[jariel]

(03-26-2012 10:47 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

worldwidetraveler - Do some research before you assume Oprah owns her own station. There are many articles about who owns/runs the media you watch.

Thank you.

The setup is what it is, if he does some research on Magic's new network Aspire, he'll see it for himself. These people bring their brand to the table and someone else brings in the money, i.e. the $100 million that is needed to get the network on the air.

He appears to be under the illusion that because Oprah's name is on it, she owns and controls it outright. Athlone had to bring it to his attention, that she doesn't even own it outright, she just has a 50% stake in it. You can't control a business that you don't have a least a majority stake in.

This is like someone calling Jay-Z the owner of the New Jersey Nets.

[Timoteo]

Not to belabor the point, but this is how far too many think in this country. I just stumbled on these. The first link is the MSN piece on reaction to the cast of the movie "The Hunger Games," and the Jezebel piece they linked to...

http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/hunger-...3504.story

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger...movie-made

I'm not shocked. I was recently watching a documentary called "The Hollywood Complex." It's about families that come out to Hollywood during the pilot season with their actor kids to try to get them auditions and cast in pilots, with the hope they'll get picked up as new series. Many stay at the Oakwood Complex, which is apartments for the families, and has agents, acting classes, photographers, etc. all under the same roof to try to help these kids get cast. The season is about 3 months or so, and at the end of the season, they were reviewing which kids got work. One girl, who was about 11, didn't get anything. I couldn't really place her racially - she was somewhat dark, with long, straight, black hair. Her mom looked more white, with an accent I couldn't place. The agent told her and her mom point blank, "This pilot season has been pretty 'whitebread,' but you should return for episodic tv when they're casting 'exotics' and sidekick roles." I know they use the word "exotics" in the modeling industry, basically referring to girls that aren't white, but didn't know it was used in the context of casting. There are lots of shade of folks here in the US. A dark-skinned person isn't exotic. They're pretty common. We want to talk about how everyone has the same opportunities, and if you work for it, blah, blah, blah, but this agent told her point-blank that there were limits to where you can go in the business because of how you look. You can't get a starring role. You're relegated to the "sassy" friend. Again, I'm not shocked. Just shocked by the honesty of that agent's statement.

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-26-2012 10:53 PM)jariel Wrote:  

Well the relationship with Discovery has gone south because the network has failed miserably. The network was projected to be in the red the first two years, but I'm sure they didn't expect to lose a quarter of a billion dollars. As a result, she's been forced to take over a bigger role.

The future for OWN doesn't look bright -- I'll let you do your own research to see what I'm talking about -- but the bottom line is this, she doesn't it own it outright, she doesn't own a majority stake of it, so she doesn't control it, meaning she can't just do whatever the hell she wants without having someone else in her ear about it, i.e. the money men, which would be Discovery.

Oh, I am sure she has lots of people talking in her ear. I just think she has more control then you are saying. I doubt very highly that she would just sign over her name without having any type of control.

They are banking on HER name.

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-26-2012 10:57 PM)jariel Wrote:  

He appears to be under the illusion that because Oprah's name is on it, she owns and controls it outright. Athlone had to bring it to his attention, that she doesn't even own it outright, she just has a 50% stake in it. You can't control a business that you don't have a least a majority stake in.

More facts now?

Now you are saying Athlone brought this to my attention. haha

Yeah, you can't control a business without majority of shares but you can have certain control over things like programming depending on how contracts where negotiated.

You do realize that things like that are normally discussed and negotiated before they became partners? Right?

She is an owner of the network. I don't know why you are saying she isn't.

Quote:

With the Oprah Winfrey Network, “I will have editorial control,” she said. “I have a vision for what we want to accomplish with this network.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/arts/t...oprah.html

Hell, now she is CEO with more control.

Where is your proof?

[jariel]

(03-26-2012 11:03 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Now you are saying Athlone brought this to my attention. haha

Yeah, you can't control a business without majority of shares but you can have certain control over things like programming depending on how contracts where negotiated.

You do realize that things like that are normally discussed and negotiated before they became partners? Right?

She is an owner of the network. I don't know why you are saying she isn't.

Um, well he kind of did.

