No purchase price disclosed, but I’m fairly confident this was in the sub-$50 million category. Teracent had been looking to raise something like $5 million earlier this year and had previously raised around $6 million, much of it from New Enterprise Associates.

I’m told the company was doing something under $2 million a year in revenue, and when I talked to CEO Vikas Jha in September, he told me that the three-and-a-half-year-old company is profitable.

One immediate beneficiary of the deal: Rival ad optimizer Tumri, which does very similar work.

The former French water utility has the ability to hold up the deal due to its 20 percent stake in NBCU and a put option that gives it the right to sell the stake back to back to GE (GE), hang on to it or take the thing public.

There’s no reason for Vivendi to do anything but the first option, but the company is not going to come out and say so, which means that negotiations for GE to buy the stake aren’t going as fast as it or Comcast (CMCSA) would like. Vivendi itself wrote down the value of the stake by a few billion earlier this year, but that was then, and this is now. New York Post:

The deal, which many assumed would be announced today, is being held up because Vivendi is playing hardball in its negotiations with GE, said several sources close to the deal.

“They’re trying to squeeze every nickel they can out of GE,” said one of these sources. “Why wouldn’t they?”

But again, there’s no reason for this deal not to get done, and Vivendi itself made a strong case for it on Friday by announcing plans to spend some $4 billion on Brazilian telecom GVT. The proceeds of a $6 billion sale sure could come in handy for that, no?

While we’re at it: I wouldn’t read all that much into reports that Comcast plans to appoint current NBCU head Jeff Zucker to run the new business. Perhaps they really do. But even if Comcast didn’t, it would have no choice but to say it does. Remember that any deal will take a very long time to clear regulatory review and that someone has to keep running NBCU in the meantime. This stuff will get more meaningful when we’re closer to showtime.

The takeaway: The site is losing traffic and money and no longer expects to get all of the $900 million it once counted on from a Google search deal. Also, the company really doesn’t know what to expect of the property going forward, except that it’s a work in progress.

So: Either digital media boss Jon Miller, MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta and the rest of the new team brought in this year to fix the site have an impossible task or expectations are now so low that even modest improvement will look like a huge victory.

Details from the earnings call, which I covered live this afternoon:

• Revenue was down 26 percent at Miller’s Digital Media Group (MySpace and a handful of other sites).
• That’s in part because conventional ad revenue is down and in part because search ad revenue is down.
• But isn’t Google (GOOG) supposed to be paying $900 million over three years in a search deal? Yes, but only if News Corp. (NWS) hits certain traffic/query guarantees, which isn’t happening anymore, says Murdoch.
• How much is MySpace going to miss by? This question occasions much confusion on the call. “I don’t know. But it will be a real figure,” Murdoch says. Then he throws out the number $300 million. His lieutenants suggest that it’s closer to 10 percent, or $90 million. I’ve since checked with News Corp. PR, which says the figure is “in the 100 [million] zone for the year.”
• So what’s the plan to fix all of this? “It’s a work in progress,” News Corp. officials say over and over during the call. Chase Carey, Murdoch’s new number two, uses the phrase at least three times in one answer.
• Any other color on overhaul plans? Nothing you haven’t heard before: The company is trying to become an entertainment portal instead of a social network. Carey: “We’re not trying to beat Facebook. We’re not trying to beat Twitter.”

(Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site).

Comcast did have reasonably good news to deliver this morning. It signed up more new customers than Wall Street expected, though it had to cut prices to do so. We’ll see if that mollifies investors, who really have been salty–look what’s happened to CMCSA shares since news of the GE (GE) transaction broke:

Since Comcast barely addressed the NBCU deal during its earnings call this morning, it had more time to tackle other topics. A recurring theme: How would increased Web video consumption affect the company?

The answer: No one knows, exactly.

On the one hand, there’s the threat that consumers will be less likely to pay for cable TV if they’re getting their shows over the Web, whether it’s through illegal streams or legitimate “over the top” services like the one Apple (AAPL) is trying to assemble.

That’s why Comcast CEO Brian Roberts described his company’s “authentication” efforts, which are in a beta test now but are scheduled to go nationwide next month, as an effort to make sure that people who consume Web video do so “in a way that secures the existing model.”

