
In a deal forecast by analysts back in March, New York broadcast titans Cablevision yesterday acquired the Sundance Channel for $496 million. The amount was nearly 25% higher than its valuation at the time, and it adds nearly $50 million to the wallet of minority shareholder and Sundance Film Festival founder Robert Redford; his partners at NBC Universal and CBS pocketed the rest. While Redford is expected to stay with the network, it should undergo plenty of other changes — not the least of which will be its transition to a commercial-supported entity. What else would you expect from Sundance other than a word with its sponsors?
That development would help neutralize what's arguably Cablevision's biggest paradox here: How to create coexistence between Sundance and its current indie-film channel IFC. Sundance currently reaches about 30 million homes, having balanced out uncut broadcasts of its namesake festival's selections with more original programming over the last three years. It stops short of airing commercials, though, which Cablevision will seek to integrate in a fashion similar to its canny evolution of AMC from vintage movie dump to contemporary outlet for mainstream films and original series like Mad Men.
A commercialized Sundance Channel would also entitle IFC the latitude to pursue its precious mission — "independent film, unedited and commercially uninterrupted 24 hours a day" — with fewer of the tacky on-air branding and sponsorship credits it endures now. (Not that it'd give up all of that easy revenue, but still.) To that end, Sundance last week presented its first upfronts to advertisers, led by Redford himself. Assuming you haven't changed the channel, expect to see the results between Iconoclasts and The Green segments some time this fall.
- Sundance Is Sold to Cablevision for $496 Million [TV Decoder]









Comments
Too little, too late--*%#%@ Adelphia/Time Warner cable took Sundance Channel off basic cable years ago anyway.
I can't write a sentence about Robert Redford without using the words "self-serving", so this does not surprise me in the least.
@Juancho: Just curious. What does the list of non-self-serving Hollywood players look like?
He didn't "sell out," he "bought in" ...
@CourageousCoward: They all tacitly admit it. Redford and his "non-profit" institute really do not.
I give Brad and Angelina credit for the work they're doing in NOLA that they've kept relatively low-profile.
So he used the Sundance Channel as collateral on a loan? Oh right! No one ever uses "pawn" correctly!
He hasn't had a hit in years (his last film appearance was in 2005)and he deferred his salary on Lions For Lambs for a percentage of the profits. I say he needs the money to maintain the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?