose the right group to release this story to the masses because of "GMA" and Roberts' connection to overcoming cancer as well as "SportsCenter"'s place as the number one sports news show on television. The combination of "GMA" and "SportsCenter" exposure helped solidify this video to over 400,000 views on YouTube.

Despite my theory though, Cadillac says that they had no control over the selection of where their branded content aired other than their YouTube page.

"If we could do such things, we’d be on those outlets all the time, right?  We commissioned the video, and got involved on the car side of things. That’s about it," Caldwell said. "Airing on media outlets in full or in part is not something we compel, select, or control at all. At best we can make things available."

Separately, Cadillac has a deal with a college sports news website known as Campus Insiders to sponsor their shows and produce stories involving the intersection between college sports and their products. Through this deal, Campus Insiders was able to post the mini-documentary on their website which raised awareness about the story even further. In their posting, Campus Insiders says that the video is presented by Cadillac through the title but you have to look deeper in the site to find out the full extent of Cadillac's role in the video.

The Miami Herald recently confirmed that this mini-documentary was essentially a commercial for Cadillac (and not a news story as it was presented to look like on SportsCenter) after interviewing Spike Lee:

Lee, whose advertising agency Spike DDB "is the African American agency of record for Cadillac," was approached by Cadillac to tell Bridgewater's story. He said he came to Miami two weeks ago to begin filming Bridgewater and his family.

"It was a natural fit when they heard the story of Teddy promising his mother a Cadillac when he was 9 and at the time not even knowing the significance of the color pink," Lee said. "Everything clicked and it came together very quickly, even though we didn't go home until 4 a.m. [Tuesday] because we had to edit, mix and color correct.

If you were a viewer watching at home, the likelihood that these ethical aspects mattered to you is slim to none. Spike Lee did a tremendous job capturing the essence of Bridgewater's wish for his mother in the 3rd grade. But did ESPN and Campus Insiders make enough of an effort to make sure viewers were able to distinguish this branded content from a straight news story? Should there have been a verbal disclaimer even though this story was extremely softcore? 

It's very likely that no money was exchanged between Disney and Cadillac to air this story during "SportsCenter" and "GMA," but if any agreement was made to air this mini-doc as just another news story during either broadcast, I believe the viewers deserve to be made aware of what they're watching in order to uphold journalistic ethics. 

Even if there was no agreement and ESPN just chose to air the piece because they wanted to, a subtle but simple verbal notification shows that you have an esteemed value for your consumer and that you don't want to misconstrue any images which you're portraying to them. 

This Teddy Bridgewater buying his mom a Cadillac is a good story, but also the best Cadillac product placement ever.
— Greg Wallace (@gc_wallace) May 6, 2014

At least SportsCenter is up front about it, leaving the Cadillac name on screen through the whole story. #honesty
— Greg Wallace (@gc_wallace) May 6, 2014

Will Smith Intensifies New Year's Eve Television Battle

Getty Images

An intriguing story has surfaced on Page Six involving The Fresh Prince of Belair:

Move over, Ryan Seacrest — sources tell Page Six Will Smith and his company Overbrook Entertainment are developing a New Year’s Eve television special similar to Dick Clark Productions’ “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest.”One insider said, “As of now, it’s being shopped to the networks. It would feature musical performances, possibly one by Will.”Sources say Smith’s people want to film it in Miami and include his friend David Beckham: “They want to do something with Beckham and his focus on his Miami soccer team.”It’s unclear whether Will’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith, son Jaden or daughter Willow could participate. Smith’s rep didn’t get back to us.

This news comes after Pitbull recently announced that he'll be executive producing and hosting his own New Year's Eve show on Fox. Coincidentally, Mr. 305 will also hold his festivities in Miami. If Smith eventually finds a home for his New Year's Eve celebrations, this will be one of the biggest television showdowns of 2014.

Pitbull currently has a couple chart-topping hits featuring big artists such as Jennifer Lopez, Ke$ha and Christina Aguilera; all of whom he'll probably convince to perform on his show since they've performed at NYE shows in the past. He also brings in a young Latino demographic who're very supportive of him and serve as a desired audience for advertisers.

The impending deal between Endemol (producer), Shine Group and Core Media Group could also help Pitbull's show in booking each of those companies' internet stars as well as "American Idol" and "SYTYCD" alums on Core's music label (the Fox connection would also help too for obvious reasons).

Will Smith, on the other hand, is one of the biggest celebrities in Hollywood.  He has proven over and over again that he's a worldwide sensation through the millions of  views his various stunts garner on YouTube.

A variety show at the end of the year featuring himself, his family and some of his fellow Hollywood bourgeois would be a major hit on television and a major trending topic online. His movie "Annie" is also being released two weeks before NYE and a potential special could give the box office numbers a little extra push in the latter weeks of it's release.

