Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Dish drops AMC (+WeTV, IFC & Sundance)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1921 replies to this topic

#1301 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,743 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:43 AM

If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC at an ARPU of $75 that's 3,750,000 a month loss for them. Then add in the retention offers to placate those who may or may not care, probably around 5 million budgeted, and it's not necessarily a huge savings then.

DISH's costs go down when they lose customers. Yes, they don't get to collect the ARPU of $76.93 (FY2011) ... but their profit was only $9.10 per customer per month and it was an abnormally good year for profit (DISH's 2nd highest profit year was $5.81 per customer per month in 2010).

There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer. DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.

So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.

Of course the people who stick around in this thread are going to be the supporters because the people who really care that much about losing AMC will just leave anyways.

Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#1302 OFFLINE   MysteryMan

MysteryMan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 6,655 posts
  • LocationUSA
Joined: May 17, 2010

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:51 AM

DISH's costs go down when they lose customers. Yes, they don't get to collect the ARPU of $76.93 (FY2011) ... but their profit was only $9.10 per customer per month and it was an abnormally good year for profit (DISH's 2nd highest profit year was $5.81 per customer per month in 2010).

There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer. DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.

So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.

Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.


Same applies to DirecTV threads. They attract a lot of DISH subs.

DirecTV customer since 1995.


#1303 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,582 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:35 AM

If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC


50,000?

I'd be surprised if it was 5,000

Same applies to DirecTV threads. They attract a lot of DISH subs.


Not me. I have that whole section blocked out using the Forum Options. Just like I had AMC blocked out of my channel guide.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#1304 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,594 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:37 AM

Based on numbers noted in previous lawsuits DISH has approximately 10 million customers at AT200 or above (AMC's tier). Based on AMC getting an average 25c per subscriber that's $2.5 million. Some media reports say DISH subscribers were 15% of AMC's subscriber base ... which puts AMC's subscription based revenue (before losing DISH) at $16.66 million and after losing DISH at $14.14 million - which is below the production cost for 2011.


Another aspect... I don't know if your source included... If you talk about an average monthly budget for AMC's development... does that factor in that they don't actually produce or air new programming on a monthly basis? As noted in various posts... they have only a handful of original shows anyway, with none more than 16 episodes a season... and at least one of those not airing this year and another on its final season.

So, much like the argument of the consumer paying for AMC 12 months of the year only to watch for about a third of that... Is AMC amortizing their budget over the year? OR are some months they banking cash because they aren't producing anything those months?

If Dish loses 50k subs, canceling or refusing to sign up, due to AMC at an ARPU of $75 that's 3,750,000 a month loss for them. Then add in the retention offers to placate those who may or may not care, probably around 5 million budgeted, and it's not necessarily a huge savings then.


But a contract would be for several years and set the tone for future negotiations...whereas this free Roku business is a temporary expense for Dish. Don't expect Dish to keep doing this freebie stuff for much longer.

It's easy to vilify companies but in the end it's just business. If AMC got their price increases and created 3 more shows that had the ratings and reviews that Mad Men, BB, and Walking Dead do then people would say that it was a great thing.


What evidence do you have to support that this is how AMC will spend its money? We have lots of evidence to the contrary, however...

1. That "unrelated" Voom lawsuit... where Dish paid a lot of money to Rainbow for Voom to improve its programming, only Rainbow didn't spend the money on improved programming.

2. What does AMC do when they have a hit show like Mad Men or Walking Dead? They cut the budgets the next season, cut episodes from Mad Men, and played hardball in negotiations with their other shows too.

3. AMC by its own admission had their best year last year... and that's with spending money to create those good shows and not having a rate increase... so have they already been spending that profit on new shows? Doesn't look like it... with several shows cancelled or on their last season already... long hiatus between shows, and still cutting budgets for those shows while simultaneously looking to increase profit by raising rates.

Bottom line... there's no evidence to support the romantic notion that AMC just wants to create quality programming for its fans... You're right, it is a business... and AMC wants to cut budget and raise rates to line their pockets... just like any other business.

The glaring difference in this dispute is the simple fact that DISH refused to even bother to negotiate with AMC.


According to whom? I know that's what AMC says... but Dish is bound contractually to NOT discuss details of rate negotiations... so AMC has Dish over a barrel here since Dish cannot disclose negotiations, but AMC can pick and choose what to tell the public.

IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.

That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#1305 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,812 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:09 AM

^^

:sigh:

Sometimes I worry about this civilization.


:yesman:

#1306 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:50 PM

There is a cost savings to DISH when they lose a customer. DISH no longer has to pay the other providers for that customer's subscription. There are fixed costs that are spread out over the millions of customers ... spread out over millions minus 50k raises the per customer average a low percentage but DISH is not losing $75 per customer per month when they lose a customer.

So IF (and that is a big IF) DISH loses 50k customers over not having AMC they might lose $455k (while not paying AMC $2.5 million) each month. In 2011 DISH lost a record 166k net customers - and posted record profits. It may be a hard concept to understand - but you can look at last year's annual reports if you want to see the numbers.

Perhaps ... but this thread seems to attract a lot of non-DISH subscribers.


Without extreme situations there is never a cost saving to losing customers. They did make a profit but not due to losing customers but due to the lack of new subscriber growth. This is why both companies have stated why their profits, cash on hand, goes down after having a very strong growth quarter.

Of course it will attract non DISH customer's as well. I haven't read all of the posts I just saw the one talking about the savings this will do for DISH and I think it's only part of the story and not really accurate from a financial standpoint.

50,000?

I'd be surprised if it was 5,000



Not me. I have that whole section blocked out using the Forum Options. Just like I had AMC blocked out of my channel guide.


Since you both mentioned 50k I'll restate what I said. I said 50k subs from either canceling or not choosing to sign up. It's really not that large of a number in the MMVPD industry. With DISH having 14 million (rounded for easy math and I don't want to look up the financials) 50k is .3% of their subscriber base. So it's not really a far off number.

What evidence do you have to support that this is how AMC will spend its money? We have lots of evidence to the contrary, however...

1. That "unrelated" Voom lawsuit... where Dish paid a lot of money to Rainbow for Voom to improve its programming, only Rainbow didn't spend the money on improved programming.

2. What does AMC do when they have a hit show like Mad Men or Walking Dead? They cut the budgets the next season, cut episodes from Mad Men, and played hardball in negotiations with their other shows too.

3. AMC by its own admission had their best year last year... and that's with spending money to create those good shows and not having a rate increase... so have they already been spending that profit on new shows? Doesn't look like it... with several shows cancelled or on their last season already... long hiatus between shows, and still cutting budgets for those shows while simultaneously looking to increase profit by raising rates.

Bottom line... there's no evidence to support the romantic notion that AMC just wants to create quality programming for its fans... You're right, it is a business... and AMC wants to cut budget and raise rates to line their pockets... just like any other business.



According to whom? I know that's what AMC says... but Dish is bound contractually to NOT discuss details of rate negotiations... so AMC has Dish over a barrel here since Dish cannot disclose negotiations, but AMC can pick and choose what to tell the public.

IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.

That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.


Obviously I don't work for AMC so I can't say how they would spend their money. They could buy popcorn and hot dog machines for all their offices for all we know. However I think that they do realise that in order to stay a legitimate source of entertainment they're going to need a few more shows that are original to them to keep viewership through out the year.

Every company has disclaimers on their websites about content and such if you dig around for it. DISH is not contractually bound to anything at this point. There's no reason they couldn't dispute AMC's claims. DISH made the first press release stating that AMC was asking a fee they deemed not acceptible and would be dropping them. There wasn't anything about working towards a goal. AMC has also stated that it's due to the legal suit. Given how fast Charlie is to litigate an issue he could have easily filed a suite for Libel and a stop and decist letter to stop the libel. He has not done so. Also given what I know about the industry I do believe AMC's claim. DIRECTV did the same thing with Fox the only difference is that they publicly said that they would not be requesting an extension during the negotations and would allow the stations to go black. They still stated they were negotiating through the process. So I could say the same thing and state where DISH says they're negotiating. I haven't seen the AMC/DISH contract but I'm betting there's nothing in there that states they cannot say if the companies were talking. Now that there is not a contract there's nothing to bind them.

There is also the official response DISH legal approved that a DIRT member posted about willing for a "creative" solution from AMC not that the companies are in discussions.