That is–he’d like them to keep paying Comcast for a TV subscription even though they’re watching shows online. Tough sell.

On the other hand, even if you stop paying for cable TV, you still have to pay someone to connect you to the Web, and it’s very likely that company will be Comcast. And if you’re not paying Comcast for TV, there’s a very good chance you’ll pay more for your Internet connection.

“I’ve been saying for a long time that I think video over the Internet is more friend than foe,” Roberts said this morning. Let’s see if Wall Street agrees.

That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Here’s the longer version of the plan, provided to me by a person familiar with ZelnickMedia’s bid. It sounds like a plausible idea for a PE group that specializes in turning around distressed assets–and a chilling one for anybody who draws a paycheck at BusinessWeek:

• Wind down BusinessWeek’s print business “as profitably as possible”–the company would have to honor existing subscriptions and could still sell ads in the magazine. But the focus would be on building up BusinessWeek’s Web site, which has a decent-sized footprint, though not a huge one.
• Dump almost all of the company’s newsgathering staff and outsource most of that work to Thomson Reuters (TRI).
• Employ a small handful of editorial employees–perhaps 20, down from the 200-plus who are there now. Some of them would run a Huffington Post-style aggregation site that produces no original content, and some more expensive hires would produce a smattering of high-quality reporting and writing designed to burnish/sustain the BusinessWeek brand. “Just to give it uniqueness and sizzle,” my source tells me.
• Dump most of the existing business side, as well, but overhaul and bulk up the sales force.

The insult-to-injury kicker: Under ZelnickMedia’s proposal, the buyer wouldn’t pay a dime for the publication it intended to rebuild. Instead, McGraw-Hill would pay the fund to take the publication off its hands. If that sounds implausible, consider that McGraw-Hill just announced that it will save up to $25 million next year by not owning the title.

Given the above terms, it’s easy enough to see why McGraw-Hill ended up going with Bloomberg. For starters, the winning bidder actually paid cash for the magazine, and McGraw-Hill will end up netting a $5.9 million gain, after taxes, on the deal.

Also important: McGraw-Hill won’t have to anguish as it watches one of its flagship properties get dismantled.

So what will happen to BusinessWeek now that Bloomberg owns it? Nothing nearly so drastic, at least in the short term. For now, Bloomberg is talking about bulking up the title, not shredding it, so that’s a good sign for both employees and readers.

Alas, Bloomberg can’t take on all of the magazine employees looking for jobs, and that pool is only going to get bigger.

Forbes slashed deep into its staff this week, and next week Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. will lay out some of its layoff goals. I’ve heard Time Inc. employees refer to layoff plans as “tree-trimming” or “surgical,” but I think the trimming will feel much blunter to the folks who lose their jobs. The publisher’s cost-cutting plans include hundreds of layoffs–something likely similar to the cuts the publisher went through last year, I’m told.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly reports today that Time’s News and Finance unit, which includes Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, will be particularly hard hit, and I’ve confirmed that myself.

UPDATE: No surprise here: BusinessWeek President Keith Fox is stepping down. Mild surprise: He’s staying on at McGraw-Hill. Here’s his memo:

When we announced that McGraw-Hill was exploring strategic options for BusinessWeek, I promised to communicate with you as openly and often as I could. In this spirit, I wanted each of you to know that I will be remaining with McGraw-Hill after the deal with Bloomberg is closed. I will continue to play a role in the integration post-close and plan to take on a new role at McGraw-Hill in 2010.

During this process, our collective goal was to find the best buyer for BusinessWeek. I am proud that I played a role in ensuring that BusinessWeek has a new home at Bloomberg, where it will thrive under the leadership of Norman Pearlstine. I am committed to the transition and helping in any way that I can.

It’s been a privilege to be the President of BusinessWeek. I thank Terry McGraw for his confidence and trust in me and Glenn Goldberg for his support, direction, clarity, and sense of humor. I’ve also been a member of an amazing team which has navigated the transformation of the media environment with agility, focus, passion, and integrity.

The team–Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Linda Brennan, Roger Neal, and Carl Fischer–is the best in the industry. Like BusinessWeek, they have bright futures ahead of them. I will miss the daily interaction, but I am wiser (and a little grayer) because of their collaborative spirit and desire to make BusinessWeek the global leader in business that it is today.