Now that you've been proven wrong, you're backtracking and trying to change the definition of what control means. The kind of control you're talking about is micromanaging, so ya a manager at an ice cream shop has some levels of control over certain things, but that person doesn't control the company.

I'll leave it at this:

Quote:

Seems like the Oprah Winfrey Network just can't catch a break: after Friday's announcement that The Rosie Show wouldn't be coming back to the network after a low-rated first season, OWN is restructuring. Thirty staffers are being laid off, with their duties redistributed throughout the the network and the two partners in the joint venture cabler—Discovery Communications and Oprah's own Harpo Studios.

Discovery will put Neal Kirsch, its CFO of U.S. networks, into the position of COO and CFO at OWN, below Winfrey and reporting to Sheri Salata and Erik Logan—the two Harpo execs installed by Winfrey when she took over as CEO of the network. Former Discovery COO Peter Liguori was trying to get the network back on track before he and Discovery parted ways at the end of 2011.

“It is difficult to make tough business decisions that affect people’s lives,” said Winfrey, who is finally the head of OWN after multiple execs accepted and were dismissed from that position in quick succession. "But the economics of a start-up cable network just don’t work with the cost structure that was in place. As CEO, I have a responsibility to chart the course for long-term success for the network. To wholly achieve that long-term success, this was a necessary next step."

The cost structure has indeed been the focus of criticism since the network's inception: Discovery has sunk some $250 million into the network (and counting), and OWN hasn't come close to recouping that initial investment.

Meanwhile, Discovery has installed several of its heavy hitters to work out the kinks at OWN: aside from Kirsch, global production management exec vp Lee Bartlett and Discovery ad sales senior vp Ian Parmiter are now part of the OWN team. Tina Perry (vp of business and legal affairs), will now oversee the biz and legal affairs department with Bartlett, and Michelle Holt will now oversee production management.

So they're putting millions into the company and their installing their people into important positions at the company, yet somehow Oprah runs and owns the entire company, dude I'm not the one for Amateur Hour.

[jariel]

(03-26-2012 10:58 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

There are lots of shade of folks here in the US. A dark-skinned person isn't exotic. They're pretty common.

Right, 90% of the people on the planet are "dark-skinned".

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-26-2012 11:12 PM)jariel Wrote:  

Um, well he kind of did.

Nope, I already knew before he posted. Please try again.

Quote:

Now that you've been proven wrong, you're backtracking and trying to change the definition of what control means. The kind of control you're talking about is micromanaging, so ya a manager at an ice cream shop has some levels of control over certain things, but that person doesn't control the company.

Nope, I wasn't proven wrong at all. I have been saying the same thing all the time. It seems you are backtracking. First you said she has no control now she has micro managing control.

According to the links I posted, she had editorial control.

Now she is CEO.

But that isn't good enough, she needs majority shares to have any influence.

Backtracking at it's best.

Quote:

So they're putting millions into the company and their installing their people into important positions at the company, yet somehow Oprah runs and owns the entire company, dude I'm not the one for Amateur Hour.

I never said she runs the entire business. I said she had some control over it otherwise she wouldn't have put her name on it. You are the one saying she had no control or influence over her network because she didn't have majority shares.

[Timoteo]

Rosie O'Donnell is a prime example of a personality branding a show and magazine, only to find out they don't have the kind of control we think they do. Rosie (who idolizes Oprah), had one of the more successful talk shows for many years. While she was on the show, she never discussed her sexuality - she wasn't officially out. It was definitely a business decision, in that morning talk shows have to play to middle America, and they don't want to watch a bulldyke morning talkshow. Once she decided she wasn't going to do the show anymore, she came out and EVERYTHING was about her sexuality, her "wife" and their adopted kids, her gay cruise, etc. etc. She also had a magazine, and she decided she wanted it to focus on not just women's issues, but gay issues. Her publisher, Gruner + Jahr, wasn't cool with that - they didn't want to turn it into a niche magazine, and especially not a gay niche magazine. After a legal battle, Rosie decided to pull the plug on the mag:

"The decision to discontinue Rosie was a very difficult one, and I spent a long time wrestling with it," O'Donnell said in a statement, according to Mediaweek. "In the end, I decided that I could not participate in a magazine that bears my name when I could not be assured it would reflect my vision, values and editorial direction."