The vilify comment was just due to the overall tone of some people saying that AMC is the bad guy and so forth. When really AMC is just a business and they're doing what they feel they need to do. DISH is a business and they're doing what they feel they need to do. The reason's don't really matter but it doesn't make either company "bad".
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#1307 OFFLINE   fudpucker

fudpucker

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 625 posts
Joined: Jul 23, 2007

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

So, much like the argument of the consumer paying for AMC 12 months of the year only to watch for about a third of that... Is AMC amortizing their budget over the year? OR are some months they banking cash because they aren't producing anything those months?

IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC that Dish didn't negotiate... but we do NOT know that to be factual. We only know that is what AMC says... and as I posted in an earlier message... read the Terms & Conditions on AMC's own Web site where it clearly states that they do NOT guarantee the accuracy of anything on their own Web site... so basically, they reserve the right to lie and exaggerate and if proven wrong, they claim they aren't responsible for their own words on their own Web site anyway.

That doesn't scream trustworthy to me.


Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.

Part 2: I don't know if you are being serious or not, but as someone with both a science and a law degree, I can tell you it is VERY common for corporate web sites to have a disclaimer like that, otherwise someone sues them for saying something like "YOU SAID TIDE DETERGENT GETS OUT ALL STAINS EASILY ON YOUR WEB SITE!!!! BUT I GOT BARIUM SULFATE STAINS ON MY LACE SHIRT AND IT DESTROYED MY SHIRT AND DIDN"T GET THE STAIN OUT SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS AND A ROKU BECAUSE YOU SAID!!!!" ;)

You are really really reaching to vilify AMC with comments like that.

#1308 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,410 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:14 PM

IF you always only believe one side of a story, then yeah... I guess you can choose to believe AMC....

This is the reality. Who you want to believe. And so....

:rant:
Nobody informed about the history of the billionaire Dolan family operations, headed by family patriarch Charles Dolan, AMC Networks Chairman and Cablevision Chairman, would believe anything coming from AMC.

I assume most of the people here defending AMC know nothing about the "scrappy" history of Cablevision, the sports teams and related television ownerships (MSG Inc., for instance) under James Dolan who is Cablevision President , his nephew of Cleveland Indians and SportsTime Ohio owner Larry Dolan (named the seventh worst owner in pro sports) and the rest of the family.

For those of you who don't remember how Charles Dolan, AMC Networks Chairman, believes a cable company should respond to a channel demanding more money, here's a description from Wikipedia clearly defining the Dolan approach:

Cablevision Systems Corporation (NYSE: CVC) is an American cable television company with systems serving areas surrounding New York City. It is the 8th largest cable provider in the USA, with most customers residing in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania....

Cablevision's contract with News Corp to carry FOX (including MyNetwork TV) expired on October 15, 2010. The contract included WNYW and WWOR-TV in New York and WTXF in Philadelphia. The contract also included the cable networks National Geographic Wild, Fox Business, and Fox Deportes (formerly Fox Sports en Español). Programming affected by the dispute included the coverage of the NFL on Fox, 2010 National League Championship Series, part of the 2010 World Series, and popular shows like American Idol and Glee.

On October 16, 2010 at 12:01am, Fox pulled all of their networks involved in the dispute from Cablevision subscribers. Because of Cablevision's dispute with FOX, Cablevision customers missed multiple new episodes of FOX network programming, multiple weeks of the NFL season, and the entire NLCS. Cablevision looped a public service announcement on each affected channel and forcing all of its customers' set-top boxes to channel 1999, which looped the same annnouncement, much like was done when Scripps Networks and ABC/Disney pulled their cable channels' programming....

This dispute was ultimately resolved because members of Congress representing the states and congressional districts served by Cablevision, regardless of party, decided maybe it would be ok to threaten direct government intervention since this happened right before an election.

That description, along with the list of other retransmission fee disputes, can be read here.

The Dolan family, through their largest holding Cablevision, competes directly with the Dish and DirecTV. IMHO there is a huge, huge conflict of interest represented by their ownership of channels such as AMC and MSG. But they are effective lobbyists.

