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

DirecTV Disses Broadcasters


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,387 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:44 PM

They use each other for leverage because the contracts have different end dates. Directv's contract with local station A runs out on July 1 2013, Dish's on Feb 1, 2014, Comcast's on Oct 1, 2014. That's the way the stations want it, because they know it'll help them. If a station contract with everyone ran out on the same day, they could all decide to ignore the station's demands, knowing that their subscribers won't have another provider to run to.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


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

#22 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,387 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:57 PM

Strait a la cart we be way higher in cost. A hybrid form is the way to go IMHO.

 

 

I don't buy it. That's only true if you want to have a similar number of channels to what you have now. I think for most of us, there are anywhere from a handful to a couple dozen at most of the packaged channels we watch (that excludes stuff you pay extra for like HBO, additional RSNs or whatever)

 

My cable company offers a basic tier with about two dozen channels, an expanded basic with about 100 (not including HD/SD duplicates or music) and a digital tier with about 200 or 250. I get the package with 100 even though the digital tier is only another $15/month or so, because when I looked through the channel list there was only one channel I knew for sure I'd watch (BBC America) and a few others that I might find something interesting on if I looked, but there are enough channels that already have "stuff I might find interesting if I looked" that I don't need more.  If I could pick up and choose, I might grab 20 of them. If they tried to charge me the same for those 20 that I'm paying for 100 now, I'd trim the list further until I did save money.

 

The big companies like Viacom and Disney are going to make less money in the future. That's just a fact they're going to have to get used to. There are all kinds of new places for people to spend their dollars that didn't exist a decade ago (smartphones, for example) but the average person isn't making any more money than they did a decade ago. Something's gotta give, and it has been music and TV - music first, due to people being able to buy single songs for 99 cents or $1.29 instead of entire $15 CDs, and now TV, as people decide $100 is ridiculous to spend on TV each month and cut the cord.

 

They'll either lose money from a la carte and but still have contact with their audience (and have a much better idea what people really want to see, based on what people are willing to pay for) or they'll lose money due to people cutting the cord, and lose many of those customers, and their future families, forever. If they drag their feet on a la carte, it is only going to make their future look more bleak in the long run.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#23 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 427 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:59 PM

Strait a la cart we be way higher in cost. A hybrid form is the way to go IMHO.

I agree.  And the point of departure should be that all sports channels, including ESPN, be available on a separate, sports-tier.


Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#24 OFFLINE   mystic7

mystic7

    Icon

  • Banned User
  • 632 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2007

Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:57 AM

The objective of a local broadcaster is to get their product watched by as many eyeballs as possible.  As I understand it, local stations are currently compensated by local advertisers, possibly by networks (if affiliated) and other distributors (cable, satellite, etc.).  It would seem local stations could charge local advertisers more with more total viewers so the other distributors seem to be providing them a service rather than costing them.

 

The hearing is currently underway and the viewpoints between the parties seems to be wide and deep.

I've said this for years. It doesn't make sense that providers expose broadcasters to millions of more people than they can reach on their own yet the providers have to pay for the privilege.



#25 OFFLINE   joshjr

joshjr

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,353 posts
  • LocationNE Oklahoma
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:09 AM

I've said this for years. It doesn't make sense that providers expose broadcasters to millions of more people than they can reach on their own yet the providers have to pay for the privilege.

 

Not to mention that the satellite providers have to pay the cost to have the setup just to be able to air those channels.  I don't think it should be free but my goodness show some appreciation.


Directv & Sunday Ticket Sub Since 8/19/2008
HR24-200 Leased, HR24-200 Owned, R22-200 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR22-100 Owned, HR34-700 Leased. 5 LNB Setup W/SWM 16 Switch
Sony KDL-46HX800

#26 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,387 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 14 June 2013 - 11:01 AM

The laws as written today are really one-sided towards broadcast TV stations. Cable and satellite providers who lose a local station that's holding out in negotiations can't make arrangements directly with the networks to carry their feeds, or offer stations from other areas.