Details are still murky about Will Smith's special and we're not sure if Smith himself will be a host/performer or just a producer but the possibility that Smith performs during NYE puts Ryan Seacrest's throne as New Year's king at stake. It was already difficult for Seacrest to book live acts when there are more lucrative opportunities for artists at private clubs and the added television competition doesn't help at all.

Overbrook Entertainment has recently worked with CBS in distributing "The Queen Latifah Show," which makes them an early candidate for Smith's NYE show. Although, CBS has never felt the need to air NYE shows in the last couple of years and there's no reason to believe (yet) that Smith would be a good enough reason to change that tradition.

The networks of Viacom (MTV, BET) also seem like a perfect fit because MTV constantly changes the theme of their NYE specials each year and BET's special is taped. Smith's show would provide MTV with stability and BET with notoriety. The network which this show airs on will be a key determinant to how much of a threat it is.

Smith and Pitbull's venture into New Year's Eve is unconvential but also a little weird when you consider that Seacrest's show only averaged 12.1 million viewers (Carson Daly: 5.7 million). Even before you include cable TV ratings for their respective NYE shows, the pie of viewers is already too small to make a major impact because December 31st is a night which many Americans celebrate away from their television sets. The competition on various networks doesn't leave any room for these shows to breakthrough in a crucial way.

Music artists will now have more choices than ever on New Year's. Perform on the traditional show (Seacrest), the NYC alternative to tradition (Daly), the Miami alternative with one of the biggest artists in the industry (Pitbull), another Miami alternative with a legend (Smith) or at a private club where you're guaranteed to make a lot of money.

What Does AT&T/DirecTV Mean For Sports Television?

Reports and rumors have been churning for weeks but today AT&T made it official. The company is acquiring DirecTV for $48.5 billion.

Analysts say there are two main reasons for the deal: leverage and extra cash. AT&T will now have leverage when it comes to negotiating deals with content creators because the company will now hold the power to distribute content to 20 million DirecTV subscribers nationwide + their wireless customers + UVerse subscribers. AT&T will also have more flexibility with how much cash it can use. Currently, 70 percent of it's cash flow goes towards dividend payments. By adding DirecTV, it now has access to $4 billion of extra cash it can use for whatever it wants.

How will this deal affect DirecTV's sports offerings? Based on the press release sent out announcing this deal, the future looks bright for sports on DirecTV.

Adding Sports Channels

The satellite operator recently spoke out against adding sports channels to it's lineup. It is currently tangled up in carriage disagreements with the Dodgers, CSN Houston, SEC Network and Pac-12 Network.

But according to AT&T's announcement, the company classifies DirecTV's live sports programming as "premier content." Could this statement signal that DirecTV under new ownership will be more cordial with sports content producers?

In the old days before carriage fees jumped to exorbitant prices, DirecTV's advantage over other carriers was it's vast array of sports programming. AT&T seems interested in bringing back that old strategy to differentiate itself from other telcos like Comcast.

Online Sports Rights and NFL Sunday Ticket

AT&T also spotlighted it's new $500 million joint venture with The Chernin Group which will aim to buy and develop companies in online video. Could AT&T begin to pursue online sports rights more aggressively to supplement any future online video companies it acquires?

The answer to this question may come during NFL Sunday Ticket negotiations. DirecTV is said to be close to a deal with the NFL but mysteriously nothing has been announced. AT&T touted the package, which expires after next year's Super Bowl, in it's press release which could hint that a deal is imminent between both sides (it wouldn't make sense to showcase the deal otherwise).

It'll be interesting to see whether the NFL agrees to let AT&T include NFL Sunday Ticket on it's mobile devices (Verizon is the NFL's current mobile devices partner) and/or on an over the top online video option which they sell separately from the other services this combined company will offer.

The Audience Network

The Dan Patrick Show and DirecTV's annual Beach Bowl during Super Bowl weekend have served as two quintessential sports broadcasts which the California-based MVPD is well-known for amongst sports fans. It is unknown how these two broadcasts will be affected by this deal but AT&T's commitment to sports seems to indicate that these shows and the network won't be touched.

DirecTV will remain independent of AT&T which presumably means that they will continue to operate as usual and increase their original content on The Audience Network. Rumors have recently surfaced that Rich Eisen could sign with the network and launch his own Dan Patrick-like empire. The network also has it's own drama which has just been renewed for a second season.

The most interesting development which could arise from this merger in my world: Will AT&T Stadium become The Dan Patrick Show's Dallas mancave? Hopefully, The DP Show's I-Team can conduct an immediate investigation on this matter.

UPDATE: How important is sports to this new deal? If AT&T fails to renew DirecTV's deal with NFL Sunday Ticket package then the whole merger is off, according to Bloomberg.

How important is NFL Sunday Ticket to AT&T's deal with DirecTV? Check out this line from 8K filing... pic.twitter.com/NSdJWOS5aV
— Jon Erlichman (@JonErlichman) May 19, 2014