Bottom line, her name was on it, but she didn't have control over the editorial content. Talk show queen Rosie was cool, but they weren't cool with gay Rosie, and in the end she couldn't do shit about it. It was either Gruner + Jahr's way, or NO magazine.

Harpo is owned by Winfrey, and I believe OWN is 50% Harpo, and 50% Discovery. As previous links have stated, OWN is in trouble, so that puts Oprah in a weakened position there. Harpo has deals with ABC and HBO to produce content for them, and also has radio and print divisions. Anything Harpo alone produces is all Oprah controlled though, and she has her own production studios.

[rudebwoy]

To put this into simple terms, it is like the rappers that own record labels. They all fall under one main Umbrella, so there labels do not mean anything. e.g Interscope or Death Row is owned by Universal Records.

[jariel]

(03-26-2012 11:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

To put this into simple terms, it is like the rappers that own record labels. They all fall under one main Umbrella, so there labels do not mean anything. e.g Interscope or Death Row is owned by Universal Records.

+1.

[Timoteo]

We could probably argue the exact details of this Oprah/Discovery issue forever, and what control means, but the indisputable fact is that being the founder and having your name on a company doesn't mean you have the last say, or ultimate control. Yes, you're usually banking on a person's name, but that may be just it - the name is being used to sell something, and they get a piece. Obviously Oprah is more than that with regards to OWN, but she may not have the ultimate power there even though it's her name.

Hugh Hefner didn't have control of Playboy for many years, though he had complete control over editorial content. Hugh IS Playboy - he founded it and built it, so it would have been dumb for shareholders to push him out of that position. But they could have. He's since re-acquired all shares, so it's totally his again.

[worldwidetraveler]

Agree Timoteo.

Although, I do believe Oprah (through Harpo) has 50 percent stock in OWN. So that means Discovery doesn't have any more control than Oprah when comparing majority shares. Please clarify if I am wrong on her percentage of shares.

The quote below was the point I was trying to make when it comes to contract negotiations and control.

Quote:

Discovery owns 50 percent of OWN but Winfrey, through Harpo, holds operational rights over programming, marketing and decision-making authority for key management positions, according to Discovery's filing. Beginning Jan. 1, 2016, and every two-and-half years after, Harpo can require Discovery to "purchase all or part of its interest in OWN," the filing said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21...69838.html

[Timoteo]

(03-26-2012 11:56 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Agree Timoteo.

Although, I do believe Oprah (through Harpo) has 50 percent stock in OWN. So that means Discovery doesn't have any more control than Oprah when comparing majority shares. Please clarify if I am wrong on her percentage of shares.

The quote below was the point I was trying to make when it comes to contract negotiations and control.

Quote:

Discovery owns 50 percent of OWN but Winfrey, through Harpo, holds operational rights over programming, marketing and decision-making authority for key management positions, according to Discovery's filing. Beginning Jan. 1, 2016, and every two-and-half years after, Harpo can require Discovery to "purchase all or part of its interest in OWN," the filing said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21...69838.html

"Beginning Jan. 1, 2016, and every two-and-half years after, Harpo can require Discovery to "purchase all or part of its interest in OWN," the filing said."

This is interesting language. Harpo can "require" Discovery to purchase their interest in OWN? However, the story also says Discovery is throwing even more additional funding at OWN, and to this point have thrown in far more than they've made, though they claim to see growth. They aren't in this for charity, so that investment has to buy something. While Oprah has considerable operational control, I'm sure Discovery isn't obligated to ride a sinking ship down to the ocean floor. Discovery must have an out prior to 2016.

[worldwidetraveler]

(03-27-2012 12:44 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

This is interesting language. Harpo can "require" Discovery to purchase their interest in OWN? However, the story also says Discovery is throwing even more additional funding at OWN, and to this point have thrown in far more than they've made, though they claim to see growth. They aren't in this for charity, so that investment has to buy something. While Oprah has considerable operational control, I'm sure Discovery isn't obligated to ride a sinking ship down to the ocean floor. Discovery must have an out prior to 2016.

It definitely seems one sided in favor of Oprah. You would think there was some contingencies in place for Discovery to pull the project. It really depends on how bad they wanted to get into bed with Oprah.