 

If providers were free to sub a network feed whenever there was a dispute that resulted in a station going off air that would seem to be a good middle ground. Some subscribers would be happy (the ones who just want to watch sports or Survivor) and some would still be unhappy (those who want that station for news or other local content) That way both sides would have some leverage, rather than the fairly one sided negotiations that happen now.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#27 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,113 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:43 PM

I don't buy it. That's only true if you want to have a similar number of channels to what you have now. I think for most of us, there are anywhere from a handful to a couple dozen at most of the packaged channels we watch (that excludes stuff you pay extra for like HBO, additional RSNs or whatever)

My cable company offers a basic tier with about two dozen channels, an expanded basic with about 100 (not including HD/SD duplicates or music) and a digital tier with about 200 or 250. I get the package with 100 even though the digital tier is only another $15/month or so, because when I looked through the channel list there was only one channel I knew for sure I'd watch (BBC America) and a few others that I might find something interesting on if I looked, but there are enough channels that already have "stuff I might find interesting if I looked" that I don't need more. If I could pick up and choose, I might grab 20 of them. If they tried to charge me the same for those 20 that I'm paying for 100 now, I'd trim the list further until I did save money.

The big companies like Viacom and Disney are going to make less money in the future. That's just a fact they're going to have to get used to. There are all kinds of new places for people to spend their dollars that didn't exist a decade ago (smartphones, for example) but the average person isn't making any more money than they did a decade ago. Something's gotta give, and it has been music and TV - music first, due to people being able to buy single songs for 99 cents or $1.29 instead of entire $15 CDs, and now TV, as people decide $100 is ridiculous to spend on TV each month and cut the cord.

They'll either lose money from a la carte and but still have contact with their audience (and have a much better idea what people really want to see, based on what people are willing to pay for) or they'll lose money due to people cutting the cord, and lose many of those customers, and their future families, forever. If they drag their feet on a la carte, it is only going to make their future look more bleak in the long run.

You are dreaming if you think stockholders making less money is acceptable. They will go out of business before they give up their income. And TV is one place where Hollywood is just to strong at this time to simply go to a format that won't pay them nearly as much money. If you go strait a la cart, they would lose hundreds of millions if they didn't raise the costs of each channel exponentially. You just wont save money. And the further you shave your list the higher the prices would get. There is a min amount they'd need to keep all their shows. The amount of money they get from advertising would have to be made up for, and that's just so much more than people think.

#28 OFFLINE   goinsleeper

goinsleeper

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 673 posts
Joined: May 22, 2012

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:41 PM

Strait a la cart we be way higher in cost. A hybrid form is the way to go IMHO.

100% agree!  Having some form of base package, then adding channels to it would be a better bet than full a la carte.


My posts, whether fact or opinion, are my own and in no way represent DirecTV or any affiliated enterprise or corporation.

#29 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,387 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:46 PM

You are dreaming if you think stockholders making less money is acceptable. They will go out of business before they give up their income. And TV is one place where Hollywood is just to strong at this time to simply go to a format that won't pay them nearly as much money. If you go strait a la cart, they would lose hundreds of millions if they didn't raise the costs of each channel exponentially. You just wont save money. And the further you shave your list the higher the prices would get. There is a min amount they'd need to keep all their shows. The amount of money they get from advertising would have to be made up for, and that's just so much more than people think.

 

 

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about the record labels, and look where their revenue & profit is now compared to 10 or 15 years ago. The same fate awaits the TV conglomerates. They can either embrace the change and control their future, or push to keep things the way they are now for as long as possible and have the future decided for them.

 

The constant price increases for cable and satellite are starting to push more and more to cut the cord and create their own a la carte plan by buying access to stuff they want over the internet (Netflix, MLB TV and so on) Especially younger viewers. That's gotta scare the living crap out of these guys, the 18-30 market used to be their biggest target, now it is the one leaving behind traditional cable/satellite in the largest numbers. Why should anyone believe they'll be back when they get older, after they get used to life without traditional TV?


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#30 OFFLINE   goinsleeper

goinsleeper

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 673 posts
Joined: May 22, 2012

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:54 PM

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about the record labels, and look where their revenue & profit is now compared to 10 or 15 years ago. The same fate awaits the TV conglomerates. They can either embrace the change and control their future, or push to keep things the way they are now for as long as possible and have the future decided for them.

 

The constant price increases for cable and satellite are starting to push more and more to cut the cord and create their own a la carte plan by buying access to stuff they want over the internet (Netflix, MLB TV and so on) Especially younger viewers. That's gotta scare the living crap out of these guys, the 18-30 market used to be their biggest target, now it is the one leaving behind traditional cable/satellite in the largest numbers. Why should anyone believe they'll be back when they get older, after they get used to life without traditional TV?