I also have a special thanks to Patricia Hipplewith, my assistant, who juggled my calendar, protected me from solicitors, and kept me on schedule and well fed! She is the personification of commitment and integrity.

I am humbled by BusinessWeek’s 80-year history. Thank you for allowing me to play a small part in it.

Keith

(Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the owner of Travel Channel as Discovery.)

Rupert Murdoch and company are mulling a sale of the “action sports” cable channel, prompted by inbound requests, industry sources tell me. No comment from News Corp., which also owns this Web site.

If News Corp. (NWS) does part with the channel, it won’t be a whopper of a deal: Fuel TV, which features skate- and surf-themed programming like “The Adventures of Danny and the Dingo” (I know. Me either.) boasts just 30 million subscribers–about half of what cable networks need to get taken seriously by operators and advertisers.

Just as telling, perhaps: I’ve queried three different Wall Street analysts to get a ballpark price for the network, and none had a clue–and only one had even heard of Fuel.

So here, for everyone’s edification, is some Fuel TV programming: Danny and the Dingo’s (who are snowboarding stars, apparently) most recent high jinks.

The short version is that unlike its broadcast peers, CBS (CBS) has been reluctant to make many of its shows available on the Web because it worries that doing so cuts into its core TV business.

So while GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox put Hulu together, CBS stayed away. And when Disney (DIS) decided to join the joint venture earlier this year, CBS executives argued strenuously against the deal. Instead, CBS has been content to use the Web as a promotional tool for TV via outlets like Google’s (GOOG) YouTube.

The longer version is below, via the transcript of a brief chat I had with Smith this afternoon to discuss his plans and the network’s. This is stuff he’s talked about before–to reporters, in industry forums, and even via emails he wishes he hadn’t written–but I’m running it at length here.

Because 1) I think Smith does a good job of explaining the push-and-pull of Web viewership vs. Web economics that everyone in big media is grappling with, and 2) I want people to see just how difficult it is to keep up when Smith talks. He can get out a lot of words in a relatively short time.

I also had a quick chat with CBS CEO Les Moonves, who made many of the points Smith did, but with less verbiage: I’ll get you that transcript shortly, too.

Peter Kafka: Since you’re going to be advising CBS’s Web video strategy, why don’t you lay out, for the record, where things stand?

Quincy Smith:

We recognize that the Web is two things. It’s both a new medium…and there my example has always been, look at fantasy football: When you’re nice enough to watch the Jets just pound the snot out of the Raiders on Sunday, on a CBS channel…on fantasy football on CBSSports.com, you start on the Tuesday before and end the Wednesday after.

And what are you doing? You’re personalizing it, you’re becoming more of a fan of the game [Smith goes on to praise CBSSports.com's feature set]. All of those things are additive, so when Sunday comes in, you’re actually more of a fan, and you’ve even more convinced you’re going to watch that broadcast show.

Now, I realize that sports is reasonably bulletproof, and a good case study to begin with versus some of the other programming, but the fact is, the Web is a new medium. So what do I also mean? Tech reviews on CNET, Money Watch being watched on BNET. GameSpot videogame reviews.

Access to content that CBS didn’t already have, that are additive–both in their own right online, with the margins that the CNET business is used to, and where we’re getting just stronger and stronger from a margin perspective–and potential content that can also be applied to our [local TV stations owned by CBS], our affiliates, our broadcast news, as well as the radio. So that’s the side of our business that is $600 million revenue and $50 million-plus profit on the bottom line.

The other side of the Web, the side that is most thought of by many journalists, is the threat of an IP-deliverer of video. And how you turn that threat into an opportunity.

And so, from that perspective, as  you know, we didn’t go ahead and say, “Okay, we’re going to lock down and stream, with all of our other peers in broadcast, and come up with the same rules, and embed and right-click this and go away.” I’ve never had a beef with Hulu. Hulu’s always worked as a great service. That’s part of the problem.

As a network, we need to make sure that our content is being seen where the dollars matter. And right now that’s on air. Opportunities like TV Everywhere–we’re not putting all of our eggs in that basket, though we are big advocates of it–are ones where you can actually take and expand and extend the television market online, so it doesn’t matter what screen you watch “CSI” on; what matters is that you watched it, it counts and you saw the ads.

