• Comcast is looking to separate from most of its cable networks.
• However, the media titan is keeping Bravo, which makes popular reality-TV shows.
• Here's why holding onto Bravo makes sense, even though the spinoff might not work.

Comcast wasn't bluffing about unloading its steadily declining cable TV networks.

The cable giant is officially planning to spin off most of its pay-TV channels, in a move that's the latest indictment of the sad state of the traditional TV business.

Notably, Comcast's NBCUniversal isn't biding all of its cable networks adieu, however. It's hanging onto Bravo, a purveyor of reality-TV shows like the "Real Housewives" series and "Vanderpump Rules."

The logic behind that decision is simple: Bravo's shows are inexpensive and popular, and they perform very well on Peacock, its budding streaming service.

In the deal, Comcast is holding onto Peacock, as well as its broadcast network, NBC. Those platforms are how Comcast distributes its all-important NFL rights, so they were never on the chopping block.

Though it may surprise some, Comcast has determined that Bravo is also too valuable to let go. Ten of the 50 most in-demand TV shows on Peacock this year are from Bravo, noted Brandon Katz, the senior entertainment industry strategist at data firm Parrot Analytics. Parrot's demand metric is based on third-party data, including search results, social-media content, and ratings sites.

"Bravo has a real brand identity that holds value to consumers as opposed to Syfy and USA Network, which have largely pulled back from scripted programming in recent years and are not as recognizable and resonant," Katz wrote, referencing two networks that Comcast is planning to spin off.

Bravo has also served as an anchor for Peacock's expansion into reality-TV originals, which has produced Bravo-style hits like "Love Island USA" and "The Traitors."

Ratings giant Nielsen found this summer that the sixth season of "Love Island USA" was the most-watched reality TV series among streaming originals, as it racked up over a billion minutes viewed and registered in the top-10 rankings for four straight weeks following its debut.

Without Bravo content, Peacock's reality-TV strategy would be left with a huge hole.

"Comcast likely views Bravo as an important piece of its Peacock strategy, with content that is too difficult to separate from the cable network without destroying any value the network might have," wrote Michael Hodel, a communication services analyst at Morningstar.

Why Comcast's spinoff might not pay off

The other reason why Bravo could have been a keeper is that it still generates cash that can help Comcast pay for the NBA broadcast rights it won over the summer.

"Given the cost-cutting that will likely be required to ameliorate the incoming expenses of NBCU's rich NBA deal, keeping that money-making asset in-house makes sense even if it's shrinking year-over-year," Katz wrote.

Still, Comcast's other cable channels likely turned a profit as well. That, plus the fact that those networks could be weaker on their own, has left some analysts stumped as to why this spinoff happened at all — other than to make investors happy.

Wall Street generally hates declining businesses, like the pay-TV networks that Comcast has been saddled with.

"Comcast will now have a cleaner and clearer growth story," analyst Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson wrote to BI.

However, Moffett said that the spun-off networks likely make more sense with Comcast than on their own. Analyst Rich Greenfield of Lightshed Partners had made a similar point a few weeks ago.

"It will be challenging to separate NBC from the cable nets, especially for carriage negotiations," Moffett wrote.

Brian Wieser, a media and advertising analyst for Madison and Wall, struck a similar tone.

"Unless Comcast has a vision for what it would do with the capital to build up its remaining media business or how it will cause a merger of the business with another company's cable networks, the transaction would be dis-synergistic," Wieser wrote.

Whatever the fate of the spinoff, Comcast clearly sees the value of Bravo's scripted content, compared to the more challenged TV news business. Investors will ultimately judge whether the spinoff was worth it. As of midday Wednesday, they seemed unconvinced, as the company's shares were only up modestly hours after the news broke.

• Cable networks used to be incredibly valuable. But in the streaming and cord-cutting era, they're in decline.
• That's why Comcast is ditching almost all its cable networks into a new stand-alone company.
• It would like to persuade other cable-TV owners to join in.

One of the country's biggest cable TV companies doesn't want its cable networks anymore. Would you like them?

That's the pitch Comcast is making Wednesday as it announces plans to split off almost all its cable TV networks into a new company. It's the same pitch Comcast floated as a possibility back in October, and most of the details are the same.

Comcast is set to spin off a new publicly traded company, owned by its existing shareholders. Into the spinco goes every cable network Comcast owns except for Bravo. That means networks like CNBC, MSNBC, USA, along with a few digital assets, including its Fandango movie-ticket service.

It plans to hang on to the rest of its media business, including its NBC broadcast network, Peacock streaming service, Universal film and TV studio, and Universal theme-parks business. And Bravo. (Can't wait for someone smart to explain why Comcast is so attached to Bravo. Maybe it's as simple as "Real Housewives"?)

For the record: Comcast says it thinks the cable networks it is ditching can be successful on their own. The new company "will be ideally positioned for success and highly attractive to investors, content creators, distributors and potential partners," CEO Brian Roberts said in a statement. That "partners" reference is important — Comcast has also floated the idea of folding in other companies' cable networks into the spinoff, which would theoretically give it more heft and negotiating power with advertisers and pay-TV distributors.

But in the end, this is essentially a garage sale: Maybe someone else will want this stuff. But if Comcast wanted it, it wouldn't be getting rid of it.

And as I said last month: Comcast is getting rid of its basic-cable networks for the same reason everyone who owns basic-cable networks would like to get rid of their cable networks. They have limited business prospects because the number of people paying for and watching cable networks is falling every year, and there's no end in sight. Public investors want nothing to do with them.

That's why Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery took a combined $15 billion write-off earlier this year (and why Disney took one as well, though it was much smaller). They were belatedly telling investors they were less valuable than they used to be.

But while Comcast's peers have thought about getting rid of some or all of their cable holdings, they haven't done it. In part because it's hard to imagine who a buyer would be. And in part because even though they're declining, cable TV networks still generate a lot of cash, and their parent companies have been reluctant to part with that.

Now that Comcast is doing it, will others follow? One indicator may be the way Wall Street reacts to Wednesday's news: Comcast shares, which have been in the doldrums for a year, perked up a bit in advance of the announcement.

One other thought: Comcast doesn't expect this deal to trip any regulatory triggers, because it isn't a consolidation — it's just splitting one company into two. It also doesn't involve the transfer of a broadcast-network license, which would require a sign-off from the Federal Communications Commission.

On the other hand: During his latest presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly threatened media companies over their news coverage, and has even sued CBS over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. And Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to chair the FCC, has been echoing Trump's complaints about TV news: "The status quo, particularly when it comes to legacy media, needs to change," he told Fox News this week. So I wouldn't rule out the notion of government weighing in on this one before it's over.