1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Time Warner Cable CEO Says It’s Time To Thin The Cable Channel Herd

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by JoeTheDragon, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. Dec 3, 2012 #1 of 48
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
  2. Dec 3, 2012 #2 of 48
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Service providers will agree, but content owners know they make more money with multiple channels that they can bundle and sell.
     
  3. Dec 3, 2012 #3 of 48
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    Problem here is the networks, Take History for example, will negotiate for just History. Then after the negotiations are complete, and Time Warner refused to carry the lesser watched channels in that package, they will move the popular shows to H2. Take Ancient Aliens as an example. Pretty soon H2 has all the old History shows, and History becomes another reality channel, and customers lose out as usual.

    Every time the slew of providers picked up another MTV channel, they moved all the music to the channel (usually SD if carried at all) to force the providers into picking it up. Now we have all sorts of HD MTV channels, and all the music are on the SD channels DirecTv doesnt even carry.
     
  4. Dec 3, 2012 #4 of 48
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,018
    511
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    So in Time Warner Cable's world, any channel attempting to target a niche is worthless unless they drop their niche programming and appeal to a mass audience and get ratings that are the level of a TNT, USA or TBS? We saw how good that worked for G4 when they tried it. (DirecTV didn't drop them until AFTER they alienated the fanbase of TechTV, fired most of the staff who relocated to G4's headquarters less than 6 months into the merger, and then started dropping many of their gaming shows in favor of Cops 2.0 and infomercials for Girls Gone Wild, driving away their core audience who would have came to their defense if it DirecTV dropped them 4 or 5 years earlier when shows like The Screen Savers, Call for Help and others were still on the air.)

    They might as well say goodbye to any subscribers who are fans of Boomerang, Nicktoons, Nick Jr, TeenNick, bio, H2, Cloo, Chiller, Cooking Channel, DIY, Disney XD, The Hub, Investigation Discovery, Destination America, Military Channel, Science, LMN, We, Discovery Fit and Health, Logo, Style, Ovation, Nat Geo Wild, TV One, BET, Centric, Reelz, RFD, CMT, GAC, GMC, Outdoor Channel, MTV Hits, MTV Jams and others.

    Just because they don't watch a niche channel doesn't mean others don't. i.e. take a really niche channel like RFD-TV, it might be useless to people who live in a big city and only see stars in the sky when there's a blackout, but to the rural farmers that grow the food they put on their plates every night, live cattle auctions and programs like the US Farm report and AgDay are part of a daily routine.

    Time Warner might as well stop offering digital cable and go back to their 70 channel analog lineup they had in the late 90s before the launch of all these niche channels that made digital cable worthwhile if they see them as a problem.
     
  5. Dec 4, 2012 #5 of 48
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    G4 only got on directv by buying tech tv.

    But we do need an at least some kind of a theme pack system that gives you more choice then what we have today.

    Now I can see the need for most of the sports channels we have now.

    Also tv providers need to take a stand before things get really out of control.
     
  6. Dec 4, 2012 #6 of 48
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Isn't TWC sports in LA a niche channel?
     
  7. Dec 4, 2012 #7 of 48
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    It's a Local RSN channel but right now it only has one team and they are looking to try to get more teams as well.
     
  8. Dec 4, 2012 #8 of 48
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Sounds niche to me.

    So, Time Warner says niche is okay when it is their niche.

    Got it.

    If they fail to expand to more teams, will they be culled from the herd?
     
  9. Dec 4, 2012 #9 of 48
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    well they don't have it in all areas / out of market it's in a sports pack with black out's.
     
  10. mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    1,711
    1
    Jul 29, 2006
    The problem isn't Lifetime Real Women, Chiller, DIY or any of the other secondary channels - it's sports. When 50% of your programming costs address only 20% of your customer base you have a problem.

    Dropping channels that cost 20 cents month is just noise when new sports channels costing $3-5 month keep popping up.
     
  11. kevinturcotte

    kevinturcotte New Member

    3,954
    1
    Dec 19, 2006
    Outside...
    Wholeheartedly agree!! Any channel that is JUST sports 24/7 should be in a sports package. Let those that want the expensive channels pay for them! Can you imagine if HBO said "Well, you HAVE to start carrying all of our HBO channels in your lowest package, and raise the cost of that package at least $15 a month, or you're not having ANY HBO channels"?
    The problem with eliminating smaller, niche channels is, it will never happen. Look at Boomerang, HLN, and TruTV. All Turner has to say is "You're carrying them too, and paying extra for them, or you can't broadcast TNT or TBS." Can you imagine a cable/satellite system WITHOUT TBS or TNT?
     
  12. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    It's a pre-emptive strike at negotiation....but I do agree with him.....let's see if he actually follows suit and enforces the new "rule" on himself and his company.


     
  13. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    There should be a split sports pack at least split off the out of market stuff into it's own pack with the other sports channels in a different pack as well.

    Now talking about that HBO idea now what if some where to say have a adult channel and some other more basic channel and they said want are basic channel then our adult channel better be in the same pack and we want the same price for it.
     
  14. n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,759
    11
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    I agree that there are WAY too many TV networks but anytime a carrier drops some of the less watched ones, the few people who watch them will be very vocal.

    I think it's a crime that ESPN expects $4~5 per sub. I watch ESPN maybe 20 times per year (baseball and football). I believe that fee doesn't include ESPN2 and its other networks. Disney sure has the cable/sat providers where they want them. No carrier is going to drop ESPN yet the carriers have no way to fight back other than to drop the lesser watched ESPN channels (ESPN U, ESPN Classic).
     
  15. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Espn has begun to counter that by using all those channels for overflow games. And games are their bread and butter.
     
  16. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,083
    165
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Isn't the real problem is that greed is everywhere therefore everyone suffers because of it?

    This article is blaming the content providers, but I assure you that the content providers will immediately point to their own balance sheets on the ever rising costs from Hollywood for producing content.
     
  17. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,366
    74
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    The only way things will change is if people will just start cancelling cable and satellite television and not switch to another provider.

    Here is the catch.... while the programs are available through alternative means (e.g. Hulu, Netflix), guess who provides the Internet connectivity? Most often, it is the cable providers, and they have capped the internet bandwidth because these alternative providers are cannibalizing their primary business.
     
  18. Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    9,094
    100
    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    ... and Hollywood can point to their own rising costs.

    To me... one of the main issues is brand dilution.
     
  19. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Can you elaborate? Not sure what you mean.
     
  20. Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    9,094
    100
    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    I was basically making a similar statement as what Davenlr was saying in the quote below:


    I'll be honest... since I've gotten DirecTV in 1995, there's been very few channels added that I've cared about, and multiple channels I had back in those days, I've stopped watching due to programming changes.

    But... the content providers have realized that quantity brings them more money than quality. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page