But until that happens, it’s crazy to just stream the shows for zero economics. When in fact you can make a lot more money doing things that are additive and complementary to the rest of the CBS line. That’s where CBS interactive comes in now.

Kafka: But TV viewers are showing an increasing interest in watching their programs on the Web, whether from legal services like the Web or illegal torrents and pirate sites. Don’t you need to reach them where they are?

Smith:

Now, if you really look at those numbers, what they’ll say is [online and offline video are] both growing, right? We’re having the best year ever as America’s largest broadcast network, and I think that 99.9 percent of that–this is the quote I’ve never been able to get in there–is that’s [because] of the great content that we have. There’s some infinitesimal basis point that’s relevant [to CBS ratings because] we are making sure that when people watch it, they’re more inclined to watch it on television. For now.

Once that solution moves, once those economics move–whether that’s more ads, [higher] CPMs, more ad buyers….You and I can say all day long, “We’re sold out on Web video. That’s going really well. It’s sold out.” Well, no kidding, it’s sold out. It’s a $700 million market. The television market is $120 billion. And of that, $700 million, half of those [ad buyers] are spending  90 percent of their time doing Google keywords, not buying online video.

The key is, how do you turn television buyers into video buyers? And that’s where a solution like TV Everywhere comes into play.

And by the way, looking at [Hulu CEO Jason] Kilar’s comments the other day, in Colorado [at an industry convention], he sees that too. He’s more sophisticated on this stuff than most anybody. From the perspective of, he understands that’s where the big dollars are. And so he probably went at it as, “I’m going to aggregate all the people first, so hopefully things like TV everywhere come to us.” From our perspective at CBS, we’ve got to go to them.

I don’t hate Hulu. Hulu’s world-class video viewing. What I don’t understand is, why license all that content to something that works that well, that seamlessly, yet–without the economic model around it?

Terms of the deal haven’t been disclosed, but I’m told the transaction values the joint venture at $300 million. Google’s (GOOG) YouTube isn’t an owner in the JV but will share revenue in exchange for lending Vevo its massive distribution platform. The site, which will exist both outside YouTube and within YouTube as a branded channel with its own player, is scheduled to launch later this year.

Vevo has been seeking an outside money source for some time; PaidContent had previously reported the venture was looking for a $300 million valuation.

But the most important part about the outside money is that it’s outside: The investment is designed in large part to allay antitrust issues, given that Vevo’s existing owners represent two of the four major music labels. Providence provided the same cushion to Hulu, which was originally put together by GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox.

Abu Dhabi Media, which is owned by the Abu Dhabi government, has made several forays into Western media, but until now, all of its deals have been focused on Hollywood. Two years ago, for instance, the company announced a $1 billion pact with Time Warner’s (TWX) Warner Brothers to finance movies and build a theme park, though that deal has yet to yield much activity. Earlier this month, it made a much more modest $10 million pledge to back Walter Parkes and Laurie McDonald, the movie producers who once ran DreamWorks studios.

Here’s the release:

VEVO PARTNERS WITH ABU DHABI MEDIA COMPANY

Abu Dhabi Media Company Joins Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment
for World Class Online Premium Music Service

New York, New York, Monday, October 19, 2009…VEVO, the new premium music video and entertainment service powered by YouTube, has received a strategic investment from Abu Dhabi Media Company (ADMC), one of the world’s fastest growing, multi-platform media organizations. The announcement was made today by Doug Morris, Chairman & CEO of Universal Music Group and Co-Chairman/Founder of VEVO, Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, Chief Executive Officer of Sony Music Entertainment & Co-Chairman of VEVO, Rio Caraeff, President & Chief Executive Officer of VEVO, H.E. Mohamed Khalaf Al Mazroui, Chairman of ADMC, and Edward Borgerding, Chief Executive Officer of ADMC. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

With this transaction, VEVO is now formed as an independent and fully funded entity with Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME) and Abu Dhabi Media Company (ADMC) as founding shareholders. Funding from the shareholders will enable VEVO to come to market with an attractive premium music offering for consumers and advertisers alike.