Because the price will only go up for internet content as well.  The more TV conglomerates that go under, the more expensive everything becomes for those cord cutters.  It would really need to be killed at the roots of it all, the content owners.  But as long people are out to make money, this cycle will churn on.


My posts, whether fact or opinion, are my own and in no way represent DirecTV or any affiliated enterprise or corporation.

#31 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,387 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:04 AM

People who cut the cord usually leave some content behind they wanted that was included in their cable/sat plan that they can't get once the cord is cut. Maybe they watched Game of Thrones and had to give it up, maybe they can't get their local NFL team so they go somewhere else to watch or decide their team wasn't going to win the Super Bowl anyway and do something else on Sunday afternoons. They make the decision to cut the cord despite losing access to a few things they'd like to keep. If the the price for accessing it on the Internet goes up too much as well, they'll just give it up entirely. There are very few people who must have Game of Thrones, or Honey Boo Boo, and even football can't sustain price increases forever.

 

The content owners can continue to be out to make more and more money all they want, but with the average consumer not seeing any real increase in their income over the past decade, and with other expenses they give a high priority to increasing also (internet and cell phone) something has to give. The money has to come from somewhere. The 1% who are seeing big income increases aren't going to subsidize everyone else's TV habit. The content owners are going to be the losers, because people can't cut back on their mortgage/rent, utilities, car payments, insurance, food etc. as easily as they can cut back on TV. The more people that do it, and report to their friends that it wasn't as bad as they thought, the more that will do it and not feel like they're missing out.

 

Twenty years ago my brother was that weirdo who doesn't own a TV. Now no one thinks that's weird anymore. If the content owners don't adjust to the future really damn quick, pretty soon people without TV will be no more odd than people without a landline telephone are today.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#32 OFFLINE   jdspencer

jdspencer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,566 posts
Joined: Nov 07, 2003

Posted 15 June 2013 - 04:51 AM

As was alluded to above, I think that the locals should PAY DirecTV to get their signals out to as many people as possible.

Afterall, DirecTV is offering a service and therefore should be paid for that service.


DirecTV since '96, Waivers for ABC, CBS, NBC, & Fox, HR23-700 & HR24-500/AM21, using ethernet based MRV.

#33 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 578 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 15 June 2013 - 07:05 AM

Because the price will only go up for internet content as well.  The more TV conglomerates that go under, the more expensive everything becomes for those cord cutters.  It would really need to be killed at the roots of it all, the content owners.  But as long people are out to make money, this cycle will churn on.

 

I'm sorry but this is just mythology.

 

It's very simple.  Does anyone pay $10 a song on iTunes?  $5?  $3?

 

No doubt there are people in the music supply chain that don't make as much money as they used to or possibly don't even exist anymore.  And the problem with that is....?  If one doesn't add value to something - value recognized by the consumer - then they shouldn't exist.

 

Spare me any comments about the music industry being different.  That has been argued on this forum over and over and over.  Nobody has ever proven why it is different.



#34 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,729 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:40 AM

Spare me any comments about the music industry being different.  That has been argued on this forum over and over and over.  Nobody has ever proven why it is different.

OK. You're wrong and there is no reason to waste words proving it to you. :D

As for the rest of the readers of this thread ... follow the money.

How does a person in the music industry get paid? They get paid royalties based on what role they played in the production. The writers of the words and music get paid a royalty. The artist that recorded the track gets paid a royalty. The producers get their cut as well. They get paid via ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for public performances such as radio and Internet plus the Internet has it's own payment structure. Most of this payment structure has been in place for decades ... tracing back to when songs were only sold on albums and eight tracks. The main change in the process coming from new fees when someone discovered they were not getting paid for a distribution channel.

How about video production and the movies? With linear distribution a channel is paying for rights to air based on the number of subscribers and expected audience. Subscribers are paying for the channels whether they watch or not. Someone who owns the rights to a production can make money simply by contracting with a channel to carry their content. Or they can create their own channel to sell to satellite and cable. In recent years content owners have been able to add this income by selling DVDs, BluRays, digital copies and streaming. But the backbone of their income is the linear channel.

