1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by danpeters, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. DaveC27

    DaveC27 Godfather

    276
    5
    Apr 14, 2010
    You are correct, if Viacom gets $1 from every subscriber that means they receive $20,000,000 from D* (20million x $1) now if only 10% of D*'s subscribers choose to subscribe to an a la carte option Viacom would still want to get the $20million to fund their programming and now that 10% would need to pay $10 which is fine if Viacom is all you want to buy, but Discovery would also want there $10, Disney too ...etc.
     
  2. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    Remember who Viacoms core audience is on ALL fronts. This plays to those crowds.
     
  3. lokar

    lokar Icon

    746
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    To anyone saying a la carte would be too complicated for D* to implement, that's ridiculous! C-band had a la carte for years and Canada has had a limited form of a la carte for years where you have a cheap base package and then add themed groups of 5-7 channels for around $6 each after that. I don't even care about any Viacom channels but I'm 100% for a la carte! The first provider with the guts to offer this will do very well, they will at least get my business.
     
  4. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I think you are correct. If we take the current dispute at face value, Viacom wants $0.03 more per day ($10.96 per year) per customer x 20,000,000 customers. DirecTV claims that only 20% of their cutomers even watch Viacom. To get the same revenu from DirecTV in an a la carte package, the increase would be $54.79 per year - and this is just the increase.

    If the increase is, as DirecTV claims, 30% over the old rate, then the current rate per customer is on the order of $36.53 per year, and the new price Viacom wants is on the order of $47.49 per customer per year. If only 20% of the DirecTV customers actually want Viacom, then to get the same revenue from DirecTV, Viacom would have to charge $237.41 per customer per year or $19.78 per month.

    $19.78 per month is just the portion that goes directly to Viacom for their 17 channels. I have no idea of what the overhead at DirecTV will add to the fee to get the programing to you, but it is not insignificant. When you take into consideration what all of the other providers will expect for their programing, then the total is not going to be any cheaper than it is now.
     
  5. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    I've really been thinking about something. I have no data to back this up but I believe if MTV/VH-1 did what they used to do and show music videos most of the time, they might have more of a shot of getting back on and having not gone dark in the first place. People like music. May not like current pop stuff but they like music. Most young adults that are the crux of those spending $$$ advertisers love grew up with MTV showing videos of the stuff they heard on the radio. We did not grow up with trailer park trash reality tv. Those shows have a stigma attached to them of playing to the lowest common denominator of our society. I don't know what kind of advertisers and ad rates they get, but one would have to imagine it isn't the same level as The Mentalist reruns on TNT. You cannot expect a large chunk of the paying customer base to feel sympathy for them being gone when this is the type of thing these channels (by and large the face of the group along with Nickelodeon) air.
     
  6. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,293
    204
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yeah, al a carte would be more on a per channel basis, that's pretty much a given.

    Viacom doesn't want it that way and the numbers bandied about give you the reason.

    While they might 'need' or 'want' $19.78/month, I think no one believes that anyone would actually be willing to pay that or anything even close.

    Come on! Viacom has children's shows and trash TV for the adults. Yeah, some enjoy trash TV and I have no problem with that, but it certainly isn't worth much in the way of money out of my pocket.
     
  7. jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    272
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    Solving this problem of packaging or not packaging channels boils down to the fact that there are too many channels providing much of the same poor or low quality programming. Why is it that the marketplace cannot determine the success or failure of a channel? Because there is too much money to be made using the monopolistic system in place today. For solving the problem has nothing to do with technology. There would be half as many channels in existence today if it were not for the way we are forced to purchase programming.

    Many argue that they do not want ESPN or other sports channels because of cost. If the cost of delivering sporting events is high then those willing to pay the price will either step and pay or the channel will go dark. Here is an example of why I would be willing to pay if given the chance. My son and I do not have season tickets to our local NFL team because they are not available for purchase. I am on the waiting list and hopefully one of my children or grandchildren will have the option some day. Getting even two decent tickets to a home game runs anywhere from $300 - $600 and that does not include any other costs involved with seeing the game live. The total cost for us to go to just a couple of home games each year is between $1200 and $1500 all in. So for me personally it is no problem to pay $100 per month just to get all of my teams games along with other sporting events. I do think others would step up and pay as well keeping broadcast sporting events available to anyone that wants the programming enough to write the check.