Launching in the United States and Canada later this year with a further international roadmap to be announced, VEVO will be a premium destination and syndication network for the very best in top-notch music video content that will leverage the massive existing traffic of YouTube.

“This global partnership flags Abu Dhabi Media Company’s commitment to establish a leading position in the digital media industry. It is part of an integrated approach to expanding the global digital presence and brand portfolio of Abu Dhabi Media Company, and it illustrates our partnering approach with innovators in digital media services and technologies”, stated H.E. Mohamed Khalaf Al Mazroui, Chairman of ADMC, on joining UMG and SME to create VEVO.

“It’s a credit to the music community, and to the global opportunity that VEVO represents, that we have been able to attract such a solid investment partner with the vision and track record of Abu Dhabi Media Company,” commented Rio Caraeff, President & Chief Executive Officer of VEVO. “Abu Dhabi Media Company brings to the venture important funding support and a team with enormous global media experience and insight, and we look forward to working with them to seize the many opportunities ahead of us.”

“Consumer demand for music video entertainment is growing significantly today and is transforming the digital entertainment market and the music industry by fuelling new media business models. VEVO fits our vision and goals perfectly, as we are expanding our capabilities and continue to build the market for digital entertainment around the world.  VEVO will redefine the way premium music video entertainment is consumed, created and shared in a global community of music audiences,” said Edward Borgerding, Chief Executive Officer of Abu Dhabi Media Company

“We’re now entering a new exciting phase in the digital media industry in the region and we’re determined to be at the forefront of it”, added Ricky Ghai, ADMC’s Executive Director, Digital Group. “With VEVO there’s real opportunity for incredible growth, as both brand advertisers and consumers are looking for new premium video experiences online.”

This one isn’t a total shock, as EMI and Grooveshark had supposedly been close to a deal prior to the lawsuit. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a label sued a Web company: See Warner Music Group (WMG) and Imeem, as well as Universal Music Group and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, among others.

No details on the deal from EMI or Florida-based Grooveshark, which offers free streaming music, a la MySpace Music, Imeem, Spotify and others. Unlike those services, though, Grooveshark doesn’t appear to have licensing deals with three of the big four labels and plays their music anyway. But with the exception of the EMI suit, it has remained unmolested. Interesting.

For the record, here’s the release (Inside baseball note to Grooveshark guys: Please don’t attach press releases as PDF files. Really cumbersome. Thanks.):

Music streaming service Grooveshark signs deal with EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing
Gainesville, FL–Today, digital music service Grooveshark.com announced it has entered into agreements with major label EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing that will give Grooveshark users access to content from EMI’s roster of current and legendary catalog artists and EMI Music Publishing’s songwriters.

Grooveshark offers music fans the ability to stream songs for no fee from a vast catalog of music. Fans can enjoy Grooveshark’s music without having to download client software or register. The basic service is free to fans and supported by visual advertising. Fans who opt for a $3 per month premium service can enjoy unlimited ad-free streaming music. The site was recently named the best way to listen to music on the web by Rolling Stone, and just surpassed one million registered users.

“EMI Music and EMI Music Publishing have collaborated with us to create a mutually sustainable deal which represents the future of digital music,” says Grooveshark CEO Sam Tarantino. “We will continue to deliver the best music service on the Internet to our users, and we will expand our capacity to strengthen fan-to-artist connections through our technology.”

“We think services like Grooveshark offer great music discovery options for fans,” said Mark Piibe, EMI Music’s Global Head of Digital Business Development. ”In turn, Grooveshark offers a new revenue stream for our artists and will help us learn more about how we can better connect different types of fans with artists.”

At a TVWeek conference in Manhattan, Bewkes repeated arguments he has made in the past: Chiefly, that big media mergers have a lousy track record and that he couldn’t see how Comcast (CMCSA) could unlock any value by buying a majority stake in NBC Universal from GE (GE).

“Somebody has finally noticed that these things don’t work out so well,” he said, adding “We love to see our competitors taking risks.”

But just to hammer that point home, Bewkes compared the proposed deal to the one his company made nine years ago when it embarked on an ill-fated merger with AOL. That deal (made when Bewkes was running Time Warner’s HBO unit)  “basically made no sense” at the time, he said.

