Jump to content

Talk:WarnerMedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BBMatBlood (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 6 January 2019 (→‎Requested move 6 January 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Puzzling sentence about TW merger

At the end of the section 1990s was the following sentence that I have removed:

However, instead of the companies becoming defunct, the impact of the merger and its resultant financial shock wave gave off a new corporate structure, resulting in the new company being called "Time Warner".

This makes no sense to me. What issue is it addressing? No one expected "the companies" to become "defunct" or the name to be anything much different from "Time Warner". Zaslav (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when I read that sentence back when it was still in the article, it got me to thinking: when Time Inc. & Warner Communications "supposedly" merged to form Time Warner, was it actually a merger? I mean, after the Time-Warner merger, Warner Communications (parent company of Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Music Group, DC Comics, & Mad magazine) ceased to exist (I'm assuming it was eventually replaced with Warner Bros. Entertainment), but it would seem that Time Inc. continued to exist afterwards. So, DID Warner Communications & Time Inc. merge, OR was it actually that Time Warner was formed as a new company that came to own Time Inc. and Warner Communications (causing Warner Communications to be re-incorporated to Warner Bros. Entertainment afterwards)? If anyone is able to answer that, I'd really appreciate it. 2600:1700:C960:2270:286C:FA09:2D20:7B96 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was billed as a merger of equals, but legally, the merger was structured as a stock exchange that gave Time Inc. control of Warner Communications Inc. (see [1] and [2])
It would take more research of corporate records to see the "genealogy" of the merger, but it's worth noting that the Time Inc. that was spun off by Time Warner a few years ago (and later sold to Meredith) was legally a different corporate entity than the Time Inc. that merged with Warner Communications -- the current Time Inc. was only incorporated in 1989 as "The Time Inc. Magazine Company" and was renamed as "Time Inc." in the early 1990s.. Unfortunately, with all the legal considerations that go into mergers and acquisitions (how assets and liabilities are handled, tax considerations, etc.), the disposition of each corporate entity isn't usually a simple question. (For that reason, I don't think this is something we should even attempt to address in this article.) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that ALL the details of the merger should be addressed in the article, and if it seemed to come across that I was, then I apologize. I was just wondering if someone could explain to me the situation with the merger, like what happened to the pre-merger companies when Time Warner was created. 2600:1700:C960:2270:9992:4795:2D1F:873E (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otter Media