    On the flip side I do not care for 90% of the other channels on my dial. I do not have any interest in watching pregnant teens coping with their bad decisions. I do not care to watch old reruns of My Three Sons, The Brady Bunch or the Love Boat. I also do not need to watch endless reruns of Shwartzenegger and Stalone movies extended to 1.5 hours beyond their normal run times due to the barrage of advertising. Even recording these and fast forwarding constantly gets old.

    My guess is if the cost to subscribe to this endless list of channels that offer old, stale, stagnant or programming that caters to a specific demographic of society cost $30, $40 or $50 per month then we just might see some quick thinning of the herd. This would free up bandwidth for programming that the consumers want and will vote with their wallets to obtain.
     
  8. Bradman

    Bradman Mentor

    80
    9
    Aug 8, 2011
    Insight cable runs it in HD; WKYT runs their signal direct via fiber to them.
     
  9. mitchflorida

    mitchflorida Godfather

    537
    18
    May 18, 2009
    DTV should stick it to Viacom by replacing TVLand with metv or antennatv or something similar. Who would notice? They are the same shows.
     
  10. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I actually tuned to VH-1 yesterday. Yikes! Who is this Big Jan person? It was a horror film! And not a bit of music at all!
     
  11. MartyS

    MartyS New Member

    2,104
    3
    Dec 29, 2006
    Depends on which half of the channels :lol::lol:
     
  12. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    C-band moved toward bundling (smaller bundles but still bundling) away from a la carte because a la carte was NOT working.

    And C-band never had anywhere near 20 million turnkey users. Completely different market. C-band always was and always will be more of a hobbyist platform. And the investment that DirecTV and Dish (and even the cable systems) have is not there.
     
  13. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The even ones.
     
  14. MartyS

    MartyS New Member

    2,104
    3
    Dec 29, 2006
    I agree... Me TV would be a great alternative to TVLand... would I miss Hot in Cleveland, yeah, but not too much.
     
  15. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,613
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    well 30% more likely is the price of epix
     
  16. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,549
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    If people want just music then that is what Palladia, CMT Pure Country, VH1 Soul, VH1 Classic, MTV Jams, and MTV Hits are for. Those channels play music videos/concert photage nearly 24/7. Contrary to what people say MTV has not given up totally on music, they have just spun it off onto different channels based on genre. It's too bad those channels don't get upgraded to HD and have wider distribution, I think it might help MTV beat the stigma that they don't care about music.

    As far as ratings go look at the ratings for them compared to MTV and VH1 and then tell me if you still think that what the people really want is music.
     
  17. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Given that Me TV and the others like it are built to sell programming to local stations, you would probably have an issue with existing contracts. I don't think any of that genre of channel have cable or satellite distribution beyond local channels.

    Maybe DirecTV can make their own. :)
     
  18. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,613
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    well why can't we have small bundles / theme packs??

    sports can be on it own and let's say you offer that and then you may even get people who take sports only who don't have any TV pack right now.
     
  19. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Not saying you can't have smaller bundles. I was pointing out that a la carte (which means individual channels) has failed in the only venue that gave it full use. And that the problems of scale and expectations by the customer make it less likely in the realm we are talking about today.

    In C-Band land, the middle men have little skin the game. They are purely license managers. They do not have large costs like launching a satellite to recoup.

    And there will still be basics that everyone will get. I am betting dollars to donuts that that will include ESPN.

    Finally, the C-Band market is so small, that is is seen as gravy, not as the meat.
     
  20. bobvick1983

    bobvick1983 Godfather

    278
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    NW Alabama
    That is a great idea. I have always liked the Canadian model, and have never understood why the American DBS providers do not offer what Bell ExpressVu and Shaw Direct do. Have the core channels, then everything else is in "theme packages" for instance, I care nothing at all about Disney, ABC Family, TeenNick, Nicktoons, Disney Juniour or Sprout and even Nickelodeon now for that matte, because I don't have any small children. Why cant they be in a "Preschool Theme package" for those who do not need them nor want to watch them. Of course, I know the answer, it is the greedy programmers. For instance, take Disney. In order to get Disney and ABC Family, and the other Disney controlled networks, Disney all but forces DirecTV and Dish, Comcast and Charter, and all the others put all or most of the networks that they control in the majority of the packages that they offer. I am not usually an advocate of more government intervention in free market matters, but at the pace that cable/DBS rates are increasing and the greed of the programmers, I think it is time that the FCC became involved and forced more regulation, kind of like the CRTC does in Canada.
     

Share This Page