A la carte attacks the backbone. If people are able to pick and choose their linear channels it is a given that less people will choose certain channels than are currently forced to subscribe via the tier system. (If people would subscribe to every channel willingly there would be no call for a la carte.) Reduce the number of subscribers to a channel and one reduces the expected audience. Producers selling content to linear distribution end up making less money. They don't like making less money. In order to make up for the less money they need to either charge linear channels more (which translates to higher costs for the linear channels which will certainly be passed on to the subscribers) or they will need to charge non-linear customers more. Does anyone believe a mainstream video producer wants LESS money for their work?

Anyone who thinks that a la carte can be put in place and magically all the prices remain the same per channel or per content is only deceiving themselves. And anyone who thinks a linear channel would go a la carte unless there was no other option is likewise deceived.

But, as you note, we've had this discussion before.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#35 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,210 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:56 AM

OK. You're wrong and there is no reason to waste words proving it to you. :D

As for the rest of the readers of this thread ... follow the money.

How does a person in the music industry get paid? They get paid royalties based on what role they played in the production. The writers of the words and music get paid a royalty. The artist that recorded the track gets paid a royalty. The producers get their cut as well. They get paid via ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for public performances such as radio and Internet plus the Internet has it's own payment structure. Most of this payment structure has been in place for decades ... tracing back to when songs were only sold on albums and eight tracks. The main change in the process coming from new fees when someone discovered they were not getting paid for a distribution channel.

How about video production and the movies? With linear distribution a channel is paying for rights to air based on the number of subscribers and expected audience. Subscribers are paying for the channels whether they watch or not. Someone who owns the rights to a production can make money simply by contracting with a channel to carry their content. Or they can create their own channel to sell to satellite and cable. In recent years content owners have been able to add this income by selling DVDs, BluRays, digital copies and streaming. But the backbone of their income is the linear channel.

A la carte attacks the backbone. If people are able to pick and choose their linear channels it is a given that less people will choose certain channels than are currently forced to subscribe via the tier system. (If people would subscribe to every channel willingly there would be no call for a la carte.) Reduce the number of subscribers to a channel and one reduces the expected audience. Producers selling content to linear distribution end up making less money. They don't like making less money. In order to make up for the less money they need to either charge linear channels more (which translates to higher costs for the linear channels which will certainly be passed on to the subscribers) or they will need to charge non-linear customers more. Does anyone believe a mainstream video producer wants LESS money for their work?

Anyone who thinks that a la carte can be put in place and magically all the prices remain the same per channel or per content is only deceiving themselves. And anyone who thinks a linear channel would go a la carte unless there was no other option is likewise deceived.

But, as you note, we've had this discussion before.

What a part la carte system or at least spitting up the sports channels and the mainly non sports channels?

 

Out of side of the usa sports is in it's own packs.


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#36 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,729 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 15 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

What a part la carte system or at least spitting up the sports channels and the mainly non sports channels?


Any channel that is in a tier would be foolish giving up its tier position to move to a higher tier or a la carte. It is the old adage, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Why would a channel like ESPN want to give up ~20 million DirecTV subscribers for a lesser unknown number? Some hope that ~20 million would still choose to subscribe? Some hope that the lesser number would be willing to pay more to have ESPN than they currently do just so ESPN can break even? It is too a big a risk.

Staying in the lowest tier is best for ESPN ... and if DirecTV or some other company plays hardball and says "no, we will sell you a la carte or in a sports tier" ESPN has the clout to respond "no, lowest tier or no carriage".

Every other sports channel wants to be ESPN. Pulling that off at a national level is difficult. For regional sports it is easier for DirecTV to push back and say "no, we'll place you in Choice regionally and the sports pack nationally" and DirecTV can live without any RSN who rejects that placement.

Regardless of what the customers want or the carriers want, the control is in the hands of the channel provider. And they want as many subscribers as possible - even if they have to risk having no subscribers to get a better tier placement. ESPN in the lowest tier and local RSNs in the next tier has become the defacto standard. As long as all RSNs are treated equally others are unlikely to demand the lowest tier.
 

Out of side of the usa sports is in it's own packs.


Welcome to America. :)
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#37 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 578 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:20 PM

How does a person in the music industry get paid? They get paid royalties based on what role they played in the production. The writers of the words and music get paid a royalty. The artist that recorded the track gets paid a royalty. The producers get their cut as well. They get paid via ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for public performances such as radio and Internet plus the Internet has it's own payment structure. Most of this payment structure has been in place for decades ... tracing back to when songs were only sold on albums and eight tracks. The main change in the process coming from new fees when someone discovered they were not getting paid for a distribution channel.

