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
- - - - -

Report says DirecTV has "no interest" in WWE Network


  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 08 July 2012 - 06:07 AM

Hmmm with their wrestling library and most PPV's not horrible. I suppose Directv would add it then?

#52 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,828 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:02 AM

Hmmm with their wrestling library and most PPV's not horrible. I suppose Directv would add it then?


PPV is a different beast, its a nice cash cow, and there is a lot less negotiating needed. If DirecTV thinks it can sell a certain number of PPVs, it will get the content for that specific live events.

Fight matches that aren't all acting/staged actually make a pretty penny. Not sure how many would want to pay for wrestling, but I would imagine it is enough to make money.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#53 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:24 AM

Well if they do a premium scheme where they want $14.95 from us then I don't see why Directv wouldn't do it. It's not like they want to be in a basic package that way. Must be Vince overestimated the value of a WWE channel and just assumed all providers would be clamoring for the channel.

#54 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:13 AM

Like I said a long time ago, he couldn't get many clearances for a premium level on demand channel which takes up bandwidth space on servers and computers. If they couldn't get that I don't know why he or anyone else thinks providers were just waiting to add a 24 hour network of theirs to take up actual channel space and to PAY THEM to let it be there like they do USA, ESPN, TNT, etc. Actually this mentality is addressed at the end of this post.


If Directv can't sell it to enough people they'd be losing money on it. When I stopped watching there were around 200,000 people total ordering at I think $50 each? Last I also knew, Directv and other providers get about 60% of that. That translates to $30 a pop for them. Granted I'm using round numbers but $30 * 200,000 is $6,000,000 all providers together were getting. Now, even based by the same split: 60% of $14.95 (rounding up to $15 for simplicity) is $9. In order for this to make financial sense for Directv they along with every other provider out there combined would have to sell this network to a total of 666,667 people. Sorry, I don't see it happening. From a business standpoint it makes no sense for the providers. So:

-It wasn't going to have widespread distribution anyway so the ppvs were still going to have to be offered to those who don't carry it.
-If McMahon in his infinite wisdom decided to hold ppvs or wrestlemania over the heads of the providers to force them to carry it, guess who'd lose? It wouldn't be the providers. He tried this once before and when Directv didn't renew their agreement and went a few months without them being on, it was McMahon and the WWF who suffered and that was when there was still a lot of interest in the product.
-as I said in another post, if somehow, some way it got on every single provider. It still wouldn't matter because the company banks on that ppv revenue and at some point all those ppv events moved to their network are going to wind up being relegated to SNME level or dying days of Clash of Champions type events and new ppvs will wind up back on for them to take even more. They'd have to. They aren't going to make enough off this channel to make up for the loss of the other ppv revenue and new infrastructure of this channel.

The only way this was ever going to work was to be on some sort of package, either a basic one or sports. The idea of a premium channel for $15 that includes all ppvs but one will kill their bottom line and if they are that headstrong will sink them altogether. Sometimes it takes one really, really bad idea to wipe you out no matter how successful you've been. If they continue marching down this road, this is setting up to be that idea.

Edited by zimm7778, 08 July 2012 - 11:19 AM.


#55 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 09 July 2012 - 04:45 PM

http://www.cagesides...s-to-break-even

Read. I read It for the first time now and it states the flaws I discussed in my previous post.

#56 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 09 July 2012 - 04:50 PM

Very good points by Meltzer. Would I subscribe? Probably but not sure a lot of folks would. It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out.

#57 OFFLINE   la24philly

la24philly

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,708 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2010

Posted 09 July 2012 - 04:51 PM

i think that comcast would probably be wwe biggest cable provider that would offer the channel.

alot of WWE shows are on NBC affliates which comcast owns, so I'm not saying offically comcast will carry WWE network, but as it is looking it seems that comcast is seems to be the biggest provider that would.

Directv Premier Sport Packages  NFL ST, MLB EI, NHL CI, NBA LP,

Comcast Triple Play TV ( cheapest tv package for CSN Philly and TCN)


#58 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 09 July 2012 - 04:59 PM

i think that comcast would probably be wwe biggest cable provider that would offer the channel.

alot of WWE shows are on NBC affliates which comcast owns, so I'm not saying offically comcast will carry WWE network, but as it is looking it seems that comcast is seems to be the biggest provider that would.