When people defend AMC by attacking Dish here or on Facebook or elsewhere, it is the billionaire Dolan family they are defending, not "Mad Men." For instance, there is no love lost between "Mad Men" creator/writer Matt Weiner and the Dolan's since the last negotiations that delayed, and delayed, and delayed the most recent season. Weiner's just a whiny creative type to the Dolan's, like most of their employees and contractors. If they could get you the viewer to pay them $1 a month and get rid of those whiny creative types who are expensive, that would suit the Dolan's just fine.

That Charles Ergen, satellite company owner, chose to do what Charles Dolan, cable company owner, regularly does seems lost on too many people here.
:rant:

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#1309 OFFLINE   fudpucker

fudpucker

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 625 posts
Joined: Jul 23, 2007

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:15 PM

While I can appreciate, the passion of the handful of people that want to watch their programs like “Mad Men” the bottom line is VIEWERS and AMC just does not pull in viewer numbers.

While Mad Men is perhaps, a critical success it is far from a ratings powerhouse and neither are any of the other programs that have been mentioned here, with the exception being The Walking Dead.

While the final episode of MM ended on a high note (2.7 million viewers), the program routinely placed in the mid-20 for cable programming on Sunday nights. Last Sunday night at 9 pm finds that HBO’s True Blood had 4.5 million, TNT’s Falling Skies had 3.3 million, while The History Channels Ice Road Truckers drew 2.7 million. Moreover, in what can only show that the survival of the human race is in doubt 2.6 million watched E’s Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

TNT’s new show Dallas had 3.3 million viewers last week, a rerun of NCIS on USA brings in 2.6 million or a rerun of The Big Bang Theory on TBS has 2.5 million. Therefore, critical appeal and awards garnered offer little in the way of defense as to why a carrier should or should not offer programming.

In the end, it is only a television program. I would hope that the human race could show as much fervor over something that really mattered in the world!



I get that. Great shows often do not pull in big ratings. That is why shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad end up on stations like AMC instead of NBC.

And that is my point. If you only want to watch the crap that gets great ratings and appeals to everyone, well, that's what the big channels are trying to do. Any show that has less that super ratings will get dropped in a few episodes.

And thus quality shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc. that aren't going to get huge ratings find homes on smaller channels like AMC. Where they don't HAVE to have 5 million viewers to keep the suits happy, who are looking for another reality show that is cheap and pulls in the big ratings.

And people like me subscribe to providers like Dish and DirectTV and pay for higher tiers to be able to watch shows that the people who love Keeping up with the Kardashians would never watch.

#1310 OFFLINE   hdaddikt

hdaddikt

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 197 posts
Joined: Jul 02, 2005

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:30 PM

I get that. Great shows often do not pull in big ratings. That is why shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad end up on stations like AMC instead of NBC.


Thank Goodness! If they were they would likely have been canceled long before now!! Ratings aside, I am not sure they know what a 'good show' is any more.

#1311 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,594 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:37 PM

Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.


A couple of things... Big Bang Theory is on CBS, so it probably is more like 20-24 episodes per season.

And yes, you are right... The Closer is never more than 13 or 14 episodes a year on TNT... but TNT has more than 3 shows a year too. AMC has only a handful of shows running those 13 episodes, and some like Mad Men have been forced to skip a year due to AMC negotiating to cut the budget and episodes with the show creator.

Nobody said other networks didn't have shows with short seasons... but two things to keep in mind:

1. Other networks that have shows with short seasons might have MORE shows than just 3 or 4 that AMC has!
2. AMC is asking for a rate increase based on less than a handful of shows and not much else to offer. Right now nobody else is negotiating for more money... IF another channel with similar lack of content to AMC asked for double their rates, I would argue they don't deserve it either!

Part 2: I don't know if you are being serious or not, but as someone with both a science and a law degree, I can tell you it is VERY common for corporate web sites to have a disclaimer like that, otherwise someone sues them for saying something like "YOU SAID TIDE DETERGENT GETS OUT ALL STAINS EASILY ON YOUR WEB SITE!!!! BUT I GOT BARIUM SULFATE STAINS ON MY LACE SHIRT AND IT DESTROYED MY SHIRT AND DIDN"T GET THE STAIN OUT SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS AND A ROKU BECAUSE YOU SAID!!!!" ;)

You are really really reaching to vilify AMC with comments like that.


