ReportWire

Tag: Media and entertainment industry

  • Children’s author David Walliams denies inappropriate behavior after publisher drops him

    LONDON — British children’s author and comedian David Walliams has denied allegations of inappropriate behavior after publisher HarperCollins dropped him.

    Walliams, 54, is one of the U.K.’s bestselling children’s book authors and a former judge on the TV show “Britain’s Got Talent.”

    In a statement on Friday, HarperCollins said: “After careful consideration, and under the leadership of its new CEO, HarperCollins UK has decided not to publish any new titles by David Walliams. The author is aware of this decision.”

    A spokesperson for Walliams said in a statement that he “has never been informed of any allegations raised against him by HarperCollins.”

    “He was not party to any investigation or given any opportunity to answer questions. David strongly denies that he has behaved inappropriately and is taking legal advice,” the statement said.

    The publisher said it would not comment on internal matters, “to respect the privacy of individuals.”

    “HarperCollins takes employee wellbeing extremely seriously and has processes in place for reporting and investigating concerns,” it said.

    Walliams has published over 40 children’s books and sold more than 60 million copies worldwide, according to his website. Several of them, including “Gangsta Granny,” have been adapted into a BBC comedy dramas and stage productions.

    Walliams left his role as judge on “Britain’s Got Talent” in 2022 after apologizing for making “disrespectful comments” about auditioning contestants.

    Source link

  • What to Stream: ‘Emily in Paris,’ iHeartRadio Jingle Ball, ‘Him,’ Peter Criss and Riz Ahmed

    Marlon Wayans starring in the Jordan Peele-produced football thriller “Him” and the iHeartRadio Z100’s Jingle Ball 2025 featuring Conan Gray, Ed Sheeran, Jelly Roll and Olivia Dean are some of the new television, films, music and games headed to a device near you.

    Also among the streaming offerings worth your time this week, as selected by The Associated Press’ entertainment journalists: A second season of “Fallout” arrives on Prime Video, Season 5 of “Emily in Paris” drops on Netflix and Peter Criss — Kiss’ original drummer — will release a brand new, self-titled album.

    — The Jordan Peele-produced “Him” (Dec. 19 on Peacock) takes the hard knocks of the gridiron to bloody extremes. It stars Tyriq Withers as an up-and-coming quarterback whose mentorship with the veteran champ (Marlon Wayans) grows increasingly dark and surreal. In my review, I wrote that “Him” has a decent point to make about QB hero worship, “the problem is that has exactly one thing to say, which it does again and again.”

    — In David Mackenzie’s “Relay,” Riz Ahmed plays a fixer who runs a covert service that brokers deals between corrupt companies and potential threats. To preserve anonymity, he uses a “relay” telephone service, usually for deaf or speech-impaired people, to disguise identities. This nifty thriller streams Friday, Dec. 12 on Netflix after a late-summer theatrical release. Co-starring Lily James and Sam Worthington.

    — For a particularly seductive December, you can spend your holidays with Wong Kar-wai. The Criterion Channel is hosting many of the Hong Kong filmmaker’s finest films, including “Chungking Express,” “Fallen Angels” and “In the Mood for Love,” as well as his first TV series, “Blossoms Shanghai.” A hit in China, the 30-part series is set amid the 1990s opening of the Chinese economy and the relaunch of the Shanghai Stock Exchange. New episodes debut every Monday.

    AP Film Writer Jake Coyle

    — Alex Warren. BigXthaPlug. Conan Gray.Ed Sheeran.Jelly Roll. Jessie Murph. The Kid LAROI. Laufey. Mgk. Monsta X. Myles Smith. Nelly. Olivia Dean. Ravyn Lenae. Reneé Rapp. Shinedown. Zara Larsson. What do all these popular artists have in common? They’re performing at the iHeartRadio Jingle Ball Tour! On Wednesday, ABC will air the iHeartRadio Z100’s Jingle Ball 2025 holiday special — made up of a few tour stops — to become available to stream on Hulu the next day. It’s all the fun of a star-studded pop concert from the comfort of your couch.

    — In 2023, glam rockers Kiss said its goodbyes for one final performance at New York City’s famed Madison Square Garden. But that doesn’t mean their musical story ended there. On Friday, Peter Criss — Kiss’ original drummer and founding member who left and rejoined the group on a number of occasions — will release a brand new, self-titled album.

    AP Music Writer Maria Sherman

    — A second season of “Fallout” arrives on Prime Video Wednesday. Based on a hugely popular video game, it’s a postapocalyptic series set two centuries after a nuclear war destroyed modern civilization. In Season 2, Justin Theroux, Macaulay Culkin, and Kumail Nanjiani join the cast which includes Ella Purnell and Walton Goggins.

    — Emily, of “Emily in Paris,” is still living la dolce vita in Rome when Season 5 drops Thursday. The Darren Starr-created show follows the adventures of an American expat played by Lily Collins.

    — A new documentary series called “Born to be Wild” follows six endangered baby animals that were orphaned or born as part of conservation programs. Narrated by Hugh Bonneville, it streams on Apple TV beginning Friday, Dec. 19.

    Alicia Rancilio

    — The video game business has wrapped up its big-release schedule for the holidays, so now is a good time to catch up on titles you may have missed — or started and didn’t have time to finish. It has been a solid year for role-playing games, with Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and The Outer Worlds 2 leading The Associated Press’ top 10 list. If you’re in the mood for a trip to Japan, Assassin’s Creed Shadows and Ghost of Yōtei both offer sprawling open-world journeys with RPG elements. Check out the rest of our top 10 for more ways to keep your game device of choice humming past New Year’s Day.

    Lou Kesten

    Source link

  • Paramount goes hostile in bid for Warner Bros., challenging a $72 billion offer by Netflix

    NEW YORK (AP) — Paramount on Monday launched a hostile takeover offer for Warner Bros. Discovery, initiating a potentially bruising battle with rival bidder Netflix to buy the company behind HBO, CNN and a famed movie studio along with the power to reshape much of the nation’s entertainment landscape.

    Emerging just days after top Warner managers agreed to Netflix’s $72 billion purchase, the Paramount bid seeks to go over the heads of those leaders by appealing directly to Warner shareholders with more money — $77.9 billion — and a plan to buy all of Warner’s business, including the cable business that Netflix does not want.

    Paramount said its decision to go hostile came after it made several earlier offers that Warner management “never engaged meaningfully” with following the company’s October announcement that it was open to selling itself.

    In its appeal to shareholders, Paramount noted its offer also contains more cash than Netflix’s bid — $18 billion more — and argued that it’s more likely to pass scrutiny from President Donald Trump’s administration, a big concern given his habit of injecting himself in American business decisions.

    Over the weekend, Trump said the Netflix-Warner combo “could be a problem” because of the size of the combined market share and that he planned to review the deal personally.

    For its part, Netflix says it is confident Warner will reject the Paramount bid and that regulators, and Trump, will back its deal, citing multiple conversations that co-CEO Ted Sarandos has had with him about the streaming company’s expansion and hiring.

    “I think the president’s interest in this is the same as ours, which is to create and protect jobs,” Sarandos said Monday at an investor conference.

    Battle draws political attention in Washington

    The fight for Warner drew strong reaction in Washington, with politicians from both major parties weighing in on the likely impact on streaming prices, movie theater employment and the diversity of entertainment choices and political views.

    Paramount, run by David Ellison, whose family is closely allied with Trump, said it had submitted six proposals to Warner over a 12-week period before the latest offer.

    “We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers and the movie theater industry,” the Paramount CEO said in a statement. Ellison added that his deal would lead to more competition in the industry, not less, and more movies in theaters.

    A regulatory document released Monday suggested another possible Paramount advantage to win over Trump: An investment firm run by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner would be investing in the deal, too.

    Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar. Trump’s family company has struck deals this year for buildings and resorts that bear his name in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, partnering in the former with a company closely tied to the government and in the latter with the government fund itself.

    Also possibly in Paramount’s favor are recent changes at CBS News since its October purchase of the news and commentary website The Free Press. The site’s founder, Bari Weiss, who has a reputation for fighting “woke” culture, was then installed as editor-in-chief in a signal Ellison intended to shake up the storied network of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and “60 Minutes,” long viewed by many conservatives as the personification of a liberal media establishment.

    Trump is a wild card

    Still, Trump is a wild card given his tendency to make decisions based on gut and his personal mood.

    On Monday, he lashed out at Paramount for allowing “60 Minutes” to interview his ally-turned-enemy Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, writing on social media that “THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP.”

    The drama surrounding control of Warner began Friday when Netflix made the surprise announcement that it had struck a deal with its management to buy the Hollywood giant behind “Harry Potter,” HBO Max and DC Studios.

    The cash and stock proposal was valued at $27.75 per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7 billion, including debt that will be assumed in the deal. By contrast, the Paramount offer is for $30 per Warner share, and worth $108 billion, included assumed debt. Paramount’s offer is set to expire on Jan. 8 unless it’s extended.

    But comparing the two deals is complicated because they are not buying the same thing. The Netflix offer, if it goes through, will only close after Warner completes its previously announced separation of its cable operations. Not included in the deal, which is unlikely to close for at least a year, are networks such as CNN and Discovery.

    The federal government has the authority to kill any big media deals if it has antitrust concerns, but such matters are usually left to experts at the Department of Justice. In his decision to get involved personally, Trump has decided, as he has with other government norms, to make a sharp break with precedent.

    That worries Usha Haley, a Wichita State University specialist in international business strategy, who noted that Ellison is the son of longtime Trump supporter Larry Ellison, the world’s second-richest person.

    “He said he’s going to be involved in the decision. We should take him at face value,” Haley said of Trump. “For him, it’s just greater control over the media.”

    But others are uncertain how big a role Trump will play.

    John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, said the scrutiny will be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders and goes before the DOJ, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

    “That may affect at least the rhetoric that occurs in the press,” he said, “though I doubt it will affect the analysis that occurs at the Department of Justice.”

    Shares of Paramount surged 9% on Monday while Netflix fell 3.4%, and Warner Bros. closed up 4.4%.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Matt Sedensky, David Bauder and Charles Sheehan in New York and Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • James Patterson gives $500 checks to 600 booksellers

    NEW YORK — Melanie Moore, who runs the Ohio-based Cincy Book Bus, is one of hundreds of booksellers who received a pleasant surprise for the holidays: a check for $500 from author James Patterson.

    “I’ve never taken a salary. All profits from the bookstore go to buy books for kids in need,” Moore said in a statement released through Patterson’s publisher, Little, Brown & Company, which announced the bonuses Wednesday. “This gift from James Patterson will be my very first paycheck!”

    Over the past 20 years, Patterson has donated millions of dollars to schools, libraries, literacy programs and others in the book community. For the past several years, he has made a tradition out of sending $500 checks to 600 independent booksellers who have been recommended by peers or patrons. The list for 2025 ranges from Katie Gabriello, social media coordinator for Whitelam Books in Reading, Massachusetts, to store manager Kate Czyzewski of Thunder Road Books in Spring Lake, New Jersey.

    “I’ve said this before, but I can’t say it enough — booksellers save lives,” Patterson said in a statement. “What they do is crucial, especially right now. I’m happy to be able to acknowledge them and their hard work this holiday season.”

    One of the world’s most popular and prolific authors, Patterson received an honorary National Book Award medal in 2015 for his “Outstanding Service to the American Literary Community.”

    Source link

  • Takeover bid of parent company means limbo for CNN and some fellow cable networks

    Paramount Skydance’s hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. Discovery places CNN and its sister cable networks squarely back into what is likely to be an extended period of management limbo.

    There was some relief at CNN with last Friday’s announcement that Netflix was buying Warner’s studio and streaming businesses, since the cable network would not be a part of that deal. But that quickly changed on Monday with Paramount’s announced bid, which includes the cable assets that Netflix doesn’t want and, if successful, opens the possibility of a combined CNN and CBS News.

    The management uncertainty adds to what is already a challenging time at CNN, where there was no doubt who was in charge before swashbuckling founder Ted Turner sold his company in 1996. “That era might as well be the roaring ‘20s for how long ago it feels,” said Ross Benes, senior analyst at emarketer.com.

    The dueling bids between Paramount and Netflix now “lead to more uncertainty and greater anxiety among the current CNN staff and among those of us who served for many years as leaders of CNN under Ted,” said Tom Johnson, former CNN president in the 1990s.

    Paramount’s bid, which must be approved by shareholders and regulators, could be seen favorably by President Donald Trump, who is closely allied with Paramount Skydance chairman and CEO David Ellison as well as his father, Oracle founder Larry Ellison. But Trump has already expressed anger at the company on social media for Sunday’s “60 Minutes” report on former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

    Prior to Friday’s announcement, Warner Bros. Discovery had said it planned to spin off its cable television networks including CNN, Discovery, HGTV, the Food Network and TLC, into a separate company. The growth of streaming has made cable networks an unattractive business.

    CNN’s television ratings have tumbled to the extent that it is firmly the third-rated cable news network behind Fox News Channel and MS NOW, formerly MSNBC. Its CEO, Mark Thompson, has aggressively moved into digital with a new subscription service and said that management of Discovery Global, the spinoff company, has already approved a 2026 budget investing in the plan.

    “I know this strategic review has been a period of inevitable uncertainty across CNN and indeed the whole of WBD,” Thompson told staff in a memo Friday. “Of course, I can’t promise you that the media attention and noise around the sale of our parent will die down overnight. But I do think the path to the successful transformation of this great news enterprise remains open.”

    Thompson had no additional comment on Monday, a spokeswoman said.

    Since Paramount’s takeover of CBS News this past summer, the network has taken steps to appeal to more conservative viewers with the installation of Free Press founder Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief. Weiss is moderating a prime-time discussion this weekend with Erika Kirk, widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    During an appearance on CNBC Monday, Ellison answered, “yeah,” when asked if he would combine CNN’s newsgathering operation with CBS News. What exactly that means is unclear.

    “We want to build a scaled news service that is basically, fundamentally, in the trust business, that is in the truth business, and that speaks to the 70% of Americans that are in the middle,” Ellison said.

    Trump has spoken highly of both Ellison and his billionaire father. But he was clearly angry about Lesley Stahl’s “60 Minutes” interview with former MAGA supporter Greene, who broke with him and recently resigned from Congress. Trump said on Truth Social that his real problem with the show is that the new corporate ownership allowed it to air.

    “THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP,” Trump said, adding he believed that “60 Minutes” had gotten worse from his perspective since the changeover.

    CNN is not likely to find out soon who its new owners would be. Even before the Paramount bid, experts had predicted the Netflix deal would face more than a year of regulatory hurdles.

    “There is such a need for independent, unbiased news services,” Johnson said. “I so hope that the new CNN owners will see that as their fundamental mission.”

    If Netflix eventually wins, emarketer.com’s Benes predicted it would be likely that the spinoff company, Discovery Global, would be shopped around to other buyers.

    “CNN will be in limbo for a while no matter which bidder purchases CNN,” he said.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.

    Source link

  • Joan Branson, wife of British billionaire Richard Branson, dies at 80

    Joan Branson, the wife of British billionaire Richard Branson, has died at age 80.

    Branson announced her death Tuesday on Instagram and LinkedIn. No other details were disclosed.

    “Heartbroken to share that Joan, my wife and partner for 50 years, has passed away,” he said. “She was the most wonderful mum and grandmum our kids and grandkids could have ever wished for. She was my best friend, my rock, my guiding light, my world.”

    Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Atlantic airline, space tourism company Virgin Galactic and satellite launcher Virgin Orbit.

    In a 2020 blog post, he said he met Joan in 1976 at The Manor, a recording studio in Oxfordshire, England.

    “Joan was a down-to-earth Scottish lady and I quickly realised she wouldn’t be impressed by my usual antics,” Branson wrote.

    He said she worked at an antique shop that sold old signs and advertisements.

    “I hovered uncertainly outside the shop, then built up the courage to walk in. … Over the next few weeks, my visits to Joan amassed me an impressive collection of old hand painted tin signs, which advertised anything from Hovis bread to Woodbine cigarettes,” Branson wrote.

    The couple had three children, Holly, Sam and Sarah Clare. Sarah Clare died shortly after birth in 1979.

    Source link

  • Britain’s Daily Mail publisher enters exclusive talks to buy Telegraph Media Group for $654 million

    LONDON — The publisher of Britain’s Daily Mail has entered exclusive talks to buy Telegraph Media Group in a deal that would link two news groups that have traditionally supported the right-leaning Conservative Party.

    Daily Mail and General Trust plc said on Saturday that the talks were designed to finalize the terms of a 500 million-pound ($654-million) deal to buy the Telegraph from an Abu Dhabi-backed venture known as Redbird IMI.

    The proposed transaction comes after concerns about foreign ownership of British news organizations stalled Redbird IMI’s efforts to take control of the Daily Telegraph and its sister Sunday publication two years ago.

    Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said she would review any new acquisition to ensure it protects the public interest and complies with legislation governing “foreign state influence” in media mergers.

    DMGT said it expected to complete the transaction “quickly.”

    “Under ownership the Daily Telegraph will become a global brand, just as the Daily Mail has,” Chairman Jonathan Harmsworth, also known as Lord Rothermere, said in a statement.

    The battle over ownership of the Telegraph, a fixture on Britain’s media landscape since 1855, began in 2023, when the Barclay family lost control of the company in a dispute with its lenders.

    In November of that year, a venture between New York-based RedBird Capital and Abu Dhabi’s International Media Investments said it had agreed to acquire the Telegraph in exchange for loans that would allow the Barclays to repay their debts to Lloyds Banking Group.

    But that deal triggered a debate in the House of Commons about the dangers of foreign influence over Britain’s news media — and by extension the national political debate.

    The previous government, led by Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, quickly announced plans to review the proposed deal.

    “It would not be appropriate for a foreign state to interfere with the accurate presentation of our news or the freedom of expression in newspapers,” then-Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer said at the time.

    Source link

  • Disney pulls ABC, ESPN and more from YouTube TV as talks break down

    YouTube TV viewers can no longer see Disney channels including ABC and ESPN after the two sides failed to agree on a new content distribution deal.

    Other channels that vanished from Google’s pay TV platform include the Disney Channel, FX and Nat Geo.

    Google’s pay TV platform said in a blog post late Thursday that Disney had followed through on a threat to suspend its content amid the negotiations.

    The breakdown could impact coverage of some college football games on Saturday, as well as NBA, NFL and NHL games.

    YouTube is the largest internet TV provider in the U.S. with more than 9 million subscribers. Hulu, owned by Disney, is next, with about half that many subscribers.

    Viewers have become aware of the dispute in recent weeks because of warnings being scrolled across their screens.

    YouTube said Disney used the threat of a blackout as a negotiating tactic that would have resulted in higher prices for its subscribers. Disney’s move to take down its content also benefits its own streaming products Hulu + Live TV and Fubo, YouTube said.

    “We know this is a frustrating and disappointing outcome for our subscribers and we continue to urge Disney to work with us constructively to reach a fair agreement that restores their networks to YouTube TV,” it said.

    YouTube said it would give subscribers a $20 credit if Disney content unavailable “for an extended period of time.” YouTube TV’s base subscription plan costs $82.99 per month.

    Disney said that YouTube TV is refusing to pay fair rates for its channels and has chosen to “deny their subscribers the content they value most,” pointing out the number of Top 25 teams playing this weekend.

    “With a $3 trillion market cap, Google is using its market dominance to eliminate competition and undercut the industry-standard terms we’ve successfully negotiated with every other distributor,” Disney said. The company said that it was committed to reaching a resolution as quickly as possible.

    Source link

  • From Spice Girl to fashion mogul, Victoria Beckham grabs the chance to tell her own tale

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Now here’s something you might not quite believe about Victoria Beckham, glam Spice Girl turned high-profile fashion designer: At theater school, they purposely put her in the back row. Because she was too heavy.

    “It was really difficult,” she says now of the memory from her youth, sipping a sparkling water in a Manhattan hotel in between work engagements. “We were all judged on how we looked. I was young. I had bad skin, my weight was going up and down, I had really lank hair.”

    Beckham was also bullied in school and told she was a bad learner, revelations that come in a new documentary, “Victoria Beckham.” The three-part Netflix series traces her career and especially her ascension in the fashion world — building up to a grand Paris runway show at a palace in front of 600 people.

    That 2024 show — with a rainstorm threatening to scuttle the whole thing — is presented as a career pinnacle for a designer who spent years proving herself alongside giants of the field, showing she wasn’t simply a celebrity slapping her name on a label. ( Vogue’s Anna Wintour is among the fashion luminaries attesting to Beckham’s hard-won industry acceptance in the documentary).

    Of course the show also features liberal doses of Beckham’s soccer legend husband David — just as Victoria appeared in his own recent, popular Netflix documentary “Beckham” (both were produced by David Beckham’s own Studio 99).

    Some reviews have said Victoria’s documentary feels more guarded and less revelatory. In any case, Victoria Beckham says wanted to tell her own story, her own way. She focuses only briefly on what a certain generation knows her best for — the four years she spent as Posh Spice — and mostly on the two decades she’s been building her eponymous fashion and beauty brand.

    Other revelations: While she was the richer partner when they married in 1999 and in fact bought their first house, it was David Beckham who later invested in her label and helped get it going.

    She also talks about how her company almost fell apart due to bad business decisions — like spending 70,000 pounds (about $94,000) on office plants and 15,000 (about $20,000) more to water them — and how she learned, with investors, to right the ship.

    Beckham, 51, sat down with The Associated Press this week during a visit to New York. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    BECKHAM: Well, his documentary wasn’t about me, you know. I was in the documentary as David’s wife and I’ve been part of his journey and I was so honored to talk about that. People’s response to me in that really surprised me, and there was something quite liberating about that because when I saw myself … I didn’t like how I came across. But then I think I’ve always felt that way about myself. I suppose it gave me the confidence to do my own.

    BECKHAM: I’ve been in the fashion industry for almost two decades. I was in the Spice Girls for four years — and have been so defined by that four-year period in my life. A time that I’m so proud of, but I’ve fighting preconceptions because of that period. I feel that only now is my brand in a place where me talking about my past will not affect the brand that I’ve built.

    BECKHAM: I’m not ashamed to say I’m really ambitious. And it’s been the first time that I’ve ever looked back and, having that bird’s eye view on my journey so far, even I found it inspiring what I have done … the fact that I have been told “No” so many times, told that I’m not enough, not good enough. And by the way, that started when I was a child, when I was at school. If anybody watches this documentary and I can give them the confidence to follow their dreams, that’s another really good reason to do it.

    BECKHAM: Oh absolutely, I think that for many years I was misunderstood, before social media, you know, the media told the narrative, and then there were paparazzi pictures where most of the time I looked incredibly unhappy. And I think looking at the documentary telling my story from ME explains the why. I can’t blame people for looking at the pictures of me looking really grumpy.

    BECKHAM: Never quite like this. The opportunity has never really presented itself. And I know a lot of people can relate to my story because of all the messages that I’ve had since people have watched the documentary. … From, yes, people that I know, but people that I don’t know, people who say, “I can relate, I have been through that.” It’s taken this process finally for me to feel at my age proud of what I’ve achieved and also to finally believe that I am enough.