The main talking point in favor of that transaction–that connecting Time Warner’s content with AOL’s Internet distribution would create synergy–was “nonsensical,” he said. But “these kind of arguments, you’ll hear some of them this week, in the other merger that we’ve been talking about,” Bewkes said.

Clear enough?

Wall Street, by the way, remains unimpressed with the proposed deal as well: Comcast shares are down about 10 percent since word got out.

In other reiteration news, Bewkes also said, again, that he doesn’t plan on selling his Time Inc. publishing unit. Though he left himself a tiny window of wiggling room by noting that “no public company can ever say that it wouldn’t consider restructuring some part, whether it’s Warner, HBO, whatever.”

But Bewkes insisted that Time Inc.’s best-known magazine brands, including “Time, People, Sports Illustrated, InStyle,” are holding their own as print products and that the challenge will be turning them into online successes.

“We have basically a healthy business in terms of our relationship with readers. These brands mean something and they’re evolving…,” he said. “If you can’t take the leading titles that people have known for decades, and use the new world to make them relevant, really, shame on us.”

In fact, reps from Google and the AP linked up in Manhattan on Wednesday to discuss the deal, which expires at the end of this year, people familiar with the meeting tell me. This timing makes sense since Google (GOOG) had flown in many of its top brass to New York for a series of internal meetings this week.

But that would come as a surprise to anyone who took Curley’s words, delivered after a speech in Hong Kong on Tuesday, at face value.

Here are Curley’s comments, recorded by an attendee at the Hong Kong meeting and transcribed by Zachary Seward at Nieman Journalism Lab:

Someone asked Curley if Microsoft was willing to accept the AP’s demands. “They have said very strongly that they would,” Curley responded. A bit earlier, he said of Microsoft, “They know how to have a conversation.” And what about Google? “I’m not talking about Google,” he said. “We haven’t talked. We haven’t talked. We haven’t talked with them in any serious way.”

AP spokesman Paul Colford says he has nothing to add to Curley’s comments. But I’ll try to make a case on his behalf: Maybe this is one of those “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” situations whereby Curley doesn’t consider the talks the two sides have been having to be “talks.” Alternate proposal: Maybe Curley is going for “truthiness” instead of “truth.”

I guess that’s possible. The recurring story I’ve heard from sources on both sides of the negotiations, which have been going on for months, is that they’re not moving very far.

The problem: The AP has a list of demands, which start with more money and move on from there, including assurances that its copy will receive better treatment than secondary outlets. And Google hasn’t expressed much interest in changing the existing agreement. The company is “quite happy” with the deal it has now, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporters on Wednesday.

I understand why Curley would want to play up his talks with other portals, as well as the notion that he’s willing to pull his cooperative out of the world’s biggest traffic generator. Per above, I don’t think those are particularly effective tactics, but I understand them. But that’s different from creating an alternative reality altogether.

Where? In Sweden, of course, which is where Spotify started, and which acts as a sort of test lab/best-case-scenario provider for the service.

The company has announced a two-year deal with Telia, a European telco/Internet service provider, “to work together developing Spotify’s music service for computers, mobile phones and eventually TV as well.” No details about what that TV service might be, but the companies say a mobile offering will be available for Swedes within a “few months.”

That’s interesting, since Spotify already has a mobile offering: Subscribers to its premium service can use the company’s iPhone app, which Apple (AAPL) approved last month. No description of how the new service will differ.

It’s also worth noting that this is Spotify’s second deal with a Swedish ISP. It already has a linkup with Bredbandsbolaget, owned by Telenor, a Scandinavian telco, which allows users to bundle their subscription fees with their Internet bills.

It’s also the only territory where the service has a bundling deal, and industry observers think that tie-up has a great deal to do with the company’s much talked about success there.

Everywhere else, though, Spotify remains a work in progress. It claims 5.5 million users, but as of last month only about 100,000 of them were paying the company a monthly fee, according to people familiar with the service. It is currently trying to break into the U.S. market, but has been mired in discussions with the big music labels–the same ones that have licensed the company in Europe–for months.