Like I was trying to explain to jariel, during Amateur hour, a lot of these things are contractually agreed upon and you can't just look at majority of shares when it comes to deciding who controls what.

Oprah is a smart lady. There is no way she would sign over her name without any control.

[Timoteo]

(03-27-2012 05:57 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 12:44 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

This is interesting language. Harpo can "require" Discovery to purchase their interest in OWN? However, the story also says Discovery is throwing even more additional funding at OWN, and to this point have thrown in far more than they've made, though they claim to see growth. They aren't in this for charity, so that investment has to buy something. While Oprah has considerable operational control, I'm sure Discovery isn't obligated to ride a sinking ship down to the ocean floor. Discovery must have an out prior to 2016.

It definitely seems one sided in favor of Oprah. You would think there was some contingencies in place for Discovery to pull the project. It really depends on how bad they wanted to get into bed with Oprah.

Like I was trying to explain to jariel, during Amateur hour, a lot of these things are contractually agreed upon and you can't just look at majority of shares when it comes to deciding who controls what.

Oprah is a smart lady. There is no way she would sign over her name without any control.

That is true, but I would venture that it's a rare occurance that a majority shareholder would in essence sign away that power to a minority shareholder absolutely. There would be some language for contingencies by which power would revert. In this instance, I would have to believe that Discovery would have to protect itself. I would have thought it more likely that this language would be reversed - that Harpo could at some point acquire Discovery's shares, since she's the one with the weight (figuratively speaking...HA HA!).

[speakeasy]

Somewhat getting back to the topic at hand, I was bored tonight and was searching some random stuff on google. I love Google's predictive search feature, it tells you a lot about what people are thinking if the question was asked in significant enough quantity for Google to index it as a frequently asked question. I got curious typed in "why do X women..." with "X" being some nationality. I don't know what to make of this. But look at the results below. Thoughts?

[jariel]

Black men are rock stars in Japan, so I'm not sure why nothing came up.

But like I said dude, Black men are the prize.

Women assume you have game and that you're packing in the pants, that's why when they meet the ones who go out of their way to act like something else, they are often incredibly disappointed.

[Gorton's Fisherman]

I'm surprised "like black men" even appeared with the "Korean women" query, let alone above the "like white men" result. I thought Koreans (like the mainland Chinese) were anti-black, white male suck up racists. I'm surprised with no "like black men" result with "Japanese women." guess I was right with my thesis of the "BET Thug Rapper" image doing more harm than good for black men internationally.

(03-28-2012 01:21 AM)jariel Wrote:  

Black men are rock stars in Japan, so I'm not sure why nothing came up.

But like I said dude, Black men are the prize.

Women assume you have game and that you're packing in the pants, that's why when they meet the ones who go out of their way to act like something else, they are often incredibly disappointed.

So if you're a non-stereotypical black male who's not playing rapper/thug/n*gga game, then you're basically fucked, even if you're confident, fit, and not nerdy?

[Kish]

(03-28-2012 07:42 AM)Gortons Fisherman Wrote:  

I'm surprised "like black men" even appeared with the "Korean women" query, let alone above the "like white men" result. I thought Koreans (like the mainland Chinese) were anti-black, white male suck up racists. I'm surprised with no "like black men" result with "Japanese women." guess I was right with my thesis of the "BET Thug Rapper" image doing more harm than good for black men internationally.

(03-28-2012 01:21 AM)jariel Wrote:  

Black men are rock stars in Japan, so I'm not sure why nothing came up.

But like I said dude, Black men are the prize.

Women assume you have game and that you're packing in the pants, that's why when they meet the ones who go out of their way to act like something else, they are often incredibly disappointed.

So if you're a non-stereotypical black male who's not playing rapper/thug/n*gga game, then you're basically fucked, even if you're confident, fit, and not nerdy?

Let me ask you few questions.
Do you dress sharp?
Are you aggressive and sexual around women?
Are you open and honest about your sexual interest when you approach?

Those traits have nothing to do with being a thug,rapper/n*gga. It's about being MASCULINE. Jariel is right that if you're black and you aren't behaving a certain way...women are incredibly disappointed.

But I think women are disappointed when men of ANY race act like PUSSIES around them.