    BECKHAM: I’m so respectful of my time with Spice Girls. I still see all of the girls now. I wouldn’t be who I am now … the Spice Girls gave me the confidence to be me. I remember Geri (Halliwell) saying to me, “You’re funny, be funny.” I’m shy. And they really gave me my personality back. … I think people would be surprised to know that I was only a Spice Girl for four years. I’ve been in fashion nearly two decades, but people like to pigeonhole.

    BECKHAM: Maybe. I don’t know. … I think I’ve earned my place to be showing where I am. I think that I’ve more than proved myself and earned the right to be there. Now I have to work hard to maintain that.

    BECKHAM: I’ve learned so much. I know what I know and I really know what I DON’T know. It got to a stage where my investors told me that we had to re-strategize not just the business side of things but the creative things as well. And that was difficult. … We had to change a lot of things to fix the business and I took it on the chin. Of course that meant compromising, but I wanted to save the business.

    BECKHAM: Fashion in its own right is profitable. And to be able to say that in this current climate is something I’m very proud of. I’m an independent brand as well, so I’m incredibly proud to say the fashion is making money. Beauty is also doing incredibly well. And now, it is about building the house that I really have always dreamed of.

    BECKHAM: I recognize that I am really blessed. I am very appreciative of the life I have. You have to take it along with the other stuff.

    Source link

  • Amid bankruptcy, some Publishers Clearing House winners are facing the end of ‘forever’ prizes

    NEW YORK — For decades, Publishers Clearing House doled out hefty checks on the doorsteps of hopeful consumers across the U.S., including prizes that boasted lifetime payouts. But some of those winners are now facing an end to the “forever” money they were once promised.

    The turmoil arrives amid PCH’s ongoing bankruptcy process. The sweepstakes and marketing company filed for Chapter 11 in April, citing growing financial strain that spanned from rising operational costs and changes in consumer behavior.

    In July, gaming platform ARB Interactive purchased certain assets from PCH for $7.1 million and established “PCH Digital,” a new platform that hosts sweepstakes opportunities. But under the terms of that deal, ARB says it’s not responsible to pay out prizes issued by PCH prior to July 15 — meaning that the company will not pay people who won sweepstakes before that date, with an exception of two unawarded “SuperPrizes” still being promoted.

    In a statement sent to The Associated Press, ARB recognized the disappointment for past winners that it said was caused by the bankruptcy process — and noted that it was “committed to restoring and preserving the trust” of the PCH brand going forward.

    ARB added that it was “taking decisive steps to ensure that every future prize winner can participate with absolute confidence.” The company pointed to plans for a paying structure “that stands separate from ARB to ensure that all future PCH prizes are honored, regardless of ARB’s financial status.”

    PCH did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

    It wasn’t immediately clear how many past winners of PCH sweepstakes were no longer seeing “forever” checks. At the time of April’s Chapter 11 filing, PCH listed 10 unidentified prize winners among its creditors with the largest unsecured claims — totaling millions of dollars, court documents show.

    And for some, trouble bubbled up before the Chapter 11 filing. One man, who won a $5,000 a week “forever” award from PCH in 2012, told The New York Times and KGW that he didn’t receive his annual check from the company back in January — which has since caused him to scramble to pay his bills without the money he’s learned to rely on.

    PCH’s roots date back to 1953 — when Harold and LuEsther Mertz and their daughter, Joyce Mertz-Gilmore, formed a business out of their Long Island, New York home to send direct-to-consumer mailings that solicited subscribers for a number of magazines through one single offering.

    The company later grew with chances for consumers to win money — first launching a direct mail sweepstakes in 1967 — and expanded its offerings to a wide variety of merchandise, from collectible figurines to houseware and “As Seen on TV” accessories, in the years that followed. Its in-person “Prize Patrol” team was formed in 1989.

    PCH became known for surprising prize winners with oversized checks, which was often filmed and featured in TV commercials.

    But its operations didn’t come without financial strain, particularly in recent years. When filing for Chapter 11 in April, PCH said it was working to “finalize a shift away” from its legacy direct-mail business and instead transition to a “pure digital advertising” model — citing rising competition, expensive operating costs and changes in consumer behavior.

    Over the years, PCH also faced some scrutiny from regulators who previously raised concerns about consumers mistakenly believing that making purchases from the company would improve their chances at winning its sweepstakes. As a result, PCH has racked up several costly legal settlements.

    Source link

  • C-SPAN announces deal for its service to be carried on YouTube TV, Hulu

    NEW YORK — C-SPAN said Wednesday that it had reached a deal to have its three channels air on YouTube TV and Hulu’s live television feed, ending a dispute that had led to a revenue squeeze for the public affairs network in the cord-cutting era.

    The network said the streaming services would pay the same fee as cable and satellite companies, roughly 87 cents a year per subscriber, and that C-SPAN would continue its no-advertising policy on television.

    Congress involved itself in the issue, passing a resolution this spring calling on the services’ parent companies — Alphabet for YouTube and Disney for Hulu — to add C-SPAN to their programming mix. Because congressional sessions and hearings represent a big portion of C-SPAN’s programming, the politicians faced diminished airtime without a deal.

    At its peak a decade ago, C-SPAN was seen in some 100 million homes with television. The number of homes paying for TV has since dropped to some 70 million, with roughly 20 million of those consumers now getting television through services like YouTube and Hulu, and they weren’t showing C-SPAN.

    C-SPAN said its revenues had dropped from nearly $64 million in 2019 to $45.4 million in 2023.

    “We are proud that this agreement will give millions more Americans access to our unfiltered coverage of the nation’s political process,” said Sam Feist, C-SPAN’s CEO.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.

    Source link

  • How MLB’s upcoming deals will change how you watch out-of-market, Sunday night and Wild Card games

    When ESPN opted out of its contract with Major League Baseball in February, the network was hoping to get a reworked package at a lower cost while Commissioner Rob Manfred thought the sport could optimize its rights in the short term for Home Run Derby and Wild Card round.

    In the end, both parties may get what they want.

    According to people familiar with negotiations, ESPN is nearing a deal to distribute out-of-market games while NBC/Peacock, Netflix, Apple TV are in talks for regular-season packages, the Wild Card round and Home Run Derby.

    All sides hope to have everything finalized by the end of the regular season next month, three people told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the contracts have not been finalized or announced by either side.

    The negotiations around the three-year deals is complicated due to the fact that MLB is also trying not to slight two of its other rights holders. MLB receives an average of $729 million from Fox and $470 million from Turner Sports per year under deals which expire after the 2028 season.

    While ESPN would be losing the playoffs and Home Run Derby, it would be gaining something it considers more valuable — the MLB.TV streaming package of out-of-market games as part of the direct-to-consumer service that launched on Thursday. ESPN would also sell the in-market rights to the five teams whose games are produced by MLB — San Diego, Colorado, Arizona, Cleveland and Minnesota.

    “We are engaged. We are having healthy conversations with them. Nothing to announce today, but we’re very interested in baseball in general,” ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro said on Tuesday during a presentation about the network’s DTC service.

    ESPN, which has carried MLB games since 1990, opted out of the final three years of a seven-year deal in February. The package averaged $550 million per season and also included the Home Run Derby and Wild Card games.

    Baseball would be the second league that would have its out-of-market digital package available in the U.S. on ESPN’s platform. The NHL moved its package to ESPN in 2021.

    It would also be a win-win situation for MLB and ESPN. Manfred wrote in a memo to owners after ESPN opted out of its contract: “While ESPN has stated they would like to continue to have MLB on their platform, particularly in light of the upcoming launch of their DTC product, we do not think its beneficial for us to accept a smaller deal to remain on a shrinking platform. In order to best position MLB to optimize our rights going in to our next deal cycle, we believe it is not prudent to devalue our rights with an existing partner but rather to have our marquee regular season games, Home Run Derby and Wild Card playoff round on a new broadcast and/or streaming platform.”

