Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Rate increases coming, could be worse


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#81 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,523 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:48 PM

Are you differentiating between local affiliate and RSN? Otherwise agreed with the side note that the rights are still sold with the idea of making the money back and then some with advertising costs. If you buy the rights to show a game, your advertising goes up for that selected time. The Superbowl being the obvious example.


All I was saying is that the game is not being sold twice because it isn't being sold at all. The viewers are being sold...the local viewers to the local advertisers, the national viewers to the national advertisers.
Dish Network Customer from 1998-2001
DirecTV Customer since October, 2001
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

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

#82 OFFLINE   RD in Fla

RD in Fla

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 519 posts
Joined: Aug 26, 2007

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:28 PM

Those doubting the sustainability of ESPN need to read this article.
http://www.businessw...aoxian (Maoxian)

#83 OFFLINE   Mike Greer

Mike Greer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,612 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah
Joined: Jan 20, 2004

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:42 PM

Ok, here we go:

Obviously, with only 20 channels, the number of viewers for each channel would probably go up. But even if the montly a la carte costs were 25% of the above values, many subscribers would not save much, if any money, at the cost of over 150 channels.

This idea that a la carte pricing would lower costs is based upon the mistaken assumption that the per subscriber cost would remain what it is today under the current tier model. A la carte pricing simply won't work the way its advocates think it will.


But.... You're assuming that the viewers of the channels that went away would just go away. I don't think that's the case. How many viewers were around when there was only 3 or 4 channels to watch? But it doesn't really matter.... Something will have to change. People seem to be getting closer and closer saying ‘screw it!’….

I can afford to pay $200 or $300 a month for TV but I won’t do it. I’ll go back to broadcast TV with a Tivo before I hit $200 and I don’t think I’m alone.

#84 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,523 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:53 AM

But.... You're assuming that the viewers of the channels that went away would just go away. I don't think that's the case. How many viewers were around when there was only 3 or 4 channels to watch? But it doesn't really matter.... Something will have to change. People seem to be getting closer and closer saying ‘screw it!’….

I can afford to pay $200 or $300 a month for TV but I won’t do it. I’ll go back to broadcast TV with a Tivo before I hit $200 and I don’t think I’m alone.


No, as I said, the viewership for each of the remaining channels would go up. But even if each viewer subscribed to, say, half of the remaining channels, they would end up costing about $40 to $50 once you add in the distributor's margin (remember these are the costs to the cable and satellite operators...your cost would be somewhat higher).

$40 for 10 or so channels...show how that's better than what we have now.
Dish Network Customer from 1998-2001
DirecTV Customer since October, 2001
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

#85 OFFLINE   crkeehn

crkeehn

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 344 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Titan25
Here are the top 20 cable channels for 2011, based upon total primetime viewers:


Code:
Channel Millions of viewers
1. USA 3.165
2. Disney Channel 2.647
3. ESPN 2.342
4. TNT 2.232
5. History 1.987
6. Fox News 1.883
7. TBS 1.614
8. A&E 1.561
9. FX 1.532
10. ABC Family 1.462
11. Nick At Nite 1.344
12. SyFy 1.330
13. Discovery 1.288
14. Adult Swim 1.237
15. HGTV 1.205
16. MTV 1.189
17. AMC 1.182
18. Food Network 1.177
19. Comedy Central 1.006
20. Bravo 0.926If you favorite channel is not on this list, it might not survive in an a la carte world.

Ok, I'll bite - keep these channels and get rid of the rest!:lol:


What?????
No BBCA??????
What will I do for My Top Gear and Graham Norton fixes?

Sorry for the awkward post, couldn't get multi-quote to work.

#86 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,020 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:19 AM

Those doubting the sustainability of ESPN need to read this article.
http://www.businessw...aoxian (Maoxian)


I have many a friend and colleague that work there. They aren't going anywhere. They are the 800lb gorilla and they know it.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#87 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,020 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:20 AM

But what if all providers stood up to these high priced sports channels and said enough is enough, sports needs its own package, wouldn't that help the cause? Movie stars have high salaries too, yet movie channels can be put together in their own package.

The true sports fans are willing to pay to get their sports. I know I would pay more to get the Pac 12 Network, as well as many others on here.


Thing is, they won't and everyone knows it. You can't work together, that's collusion and illegal. As soon as someone stands up, another one goes for a short term win and signs them up to try and lure customers away from the one that doesn't have it.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#88 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,020 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

Wait a minute, SR. Maybe I need a third cup of coffee but aren't you arguing for two completely contradictory positions? What is it? Should sports channels like the PAC 12 be a separate tiered package? That's what the article you linked to seems to say DirecTV's position is. Or are they part of the base package? You seem to be telling TheRatPatrol that must be the case.

Please tell me what I'm missing here.


Not at all. I talking about what is desired and what is reality. I'm showing that many customers who don't like sports want it to be tiered. Fair point. D* tries to do that with Pac 12 and what happens? Those that don't care about cost want it no matter what. Again, puts a distributor in a very difficult position. Trying to manage insane cost increases, mostly at the hands of sports, while also delivering a product that SOME people (very passionate) want without impacting everyone.

Very difficult. My point with HBO is that you simply will not see sports in a HBO time a la carte format any time soon, in my opinion. Despite the fact the distributors would love to see that happen to control costs and despite the fact many customers would love to see that, the economics won't allow for it.