[speakeasy]

Keep in mind that this isn't proof that Korean women like black men. It's proof that the question is inquired about enough for Google to index it as a frequently asked question.

There's a difference.

In the case of Swedish or German women I believe it. But with Korean women I'm baffled.

[46.]

(03-28-2012 09:27 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Keep in mind that this isn't proof that Korean women like black men. It's proof that the question is inquired about enough for Google to index it as a frequently asked question.

There's a difference.

In the case of Swedish or German women I believe it. But with Korean women I'm baffled.

It is baffling initially, but less so when you think about the 60-year history of the US in Korea. When I was there I didn't feel anything special in Seoul, for example. But as you go to other places in Korea, you can find a great affinity for Americans and the protector role. Also, older Koreans appreciate the US much more, especially those who lived through the (1960- present) Korean Economic Growth story, one of the most astonishing in history. (they used to be po' as f---; which younger Koreans never experienced)

I guess the point is that the Korean-Homey disconnect could be explained by attitudes varying greatly by age and geo in Korea. Unfortunately, the younger Koreans seem to have a "we're tired of the US" attitude. We've been there a long time now.

p.s. great use of Google Predictive inquiries; I think you just discovered the next game frontier in harnessing analytics
... lol "Why do Russian women have a bad reputation"

[Gorton's Fisherman]

(03-28-2012 08:21 AM)rakishness Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 07:42 AM)Gortons Fisherman Wrote:  

I'm surprised "like black men" even appeared with the "Korean women" query, let alone above the "like white men" result. I thought Koreans (like the mainland Chinese) were anti-black, white male suck up racists. I'm surprised with no "like black men" result with "Japanese women." guess I was right with my thesis of the "BET Thug Rapper" image doing more harm than good for black men internationally.

(03-28-2012 01:21 AM)jariel Wrote:  

Black men are rock stars in Japan, so I'm not sure why nothing came up.

But like I said dude, Black men are the prize.

Women assume you have game and that you're packing in the pants, that's why when they meet the ones who go out of their way to act like something else, they are often incredibly disappointed.

So if you're a non-stereotypical black male who's not playing rapper/thug/n*gga game, then you're basically fucked, even if you're confident, fit, and not nerdy?

Let me ask you few questions.
Do you dress sharp?
Are you aggressive and sexual around women?
Are you open and honest about your sexual interest when you approach?

Those traits have nothing to do with being a thug,rapper/n*gga. It's about being MASCULINE. Jariel is right that if you're black and you aren't behaving a certain way...women are incredibly disappointed.

But I think women are disappointed when men of ANY race act like PUSSIES around them.

Well it doesn't help that I'm within a city where a black guy who even glances at a white/Asian/Latina/Indian girl at best scares them away and at worse brings the "racist bitch shield" face out of them. So as much as I enjoying being sexually dominant and straightforward, that strategy isn't an available strategy, unless I want to go for the local hoodrats and baby-mamas. And I am not about to play "Capitol Hill beta" nor have the access to play "Georgetown Preppy".

[Vicious]

Another race thread derailed.... I guess we should have a special smiley for those.

[Excelsior]

(03-28-2012 11:43 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Another race thread derailed.... I guess we should have a special smiley for those.

[jariel]

(03-28-2012 11:31 AM)Gortons Fisherman Wrote:  

Well it doesn't help that I'm within a city where a black guy who even glances at a white/Asian/Latina/Indian girl at best scares them away and at worse brings the "racist bitch shield" face out of them. So as much as I enjoying being sexually dominant and straightforward, that strategy isn't an available strategy, unless I want to go for the local hoodrats and baby-mamas. And I am not about to play "Capitol Hill beta" nor have the access to play "Georgetown Preppy".

A truly smart woman knows a gift when she's in the presence of one, meanwhile a dumb woman always loses out on one because her own prejudice won't allow her to unwrap the package.

It's time we accept that:

1. There are more dumb women in this world than smart ones.

2. These women actually do us a favor by ignoring/rejecting our advances, because although to us they may physically be dimes, they are emotionally, spiritually, and mentally, pennies.

3. Racist behavior is not something that we should feel bad about or feel obliged to gameplan around.

4. We need to focus our efforts on becoming attractors as opposed to figuring out the best way to be chasers.