I don't think Comcast as a whole cares about WWE. I don't think they are waiting for them to fail or anything, but I think they care about them as much as they care about any other shows they don't own. They do not own a stake in the company. As long as the shows perform well, they'll stay on USA/Syfy. They don't, they are gone. This idea of a network is a bad one. It was when they first mentioned it and it's only gotten to be a bigger one now. If they really want to make this a sub only thing then it needs to be Internet streaming, include all the ppvs on it if they want and do it that way. I don't mean On Demand. I mean a live 24 hour streaming channel. This way you leave the TV situation alone altogether. Then when it fails they can just pull the plug on the Internet service without much of an issue as opposed to dealing with providers and contracts that way.

#59 OFFLINE   kevinturcotte

kevinturcotte

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,942 posts
  • LocationOutside Portland, ME
Joined: Dec 19, 2006

Posted 09 July 2012 - 05:15 PM

This is going to make a lot of people like my Uncle mad. He likes Wrestling, and regularly watches/records them on Monday night and Friday night (I think lol). It's included in our subscription, so basically costs nothing (I KINDA see it that way. You pretty much HAVE to have USA and Scyfy to have Directv, so little difficult not to have WWE). He never buys the PPVs, so he's going to see it as WWE and Directv wanting an additional $15-$18 a month to watch his wrestling that he currently gets in his regular package (If Directv even carries it). As a side note, I wonder If USA and Scyfy will drop their costs to Directv, and if Directv would pass that savings onto us? ;) :rolleyes:

#60 OFFLINE   Araxen

Araxen

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 790 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2005

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:16 AM

You have to factor in the people like me who would sub to see all the old 70's, 80's, and 90's shows. There are a lot of us out there that would pay for the channel that do not watch the current product. A million subs seems like a lot though. It's a risk that could pay off and it could also very well bankrupt the company if it fails.
If it ain't in HD, it ain't worth watching!
PSN: Araxen - Xbox: Gamertag: Araxen II - Steam: Araxen - WiiU: Araxen

#61 OFFLINE   Blackbird 13

Blackbird 13

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 2 posts
Joined: Jul 10, 2012

Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:33 AM

Stumbling onto this forum to find out more about the Viacom/DirecTV dispute, and being a diehard professional wrestling fan.. I decided to check this post out as well.

I can't help but agree with the idea that as much as I would LOVE to have a channel showing 1980-2000 pro wrestling (and the WWE owns most all of it that's worth showing from that era), I can't see how the financials would work out. One thing that no one here as mentioned yet is that Vince was looking at adding other shows to the network, not SOLELY WWE or wrestling-related programming.


Also.. I don't understand those of you who "look down" on professional wrestling. Most of the shows on television are equally as "fake". Mariska Hargitay is not actually an SVU detective. Jim Parsons is not a supergenius. Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't actually foul-mouthed Colorado schoolchildren. I don't get the argument that pro wrestling is "fake" any more than someone saying one of those shows is "fake"...

#62 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:23 AM

Has nothing to do with it being fake. I used to hate people telling me that when they watched soap operas, dramas, action shows, and sitcoms. Has to do with what it's become from what I grew up watching. I won't watch it anymore nor will I let my son watch it either. Btw, you forgot to include "reality shows" and anything involving politicians in your list of fake shows.

#63 OFFLINE   Blackbird 13

Blackbird 13

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 2 posts
Joined: Jul 10, 2012

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:45 AM

Has nothing to do with it being fake. I used to hate people telling me that when they watched soap operas, dramas, action shows, and sitcoms. Has to do with what it's become from what I grew up watching. I won't watch it anymore nor will I let my son watch it either. Btw, you forgot to include "reality shows" and anything involving politicians in your list of fake shows.


Far be it from me to tell you how to raise a kid, but the WWE is more kid friendly now than it ever has been, for whatever that is worth.