Perhaps... but the point still remains... You can't say "Here is the real reason..." and then just below that have a link to a policy that says you don't stand behind what you say on your Web site.

I agree that a lot of Web sites and companies have these disclaimers... and as such I don't just assume everything they say is true.

Thus my argument that I don't see how you can believe AMC's position so certainly when you know they have an "out"... like if the negotiations had resulted in AMC staying on Dish, do you think AMC would EVER have retracted their statements about the Voom lawsuit? I doubt it. Would AMC ever apologize for trying to send Dish customers to DirecTV? I doubt it...

Dish didn't say "don't watch AMC programs because they lie and their programs suck." Dish said "AMC wants too much money for just a handful of quality programs, programs that you can buy/watch elsewhere." Dish didn't try and tell people to stop watching AMC.

On the flip side... AMC said "Dish lies and holds grudged... and they suck, so go to DirecTV or cable and leave Dish now!"

See the difference?

That Charles Ergen, satellite company owner, chose to do what Charles Dolan, cable company owner, regularly does seems lost on too many people here.


Another good phrelin post... summarized quite well by that bottom line there... Two guys named "Charlie" and somehow Ergen is the "greedy billionaire" while "Dolan" is what? The nice just-for-the-fans guy?

You can bet if the shoe was on the other foot... and AMC wasn't a Rainbow/Dolan property... that Cablevision would have dropped AMC in a heartbeat if they asked for too much money. So the irony is thick that they would vilify Dish for doing exactly what they would do in the reverse situation.

Imagine if Dish owned a channel that they asked Cablevision for more money to carry... how do you think those negotiations would have gone?

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#1312 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,743 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:42 PM

Without extreme situations there is never a cost saving to losing customers.

I disagree and I've explained my reasoning.

They did make a profit but not due to losing customers but due to the lack of new subscriber growth.

It is all in the net ... DISH lost 2.7 million customers last year (DirecTV lost 3.6 million). Replacing only 2.5 million of those lost subscribers is what led to the net loss of customers I mentioned in my previous posts.

You threw out a number of "50k lost subscribers" over the AMC situation ... that is only a small percentage of the customers DISH will lose this year in the normal course of business. As a net loss it would a large number.

Since you both mentioned 50k I'll restate what I said. I said 50k subs from either canceling or not choosing to sign up. It's really not that large of a number in the MMVPD industry.

So 50k NET subscriber loss over this one channel? That is a large number. But if you did bother to look at the financials you would see a year (2011) with 166k net subscriber loss and the most profit in the history of the company. No, I don't expect past performance to guarantee future results but DISH financially does ok in years where customer growth is down.

Losing customers from people not choosing to sign up is more of a guess. We can look at the financials and see a report of the people who actually left and signed up but there is no report (from any company) that shows people who didn't sign up. But considering the $771 (FY2011) SAC it seems that not adding a customer is another way to save money.

It is a twisted reality and there is a tipping point ... at some point losing customers and not gaining new ones is going to hurt ... but losing AMC will not be that point.

Now that there is not a contract there's nothing to bind them.

Not really. I have signed contracts where the terms can never be released ... even after the active portion of the contract has expired. I would tell you what those contracts were but that would be a violation of those contracts.

#1313 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,117 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:43 PM

Networks seasons are usually 24 episodes in length these days, cable channels usually 13. Both can be a few more or a few less, that's just the normal...

Amc has three or four shows, TNT has more than twice that, and USA has even more than that. Amc is not in the same class of offerings in terms of numbers, both in overall viewership or in original programing hours to either of those companies. And neither of them are in the same class as even the The CW, much less the big four.

#1314 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,743 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:59 PM

Part 1: most channels don't have their top tier programs showing for more than part of the year before going into reruns. You won't see 12 months of The Closer or Big Bang Theory; they do their 13 or 16 episode run and they are done for the season.

You will see other shows of quality (or at least popularity) when the shows are in reruns. AMC is currently a three hit wonder ... with nothing new airing this week, one show resuming July 15th to carry them into September then one show resuming in October after the new shows for the first series are done airing.

This kind of rotation is done by the major cable networks and broadcast networks ... but the difference between the major networks and AMC is the major networks have a deeper bench.