Trivialist, do not remove Otter Media from the article. Read this news on the WarnerMedia website.
I removed this template is for the reason that Time Inc. is not part of Time Warner (since 2014), plus the template doesn't mention Time Warner. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightShadow23: Please provide a source that says Otter Media is one of WarnerMedia's operating divisions. Per WarnerMedia's own site, they are HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros. In this case, "operating divisions" and "subsidiaries" are not equivalen. Trivialist (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't updated the site yet. Read this news on the WarnerMedia website, now this division. "John Stankey (CEO) is responsible for the company’s media business which includes HBO, Turner, Warner Bros., and AT&T’s Otter Media." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otter is now part of WarnerMedia albeit not a principal division like HBO, Turner, and Warner Brothers. And we can see that on their website and also on parent's corporate site- AT&T Investors site-. So no need to add it on the table. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Otter Media. Nowhere does it say that it is necessary to specify only the key subsidiaries. Template:Infobox company: "(subsid) The primary legally incorporated subsidiaries owned by the company, listed alphabetically. Wikilink each subsidiary that has its own unique article. For publicly traded companies, a list of subsidiaries is disclosed in the company's annual report. If there is more than one entry, use to format the entries. If there are more than five subsidiaries and the article body lists them or discusses them, consider linking to that part of the article rather than listing them in the infobox". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know of the three—as they call it—"principal operating divisions". Additionally, we can reliably confirm that Otter Media is a company that reports directly to WarnerMedia. All four are therefore subsidiaries of WarnerMedia and should be listed in the subsidiaries field (after all, the field is not called "principal operating divisions"). What we should not list are shell coporations and subsidiaries ordered under other subsidiaries (like CNN under Turner), which is not the case for Otter. Lordtobi (✉) 08:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright i get it...Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought [3]: "WarnerMedia has Turner (WarnerMedia businesses managed by Turner and its RSN), Warner Bros., and Home Box Office".BBMatBlood (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence lacks the words "Otter Media". "WarnerMedia businesses managed by Turner" is CNN etc. and does not explicitly mention Otter, and Otter is not an RSN either. Lordtobi (✉) 12:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the RSNs are now part of Turner.BBMatBlood (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Otter become the fourth principal subsidiary after HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros.? (since it on the table).Thanks.78.16.82.179 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WarnerMedia has theor own definition of "principal" and apparently does not list "minor" subsidiaries, however we know from reliable sources that Otter is directly organized under WarnerMedia and since it's notable it can be listed here. Lordtobi (✉) 06:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...Thank you Lord. BBMatBlood (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, Otter last updated their news section in February and it seems like they were folded into WarnerMedia while the three main division or subsidiaries with their own subsidiaries and divisions are Warner Bros., HBO, and Turner.BBMatBlood (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BBMatBlood, per the news that broke when the acquistion came, the outfit still has its own CEO who respons directly to Stankey. I would assume the CEO has at least one company to govern. Lordtobi (✉) 17:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that John Stankey's bio at WarnerMedia's website also lists Otter Media as an independent business. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologise Aoi. I guess this arguement is settled now; WarnerMedia have three prinicipal brands/divisions/subsidiaries- Warner Bros, HBO, and Turner- as well as autonous Otter Media and for now not a subsidiaries of subsidiaries like CNN or DC (inevitable will be renamed to Warner Digital i can imagine). And lastly, Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not include Otter: https://www.warnermediagroup.com/company/about-us plus Triv + bbm + others (until yesterday) are correct. Otter could now be a big part of Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.41.226 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says that Otter is part of Turner? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Otter Media is not part of Turner, even the most recent sources say Goncalves reports to Stankey. It is a notable subsidiary of WarnerMedia even if not a "primary operating division". Wikipedia does not copy big companies' commercial bliss. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It not a primary subsidiary, brand or division like Warner Bros., HBO, and Turner" so we should not treat it like CNN which also reports directly to Stankey?BBMatBlood (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BBMatBlood, CNN is part of Turner, which can be sufficently sourced. Otter is not part of Turner unless reliable sources have stated so. Lordtobi (✉) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct Lord, however with the recasting back in September, the 3 RSNs, Audience Network, stakes in GSN and MLB were transferred to Turner one of WarnerMedia's prinicipal operating unit/subsidiary/division/brand the two others being HBO and Warner Bros. As of November 29, 2018 their Analyst Meeting day (on their investor page), Otter Media is not part of any of their 4 division: AT&T Communications, WarnerMedia, AT&T Latin America, and Xandr. It is places under Corporate and Others. I was shock since i even thought it was part of Turner. Anyway this dispute is going on far too long i will just agree to disagree until sometime next year when the integration is in full gear, and i appreciate the replies. Thank you Lord.BBMatBlood (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a crazy twist, Otter is now under TNT and TBS President Kevin Reilly which is part of Turner [4]. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BBMatBlood: Seriously, you need to read sources more carefully. The link you provided does not say that Otter is under Reilly. In fact, Otter is not even mentioned in the article. This is getting beyond ridiculous. I do not know how you got the idea that Otter is under Reilly from the linked article. If you don't understand a source, please do not use it in an article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry i overread lol...joking aside, he is now in charge of their direct to consumer efforts to i though VRV and Cruunchyroll both of which are subscription models are now under his purview. Tbh though Otter is insignificant and not a principal brand or unit like HBO, Turner, Warner Bros. and i hope the new year and years to come will prove all my arguments. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner is a successor. This is a new entity?

According to THR 100 an annual publication from Hollywood Reporter: "Along with Disney-Fox, 2018 saw AT&T win a judge's blessing to acquire Time Warner, spawning new entity WarnerMedia". Here [5]. So WarnerMedia is a successor to Time Warner and Warner Communications. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly a new legal entity, isn't it? But it still has the same corporate structure, same employees, same location, and mostly same management as before, and all reliable source prior talked about a rename. Lordtobi (✉) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off topic: THR 100's interview Iger also revelead alot including the recently launched ESPN+ having 1 million subscribers, Marvel Studios taken over X-Men etc...I am trying to say if same THR 100 from Hollywood Reporter say that it a new entity then we should work from that and rework the whole page. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here: "After AT&T's hard-fought $85 billion deal, Stankey, 55, in June became the overseer of Time Warner's collection of media assets — including Warner Bros.' film and TV studios, HBO and the Turner networks including CNN. And he has a lofty goal for the new $31 billion company (and its global workforce of 26,000): Get bigger and broader. That means crown jewel HBO, which spends about $2 billion a year on content and earns $6 billion in subscriber revenue, will be given more cash to compete with the likes of Netflix. Among Stankey's challenges — besides integrating the Texas-based telecom culture with Hollywood creatives — will be to guide a reset on Warners' DC Universe." notice new in that again?. I think Predecessors will be Warner Communication and Time Warner. This is a new company inheriting those companies assets, subsidiaries, revenues, employees etc..

