And saying this would happen for "200 channels" is purely a straw man argument. Given how contracts are determined in this industry, that outcome is utterly impossible.
Which is why I suggested other points... 100, 50, 25 channels... the line would get drawn somewhere. IF AMC is in the top 25, and AMC gets a rate increase of 200%... why would you not expect all the other channels in the top 25 to start talking about similar increases?
Where to draw the line? A channel that can show ratings increase, particularly in the 18-49 demographic desired by advertisers, has a legitimate argument that their product has more value, and therefore justifies a higher price
That's where you draw the line... but even at that, has AMC met your expectations?
Yes, they had one of the highest rated cable shows ever... but that was 9 million viewers roughly. That was a spike, not a maintained average... and it isn't even close to that on any other night than Sunday when their best shows air.
NCIS regularly pulls in 30 million viewers I believe on CBS... and that's on a Tuesday night. Just to have something to compare to...
So... AMC has increased their ratings for their best shows on one night a week for less than half of the year... but what has AMC done the rest of the week and year? Not much. Even AMC doesn't brag about anything outside of their 5 or so big programs.
Also... this dispute is about AMC, IFC, WeTV, and Sundance. Sundance went dark on Dish weeks ago and except for me and a couple of others reminding folk, there seems to have been ZERO complaints about that channel gone... and people only seem to be worrying about losing AMC... and yet, AMC wants you and I to pay for those other 3 channels for the right to get the stuff on AMC.
IF AMC cared, why wouldn't they ask Dish for more money on AMC and let Dish reject those other unpopular channels?
(this is how capitalism is supposed to work, for what its worth...)
Capitalism allows you to ask whatever you want... and if you think you have something worth more, you can ask for more... but there is NO guarantee you will get more. Even if your product is worth more, if people don't want to pay it... then you can't get it.
AMC can always ask for more... Dish can always say "no"... that is how capitalism works.
And you would hold the line at networks that have no such argument.
We're getting into opinion here, though... which is fine... but it is opinion moreso than fact. How popular AMC (or any other channel) is largely is a discussion of opinion... especially since ratings aren't counted by official count but are extrapolated by samplings.
We know how many pay for AMC because we know what their revenue is and we can count the number of subscribers to pay TV from the various quarterly reports... and by AMC's own accounts, even their best rated show on one record-setting night only had about 10% or less of the number of people paying for AMC watching that night.
So... 90% of the people paying for the tier that includes AMC deserve to pay double for AMC that they don't ever watch? So that the 10% of people can still watch? How does that work?
For those who think that a deluge of networks would roll into Dish's headquarters, saying "you gave AMC a price increase, so you have to do it for me!", just think about that. They'd be laughed out of the building. This process is supposed to operate by business rules, not schoolyard rules.
Maybe... but then AMC is being laughed out of the building now and yet somehow has found supporters... so why do you think the next channel asking for a rate increase wouldn't also find online supporters like yourself to justify things?
And you can bet... every company does have "you did this for the other guy" in their back pocket at negotiations. If you go into Dish asking for a rate increase knowing that they just gave an increase to another top 25 channel... you have to feel your chances are better than IF they just denied them. Don't you?
And if Dish turns you down... you wouldn't mention that?
Imagine yourself... if one of your co-workers asks for and gets a raise... and you feel like you do just as much and just as good of a job... don't you also think about asking for a raise? And if your boss turns you down, you wouldn't ask why someone else just got a raise who you feel doesn't do as much work as you?
We aren't part of the business... so we are very much in the schoolyard here anyway
And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.
But they are niche shows. Why does that offend you? I like the Walking Dead... but its best airing only got 9 million of the 100+ million possible payTV customers in the US... that seems niche to me.
When NCIS gets 30 million (nearly a third of pay TV customers)... by comparison, shows on AMC are niche shows.
Shows on Syfy (like Eureka and Warehouse 13 that I enjoy) are also niche shows.
Battlestar Galactic and Doctor Who are niche shows.
Nobody should be offended by something being called "niche"... its actually a complement in a way, because often niche shows have more devoted fans and mainstream shows do... Mainstream shows also have a lot of casual fans who watch because nothing else is on... whereas a Niche show has dedicated viewers who seek out and wait for the next episode.
I would bet that the various options you detailed have been discussed in the negotiations, but it sure seems like the sides are so entrenched, that this is the one dispute that's not going to be resolved. I mean, AMC is now just running commercials telling people to just switch to DirectTV now. I'm sure that's not going over well in Charlie's living room. I'll be shocked if they actually come to terms.
Exactly... which is why you can't make this a Dish-is-evil one-sided thing.
AMC is telling people to ditch Dish and go to DirecTV or elsewhere... now, imagine in a couple of weeks IF they agree to an extension and Dish doesn't drop the channels... is AMC going to go on a "sign up for Dish, we are buddies now" campaign? Somehow I doubt it.
AMC is being every bit as petty as Dish has been accused of being... Dish didn't have to move the channels and screw up timers... AMC didn't have to start running scrolls telling people to bail on Dish and change providers. Those are both immature moves if you ask me.
I suspect Dish is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit over Voom (it feels like deja vu to Dish... AMC says we make good programs and need more money to invest... but Dish remembers this deal with Voom and the money never went to improving content)... I also suspect AMC is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit because AMC thinks Dish screwed them and doesn't want to get screwed again.
In truth the lawsuit shouldn't have anything to do with this... but I'm sure it is in the back of BOTH parties' minds... how could it not be?
But... Dish negotiated and paid for AMCHD a couple of years back at a time when they were still fighting with AMC/Rainbow over Voom... so clearly both parties were able to negotiate a fair deal back then even with the lawsuit ongoing... so no reason they couldn't now... but IF AMC digs in on a price increase, then I tilt the blame more to their side.
AMC's own financials show they made more money recently than ever before... without a price increase... so they can't argue a price increase is necessary... just desired... so they have to decide where they want to draw the line in the sand. Dish might pay more than they do now, but not if AMC digs in at double.