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

dish drops AMC, lets hope Directv does the same...

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by bjlc, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. Jun 11, 2012 #61 of 137
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    They are NOT dumping them for concept or content. It is purely price. You keep making it sound like a moral crusade. It is not. It is pure money.
     
  2. Jun 11, 2012 #62 of 137
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Uh, Directv has a contract. They reached an agreement already. One they thought was fair. And one that will not change tomorrow. So, you want them to break their contract to support Dish? Yeah, that's good business. And honorable.
     
  3. Jun 11, 2012 #63 of 137
    MCHuf

    MCHuf Legend

    147
    0
    Oct 9, 2011
    You really think that we would lose some programs if channels were combined? Just look at how many times a network has a three hour block of the same show. Instead of one show being shown six times, you would have three shows being shown twice. You'd have less frequency, not less programming. I bet you could easily eliminate 25% of the current channels and not reduce programming.

    And in the case of channels like HGTV/DIY and History/H2, they have the exact same programming! Show A is shown new on the original channel and then is in reruns on the sister channel. Show B is on the sister channel new, and then shown in reruns on the original channel. What a waste of time and money for the pay-tv providers and their customers.
     
  4. Jun 11, 2012 #64 of 137
    jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    272
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    Uh,
    So the only way Directv could support Dish is by breaking a contract? Breaking the contract was nowhere in my post and I understand that they obviously have one. Is this contract in perpetuity? Will Directv never have to renew? There are other ways to support Dish in this.

    My point is that AMC's original programming is at risk with the millions in profit they stand to lose beginning July 1. They will also lose advertising revenue as the audience for same day viewing is decreased.
     
  5. Jun 11, 2012 #65 of 137
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,448
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Sounds like self inflicted wounds to me.
     
  6. Jun 11, 2012 #66 of 137
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    At this point, yes. There is nothing DirecTV can do to "support" Dish in its dealings with another business. Name one thing that would not involve breaking the contract that would be legal and would not shoot DirecTV in its own foot (In case you are saying they should lobby for Dish...that is not good business to campaign against a current business partner).
     
  7. Jun 11, 2012 #67 of 137
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    You do realize DISH is dumping them because they are asking for more than Charlie wants to pay for the new carriage agreement right? Its not because of their programming format or quality of programming. Charlie will air any channel as long as it doesnt try to price itself out of what Charlie is willing to pay to carry it. I don't even know or care if Charlie is still involved, its just the concept I'm illustrating.
     
  8. Jun 11, 2012 #68 of 137
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    746
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    And good riddance to all of them, I would say. If I was D* and a channel turned from its original programming model, I would consider that a breach of contract and then drop the channel. Reality TV needs to die and that is what most of these program changes have been about!
    And my wife would specifically like to see AMC die for canceling Rubicon, one of her favorite shows of the last few years.
     
  9. Jun 11, 2012 #69 of 137
    jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    272
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    Easy,
    I can think of several but to keep it simple for you just do nothing for starters. Those that are shortsighted, and are cheering them on for actively pursuing customers, just miss the point completely that this places the power in the content providers hands. Down the road these will be the first subs complaining that they will be switching providers yet again over rediculous price increases demanded by those same content providers.
     
  10. Jun 11, 2012 #70 of 137
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,317
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    I don't think programming is in the contract. Now, if they really changed names (not from AMC standing for something to not, but similar to Fox Reality to Nat Geo Wild etc) then yes. In that case a new contract did have to be signed.
     
  11. Jun 11, 2012 #71 of 137
    David Ortiz

    David Ortiz Save the Clock Tower!!

    2,427
    75
    Aug 21, 2006
    Fresno, CA
    MTV, MTV2, ...
     
  12. Jun 11, 2012 #72 of 137
    Jon J

    Jon J Grouch Extrordinaire

    1,226
    8
    Apr 22, 2002
    Music City, USA
    Does AMC still stand for American Movie Classics?
     
  13. Jun 11, 2012 #73 of 137
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,317
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Nope, it's just AMC. Kind of like TLC no longer stands for The Learning Channel.
     
  14. Jun 11, 2012 #74 of 137
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    746
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    I would argue this has already happened because the channels did it to themselves. I think pretty much every niche channel there was has abandoned its original mission in a bid for more ratings/cheaper realotrash programming. Can anyone name me real niche channels anymore? When BBCA runs a lot of Star Trek, LOGO runs Buffy the Vampire Slayer, History channel is Pawn Stars, Discovery HD became the Car Show channel, even Ovation is running crap now, I would argue there are no niche channels left.
     
  15. Jun 11, 2012 #75 of 137
    jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    272
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    ^Agree, but in order for these shows to be successful someone has to be watching them. They may be crap but then there are millions of people addicted to crap.
     
  16. Jun 11, 2012 #76 of 137
    mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    Typically price is the reason for these disputes, but not necessarily in this case. Charlie (or a Dish spokesperson) has made the following public statements about AMC (paraphrasing):

    - AMC is a low quality channel
    - AMC has "very, very, very low ratings" (yes, Charlie actually used 3 "verys")
    - AMC sells content on iTunes and Amazon, thus de-valuing their content
    - AMC refuses to unbundle IFC, WE and Sundance
    - AMC is asking for too much money

    Another wrinkle is AMC's parent company is suing Dish for $2.5 billion.

    Moves by Dish appear to be out of spite over the lawsuit:

    - Dish announced they were dropping AMC networks nearly 2 months before the contract expired. They've never done anything like that in other disputes.
    - A month before the contract expired, Dish moved the channels, without any notice, to the highest channel numbers on their system: “We chose to move AMC, IFC and We TV to an area that reflects their ratings”. IOW, Dish is saying AMC is the worst channel they carry, which simply isn't true.
    - Dish dropped Sundance without notice before the contract was even up. If cost was the only issue, why would Dish do that?

    So this is a much more complicated situation than your average dispute. And while I applaud Charlie's efforts to keep costs down, that's not really what's going on in this case. Some analysts have calculated that AMC would lose around $20 million if they remain off Dish the rest of the year. That's the real reason.
     
  17. Jun 11, 2012 #77 of 137
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,342
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Nice summary. One only has to read Dish's web page on the AMC matter to see it's not your usual dispute over carriage terms.
     
  18. Jun 11, 2012 #78 of 137
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD

    Other than the animosity (which came from.....a pricing dispute) between the two companies, you can bet your bottom dollar it is still about money. The posturing about quality sure sounds like wrangling over the price of something to me.
     
  19. Jun 11, 2012 #79 of 137
    bjlc

    bjlc Icon

    1,062
    7
    Aug 20, 2004
    well lets see.. at one point in time AMC was 24 hours of movies. Now they show infomercials that you can see on a dozen of other networks.. yep.. they are progressing.. if you want to buy a magic vaccum cleaner or super rock hard no stick frying pans.. I hope that you are all getting your maximum dollar value for a channel like this.. especially how the channel started out.. hey theres a hot deal on a fake pie maker or a pre cut brownie tray.. wow.. who couldn't live with out another channel selling that..
     
  20. Jun 11, 2012 #80 of 137
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    There are MANY channels that are no longer how they started out, that's not a reason to drop them.

    History Channel - Pawn shop shows, auctions, etc.
    CourtTV/TruTV - All kinds of junk now
    SyFy - Wrestling, reality, etc

    And the list goes on...

    If you don't like the channel then don't watch it but don't ask for it to be taken away from those of us who do watch the channel, doing so is selfish.
     

Share This Page