And Here [6]: The acquisition was both a reverse and forward triangular merger creating a completely new entity wholly owned by AT&T and inheriting the former entity's everything. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far more sources say that the company was renamed and it appears more logical here. If we were to split this off, it'd just be three sentences on its foundation, as nothing interesting has happened yet (the name is not even six months old yet). Lordtobi (✉) 19:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Oh well take it from it parent company AT&T: "Time Warner Inc was a Delaware corporation that was acquired by AT&T Inc. on June 14, 2018. The successor to Time Warner Inc. is Warner Media, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Warner Media, LLC is a media and entertainment company and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc." [7]. BBMatBlood (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah like I said, a new legal entity, but the same structural entity. Lordtobi (✉) 20:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's the same company even if the legal entity is new. AOL is a good analogous example. America Online, Inc. converted from a corporation to a limited liability company; it also changed its name to "AOL". Although the new entity was "AOL LLC", no one disputed that it was structurally the same entity as America Online, Inc. -- it had the same employees, the same brands, the same subsidiaries; the only thing that changed was the legal "shell" holding everything. I think this is applicable here -- even though the name and structure changed, it's not a different company. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Media, LLC d/b/a as WarnerMedia renamed to AT&T Media, LLC in 2020?

Happy New Year folks, hope it a great year for Wikipedia...this is kind of speculative right now but is Warner Media, LLC. (WarnerMedia) a transitional name before finally rebranded to AT&T Media, LLC similar to Sony renaming Columbia Pictures Entertainment to Sony Pictures Entertainment in 1991 after buying them in 1989 but this time 2018 until 2020? Nonetheless I think it makes sense since AT&T Sports Networks LLC (formerly DirecTV Sports Networks LLC) is now part of WarnerMedia and the AT&T SportsNet RSNs are not renamed already and they want total synergy between their Media business and their Communications business. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2019

WarnerMedia → Warner Media – I would like to reopen this discussion, asI was not thrilled with the results of the discussion. The corporate name is "Warner Media, LLC", and the name is stylized as "Warner Media", so it would make sense to separate the words. When it was Time Warner, those words were not joined together to title this article, and neither should "Warner Media" be, so I would like to come to a proper consensus regarding this move. JE98 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose as before. Unlike your claims, the name is not stylized as "Warner Media". Taking a quick look at their website, everything is plastered with "WarnerMedia"; the only time "Warner Media" appears is in their legal name. This is different from Time Warner, which used to call themselves "Time Warner" on the same site at all times. So do new press releases and so do old press releases. Their social media accounts also give the canon name uniformly in text and visual presentation.[8][9][10][11] Evidently, "WarnerMedia" is the proper WP:OFFICIALNAME for this company.
Furthermore, looking at secondary sources forms the same picture. Weak argument: a Google search for "Warner Media" gives roughly 130k results, while "WarnerMedia" returns >1M (5k and 132k, respectively, in the news section), thus the latter obviously outweighs the former. Strong argument: the vast majority of all reliable secondary sources present the name in unspaced form, and this is easily identifyable when scrolling through the aformentioned Google results. The most recent reliable source I could find is this one, published yesterday. Not to mention literally ever source from the time of the merger presenting the former name as "Time Warner" and the new name as "WarnerMedia".[12][13][14][15][16][17] Conversely, many sources that do include "Warner Media", such as this one, turn out to have a common including "Warner Media" while the article itself actually used "WarnerMedia". Evidently, "WarnerMedia" is the proper WP:COMMONNAME for this company.
As with the previous discussion, you are trying to push your opinion and do not provide a single proof of which you could be right, all while forgetting the concept of trading names. This created a WP:SNOW discussion before, and it will again. Pinging all previous contributors: @SportsFan007, Rreagan007, JWthaMajestic, DJMcNiff, BBMatBlood, 2600:1700:C960:2270:C8FD:C991:2642:D0EB, and Brainulator9. Lordtobi (✉) 13:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WarnerMedia&oldid=877094932"