    The moves keep ESPN involved in baseball, but at a point where it can benefit while MLB could benefit from other partners in a short-term deal.

    There is a possibility that ESPN would still air 30 regular-season games, but not Sunday nights. That package of games would go to NBC/Peacock, along with the Wild Card round.

    NBC, which celebrates its 100th anniversary next year, has a long history with baseball, albeit not much recently. The network carried games from 1939 through 1989. It was part of the short-lived Baseball Network with ABC in 1994 and ’95 and then aired playoff games from 1996 through 2000.

    Peacock had a Sunday streaming package of early-afternoon games in 2022 and ’23.

    The addition of baseball games would give NBC a year-around night of sports on Sunday nights. It has had NFL games on Sunday night since 2006 and will debut an NBA Sunday night slate in February. NBC would likely do Sunday Night Baseball from May through Labor Day weekend.

    Fox’s Saturday nights have been mainly sports the past couple years with a mix of baseball, college football, college basketball and motorsports.

    Netflix is in discussions for the Home Run Derby, which would align with its strategy of going for a big event in a major sport. The streamer will have an NFL Christmas Day doubleheader this season for the second straight year.

    Apple TV, which has had “Friday Night Baseball” since 2022, remains involved in negotiations.

    The deals would also accomplish another of Manfred’s goals. He has said for three years that he would like to see MLB take a more national approach to its rights instead of a large percentage of its games being on regional sports networks.

    “We’re blessed with a huge amount of content: 2,430 games. Because of the amount of content, I think there will be some local component but I think the strategy needs to be more national and our reach needs to be more national,” he said during a panel discussion last September at the CNBC x Boardroom’s Game Plan event.

    ___

    AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/mlb

    Source link

  • Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion

    Nexstar Media Group is buying broadcast rival Tegna for $6.2 billion, which will help strengthen its local news offerings.

    The transaction, if approved, will bring together two major players in U.S. television and the country’s local news landscape. Nexstar oversees more than 200 owned and partner stations in 116 markets nationwide today and also runs networks like The CW and NewsNation. Meanwhile, Tegna owns 64 news stations across 51 markets.

    “The initiatives being pursued by the Trump administration offer local broadcasters the opportunity to expand reach, level the playing field, and compete more effectively with the Big Tech and legacy Big Media companies that have unchecked reach and vast financial resources,” Nexstar Chairman and CEO Perry Sook said in a statement on Tuesday. “We believe Tegna represents the best option for Nexstar to act on this opportunity.”

    Nexstar said Tuesday that the deal will also help it give advertisers a bigger variety of local and national broadcast and digital advertising options.

    Nexstar will pay $22 in cash for each share of Tegna’s outstanding stock.

    The deal could potentially help kick off even further consolidation in America’s broadcast industry. Nexstar, founded in 1996, has itself grow substantially with acquisitions over the latest two decades, becoming the biggest operator of local TV stations in the U.S. after it purchased Tribune Media back in 2019.

    Nexstar’s purchase of Tegna also arrives amid wider regulatory shifts. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman the Federal Communications Commission, which will need to give the transaction the green light, has long advocated for loosening industry restrictions. On Aug. 7, the FCC announced that it would be repealing 98 broadcast rules and requirements that it identified as “obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.”

    Some of those rules date back nearly 50 years, the FCC said, and apply to “old technology that is no longer used.” Carr maintained that such provisions no longer serve public interest.

    In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also vacated the FCC’s “top four” rule, which has long prohibited ownership of more than one of the top four stations in a single market. The ruling is still subject to a monthslong assessment by the FCC, but could significantly clear the way for future mergers in the industry.

    In company earnings calls held in early August, before Tegna and Nexstar publicly confirmed merger talks, both Tegna CEO Michael Steib and Nexstar’s Sook pointed directly to this ruling, and applauded Carr’s deregulation agenda as a whole.

    “We believe that deregulation is necessary, important and coming,” Steib said in Tegna’s Aug. 7 call, noting that local broadcasters are “up against big tech competitors who have absolutely no encumbrances in how they compete.”

    Beyond their core broadcast TV businesses, both Nexstar and Tegna also boast digital news, mobile app and streaming offerings, all of which have played key roles for the industry as consumers change the way they consume news and other entertainment.

    Broadcast TV has been hit particularly hard by “cord-cutting,” with more and more households trading their cable or satellite subscriptions into content they can get via the internet.

    The deal is expected to close by the second half of 2026. It still needs approval from Tegna shareholders.

    Shares of Nexstar jumped 7.6% in premarket trading, and Tegna’s rose 4.3%.

    Source link

  • DoorDash partners with Lyft to give members ride-sharing benefits

    DoorDash partners with Lyft to give members ride-sharing benefits

    Delivery service DoorDash said Wednesday that it’s partnering with Lyft to bring ride-sharing benefits to its members.

    The announcement came as DoorDash released better-than-expected results for its third quarter. The San Francisco company said its revenue rose 25% in the July-September period to $2.7 billion. The figure topped Wall Street’s forecast of $2.65 billion, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

    DoorDash said its DashPass members will get discounted rides through Lyft, while Lyft riders will a get a free DashPass trial. DashPass members pay $9.99 per month or $96 per year for free deliveries on most orders.

    The combination makes DoorDash a more potent competitor to Uber, which offers free Uber Eats delivery and discounted Uber rides to its Uber One members. Uber’s program also costs $9.99 per month or $96 per year.

    Both Lyft and DoorDash have been adding partners to their loyalty programs in order to entice customers. Lyft said 20% of its rides last year were connected to its partners, including Delta Air Lines and Hilton. DoorDash recently partnered with Max, Warner Bros. Discovery’s entertainment streaming service.

    DoorDash said its total orders rose 18% in the third quarter to 643 million, more than the 640 million that analysts expected. The company reported net income of $162 million, compared to a loss of $73 million a year ago.

    Source link

  • Google will stop linking to New Zealand news if law forces it to pay for content

    Google will stop linking to New Zealand news if law forces it to pay for content

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Google said Friday it will stop linking to New Zealand news content and will reverse its support of local media outlets if the government passes a law forcing tech companies to pay for articles displayed on their platforms.

    The vow to sever Google traffic to New Zealand news sites — made in a blog post by the search giant on Friday — echoes strategies the firm deployed as Australia and Canada prepared to enact similar laws in recent years.

    It followed a surprise announcement by New Zealand’s government in July that lawmakers would advance a bill forcing tech platforms to strike deals for sharing revenue generated from news content with the media outlets producing it.

    The government, led by center-right National, had opposed the law in 2023 when introduced by the previous administration.

    But the loss of more than 200 newsroom jobs earlier this year — in a national media industry that totaled 1,600 reporters at the 2018 census and has likely shrunk since — prompted the current government to reconsider forcing tech companies to pay publishers for displaying content.

    The law aims to stanch the flow offshore of advertising revenue derived from New Zealand news products.

    Google New Zealand Country Director Caroline Rainsford wrote Friday that the firm would change its involvement in the country’s media landscape if it passed.

    “Specifically, we’d be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers,” she wrote.

    Google’s licensing program in New Zealand contributed “millions of dollars per year to almost 50 local publications,” she added.

    The News Publishers’ Association, a New Zealand sector group, said in a written statement Friday that Google’s pledge amounted to “threats” and reflected “the kind of pressure that it has been applying” to the government and news outlets, Public Affairs Director Andrew Holden said.

    The government “should be able to make laws to strengthen democracy in this country without being subjected to this kind of corporate bullying,” he said.

