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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Aug 18, 2013 #581 of 2940
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    How many decades ago was this true?
     
  2. Aug 18, 2013 #582 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    A specific organ of a non-profit organization can have as its role making money. While the universities and the conferences are not for-profit organizations (even the private ones are typically non-profit), they can have specific parts of their organization whose job is to make money, such as their TV networks. Few universities make a profit on their athletic departments and many that do use the money to balance their budgets.

    College sports are expensive. They pay for facilities and amenities. They pay for travel and other player and team expenses. They pay for the food that athletes eat and they even pay the scholarships that they give (the scholarships are not "free" to the universities, the athletic departments pay the bill to the university for every scholarship athlete). They pay for medical care for athletes. And only football and basketball (and mostly men's) make money. The other dozens of sports that most schools support are money losers. Many of them don't even charge admission fees at the events.

    I don't begrudge the PAC 12 to maximize their money on their TV deals. It is not the same as the Dallas Cowboys or even DirecTV or ESPN or Fox who are profit making entities.

    I do have a problem with some of the methods the PAC 12 is using but I have no problems with their network working toward profit. That is one of their two missions. Profit and exposure.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Aug 18, 2013 #583 of 2940
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    So what?

    There's a little sign in the stadium. It hardly changes the dynamics.
     
  4. Aug 18, 2013 #584 of 2940
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    OK, Directv thinks the deal sucks. The other providers that signed on must think otherwise. Is your bill any cheaper with Directv because they do not have the channel?
     
  5. Aug 18, 2013 #585 of 2940
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    So let me get this straight - you say Larry Scott is saying: (1) the same deal has been offered to Directv, and (2) by not signing up, Directv is preventing its subs from watching.

    You say there is an impasse and BOTH are to blame.

    So what should Pac 12 do? Reduce their rates and give money back to every one of the other 40+ providers that do carry it at the same rate?

    I cannot see that this makes sense for any business. Now if there were also not 40 other providers on board then it may suggest something. Look, Directv has chosen the Pac 12 to advance an agenda to hold the line on sports costs. It is a business decision that Directv made, plain and simple. I wish that they'd simply call it what it is and stop manipulating the basic facts.
     
  6. Aug 18, 2013 #586 of 2940
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    You must think advertising is cheap. :rotfl:
     
  7. Aug 18, 2013 #587 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    That point is conjecture. Not a fact. Somehow you think this deal is different for directv than any other. If it made sense to them to have the PAC 12 at the rate and terms the PAC 12 is offering, directv would have the PAC 12. That is a fact. Anything beyond that, including the belief that directv is making a statement (odd to make such a statement and never say it; they did make a point with Viacom; without saying you are making a point, there is no point) is conjecture.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Aug 18, 2013 #588 of 2940
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I completely disagree. It's not a point of conjecture. Mike White has been quoted several times that he thinks on the subject (Link):

    Additional links:
    http://www.theconvergence.tv/2013/07/29/directv-plays-the-a-la-carte-card-with-pac-12-network/
    http://www.tvpredictions.com/directv021513.htm
    http://adage.com/article/media/sports-prices-soar-deliver-return-investment/240749/
    http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/11/09/Media/TWC-Sportsnet.aspx

    There are more if you care to search. DIRECTV is clearly taking a hardline stance with regional sports network carriage fees/structure, including PAC-12.

    Mike
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Aug 18, 2013 #589 of 2940
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    That guy is a hypocrite in my opinion. I've said it before, these cable and satelite companies are their own worse enemy.

    By continuing to sign these things (like the Lakers' channel) just propagates and motivates more fragmentation as other franchises see what X gets and thinks their Y may be worth something as well.

    If he really wanted to be a man of his word, he should have held fast on everything going back to the introduction of those channels, which came out one after the other. But he didn't and it erodes exactly what he is trying to fight, especially if he continues to cherry-pick.

    I'm sure he realizes the only problem with all of this--with the market matured and saturated--is that getting content your competition doesn't have (or at least having the same content as that competition), is one of the last measures to grow or at least prevent people from leaving.
     
  10. Aug 18, 2013 #590 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I completely disagree. It's not a point of conjecture. Mike White has been quoted several times that he thinks on the subject (Link):


    Additional links:
    http://www.theconvergence.tv/2013/07/29/directv-plays-the-a-la-carte-card-with-pac-12-network/
    http://www.tvpredictions.com/directv021513.htm
    http://adage.com/article/media/sports-prices-soar-deliver-return-investment/240749/
    http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/11/09/Media/TWC-Sportsnet.aspx

    There are more if you care to search. DIRECTV is clearly taking a hardline stance with regional sports network carriage fees/structure, including PAC-12.

