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
- - - - -

An important article on sports costs


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 OFFLINE   caseyf5

caseyf5

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 176 posts
  • LocationBethpage, NY 11714
Joined: Mar 21, 2009

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:45 AM

There's two sides to that.... first, these channels are included in a larger deal, where the more popular channels "carry" the impopular niche channels along. That way the channels get the same exposure as their more popular brother channels.

Second, if a channel is profitable, it doesn't matter how many viewers there are. If you can make a "watch paint dry" show for $3,000, and have the 1 hour show repeat 24/7 for a cost of $10k a month, and you sell $9k a month in advertising, (which is incredibly, stupendously low, but a a few paint manufacturers might bite) plus $5k a month from carriers who are forced to pay the $0.01 this channel sells for as part of a greater package.... the company will walk away with $1,000 a month. Put $500 back in the channel, so that after 1 year you can produce a NEW "watch paint dry" show with a different color, and you still add $500 to the kitty.

These channels are mostly being leveraged by their bigger brothers. And I have tuned in to obscure, never-watched channels before because something caught my attention, and that is what channels are hoping for.

Hello maartena,

When can I start receiving the "watch paint dry" channel. I would even purchase a 3D TV to watch it if it was available in 3D. If not then in 1080p HD would be my second choice. My third choice would be 1080i HD. Nothing less for me! ;) :lol: :D !rolling
My setup: 1 HR34/700 DVR no external HD, 1 HR24/500 DVR using WD 2TB Green HD and Antec MX-1 enclosure (used for CE) and 3 H24/700 receivers, 1 SL5 Dish (4 cable), 1 SWM16 Multiswitch, 1 Wired CCK. 1 Whole Home with DECA, 1 Sharp LC-37GP1U TV, 1 Sony Home Theater System HT-CT550W (Soundbar), 1 Impact 6x2 Component Video Matrix (Switcher) and 2 Sewell 1x2 HDMI Splitters with Ethernet, 3D Support and 4Kx2K Resolution with multiple hdmi cables with Ethernet.

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

#62 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Isn't that the case for ALL channels?

Pick any channel, even the most popular one, and you will find there are more people do not watch that particular channel than there are those that do.


Sure, but at $0.03 a channel vs $3.95 a channel, the economics are more of a player because of the proportionality of the impact on the customer's bill.


That's why in my opinion the answer is some type of hybrid model. There are your core base channels that are less than (pick a number..$0.30 each or whatever) and then there are the high priced channels that become material.
DIRECTV employee

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

#63 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,529 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:23 PM

It's odd that some of these channels survive. There are a number of channels that have fewer than 100,000 viewers during primetime. Do the fees and ad revenues actually make these things profitable? And if you were an advertiser, why would you pay money to advertise on one of these?

That's part of the dilemma these days causing execs to question just how many HD channels are worthy of supporting...but there's a thread for that already.

On this topic - what seems clear is that various Sports networks (ESPN, Comcast SportsNet, Regional Networks, etc.) are among the highest cost channels in the HD inventory. Since those costs are typically baked into the overall subscriber pricing (depending on which package one has), this trend will likely not change anytime in the near future.

I'm as big a sports fan as almost anyone else...but these rising costs are getting ridiculously high for those specific network packages.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#64 OFFLINE   markrogo

markrogo

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 298 posts
Joined: Sep 18, 2007

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:13 AM

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.

#65 OFFLINE   zimm7778

zimm7778

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,157 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2007

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:15 AM

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.


No one is begrudging someone paying the RSN fee who wants the RSNs. The problem is people in these markets who are forced to pay this surcharge for them and do not want them.

#66 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,095 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:41 AM

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.

out side of the usa other systems have sports in there own pack.

No why can't we have a canada theme packs system?
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#67 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,669 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

out side of the usa other systems have sports in there own pack.

No why can't we have a canada theme packs system?