AMC's current team could be described as three baseball players who can hit .500 or better ... one who is set to retire at the end of the next season (16 games over two years) and the other two who have been around for a while and may not last much longer. But AMC does not have nine good players to field a full team. When they are up to bat they could have bases loaded an no one available to take an at bat ... when they are playing defense they cannot cover all of the bases - they have a pitcher, 1st base man and shortstop.

AMC needs a deeper bench ... good programs to air when the superstars are on hiatus. AMC needs development ... the next great program that will replace their superstars. And AMC needs to be able to fill out their entire batting order. Naming three "superstars" isn't enough to field a team.

#1315 OFFLINE   fudpucker

fudpucker

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 625 posts
Joined: Jul 23, 2007

Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:42 PM

AMC needs a deeper bench ... good programs to air when the superstars are on hiatus. AMC needs development ... the next great program that will replace their superstars. And AMC needs to be able to fill out their entire batting order. Naming three "superstars" isn't enough to field a team.


I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.

Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.

This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry. It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days. It's not Keeping Up With The Kardashians or Kardashians Klosets or Poodles of the Kardashians. It's not American Idols or Making of American Idols or some other of the 10 singing competition shows. It's not shows that some suits at a network approved because they will pull super high ratings. Mad Men would have never made a second season on most networks. Breaking Bad would have never even been greenlit.

Shows like Hell on Wheels show that AMC is trying to build up their stable. They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.

If you are arguing on here relative to ratings, yeah, you're right. These shows are not going to appeal to Joe Sixpack the way Two and a Half Men or Two Broke Girls or The Kardashians or some Paris Hilton show would. Some of the best shows on TV in the old days, like Hill Street Blues, would have never completed their first season these days.

Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV. If Dish is committed to only carry shows that are loved by the same people who love Housewives of LA/New York/Chicago/Miami/ etc. then it's a sad day. The Top 10 list includes The Bachelorette/The Bachelor, America's Got Talent, Two Broke Girls, on cable Pawn Stars, WWE, American Pickers; Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.

#1316 OFFLINE   strikes2k

strikes2k

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 53 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2008

Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:57 PM

I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.

Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.

This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry. It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days. It's not Keeping Up With The Kardashians or Kardashians Klosets or Poodles of the Kardashians. It's not American Idols or Making of American Idols or some other of the 10 singing competition shows. It's not shows that some suits at a network approved because they will pull super high ratings. Mad Men would have never made a second season on most networks. Breaking Bad would have never even been greenlit.

Shows like Hell on Wheels show that AMC is trying to build up their stable. They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.

If you are arguing on here relative to ratings, yeah, you're right. These shows are not going to appeal to Joe Sixpack the way Two and a Half Men or Two Broke Girls or The Kardashians or some Paris Hilton show would. Some of the best shows on TV in the old days, like Hill Street Blues, would have never completed their first season these days.

Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV. If Dish is committed to only carry shows that are loved by the same people who love Housewives of LA/New York/Chicago/Miami/ etc. then it's a sad day. The Top 10 list includes The Bachelorette/The Bachelor, America's Got Talent, Two Broke Girls, on cable Pawn Stars, WWE, American Pickers; Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.


Ratings are the only fair way to evaluate the value of a channel, at least in the commercial TV category. I pay for HBO a la carte because I like the quality and diversity of programming they offer. If AMC wants that type of subscriber they're more than welcome to ask DISH to carry their programming a la carte. As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread they don't want that because the number of people such as yourself who would subscribe wouldn't be enough to sustain their programming. So they, and by extension you, want people such as myself who never watches AMC to subsidize your programming. We all do that to an extent (see thread about ESPN) but there's a point where the subsidizing level becomes unreasonable. It appears we have reached that point in DISH's eyes.

#1317 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,594 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:18 PM

I don't disagree. But they are getting there. They basically started the experiment with Mad Men (I believe.) A little cable company decides to gamble and carry an expensive, high quality program none of the networks would carry. It wins best show on TV for years in a row, plus other honors.


So... any guesses as to why AMC keeps jerking the Mad Men creators around with the budget and results in having a skip year where no new episodes of that show air at all?

I mean... you accurately point out that Mad Men was what started it all for AMC, giving it some respectability as a channel with a high-quality program... so if you were AMC... wouldn't you want that show to air every year and not skip a year because you screwed around? And if they wanted to make 16 episodes, would you pay them for 16 or would you force them to scale back to 13?

