1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by lipcrkr, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. Jan 28, 2013 #1 of 897
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    According to my local Sports TV station in LA. So $5.00 a month for Dodgers baseball starting in 2014 with NO WAY OUT unless DirecTV declines which i doubt. Unbelievable.
     
  2. Jan 28, 2013 #2 of 897
    Unknown

    Unknown Godfather

    358
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    There no way directv is gonna want make us pay 5 bucks a month for that channel, sorry to tell you this. but this is gonna be 1 long fight with directv and the Dodgers. that is way too high for anybody.
     
  3. Jan 28, 2013 #3 of 897
    old7

    old7 Godfather

    270
    0
    Dec 1, 2005
    SportsNet LA won't start until 2014. It still is pending Major League Baseball’s approval. Lot's of time for speculation on the price.
     
  4. Jan 28, 2013 #4 of 897
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,165
    166
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I don't understand why they can't just use the current TWCSN channel, why do they need a whole new channel? Lakers in the winter, Dodgers in the summer.

    Dodgers Deal Will Taste Bitter to Fans
     
  5. Jan 28, 2013 #5 of 897
    old7

    old7 Godfather

    270
    0
    Dec 1, 2005
    Because in order to hide a large chunk of cash coming from TWC, they need to be partners in the new channel, otherwise they risk sharing about one-third of the TV rights with "low-revenue teams."
     
  6. Jan 28, 2013 #6 of 897
    Mariah2014

    Mariah2014 Breaking the mold

    843
    5
    Apr 21, 2006
    Somewhere...
    I would expect Directv to not pick this channel up unless the price drops drastically or it is offered ala carte. I suspect that Time Warner will be one of the only providers with it.
     
  7. Jan 28, 2013 #7 of 897
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    True, but it's ONE baseball season away. I will start my second year on DIRECTV in May 2013, in which the baseball season for 2014 will be well under way.
    The reason why i'm bummed and lots of other people are bummed, is because TWC will make up the difference in higher fees to the customer because the 7 billion amount will have to be shared to other teams. That is why my local TV station quoted the higher than normal $5.00 amount.
     
  8. Jan 28, 2013 #8 of 897
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    I also didn't expect TWC to pick up the Lakers, but they did.
     
  9. Jan 28, 2013 #9 of 897
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,165
    166
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
  10. Jan 29, 2013 #10 of 897
    dvdmth

    dvdmth Icon

    1,071
    5
    Jul 24, 2008
    Denver, CO
    If the channel were a la carte, it would be a LOT more expensive (say, $20/month) and would make a lot less money and ultimately fail. These channels live on non-sports fans - without their contribution, the channels cannot survive. The same can really be said about most channels, not just sports.

    I think TWC is throwing tons of money around to try to get something exclusive. They see what Comcast has pulled off and think they can do the same. They tried with the Lakers, but DirecTV overcame the cost. Now they're trying again with the Dodgers.
     
  11. Jan 29, 2013 #11 of 897
    goinsleeper

    goinsleeper Godfather

    673
    17
    May 22, 2012
    Maybe it's time for the fans to go on strike...
     
  12. Jan 29, 2013 #12 of 897
    MikeW

    MikeW Hall Of Fame

    2,565
    4
    May 16, 2002
    No "maybe" about it. Subscriber apathy is leading the charge. This is a damn shame.
     
  13. Jan 29, 2013 #13 of 897
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    what about theme packs? or even a NO sports choice (NO ESPN, sports nets, RSN's ) with all the other main channels?
     
  14. Jan 29, 2013 #14 of 897
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,165
    166
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Or a sports only pack without all the other crap?
     
  15. Jan 29, 2013 #15 of 897
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Good luck getting the content owners to agree to that...which they would have to do.
     
  16. Jan 29, 2013 #16 of 897
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Here's the thing guys, go back to September and October and look at all the comments of anger for not carrying the Lakers channel. Then look at the comments about the anger of the Dodgers pricing.

    See any issues here?

    You have one very vocal group that wants their games no matter what. You have another very vocal group that doesn't want to pay for games they don't care about. Directv, Dish, Verizon, Charter, etc, etc, etc, are caught in the middle. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    You do the deal, rates are going up considerably and you lose some subscribers. Don't do the deal, you lose subscribers because you don't have the content.
     
  17. Jan 29, 2013 #17 of 897
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    739
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    According to Forbes, Dodger TV ratings averaged a 1.14 last year. How can that possibly be worth $5 a month for every LA area subscriber? I honestly think cord cutting will grow if D* doesn't put a stop to this stuff. Even presuming every single LA area viewer was also a D* subscriber, I would think D* could afford losing 1.14% of their customer base rather than give in to this.
     
  18. Jan 29, 2013 #18 of 897
    pfp

    pfp Whatever

    1,559
    0
    Apr 28, 2009
    Which is why customers should be given a price for the channel and have a choice to subscribe to it or not.

    Price is $1 - subscribe or don't
    Price is $10 - subscribe or don't
    Price is $100 - subscribe or don't
     
  19. Jan 29, 2013 #19 of 897
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006

    If it were only that simple. You need to start way further up the food chain. ESPN needs their $6.5 billion in affiliate fees to pay for Monday Night Football, college football, college basketball, the NBA, etc, etc. They are going to get it, one way or another to pay their bills.

    They need to know consistent revenue streams, which is why they demand it be bundled because it becomes predictive revenue and stable revenue.

    How's the a la carte pricing in Canada going and why are people now realizing that when they lowered their bill by $10 a month they lost 40% of their channels in the process and aren't thrilled about it.
     
  20. Jan 29, 2013 #20 of 897
    TravelFan1

    TravelFan1 Legend

    233
    9
    Apr 1, 2009

Share This Page