I'm 29, and grew up watching wrestling, getting into it around 93 (and going back and watching all the videos from the 80s I could get my hands on). I'll agree that it's nothing like it used to be, and that's kind of a shame.


It's crazy how many of the "reality shows" are the "fakest" programs on television, isn't it?

#64 OFFLINE   noahproblem

noahproblem

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 110 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:48 AM

Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't actually foul-mouthed Colorado schoolchildren.



Well that might be debatable :D

#65 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 10 July 2012 - 08:12 AM

Far be it from me to tell you how to raise a kid, but the WWE is more kid friendly now than it ever has been, for whatever that is worth.

I'm 29, and grew up watching wrestling, getting into it around 93 (and going back and watching all the videos from the 80s I could get my hands on). I'll agree that it's nothing like it used to be, and that's kind of a shame.

It's crazy how many of the "reality shows" are the "fakest" programs on television, isn't it?


They stand around talk now. When a 2 hour show has as much wrestling as a 1 hour show did when I was growing up its not interesting. I have no idea why people pay money to go to the arena to watch a little over 20 minutes of in-ring wrestling. Don't forget, McMahon took on the Russo mentality that the best wrestling show they could ever have on TV is a live show with no ring, Its on too late, and I just don't want him watching it unless its old stuff. I have an old Raw vs SD on the wii and he played it the other day. He told me he played the Royal Rumble and had no idea what to do and didn't understand why people kept just showing up and no one was pinning anyone. So, I have the first Flair DVD and showed him the 92 Rumble match.

#66 OFFLINE   la24philly

la24philly

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,708 posts
Joined: Mar 08, 2010

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:34 AM

WWE raw and SD have been horrible to watch lately so many commericals, way to many talking and crap.

last night was the worst in sometime, they had like 6 matches total 4 of them were 2 min or less.

20 min it felt like i was watching a combination of a soap opera trying to become a porno when AJ was proposing to punk.

WWE needs to bring back some of the attitude era and make RAW worth wild, if they do they could get tv providers. But with this current crap theyre showing us, I wouldnt buy it.

Directv Premier Sport Packages  NFL ST, MLB EI, NHL CI, NBA LP,

Comcast Triple Play TV ( cheapest tv package for CSN Philly and TCN)


#67 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:03 AM

Agreed, I like AJ a lot but that was just plain silly last night.

#68 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:12 AM

WWE raw and SD have been horrible to watch lately so many commericals, way to many talking and crap.

last night was the worst in sometime, they had like 6 matches total 4 of them were 2 min or less.

20 min it felt like i was watching a combination of a soap opera trying to become a porno when AJ was proposing to punk.

WWE needs to bring back some of the attitude era and make RAW worth wild, if they do they could get tv providers. But with this current crap theyre showing us, I wouldnt buy it.


That bad huh? And arent they going 3 hours permanently in a couple of weeks? Good luck with that WWE. The company you ended up buying did sooooooo well with it.

#69 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:22 AM

It's a chore watching 2 hours of RAW let alone 3. Unless that extra hour is used for pure wrestling like cruiserweights. Yeah right..

#70 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

It's a chore watching 2 hours of RAW let alone 3. Unless that extra hour is used for pure wrestling like cruiserweights. Yeah right..


Actually I'm in the mood, so I'll give my suggestions as an old school former fan later. No one may care, but I think my suggestions might help. No, it won't be something dumb like take the mats off the floor or anything.

#71 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,160 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:06 PM

And here it is.....

Raw is expanding the 3 hours. For some people, they may think that’s great. Others are shuddering at the thought. Then there are people like me who just shake our heads wondering if USA or WWE bothered to remember the last company who tried this and how it ended up. The short version: It didn’t. But here people sit again about to watch what may be an impending disaster. However, even as I am not a fan I’d like to make a few suggestions as to how they can possibly make Raw a success at 3 hours. Again, I am no expert. My ideas may not help or possibly could hurt. I will tell you the broad answer is not to “just have more wrestling.” Nitro did that, it didn’t work. For three mind numbing hours fans in attendance (I was there for those 3 hour shows twice) and at home watched a whole lot of wrestling. But it was all pointless because the same guys fought the same group of guys, traded wins, and if you happened to remember who won at all by the end of the night you thought no better of either one. So, simply wrestling is not the answer. Their biggest concern in my opinion is to make a 3 hour show not be a 3 hour show the likes of which they’ve done in the past.