The sports channels are often backing into a number based on over reaching on what they promised the team and\or league. Let's take the Lakers channel for example. They grossly overpaid for that product for the next 20 years. Now they have to monetize it across all these distributors. Everyone has to pay a ton of money to make them whole so they can make the Lakers whole. If that channel was only on a sports tier or a la carte as the poster suggested, the channel would be about $50 a month for that one channel in order for TWC to deliver the same revenue to the Lakers. That is because the number of people truly interested in the channel is far far far less than the required distribution the network needs. That's why I say that the HBO model won't work there. It's hard enough to get sports channels into a sports tier (ironic statement, don't you think), but putting them solely a la carte I don't see happening due to the economics at work.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#89 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:25 AM

Satelliteracer, I really appreciate your replies and participation. Thumbs up to you! :righton: :)

The service providers are in a bad position. I certainly wouldn't want to be DirecTV in a fragmenting market.

It would be interesting if someone would try a premium subscription for a limited market channel. But then, I bet the market research has been taken and there just wouldn't be enough subscribers to make this work. You'd need a broader base to support the network. I could see a sports pack consisting of all of these college sports channels popping up. That I would buy. If the package was diverse enough to be a nationwide draw, including people who are simply fans of college sports and not just the alumni of a particular conference, maybe it would work.

Edited by Carl Spock, 15 September 2012 - 11:01 AM.

hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#90 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,523 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

Satelliteracer is exactly correct. Just look at the numbers for ESPN...if split off into a premium it would be prohibitively expensive - something around $200 per month for the subscriber. There are lots of reasons for this situation, from player salaries to league excesses to channel demands, but you can't unring the bell.
Dish Network Customer from 1998-2001
DirecTV Customer since October, 2001
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

#91 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,089 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:24 AM

Again, I do agree - it just comes down to price. Obvisouly, at least for now, DirecTV is easier.. But for many of us it means paying $25+ per month per channel considering how few channels we watch.

Your milage may vary!


The average bill is around $100. You only watch 4 channels?????

If you do, you are a complete outlier.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#92 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,700 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 15 September 2012 - 03:12 PM

Not quite...the game is not being sold, you are. The real business of broadcast television (any channel that runs advertising) is the sale of viewers to advertisers. Your are not the customer, your are the product.


So, we're sort of like dairy cows - here to be milked... ?
Moooo
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#93 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Hall Of Flame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 10,744 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

So, we're sort of like dairy cows - here to be milked... ?
Moooo


Keee-rect! Cows to the left, sheeple to the right.... But at least we in CA are told our herds are happy herds! :sure:
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#94 OFFLINE   Mike Greer

Mike Greer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,612 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah
Joined: Jan 20, 2004

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:16 PM

No, as I said, the viewership for each of the remaining channels would go up. But even if each viewer subscribed to, say, half of the remaining channels, they would end up costing about $40 to $50 once you add in the distributor's margin (remember these are the costs to the cable and satellite operators...your cost would be somewhat higher).

$40 for 10 or so channels...show how that's better than what we have now.


Even if the prices don't go down at least we could take the money wasted on channels that nearly no one wants and spend that on real programming...

I know what you're saying - I don't think it is quite as bad as you do but again... If something doesn't change there won't be as many subs 5 years from now....

#95 OFFLINE   Mike Greer

Mike Greer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,612 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah
Joined: Jan 20, 2004

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:23 PM

The average bill is around $100. You only watch 4 channels?????

If you do, you are a complete outlier.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'a complete outlier' but 4 channels isn't too far off if you don't count my locals (that I don't need to pay for anyway) and showtime.

Discovery, SyFi, Comedy Central and History Channel are pretty much it. I guess I do watch ESPN once in a while but could live without it....

Bottom line - I pay way too much of the convenience of DirecTV...

#96 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:29 PM

Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.

We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.
hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#97 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,543 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:39 PM

Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.

We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


We should have a poll. :) I just counted, and I watch 35 basic cable channels...HBO, Showtime, Starz,...random RSNs for sports packages...and 6 networks.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#98 OFFLINE   spartanstew

spartanstew

    Dry as a bone

  • Registered
  • 12,427 posts
  • LocationWylie, Texas
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:47 PM

Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.

We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.


My favorites list only has 22 Channels. Of those, 90% of my viewing is on 10 channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN, TBS, TNT, USA, HBO, SHO)

I'm sure Directv can't wait to get their hands on your unit.

 
Directv customer since 2000

#99 OFFLINE   PrinceLH

PrinceLH

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 469 posts
Joined: Feb 18, 2003

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:18 PM

I only watch consistantly:

FOX News
AMC
NBCS
Regional Sports Channel
My CBS Affiliate
TV Land
Hallmark
The Weather Channel
Palladium
MGM

If I could just have these, for $20.00 a month, I'd drop the rest!

#100 OFFLINE   davidpo

davidpo

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 59 posts
Joined: Apr 06, 2006

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:56 AM

I'd say in another 10 yrs ,if the current trend of rate increases continues or increases. I would not be surprised to see a mass exdous of subscribers,and the providers will just have to lower their prices or go poof. When the avg bill goes over $100 or higher there will be alot of people going back to ota. Same goes for ticket prices to sporting events at some point people will stop going especially, if the economy keeps going down the tubes.

Then again humans are a dumb lot sometimes,and some just amaze me. I know as far as I'm concerned once the bill hits over $100. I will be going back to 4 channels and netflix or something.




spam firewall