You do realize in Canada the CRTC regulates everything including what channels get licensed, their formats, a mandatory quota of Canadian content, as well as the class each channel is, which basically dictates how they can be offered and in what type of package. Only Category B channels can be optional (mostly specialty channels launched since the late 90s/early 2000s and many digital cable services), Category A is required to be carried by everyone and must be part of the tier that is one step above locals only (our equivelent of Expanded Basic), with the option to be in a higher tier at the discretion of the the individual channel, but the provider has to pay the channel extra to do it. The English language channels include:
Bravo (Bravo if it stuck to its old arts format)
Business News Network (Their version of CNBC)
CBC News Network
CMT
CP24 (Only mandatory for the Greater Toronto Area, kind of like a NY1, News 12, FiOS 1 or Brighthouse 13 but not exclusive to one provider)
CPAC (Their version of C-SPAN)
CTV News Channel
Discovery Channel
E!
Food Network
HGTV
History
MTV (Since it's using the license of TalkTV, it only airs MTV's reality shows and the Movie Awards)
MuchMore (Their version of VH1)
MuchMusic (Their version of MTV if it still aired videos along with whatever scripted shows MTV has and the VMAs)
OLN (OLN if it stuck to outdoor/adventure programming)
OWN (In the list because it used to be Canadian Learning Television)
Rogers Sportsnet (Their version of FSN or CSN)
Showcase (Kind of like a TNT)
Slice (Kind of like Bravo's current format)
Space (Their version of Syfy)
Teletoon (Their version of CN)
The Comedy Network (Their version of Comedy Central)
The Score (Their version of ESPNEWS)
The Weather Network (Their version of The Weather Channel)
Treehouse TV (Their version of Nick Jr or Sprout)
TSN (Their version of ESPN)
TSN2 (Their version of ESPN2)
TVtropolis (Kind of like TBS)
VisionTV (Kind of like INSP)
W Network (Kind of like WE or Oxygen)
YTV (Their version of Nickelodeon)

Digital Category A channels:
bold (Can't really compare it to a US service, it has a lot of culture, drama and some sports from CBC)
BookTelevision
documentary
Fashion Television
G4 Canada (TechTV if it stuck to technology)
H2
ichannel (Kind of like Link TV)
IFC
MTV2
Mystery TV
One (Kind of like what FitTV used to be)
OUTtv (Kind of like Logo)
The Biography Channel
Travel + Escape
Twist TV (In the list because it used to be Discovery Health Canada)

Edited by KyL416, 15 December 2012 - 01:26 PM.


#68 OFFLINE   jcc

jcc

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 45 posts
Joined: Mar 29, 2010

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:42 AM

Teletoon (Their version of CN)
YTV (Their version of Nickelodeon)


If Teletoon and YTV are their versions of CN and Nickelodeon respectively, then why did they launch CN Canada and Nickelodeon Canada

#69 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,095 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

If Teletoon and YTV are their versions of CN and Nickelodeon respectively, then why did they launch CN Canada and Nickelodeon Canada


The CN Canada channel is wholly owned by Teletoon Canada Inc.

They also have Teletoon Retro that is the basically Boomerang
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#70 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,669 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:12 PM

If Teletoon and YTV are their versions of CN and Nickelodeon respectively, then why did they launch CN Canada and Nickelodeon Canada

Nickelodeon Canada is a digital net that's a sister station to YTV, it has mostly cancelled Nick shows and some shows that YTV doesn't want to put on the main channel. YTV still has the first run rights to the more popular current shows like iCarly, Victorious and Spongebob. And as Joe said, CN Canada is owned by Teletoon and has a similar setup with Teletoon having first run rights to most content.

#71 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,095 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

Nickelodeon Canada is a digital net that's a sister station to YTV, it has mostly cancelled Nick shows and some shows that YTV doesn't want to put on the main channel. YTV still has the first run rights to the more popular current shows like iCarly, Victorious and Spongebob. And as Joe said, CN Canada is owned by Teletoon and has a similar setup with Teletoon having first run rights to most content.


Family is often thought of as a de facto Canadian version of Disney Channel.

and Family is still a premium television channel but with out the premium price and on most systems it was part of some of the general theme packs.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#72 OFFLINE   georule

georule

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,584 posts
Joined: Mar 31, 2010

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:36 PM

Part of the problem with trying to design an intermediate "bundling" system is the consumer would have a different concept of what's a good bundle vs what the content providers want. Content providers want to bundle their own products together. What would make sense to consumers is thematic bundles of like content even if it includes 3 or 4 different content providers (say, Discovery, Science, Smithsonian, and NASA TV).
LR(non-CE): HR44, Mits 65C9; Office/FR (CE): HR22-100 + AM21, Mits 60737 + Mits 3DA1 3D adapter. Spare bedroom (non-CE), HR23. Genie WHDVR, wireless networking (yay!)

#73 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,095 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:15 PM

Part of the problem with trying to design an intermediate "bundling" system is the consumer would have a different concept of what's a good bundle vs what the content providers want. Content providers want to bundle their own products together. What would make sense to consumers is thematic bundles of like content even if it includes 3 or 4 different content providers (say, Discovery, Science, Smithsonian, and NASA TV).


NASA TV is a FTA channel and I thing on DTV it's some how counted as a PSA channel.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#74 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 559 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:19 AM

NASA TV is a FTA channel and I thing on DTV it's some how counted as a PSA channel.


Note Summary III 10-12, specifically 12

http://www.current.o.../fcc/dbs98.html




spam firewall