    Australia was the first country to attempt to force tech firms — including Google and Meta — to the bargaining table with news outlets through a law passed in 2021. At first, the tech giants imposed news blackouts for Australians on their platforms, but both eventually somewhat relented, striking deals reportedly worth 200 million Australian dollars ($137 million) a year, paid to Australian outlets for use of their content.

    But Belinda Barnet, a media expert at Swinburne University in Melbourne, said Meta has refused to renew its contracts with Australian news media while Google is renegotiating its initial agreements.

    As Canada prepared to pass similar digital news bargaining laws in 2023, Google and Meta again vowed to cease their support for the country’s media. Last November, however, Google promised to contribute 100 million Canadian dollars ($74 million) — indexed to inflation — in financial support annually for news businesses across the country.

    Colin Peacock, an analyst who hosts the Mediawatch program on RNZ, New Zealand’s public radio broadcaster, said Google “doesn’t want headlines around the world that say another country has pushed back” by enacting such a law.

    While Google pointed Friday to its support of local outlets, Peacock said one of its funding recipients – the publisher of a small newspaper – had told a parliamentary committee this year that the amount he received was “a pittance” and not enough to hire a single graduate reporter.

    Minister for Media and Communications Paul Goldsmith told The Associated Press in a written statement on Friday that he was still consulting on the next version of the bill.

    “My officials and I have met with Google on a number of occasions to discuss their concerns, and will continue to do so,” he said.

    Goldsmith said in July that he planned to pass the law by the end of the year.

    ——

    Associated Press writer Rod McGuirk contributed reporting from Melbourne, Australia.

    Source link

  • Satellite service DirecTV buys rival Dish as it fights the onslaught of streaming services

    Satellite service DirecTV buys rival Dish as it fights the onslaught of streaming services

    DirecTV is buying Dish and Sling, a deal it has sought to complete for years, as the company seeks to better compete against streaming services that have become dominant.

    DirecTV said Monday that it will acquire Dish TV and Sling TV from its owner EchoStar in a debt exchange transaction that includes a payment of $1, plus the assumption of approximately $9.8 billion in debt.

    The prospect of a DirecTV-Dish combo has long been rumored, with headlines about reported talks popping up over the years. And the two almost merged more than two decades ago — but the Federal Communications Commission blocked their owners’ then-$18.5 billion deal, citing antitrust concerns.

    The pay-for-TV market has shifted significantly since. As more and more consumers tune into online streaming giants, demand for more traditional satellite continues to shrink. And, although high-profile acquisitions have proven to be particularly tough under the Biden-Harris administration, that may make regulators more inclined to approve DirecTV and Dish’s pairing this time around.

    DirecTV said Monday that the transaction will help it bring smaller content packages to consumer at lower prices and essentially provide a one-stop shopping experience for entertainment programming.

    It’s hoping this will appeal to those who have left satellite video services for streaming. The company said that combined, DirecTV and Dish have collectively lost 63% of their satellite customers since 2016.

    “DirecTV operates in a highly competitive video distribution industry,” DirecTV CEO Bill Morrow said in a statement. “With greater scale, we expect a combined DirecTV and Dish will be better able to work with programmers to realize our vision for the future of tv, which is to aggregate, curate, and distribute content tailored to customers’ interests, and to be better positioned to realize operating efficiencies while creating value for customers through additional investment.”

    The current deal could provide a key lifeline for EchoStar. The Colorado-based telecommunications company has reportedly faced the prospect of bankruptcy as it continues to burn through cash and see losses pile up.

    In a recent securities filing, EchoStar disclosed that it had just $521 million in “cash on hand.” And the company forecast negative cash flows for the remainder of the year — while also pointing to major looming debt payments, with more than $1.98 billion of debt set to mature in November.

    “With an improved financial profile, we will be better positioned to continue enhancing and deploying our nationwide 5G Open RAN wireless network,” EchoStar President and CEO Hamid Akhavan said. “This will provide U.S. wireless consumers with more choices and help to drive innovation at a faster pace.”

    By shedding Dish, EchoStar will be able to focus its efforts elsewhere, like its wireless carrier Boost Mobile.

    “We are playing to win in the wireless business. there’s no doubt about it,” Akhavan said during a conference call, adding that the company may need to seek additional funding and financing in the future to achieve its goals.

    Shares of EchoStar fell more than 14% in Monday midday trading.

    The DirecTV and Dish deal is targeted to close in 2025’s fourth quarter. But it is contingent on several factors, including regulatory approvals and bondholders writing off nearly $1.6 billion in debt related to Dish.

    The combined company will be based in El Segundo, California.

    “We believe regulatory approval is likely to be greater than 50% given the opportunity for the combined company to improve its competitiveness to offer a range of linear video packages as well as to take a more aggressive stance on offering a live streaming video product,” Michael Rollins of Citi Investment Research wrote in a note to clients.

    But the analyst added that there’s still significant uncertainty related to whether or not the Federal Communications Commission, Department of Justice and other possible regulators give the necessary approvals, based on previous talks with company management and industry experts over the last few years.

    Shortly before DirecTV made its announcement, AT&T said it was selling its remaining stake in DirecTV to private equity firm TPG in a deal valued at about $7.6 billion.

    The move ends the communication giant’s remaining ties to the entertainment industry.

    AT&T said Monday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it will receive payments from TPG and DirecTV for its remaining 70% stake in the satellite TV company. This includes $1.7 billion in the second half of the year and $5.4 billion next year. The remaining amount will be paid in 2029.

    AT&T purchased DirectTV for $48.5 billion back in 2015. But in 2021, following the loss of millions of customers, AT&T sold a 30% stake of the business to TPG for $16.25 billion.

    AT&T’s deal is expected to close in the second half of 2025.

    Source link

  • Google begins its defense in antitrust case alleging monopoly over ad technology

    Google begins its defense in antitrust case alleging monopoly over ad technology

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.

    “The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years,” said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company’s first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.

    The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.

    Google counters that the government’s case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google’s lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.

    Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.

    Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.

    The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent publishers from making as much money as they otherwise could for selling their ad space.

    It also says that Google’s technology, when used on all facets of an ad transaction, allows Google to keep 36 cents on the dollar of any particular ad purchase, billions of which occur every single day.

    Executives at media companies like Gannett, which publishes USA Today, and News Corp., which owns the Wall Streel Journal and Fox News, have said that Google dominates the landscape with technology used by publishers to sell ad space as well as by advertisers looking to buy it. The products are tied together so publishers have to use Google’s technology if they want easy access to its large cache of advertisers.

    The government said in its complaint filed last year that at a minimum Google should be forced to sell off the portion of its business that caters to publishers, to break up its dominance.

    In his testimony Friday, Sheffer explained how Google’s tools have evolved over the years and how it vetted publishers and advertisers to guard against issues like malware and fraud.

    The trial began Sept. 9, just a month after a judge in the District of Columbia declared Google’s core business, its ubiquitous search engine, an illegal monopoly. That trial is still ongoing to determine what remedies, if any, the judge may impose.

    The ad technology at question in the Virginia case does not generate the same kind of revenue for Google as its search engine does, but is still believed to bring in tens of billions of dollars annually.

    Overseas, regulators have also accused Google of anticompetitive conduct. But the company won a victory this week when a an EU court overturned a 1.49 billion euro ($1.66 billion) antitrust fine imposed five years ago that targeted a different segment of the company’s online advertising business.

    Source link

  • Going once, going twice: Google’s millisecond ad auctions are the focus of monopoly claim

    Going once, going twice: Google’s millisecond ad auctions are the focus of monopoly claim

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — It happens in milliseconds, ideally, as you browse the web. Networks of computers and software analyze who you are, what you are looking at and buy and sell the advertisements you see on web pages.

    The company that most likely determines which ads you get, and how much an advertiser paid to get on your screen, is Google.