For more on the company’s plans, see this interview Kara Swisher conducted with co-founder Daniel Ek last month:

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091008/spotify-promises-a-tv-service-in-sweden-of-course/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/#comments Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:39:45 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11683 Maybe this is why Comcast rushed to knock down a story that said it bought NBC Universal from GE (GE): It knew Wall Street would hate the idea.

As it is, now that investors and analysts have heard the more plausible deal–instead of buying NBCU for $35 billion, the cable giant kicks in up to $6 billion in cash, plus its cable networks, and gets 51 percent of NBCU–they’ve decided they hate that one, too.

Here’s the story in the graphic form (click chart to enlarge):

The Comcast-NBCU story broke after the market closed on Wednesday, in case that wasn’t clear. As I’m typing this, Comcast (CMCSA) is trading around $15.6 a share, down some seven percent since the talks became public.

Pull back a bit and you see that things could be much worse: As recently as March, Comcast was down below $12, and there wasn’t any multibillion dollar deal weighing down the shares then.

If anything, investors are much more forgiving to Comcast here than the professional chattering class of writers and analysts, who hate the deal. The conventional wisdom: Comcast’s dream of marrying cable programming with its cable service is misguided because media conglomerates like Time Warner (TWX) and News Corp (NWS) have already tried it and concluded that it didn’t work. If the Roberts family spends money on anything, they argue, it ought to be on shareholders, either via dividends or by buying back shares.

Here’s a sampling of today’s sentiments:

Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield:

Comcast is trying to become a massive player in content…a move that investors should be frightened about, regardless of the initial “math” surrounding the transaction.

Barclays Capital Vijay Jayant:

Press reports of this potential transaction give credence to investor concerns that management has empire-building aspirations in general or that they may not believe enough in their own distribution business over the long term and therefore need to diversify their portfolio holdings…fundamentally, we believe that Comcast shareholders would be better served if the company were to invest in its own shares.

So if this is a trial balloon, you wouldn’t say it has been shot down completely. But it’s certainly sagging.

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091002/wall-street-to-comcast-no-nbc-for-us-thank-you-very-much/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091001/in-their-own-words-comcasts-case-for-and-against-an-nbc-u-deal/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091001/in-their-own-words-comcasts-case-for-and-against-an-nbc-u-deal/#comments Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:16:48 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11591 Reporter Sharon Waxman says Comcast has a deal to buy NBC Universal from GE (GE) for $35 billion. Comcast, in a statement, says that’s not true.

Could Comcast (CMCSA) be talking to NBC Universal about…something? Could be–that’s what the Los Angeles Times and other outlets reported last night.

And Comcast’s statement says there’s no “deal,” which doesn’t preclude “talks about deals.” Then again, it’s awfully unusual for a company in Comcast’s position to say anything at all.

Clear as mud? Then this won’t help. Check out these comments from Comcast COO Steve Burke at a Sept. 9 conference hosted by Bank of America (BAC) where analyst Jessica Reif-Cohen asked him about his appetite for acquisitions.

Burke said he’d love get more cable channels (like the kind NBCU owns). And he said he didn’t want a really big deal that would require the company to use its shares or take on a lot of debt (like, say, a $35 billion deal for NBCU). He said all this, by the way, in the span of a single answer.

I’ll carve it up and translate for you:

We’ve had plenty of debt, and we don’t want any more right now, thank you very much.

Well, if you look at cable companies over the last 10 or 20 years–I joined the Company 11 years ago. It is really amazing how deleveraged our Company and other cable companies have gotten….We like where we are from a leverage point of view and I think [we] would be uncomfortable if our leverage was significantly higher.

But boy oh boy, are cable channels attractive!

At our core, we believe that content and distribution work well together….I think there are a lot of case studies where content and distribution, particularly in a world where the distribution has technology that can deliver content in new and innovative ways, you really can create a lot of value by putting content and distribution together, particularly if that content is cable content.

And again, when you look at the big media companies, the best businesses that all of us have in the entertainment business I think are the cable content channels and those channels with that dual revenue stream are really good businesses. And I think we wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t try to figure out a way to get bigger in those businesses. Those businesses are growing more rapidly than our cable business and if the opportunity came about where we could add cable content to our portfolio, I think we would do it.

But really, we’re not in the market for a mega-deal.