 

 

This explains the process up to the point where the pile of bits comes out of the production company as finished product.  Let's leave the distribution of the product out of it for a moment.

 

Is this not essentially the same as a movie or TV series up to the same point?

 

Lots of people contribute in various ways - one produces a pile of bits with nothing but sound; the other produces a pile of bits with sound and picture.

 

It's the distribution channels that are currently different.  One was recently disrupted and the other is still entrenched.

 

 

How about video production and the movies? With linear distribution a channel is paying for rights to air based on the number of subscribers and expected audience. Subscribers are paying for the channels whether they watch or not. Someone who owns the rights to a production can make money simply by contracting with a channel to carry their content. Or they can create their own channel to sell to satellite and cable. In recent years content owners have been able to add this income by selling DVDs, BluRays, digital copies and streaming. But the backbone of their income is the linear channel.

 

TV channels buy content from a production company that it may or may not have a minority ownership in.  Exclusive rights to distribute, at least in a geographic area (for example, US vs UK).  Then bundle a bunch of this stuff to make a stream, often repeating over and over, called a channel.  They then super bundle these channels and induce (to varying degrees) proxies/carriers to distribute to consumers.

 

Very similar to music being bundled onto a CD, distributed through a label, packaged into super bundles, and pushed onto retail stores to distribute to consumers.

 

Many hold the view that the TV supply chain has to be this way.  I do not.  No more than the music industry had to be the way it was.  Most retail music stores are gone.  Places still selling music do so as a minor part of their floor space as an incentive to get people in - and I'd wager that is fading quickly and won't be around much longer.  Music labels are likewise becoming less and less useful as the artist/production company can just go straight to iTunes or whatever.

 

 

A la carte attacks the backbone. If people are able to pick and choose their linear channels it is a given that less people will choose certain channels than are currently forced to subscribe via the tier system. (If people would subscribe to every channel willingly there would be no call for a la carte.) Reduce the number of subscribers to a channel and one reduces the expected audience. Producers selling content to linear distribution end up making less money. They don't like making less money. In order to make up for the less money they need to either charge linear channels more (which translates to higher costs for the linear channels which will certainly be passed on to the subscribers) or they will need to charge non-linear customers more. Does anyone believe a mainstream video producer wants LESS money for their work?

Anyone who thinks that a la carte can be put in place and magically all the prices remain the same per channel or per content is only deceiving themselves. And anyone who thinks a linear channel would go a la carte unless there was no other option is likewise deceived.

 

A similar argument was made about music and it hasn't cost the consumer more.  It's probably true some are making less money in music.  It's also probably true that some are no longer working in that business (like retail music stores).  Why is that a problem?  Consumers voted on how they viewed the value of the product and it is what it is.

 

Understandable that the TV biz doesn't want to kill it's cash cow.  Too bad.  The TV biz brought this on themselves with greed and waste.  These trends won't be stopped.  Adapt or die.

 

Your argument just states the way it is - not the way it must be.  It's nothing but speculation regarding what affect a change would cause.  We have an example of a drastic change in the music industry that is a whole lot more convincing than speculation.



#38 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 418 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:27 PM

The price a programmer charges is what the market will bear. I don't know why so many people fail to comprehend this simple concept. It doesn't matter if it's an a la carte model or bundling. The market sets the price, not the programmer.



#39 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 578 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:36 PM

The price a programmer charges is what the market will bear. I don't know why so many people fail to comprehend this simple concept. It doesn't matter if it's an a la carte model or bundling. The market sets the price, not the programmer.

 

I'm assuming by programmer you mean something like the group of ESPN channels?

 

Are you saying that the price ESPN could get would be the same if it was offered a la carte as it is bundled with a tier?  How is that possible?  Lots of people could care less about ESPN and surely wouldn't pay for it - via their tier - if they didn't have to.  But if they don't have any choice - other than not having lots of other programming - then they will grudgingly pay for it.  For now anyway.



#40 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 427 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:17 PM

The price a programmer charges is what the market will bear. I don't know why so many people fail to comprehend this simple concept. It doesn't matter if it's an a la carte model or bundling. The market sets the price, not the programmer.

 

That's not true.  Look up Price Maker vs Price Taker.

 

ESPN, by virtue of its dominance, is a price maker.  It's extracting monopoly-like rents from the Pay-Tv consumer.  In fact, over 50% of Disney's market value of 115B is attributable to ESPN.


Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/




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