    In fact, the Justice Department and a coalition of states say Google’s dominance over the technology that controls the sale of billions of Internet display ads every day is so thorough that it constitutes an illegal monopoly that should be broken up.

    A trial under way in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, will determine if Google’s ad tech stack constitutes an illegal monopoly. The first week has included a deep dive into exactly how Google’s products work together to conduct behind-the-scenes electronic auctions that place ads in front of consumers in the blink of an eye.

    Online advertising has rapidly evolved. Fifteen or so years ago, if you saw an internet display ad, there was a pretty good chance it featured people dancing over their enthusiasm for low mortgage rates, and those ads were foisted on you whether you were looking at real estate or searching for baseball scores.

    Now, the algorithms that match ads to your interests are carefully calibrated, sometimes to an almost creepy extent.

    Google, for its part, says it has invested billions of dollars to improve the quality of ads that consumers see, and ensure that advertisers can reach the consumers they’re seeking.

    The Justice Department contends that what Google has also done over the years is rig the automated auctions of ad sales to favor itself over other would-be players in the industry, and also deprived the publishing industry of hundreds of millions of dollars it would have received if the auctions were truly competitive.

    Government witnesses have explained the auction process and how it has evolved over the years in detail at the Virginia trial.

    In the government’s depiction, there are three distinct tools that interact to sell an ad and place it in front of a consumer. There’s the ad servers used by publishers to sell space on their websites, particularly the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of a web page. Ad networks are used by advertisers to buy ad space across an array of relevant websites.

    And in between is the ad exchange, which matches the website publisher to the would-be advertiser by hosting an instant auction.

    Publishers naturally want to receive as high a price as possible for their ad space, but testimony at trial has shown that didn’t always happen due to the rules Google imposed.

    For years, Google gave its ad exchange, called AdX, the first chance to match a publisher’s proposed floor price. For instance, if a publisher wanted to sell a specific ad impression for a minimum of 50 cents, Google’s software would give its own ad exchange the first chance to purchase. If Google’s ad exchange bid 50 cents, it would win the auction, even if competing ad exchanges down the line were willing to pay more.

    Google said the system was necessary to ensure ads loaded quickly. If the computers entertained bids from every ad exchange, it would take too long.

    Publishers, dissatisfied with this system, found a workaround to conduct the auctions outside of Google’s purview, a process that became known as “header bidding.” Internal Google documents introduced at trial described header bidding as an “existential threat” to Google’s market share.

    Google’s response relied on its control of all three components of the process. If publishers conducted an auction outside Google’s purview but they still used Google’s publisher ad server, called DoubleClick For Publishers, that software forced the winning bid back into Google’s Ad Exchange. If Google was willing to match the price that publishers had received under the header-bidding auction, Google would win the auction.

    Professor Ramamoorthi Ravi, an expert at Carnegie Mellon University, said rules imposed by Google failed to maximize value for publishers and “seem to have been designed to advantage Google’s own products.”

    Publishers could stop using Google’s ad exchange entirely, but at trial said they were reluctant to do so because then they would also lose access to Google’s huge, exclusive cache of advertisers in its Google Ads network, which was only available through Google’s ad exchange.

    Google, for its part, says it hasn’t run auctions this way since 2019, and that in the last five years Google’s share of the display ad market has begun to erode. It says that tying its buy side, sell side and middleman products together helps them run seamlessly and quickly, and minimizes fraudulent ads or malware risks.

    Google also says its innovations over the last 15 years fueled the improvements in matching online ads to consumer interests. Google says it was at the forefront of introducing “real-time bidding,” which allowed an advertiser selling shoes, for instance, to be paired up with a consumer whose online profile indicated an interest in purchasing shoes.

    Those innovations, according to Google, allowed publishers to sell their available ad space at a premium because the advertiser would know that the ad was going to the eyeballs of someone interested in their product or service.

    The Justice Department says that even though Google no longer runs its auctions in the ways described, it helped Google maintain its monopoly in the ad tech market in the years leading up to 2019, and that its existing monopoly allows Google to keep up to 36 cents on the dollar of every ad purchase it brokers when the transaction runs through all of its various products.

    The Virginia trial comes just a month after a judge in Washington ruling that Google’s search engine also constitutes an illegal monopoly. No decision in that case has been made on what, if any, remedies the judge will impose.

    Source link

  • Google faces new antitrust trial after ruling declaring search engine a monopoly

    Google faces new antitrust trial after ruling declaring search engine a monopoly

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — One month after a judge declared Google’s search engine an illegal monopoly, the tech giant faces another antitrust lawsuit that threatens to break up the company, this time over its advertising technology.

    The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintains a monopoly over the technology that matches online publishers to advertisers. Dominance over the software on both the buy side and the sell side of the transaction enables Google to keep as much as 36 cents on the dollar when it brokers sales between publishers and advertisers, the government contends in court papers.

    Google says the government’s case is based on an internet of yesteryear, when desktop computers ruled and internet users carefully typed precise World Wide Web addresses into URL fields. Advertisers now are more likely to turn to social media companies like TikTok or streaming TV services like Peacock to reach audiences.

    In recent years, Google Networks, the division of the Mountain View, California-based tech giant that includes such services as AdSense and Google Ad Manager that are at the heart of the case, actually have seen declining revenue, from $31.7 billion in 2021 to $31.3 billion in 2023, according to the company’s annual reports.

    The trial over the alleged ad tech monopoly begins Monday in Alexandria, Virginia. It initially was going to be a jury trial, but Google maneuvered to force a bench trial, writing a check to the federal government for more than $2 million to moot the only claim brought by the government that required a jury.

    The case will now be decided by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton and is best known for high-profile terrorism trials including Sept. 11 defendant Zacarias Moussaoui. Brinkema, though, also has experience with highly technical civil trials, working in a courthouse that sees an outsize number of patent infringement cases.

    The Virginia case comes on the heels of a major defeat for Google over its search engine. which generates the majority of the company’s $307 billion in annual revenue. A judge in the District of Columbia declared the search engine a monopoly, maintained in part by tens of billions of dollars Google pays each year to companies like Apple to lock in Google as the default search engine presented to consumers when they buy iPhones and other gadgets.

    In that case, the judge has not yet imposed any remedies. The government hasn’t offered its proposed sanctions, though there could be close scrutiny over whether Google should be allowed to continue to make exclusivity deals that ensure its search engine is consumers’ default option.

    Peter Cohan, a professor of management practice at Babson College, said the Virginia case could potentially be more harmful to Google because the obvious remedy would be requiring it to sell off parts of its ad tech business that generate billions of dollars in annual revenue.

    “Divestitures are definitely a possible remedy for this second case,” Cohan said “It could be potentially more significant than initially meets the eye.”

    In the Virginia trial, the government’s witnesses are expected to include executives from newspaper publishers including The New York Times Co. and Gannett, and online news sites that the government contends have faced particular harm from Google’s practices.

    “Google extracted extraordinary fees at the expense of the website publishers who make the open internet vibrant and valuable,” government lawyers wrote in court papers. “As publishers generate less money from selling their advertising inventory, publishers are pushed to put more ads on their websites, to put more content behind costly paywalls, or to cease business altogether.”

    Google disputes that it charges excessive fees compared to its competitors. The company also asserts the integration of its technology on the buy side, sell side and in the middle assures ads and web pages load quickly and enhance security. And it says customers have options to work with outside ad exchanges.

    Google says the government’s case is improperly focused on display ads and banner ads that load on web pages accessed through a desktop computer and fails to take into account consumers’ migration to mobile apps and the boom in ads placed on social media sites over the last 15 years.

    The government’s case “focuses on a limited type of advertising viewed on a narrow subset of websites when user attention migrated elsewhere years ago,” Google’s lawyers write in a pretrial filing. “The last year users spent more time accessing websites on the ‘open web,’ rather than on social media, videos, or apps, was 2012.”

