Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by sticketfan, May 18, 2012.
I think you are off by at least a week. Monday is a holiday
An article in the Reno paper made mention of the sports bars and casinos not having Pac12 networks. They have voiced their opinions to DirecTv. This is a big weekend for many of the sports books with it being a three day weekend and many West Coast travelers making their way to Reno/S. Lake Tahoe (burning man and the best in the west rib cook-off)Doesn't look good for this weekend but hopefully something soon. The real power to demand the cannel(s) comes from the larger commercial accounts and they seem to be letting DirecTV know how they feel.
I really think Wilner is right that the 9/22 USC game is the tipping point. That's the first game that involves *the biggest* Pac-12 team in the biggest market that isn't available anywhere else, and it goes to the heart of why the Pac-12 kept the rights to 1st pick of games a few times over the course of the season. There will be big games with national implications that will only be available on the pac-12 network (just in FB), and if there is no agreement in time for that game, my guess is it won't happen. I've scheduled my Comcast install for 9/21, to give them as much time as possible to make it happen. I don't love Comcast, nor do I love them not offering all of the regionals in a sports pack, nor do I love them offering the national as just SD. But if that's my only option (and pac-12 network is more important to me than Sunday Ticket), then it's my only option.
I have a double degree in Advertising and Public Relations. Maybe I know a thing or two.
I’ve also worked at the University of Utah for the past 10 years (not in the athletic department so I don’t have any inside information).
I think the PAC 12 got taken for a ride by the cable TV contracts. PAC 12 was expecting this channel to be available nation-wide on the cable companies.
The cable companies are not making this available nation-wide, and instead only in the PAC 12 footprint.
The cable companies appear to have paid a huge fee per subscriber. I think the PAC 12 thought that would be for all their subscribers nation-wide and thought they had a huge payout.
The reality may be the pay per subscriber is only in the PAC 12 footprint. That is a huge “loss” of revenue for the PAC 12 network.
PAC 12 made a huge mistake by allowing loop holes in the contracts so that the cable companies could choose NOT to show this channel in other parts of the country.
That “loss” of revenue may have put the PAC 12 in a position where they can’t choose to take a lower payout from DirecTV per subscriber. They have to “make up” for the lack of subscribers and payout because of the way the cable TV contracts were negotiated.
Another side of the cable contracts signed by the PAC 12 results in a huge loss of exposure as it effectively makes the PAC 12 network unavailable in many parts of the country.
Even worse for the PAC 12 is they tied the online streaming to the TV contracts. That means if you subscribe to a cable company that carries the PAC 12 you can watch it online.
However in areas of the country where the cable company does not choose to show the PAC 12 network it can’t be streamed either.
That is a huge hit on the exposure side for the PAC 12. They can’t sell streaming in those areas to anyone because they tied the streaming to the cable TV contracts in order to get a higher payout per subscriber.
They have effectively made their network unavailable to huge numbers of viewers by the way the cable contracts were negotiated.
That’s just my opinion. I have no inside information. Just trying to piece things together based on my Advertising and PR training, as well as various articles I’ve read. I could be totally wrong, so don’t quote me!
No, I don't think there will be. Fox will likely carry Oregon at USC on November 3rd and Stanford at Oregon on November 17th; Fox is already carrying USC & Stanford on September 15th. These are more than likely the Pac12's only games with national implications.
Maybe your right and if you are the Pac 12 Network really screwed up. I'm not sure on this contract but the usual contract I think unless Pac 12 is really dumb the cable company pays a lot more for subscribers in the Pac 12 areas and a lot less for out of areas per subscriber. For example maybe .80 cents per inside and .02 cents outside of the Pac 12 area. So, the Pac 12 might be losing some money but not that much as long as it is showed in the Pac 12 regions.
But if they don't pay ANYTHING for subscribers in areas where they choose not to carry the network, that puts the PAC 12 in a really bad position.
Plus they tied the streaming rights to these contrats which was a big mistake too. Now they can't get the channel to anyone in those areas.