    Mike


    Those are general statements about it all. It is conjecture to say they have singled out PAC 12 as was stated in the post I answered. In fact, you even cited the Lakers channel in your list. It actually proves my point that they are not singling out the PAC 12.


    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  11. Aug 18, 2013 #591 of 2940
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    Fox and Comcast signed an agreement earlier that handled all their OTA Networks and Cable Networks, including FS1, FS2 and FXX. Comcast has a MFN clause with Fox. As a result, Comcast will pay a MUCH LOWER RATE than the .80 cents FS originally wanted.

    Fox can now prove FS1 has "must see TV" and use that as leverage in the future, which quite frankly, will be easier to prove than PAC 12.

    PAC-12 has yet to prove it has "must see TV" so others could easily view DirecTV (with a greater lean towards Sports Oriented customers than other MVPDs) as evidence they do not need to renew PAC-12 the future
     
  12. Aug 18, 2013 #592 of 2940
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    Considering that more will drop TWC and move to DirecTV to get CBS in New York, LA, Dallas and other markets, I doubt DirecTV will be hurting.
     
  13. Aug 18, 2013 #593 of 2940
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    Probably not, if ESPN tells us anything. 60% of ESPN's $11B comes from sub fees and 30% from Ad Revenue. PAC-12 will not be able to do that percentage due to lack of viewers. The 20% of subs that DirecTV represents in National Households would not make up the what PAC-12 can get from advertising.

    [​IMG]


    Also think of it this way. TWC wanted just under $4 per sub for their new LA Sports Channel from Cox, Dish, DirecTV and Verizon. Shows that Advertising alone is not going to pay the bills in even the largest of television markets.
     
  14. Aug 18, 2013 #594 of 2940
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    Actually, as DirecTV signed an agreement with TWC/Lakers channel 7 days after the story you are quoting (and essentially before the NBA Season started), they clearly are using PAC-12 as he stated.

    Its actually very simple.

    Rupert/Carey were focused on using Sports to make DirecTV different.

    Liberty/Malone are focusing on what Liberty has been focused on - online - as witnessed by DirecTV wanting to buy Hulu.
     
  15. Aug 18, 2013 #595 of 2940
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Mike White hasn't singled out PAC-12 but rather is discussing all the current RSNs in negotiations. Additionally, I never said PAC-12 was the only target in this.

    AAMOF, White's comment as well as those by other DIRECTV execs shows there's clearly more to indicate PAC-12 is currently one of several RSN negotiations...which is what I said in the last line of the post you quoted. My point is PAC-12 is one of the sports networks that are very much the subject DIRECTV's hard line in these negotiations.

    Actually, what makes you think PAC-12 wouldn't be one of the RSNs that are the subject of all those comments, conference calls, and press releases?

    At least to me it seems DIRECTV is aiming this at all RSNs including PAC-12. I don't believe it comes down to there's something different about PAC-12 Networks proposal from all the other RSNs out there. That doesn't make sense to me.

    Mike
     
  16. Aug 19, 2013 #596 of 2940
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,613
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    maybe it's the outer rings at high prices or some big area RSN's that Directv wants to put at least some parts in the sports pack?
     
  17. Aug 19, 2013 #597 of 2940
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,750
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And that is why MFNs are good for carriers. The early adopters don't get burned by a later better deal. I don't know if Fox got the 80c from Comcast or something less. But Fox decided that being able to launch to 90 million subscribers was more important than immediately getting the rate they wanted.

    PAC-12 ... I read that they are confident without DirecTV. And after running a year without carriage on DirecTV they pretty much proved that they can live without that carriage.
     
  18. Aug 19, 2013 #598 of 2940
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,544
    1,088
    Nov 13, 2006
    But in the end we don't know if Comcast had a MFN clause in their contract with FOX. For all we know they have the better contract anyway because maybe it lasts a lot longer than the ones they just agreed to with DIRECTV etc. and maybe their price to renew will be so much higher it will more than offset. MFN is a very difficult thing to actually create and hold to.


    Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  19. Aug 19, 2013 #599 of 2940
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    No, but Directv could have had this sign had they pursued this deal. Truthfully, the sign is small.

    Its kind of like the Coke vs. Pepsi battle. We see both all the time and while it keeps it in our mind we generally still do have our own personal preference.

    Nothing prevents Directv from advertising outside the stadium off property or running a blimp over the stadium if it really wants to.
     
  20. Aug 19, 2013 #600 of 2940
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Directv has said it as others have already pointed out.

    The reality is that Directv is making a business decision, plain and simple.
     

Share This Page