Then they add another show. And another. And another. Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing, Hell on Wheels.


I might be wrong since I don't watch all of those... but isn't the Killing canceled? And isn't Breaking Bad on its final season when it comes back this year?

Any word on the next big thing from AMC to fill those slots after they get their new higher rates to invest in quality programming?

The only thing I've heard of... is I heard Robert Kirkman optioned another comic book of his (Thief of Thieves) to AMC for a TV series at some point, but I've heard nothing regarding when that show might air.

This is a cable company that is creating extremely high quality shows that the networks and other channels would never carry.


I'm sure AMC has passed on programs too... so while its fair to note Mad Men was passed up by other networks before AMC took the risk... I wonder how many shows AMC has passed on might have been good?

It's not Pawn Stars or Cajun Pawn or Pawn Queens or Storage Wars or Storage Hunters or We Love Storage, in the copycat way stations do these days.


So... how would you classify "Talking Dead" or "Comic Book Men"? I like Talking Dead, so I'm not slamming it... but it isn't a new concept is it?

Comic Book Men is exactly a "reality" show like Pawn Stars... it even does "challenges" like some of those shows... so before you slam the copycats, you might want to check AMC's other programming slots to see what they are doing the rest of the time :)

Me - I'm more interested in quality than how many people watch. If someone is more interested in how many people watch as an indicator of whether it should be carried, then we're doomed to some extremely crappy TV.


Umm... except the very network you are cheering for doesn't care if you like the show or not either! They only care about their ratings. AMC will cancel a show in a heartbeat if the ratings go down... no matter how good you or I think it is.

Ratings matter.

That's why anything stays on the air on commercial television. Lots of good shows pull poor ratings and get canceled while crap shows get strong ratings and stay... that's the unfortunate state of things.

Sorry, I just don't agree with all of you making the ratings argument.


It doesn't matter whether you agree or not... the advertisers won't pay for commercial spots on a low-rated show... so AMC won't keep a low-rated show on the air. That's how TV works.

I've seen a lot of shows that I liked (Firefly, Dollhouse, Journeyman, Awake, Ringer, Tru Calling, etc.) get canceled after 1 or sometimes 1.5 seasons because of low ratings... even if there were lots of fans, just not enough to sustain the show.

I pay for HBO a la carte because I like the quality and diversity of programming they offer. If AMC wants that type of subscriber they're more than welcome to ask DISH to carry their programming a la carte. As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread they don't want that because the number of people such as yourself who would subscribe wouldn't be enough to sustain their programming.


Exactly... Channels like AMC always have the option to be a la carte and name their price... but most of them know they make more money taking 25 cents from 10 million subscribers in a particular tier than they would asking $2-$5 a la carte.

The other thing that comes into play with a channel like AMC.. I only watch the Walking Dead... and it has 13 episodes... so if I could get AMC a la carte, I would sign up for about 3 months of the year to watch Walking Dead and then drop it again. I wouldn't keep AMC year round when I only watch Walking Dead (and Talking Dead that airs afterwards of course).

AMC knows it is less likely a person jumps up a tier for a couple of months then jumps down just for their channel... so they can depend on that revenue year round.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#1318 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,743 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:20 PM

They are not big enough to do it the way they would if they had NBC money. And I hoped to watch them continue on their journey.

NBC has their own way to mess things up ... so perhaps they would not be the best guiding light for AMC? :D

AMC has caused its own problems with these shows ... they probably should find their way to better networks.

#1319 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 07 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

NBC has their own way to mess things up ... so perhaps they would not be the best guiding light for AMC? :D

AMC has caused its own problems with these shows ... they probably should find their way to better networks.


Yep, AMC sure has made some mistakes with their wildly popular and successful shows. :rolleyes: You seem to have a lot of hatred towards them. You don't place any blame for this fiasco on Dish?

#1320 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,743 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 July 2012 - 07:05 PM

Yep, AMC sure has made some mistakes with their wildly popular and successful shows. :rolleyes:

Yes ... they don't have enough of them. One successful show at a time does not make a successful network. Several successful shows overlapping year round makes a successful network.

BTW: Do you watch any of them?




Protected By... spam firewall...And...