In my opinion the biggest mistake they made was tying the streaming into the TV contracts. They could have done the cable contracts for a much lower price per subscriber, and retained the streaming rights.
The streaming could then be purchased from the PAC 12 by anyone, regardless of their tv subscriptions or location. That is where the real money would have been for the PAC 12. And the exposure would have been much greater.
I could be completely wrong so take with a grain of salt.
That is just the way most of these contract works. Take for example the new LA Laker channel coming - Directv isn't going to pay $4.00 per subscriber for all 20 million Directv subscribers. The contract will end up maybe $2.00-$4.00 per subscriber in the southern Cal area and maybe .02-.05 cents for all the rest of the 20 million. No cable or Satellite will add a channel that only has a smaller area interest if they had to pay the same for all of the subscribers ex. Directv 20 million. It would just cost to much and no company could do that.
That was a dumb move on the Pac 12. They should have made it that the cable company had to carry in some form in all areas or let all the subscribers be able to stream the games if they didn't.
I agree with your take on the streaming rights. They should have keep them and made up what they would have lost. Maybe though the cable companies wouldn't have touched the Pac 12 Network at all if that was the case. The cable companies know they would lose viewers if the could buy the streaming rights from Directv.
I keep forgetting that. It's not uncommon for them to negotiate on holidays, but that is usually only in a dispute of channels they already carry. PAC12 negotiations can wait till Tuesday, PAC12 has a standing offer.
If PAC 12 sold to the cable companies for a reduced rate per subscriber, made the contract so it was nation-wide, and kept the streaming rights the PAC 12 should have come out ahead on the deal.
If the price was lower, the cable companies might have taken it anyway. But you could be right and maybe they wouldn't touch it.
I think PAC 12 wanted a higher amount per subscriber so they could use that amount to negotiate with DirecTV. In order to get that higher payout from cable they had to tie the streaming into the contract.
Somehow they did not get in the contracts that it had to be nation-wide. I can't believe they let that happen but they sure did. :nono2:
Yeah I personally dislike that.... but it very understandable why the industry is moving to that direction. The connection to pay TV solves two problems:
1) people disconnecting cable/satellite because they can get it online.
2) people in foreign countries (e.g. Canada) being able to watch through proxies.
Previously they would use the geographic location of IP addresses to match whether you are located in the U.S. With more and more proxy services and VPN services popping up, that is becoming less and less effective, so they are combating that by hooking in to a TV carrier's authentication system. This in turn guarantees the TV station gets their subscriber money, because now they know for sure anyone tuning in, is someone who is paying a TV carrier who in turn pays them for carriage rights.
I would expect that hulu and other web-based services will start to deploy a similar approach soon. It prevent "cord cutters" as well as "free loaders" at the same time.
NBC Olympics did the same thing, and the systems are WELL established now, in such a way that virtually every podunk cable outlet can use a system like that. I don't think that is going to change.
Best post of the thread. A lot of my thoughts that I have been unable to articulate.
What they could've done was grant free access to cable/satellite customers and others paid a fee. In other words, make it like another tv provider from that standpoint.
Anyway, what's done is done, right?
I really think (and thought from the start) that the PAC 12 did not understand all the models and rushed into a technology focused on cable. Wonder how that happened? Maybe because cable helped them develop it? Gee.
What leads you to believe that. Do you know how the game rotations work among the networks?
Rural areas are surly going to be hit the hardest. Most are very limited with crappy cable companies like Cable-One where even internet streaming is over saturated in the evening making it impossible to stream anything including YouTube videos without buffering over and over.
That's good - the important games will be on Fox. Here's the Pac12 games on Fox:
Hawaii at USC (Pac 12)
Nebraska at UCLA (Pac 12)
USC at Stanford (Pac 12)
UCLA at Cal (Pac 12)
USC at Washington (Pac 12)
Stanford at Cal (Pac 12)
Oregon at USC (Pac 12)
Oregon at Cal (Pac 12)
Stanford at Oregon (Pac 12)
Washington at Washington State (Pac 12)
Oregon at Oregon State (Pac 12)
Pac 12 Football Championship Game