Just to sort of get it right out there, I don’t think that means doing a big deal with our stock. I think all of us think our stock is significantly undervalued. So I don’t think that means doing a big deal with our stock. I also don’t think that means doing a big $50 billion acquisition. I think it is more trying to find opportunities that are complementary with our core business, that don’t take our balance sheet and push it back into a position, which we have worked so hard to get it down.

Never say never!

We are going to try to make sure that we are disciplined and we have high IRRs and good free cash flow generation and we will see if anything comes available. If it does, we will certainly look at it.

Got it? Me either. The only way I can reconcile Burke’s comments with the notion that Comcast is interested in an NBCU deal would be if Comcast was talking about buying Vivendi’s 20 percent stake in the NBCU.

Comcast could swing that one without breaking the bank–the conventional wisdom is that it would cost something in the $5 billion range. And it would technically increase Comcast’s cable network holdings, as Burke says he wants to do. But not really: Comcast would be a minority shareholder with no clear path to control. And it wouldn’t get the “distribution plus content” benefit Burke was talking about last month.

Anyone else have any ideas? Feel free to sound off below.

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091001/in-their-own-words-comcasts-case-for-and-against-an-nbc-u-deal/feed/ 0 http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090928/how-the-youtube-warner-music-deal-got-done-meet-vevo-jr/ http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090928/how-the-youtube-warner-music-deal-got-done-meet-vevo-jr/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:42:26 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=11456 Warner Music and YouTube, co-owners of the one of the Web’s nastiest spats, are about to patch things up. How’d they do it? By cutting a deal that looks a lot like the one YouTube has already made with Universal Music Group.

Last December, talks between Warner and YouTube to renew a licensing deal broke down, and Warner’s videos disappeared from the world’s largest video site. Now, as Advertising Age has reported, an agreement is in the works that will bring Green Day, Madonna and their label-mates back to the site.

What hasn’t been reported, so far: The deal terms themselves. Neither company is talking, but sources familiar with the negotiations tell me the new pact will be similar to the one Google’s (GOOG) video unit struck earlier this year with Universal Music Group.

That deal created Vevo, a sort of “Hulu for music videos,” owned by Universal and Sony (SNE). So think of Warner’s deal as a “son of Vevo.”

The big idea is the same: Try to create more value for videos by limiting their distribution and creating a more ad-friendly atmosphere around them, and share ad revenue between YouTube and the videos’ owner. The big points:

• Unlike Vevo, Warner and YouTube won’t be creating a separate site for Warner videos, and Warner won’t be creating a separate company dedicated to its videos. Instead, YouTube will help Warner create a “premium advertising platform” for its videos within YouTube.
• Warner will take primary responsibility for selling its videos, and YouTube will receive a cut of the revenue.
• Warner will no longer receive a licensing fee each time one of its videos is played.

I gather that a lot of this is still being hashed out, and some of this will evolve even after the deal is inked. For instance, Warner needs to figure out how it’s going to sell advertising for its clips, since it doesn’t have its own sales force. Timing is also up in the air: Even after the two sides formally announce the pact, users shouldn’t expect to see Warner videos instantly reappearing on YouTube; it may be that they only get rolled out as the new ad platform is built.

Then there’s the ad platform itself: I haven’t been able to get a concrete definition of what this is supposed to look like, but for now, I’m imagining something like the “channels” YouTube has made for partners like ESPN, except they’d be made on an artist-by-artist basis.

All in all, this sounds like a fair deal. Warner loses a guaranteed revenue stream, but if its contention about the value of its videos is correct, it will make even more than it did under the old arrangement. Meanwhile, YouTube gets to hang onto “premium” inventory without being locked into the kind of  pay-per-play arrangement that helped drive the site’s expenses sky-high.

The potential downside for YouTube: If this works–or if the Vevo deal works–it will have to create similar packages/portals/platforms to retain or attract other “premium” content suppliers, like, say Hollywood studios. But given that the site has had limited success getting those guys on board so far, that’s not the worst fate in the world.

In the meantime, even though Green Day is Warner act, you can still find plenty of its clips on YouTube–it’s just that most of them are odds and ends like this grainy concert video:

]]> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090928/how-the-youtube-warner-music-deal-got-done-meet-vevo-jr/feed/ 0