Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.
The point is that these networks have a say in that when negotiating retrans deals.
And you will never get espn to agree to go in any tier. Not having espn is commercial suicide and they know it.
Unfortunately, this all really comes down to espn. And towns with too many RSNs. The cost is what is making people desire a la carte. It ain't MTV that is driving the talk.
The camera bodies aren't the issue. It is the lenses, mounts and the manpower to run and direct the cameras that cost money. The same is true of professional still photography that still seems to be around after many years of cheap consumer cameras.
If you want to shoot something in the style of The Blair Witch Project or The Walking Dead that's one thing but if you're looking for the flexibility to give you all-condition HQ PQ, that's unlikely to come from a device that has Handycam emblazoned on it.
It is fast coming to a point where not carrying ESPN is going to be a selling point for a few million households. The same is probably true for the other channels in the Disney stable that, while appealing to an important market, don't have any appeal to large sections of the population.
Not enough to overcome those who want it. If you think otherwise, I guess you think every provider is idiotic.
People always say they don't watch such and such channel but then they watch the one thing that is on that channel.... For example, Disney. I can largely do without it, except for Phineas and Ferb. Oops. Now I want it.
Disney channel should go back to being a pay channel also they will no longer advertise or promote any food or beverage that does not meet strict nutritional guidelines, on any of its media properties aimed at children, which includes Disney Channel.
so less ad's = a high price forced on all of us. Make it a pay channel get full control over ad's as well.
Oh come on. They have such great actresses as Tiffany and Jewel, and cameos by Roger Corman. And I almost forgot, Mariel Hemingway and LeVar Burton starred in "Rise of the Zombies". :lol:
I don't think they're idiotic. Rather I think that they continue to demonstrate that they don't have the cojones to do battle with the content providers to get only what their customers want/need and nothing else.
Focus on the failures of your chosen provider.
I am curious about ESPN viewership. Its been reported that only 25% of cable customers watch it. Does that mean that it is only watched in 25% of cable-subscribing households, or only 25% of the people in cable-subscribing households watch it.
Also, what is the time period for this? Is it any given day, week, month, or year.
I'd like to understand that number, too. Seems low if it is 25% ever watch. The 2011 BCS game drew 15% of all households. The number would be a higher percentage of cable/satellite households.
But even if the number is 25%, not having espn on your system would be suicide.
Who cares what cable subs do??
Where did you see that reported? Sorry don't know the answer to your query....
In this alternative to cable/satellite discussion, seems to me the issue is that no one has put the product together in the right way. Some of it is that the technology is not yet developed, and some of it is marketing. Examples, the iPod wasn't the first portable mp3 player. Another is tablets... I remember a manager that had a Toshiba tablet that ran pen-based Windows XP. The iPad brought touch-based interface to the tablet and made it a success.
How many people remember active desktop from Windows 98? Now, look at Windows 8, tiles are active desktop implemented on modern technology with high speed internet.
Fifteen years ago, how many entertainment industry execs predicted that video rental stores like Blockbuster would disappear and be replaced by Netflicks?
Also, remember the recent thrust of D* channel agreements was authentication, and now we have DirecTV anywhere and growing on-demand offerings. As a side note, we are no longer tied to viewing at a time or a place. We are also becoming more willing to search through lists for a show we want to watch that rather than be tied to linear channels.
For those worried about production quality, shows like Honey Boo-Boo, Pawn Stars and Storage Wars are quite popular and cheap to produce. These low production cost type of shows could be used as a springboard to lure "professional" production companies away from the current distribution models.
Speaking of distribution models, there are a growing number of shows canceled by networks that are being picked up by cable channels. This year its "Cougar Town" being picked up be TBS.
Times change. I have two teenagers that I bet will never have a landline telephone. For that matter, I doubt they will subscribe to cable/satellite TV. They'll have a cell phones and will stream content on demand.
That said, I still don't think we'll see a la cart cable.
I can't help but get a feeling that cable/satellite/content provider execs are worried about the future of their cash cow.
The number that is used is that it costs cable ~$5/month for ESPN that only 25% of people watch, so it would cost $20/month for a la carte purchase.
I seen the 25% a number of places in threads here, and it was in an article linked above.
That's just ESPN though, it doesn't account for what else they would lose if every ESPN viewer left. The money coming in from nearly every subscriber who purchases a pro sports package and most people who purchase Boxing and UFC events on PPV.
If the number is right for revenue neutral, it means that the estimate is that 25% would buy espn a la carte. If it means that 25% actually watch, the percentage that would pay would be lower and the a la carte cost would be higher.
And, of course, the price abound be higher as espn would lose eyeballs and could not charge advertisers as much.
It would cost what the market will bear. It might be less than $20/month or it might be more than $20/month.
I understand what you are getting at but that is just not the way this works. ESPN has fixed costs. They are going t charge an amount that allows them to cover those costs and turn a profit. That's not going to be any less than $20 or $30.
That only works if enough people are willing to pay that. People seem to think that they can charge whatever price they want and they'll end up with the same revenue. This isn't necessarily true.
It is a failure of all providers (that's why it still haunts us) but mine is arguably the most active in trying to reach the goal.
One provider can't do it alone.