Suggestion #1: When the show starts at 8 do a 15-25 minute pregame type show. And by this I mean really do one. When the actual match/show portion of Raw starts do the usual opening then. Have different hosts, let them discuss things in a more intelligent way though not internet site smart. If you want to talk to the announcers calling it like they do in pro sports pregame shows, fine. But all in all it’s a different show complete with a different opening and everything. You also need to give them something to discuss on that show about what’s upcoming that night which leads to….

Suggestion #2: Go back to the old days of coming on the air with a roster of matches already set up for the night. This idea of going to the ring and creating your own matches for the night or McMahon making them on the fly “on air” is tired and old. It’s fine for it to happen every once in a while. It’s happened for years. I remember seeing it happen in syndication. But not every single show. Do not waver off this format most weeks either. The matches advertised happen. Period. Have several, but not so many they all just run together and mean nothing.

Suggestion #3: Give time limits to matches again. Not do it only when it suits you. Not when it makes the guy look under the gun. Every single match that takes place with the exception of one, the main event. It’s 30….and it’s 30 whether it’s got 5 minutes on the air left or 25. Occasionally let the show end with the match still going on. If it’s interesting people will want to tune in or actually go when the show is in town for fear they could miss something. The only exception to this would be if a World or World Tag Team title match was taking place. Yeah, that would mean making that tag title mean something again, but anyhow the time limit policy could lead to…..

Suggestion #4: Turn one of the pointless several belts that mean nothing into something of a TV title. Announce that from here on out, anytime this champion wrestles on TV in a singles match the title is on the line whether it’s a jobber off the street or a main event caliber performer. Time limit: 15 minutes. Also on this note, this does not mean you do the shocking thing I know they’d want to do and have the champion lose to some jobber. You don’t need that. The idea that the title is deemed important enough that it’s being defended each week will automatically give it prestige over time.

Suggestion #5: Most weeks the main event wouldn’t interfere with this because it’d be set to end about 10-20 minutes before 11. You end with a postgame show from the same people who started. Let them get backstage locker room interviews from the people who wrestled. Let them give their opinions of what they saw. Let them talk to the announcers for a minute or two. Make it feel like a sports atmosphere again.

That’s it. Is it so hard to try this? Hey if it worked I and many others might get interested again because it’d be worth checking out. With my ideas you’ve just cut at worst 25 minutes off the show, and at best 45 minutes. I’ve also spotted you a match with the title being defended each week. Now all they’d have to do is plot whatever time is left. If they went back to let’s get here, now to get there, let’s work backwards and see where we start.


EDIT: just realized something might not sound right in Suggestion 3. The time limit for all matches but the main event would be 15 minutes (thus why I have the tv title 15). The main event with the exception of a World or World Tag Team title match is 30 minutes. These two title matches I just referenced would be 1 hour obviously.

Edited by zimm7778, 10 July 2012 - 12:55 PM.


#72 OFFLINE   onan38

onan38

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 255 posts
Joined: Jul 17, 2008

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:33 PM

Looks like Directv is doing a survey. http://www.ewrestlin...ing-wwe-network

#73 OFFLINE   SParker

SParker

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,559 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2002

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:43 PM

Looks like Directv is doing a survey. http://www.ewrestlin...ing-wwe-network


Good news maybe?

#74 OFFLINE   Jeffro

Jeffro

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 75 posts
Joined: Dec 23, 2006

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:08 AM

If anybody has the actual survey, please cut and paste the survey so we can see exactly what it asks. Thanks

#75 OFFLINE   leprechaun106317

leprechaun106317

    AllStar

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 77 posts
Joined: Apr 05, 2011

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

I wish I knew where this survey was.. i'd like to take it. I want the network and I hope DirecTV ends up carrying it.




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