    The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, is taking place in a courthouse that rigidly adheres to traditional practices, including a resistance to technology in the courtroom. Cellphones are banned from the courthouse, to the chagrin of a tech press corps accustomed at the District of Columbia trial to tweeting out live updates as they happen.

    Even the lawyers, and there are many on both sides, are limited in their technology. At a pretrial hearing Wednesday, Google’s lawyers made a plea to be allowed more than the two computers each side is permitted to have in the courtroom during trial. Brinkema rejected it.

    “This is an old-fashioned courtroom,” she said.

    Source link

  • You use Spotify to listen to music. Here’s how money from ads and subscription fees flows to artists

    You use Spotify to listen to music. Here’s how money from ads and subscription fees flows to artists

    LOS ANGELES — Every day, millions of people use Spotify to stream music. A few years ago, it would’ve felt like an impossibility: Click, and bam — a seemingly endless catalog of recorded music opens up, right at your fingertips.

    Streaming now accounts for most of the money generated by the music industry — a whopping 84% in the United States, according to the RIAA, and 67.3% worldwide, according to a 2024 report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which tracks global sales.

    Spotify is the largest platform of all — making up roughly 31% of the total market share — with a reported 626 million users and 246 million subscribers in over 180 markets.

    In July, Spotify increased its monthly subscription cost. So, how does money from advertisers and subscription fees move from Spotify to artists’ wallets, anyway?

    Short answer: They don’t. Spotify pays roughly two-thirds of each dollar it makes from music streams — a collection of paid subscriptions and advertiser income — to the rights holders of the music on its platform, paid out between recording and publishing agreements.

    Those rights holders usually comprise a combination of record labels, distributors, aggregators and collecting societies — think Sony, Warner, Universal, the digital music licensing organization Merlin that represents independent labels — who then pay their artists according to their contracts.

    If an artist is self-distributed, they might pay a small fee to an aggregator, or upload service (some popular ones include DistroKid and TuneCore).

    A self-distributed artist keeps “the vast majority of (the royalties),” explains Charlie Hellman, the vice president and global head of music product at Spotify. Or it “goes to their label and their publisher.”

    Payments to rights holders are determined by a process called streamshare.

    Once Spotify pays the rights holders, “we sort of lose visibility of exactly what happens after that,” Hellman says.

    When you walk into a store and buy an album, a percentage of that amount goes directly to an artist. When it comes to streaming, subscription dollars are collected into one large pool and paid out via streamshare, a number Spotify calculates by adding up how many times music owned or controlled by a particular rights holder was streamed in a month, in each market and dividing it by the total number of streams in that market.

    Most streaming platforms use streamshare: Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, etc.

    Hellman explains that “whatever fraction of streams” a rights holder has on Spotify is “the fraction of the total payouts that are paid out” to them. “We calculate that per market,” he says.

    So, if a rights holder like Universal Music Group accounted for half of all the streams in the U.S., they’d “get half of all the revenue generated in the U.S.”

    Liz Pelly, a journalist whose first book, “Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist,” will be published in 2025, says the streamshare system has been criticized for “benefitting the artists who generate the most streams” and “the major labels who already have, like, so much market share.”

    In the last few years, she’s seen artists organizations and independent artists unions call for a shift to a user-centric system. Under that system, royalties would be paid directly to the rights holders based on what each user streamed. Essentially, if you only listened to Charli XCX this month, she and the rights holders of her music would receive roughly two-thirds of the revenue generated from your subscription.

    You might have seen a popular metric that suggests artists make, on average, somewhere between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream. But because streaming platforms don’t pay artists directly, that number isn’t exactly accurate.

    “This concept of the per stream rate is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the music industry,” says Hellman. “There is no per stream rate.”

    He uses an example: Say, for the ease of understanding, a listener spends $10 on their monthly subscription. Three of those dollars go to Spotify, the other seven go to rights holders. (Currently, the individual subscription plan is now $11.99, not $9.99.)

    “If they played only one stream in the month, the per stream payout would be $7 per stream. But if they played (700) streams in that month, then the per stream effective payout would be a penny,” he says.

    Pelly says artists deduce they make “penny fractions” in royalties by looking at their statements. “And that is meaningful.”

    They are “symbolically important,” she adds, if inexact, “because they communicate the reality that a lot of artists are seeing, like, very little pay from digital services.”

    Los Angeles experimental artist Julia Holter, whose sixth studio album “Something in the Room She Moves” was released in March, says artists do receive what adds up to penny fractions.

    “The current Spotify model does not work for most artists, in that you cannot easily make a living solely from streams,” she says. “The math here is so complicated, which is part of the issue.”

    “There are so many artists that struggle to make a career in the streaming era because things are set up in ways that are inaccessible and opaque,” Pelly adds.

    And many musicians do not make music in ways that are “specifically tailored to the way in which streaming services generate money… The system is set up to reward artists that generate massive numbers of streams.”

    Not all music functions that way, she says. There are “certain artists that make the kind of music that maybe you wouldn’t stream in the background for hours on end, or who make music in long-form compositions, not in, like, short two-, three-minute tracks that you could load up a playlist with.”

    In 2024, Holter is one of those artists — it has been five years since her last solo album, and her latest release features a few six-minute tracks. If streaming demands churning-out short songs — viewing “music as content,” she says it is “antithetical to creative people.”

    In April, Spotify began eliminating all payments for songs with less than 1,000 annual streams in an effort to drive revenue to what it calls “emerging and professional artists”. As a result, those with a bigger percentage of streamshare revenue will receive an even larger share — pooled from artists with few streams.

    Hellman argues that because there is a minimum threshold to be met when withdrawing money from a distributor, artists with under 1,000 annual streams aren’t able to collect their royalties. (At DistroKid, it is $5.35; at TuneCore it is $1 via PayPal.)

    “There was an increasing amount of uploaders that had $0.03, $0.08, $0.36 sitting there,” he said. “All those pennies sitting in bank accounts all over the place was siphoning money away from artists that were really doing this, as an aspiring professional.”

    In May, Spotify announced it would add audiobooks into its premium subscriptions, resulting in a lower royalty rate for U.S. songwriters, according to Billboard. They estimate that songwriters and publishers will earn $150 million less in U.S. mechanical royalties from premium, duo and family plans for the first 12 months it is in effect.

    Politicians are taking note. In March, U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Jamaal Bowman introduced the Living Wage for Musicians Act in partnership with artists and industry laborers in the United Musicians and Allied Workers organization.

    The bill proposes a new streaming royalty, to be paid into an Artist Compensation Royalty Fund, which would ensure artists receive at least one cent per stream. It’s a direct payment from streaming services to artists, with no middlemen.

    The new royalty would be funded through a 10% levy of streaming platforms’ non-subscription revenues and an additional subscription fee.

    The act is “suggesting that the current system isn’t working for artists,” says Pelly.

    Holter, who works with UMAW, is optimistic about the bill, suggesting that “if streamers are going to increase prices anyway,” this is an opportunity to make sure artists, and not only major label artists, are compensated equitably — without fundamentally altering how the system currently works.

    “I think this will benefit everyone,” she says. “Including the streamers.”

    Earlier this year, Hellman had no comment on the act but underlined that the easiest way to get to a penny per play is to get people to stream less.

    “I think fixating on what that ‘average revenue compared to total number of plays’ looks like is really distracting us from what it is that we’re trying to do as an industry, which is get more people to pay more money for music so that we can pay that to the artists and the rights holders,” he says.

    “Spotify has every incentive to maximize the revenue because we get to share in 30% of it. And so, we’ve been raising prices,” he says.

    “We will continue to raise prices as much as we can. That’s going to maximize the revenue. But if you raise prices too much or you constrain the value too much, you’re going to get people churning out of subscription, going back to less productive behaviors like piracy. And I don’t think anyone wants to see those kinds of things happen.”

    Source link