$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by lipcrkr, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. May 3, 2015 #721 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    No one knows how long the Lakers current channel deals are for.

    I don't see them trying to ransom one for the other. I'm not even sure they could.

    I think part of the reason they launched the Dodgers channel separate is because they needed more fees to make it work than what the Lakers channel would have provided since all its contracts are signed for id assume quite a few years. Guess we will see if all the contracts for the Lakers are up at the same time if they will try and roll them into one to get their higher price. I'll be ticked if they do.
     
  2. May 3, 2015 #722 of 921
    Thundershock MN

    Thundershock MN New Member

    9
    4
    Dec 26, 2014
    The Lakers deal with TWCSN/TWCD started with the 2012-13 NBA season and runs for 20 years.

    The length of TWCSN/TWCD's carriage agreement with DirecTV is unknown. Terms are rarely (if ever) disclosed. The best you might see in a press release is DirecTV "agreed to a multi-year deal" with channel x. With that said it appears most deals between programmers & providers are usually in the 5-7 year range in length. I'm basing this on this on the length of time between programming disputes and/or press releases announcing agreements.

    I think the fact that SNLA is wholey owned by the Dodgers ownership had more to do with it being launched as a separate channel. TWC only "manages" aspects of SNLA.

    I think your comment is a big reason you will never see them "merge" TWCSN/TWCD and SNLA, ownership issues notwithstanding.
     
  3. May 4, 2015 #723 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah, both those things go hand in hand I think...
     
  4. May 4, 2015 #724 of 921
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    46
    Mar 18, 2008
    The big difference with that of course is that Comcast used a legal loophole and people got used to it. So at this point the market understands where they have to get it from. A new channel doesn't have that issue and so the PR aspect is completely different. TWC wants/needs it on DIRECTV so therefor they will campaign stating DIRECTV is the bad guy. Comcast doesn't want it on DIRECTV so all they do is give the PR line of "If they want it we will provide it at a fair cost" and we all know what that means.
     
  5. May 4, 2015 #725 of 921
    Yakuman

    Yakuman New Member

    86
    15
    Sep 12, 2009
    Polvos...
    The SNLA dispute reminds me of the Comcast SportsNet Houston disaster. At some people, management needs to say, "OK, we misread the market and we're not going to get $5 a head. So, in order to stop bleeding cash, we need to ask for less."

    After all, this whole RSN bubble mindset doesn't make sense. Americans by the millions are up in arms about pay-TV bills. They want to pay less. which means downward pressure on prices, not upward. Look at how DirecTV rolled out a package called Preferred Xtra, which is specifically designed for people trying to avoid paying for local sports.
     
  6. May 5, 2015 #726 of 921
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,031
    1,655
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Probably not as long as those who made the original call are still around. That's something a new management team can do much more easily, because they can blame the old management team. Like, say, if Comcast was running the show...
     
  7. May 5, 2015 #727 of 921
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,031
    1,655
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    The Dodgers channel issue was mentioned in Directv's quarterly earnings call again. They said they lost about 1000 subscribers over it in the past year, and 2000 in the year before. That means they believe they lost only 3000 subscribers over it during the two seasons the Dodgers have not been on Directv! No doubt they would have lost more if they made everyone in LA pay $5 extra...

    They said since they've lost all they're going to, the channel is worth less to them now. So nothing will change until TWC comes down in price. A lot. They also said something that sounded like a little swipe at the Pac 12, suggesting they were asking for too much money as well.
     
  8. May 6, 2015 #728 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah. I think we have all said the longer it goes the less Time Warner Cable can expect to get for the channel. They are going to lose money forever on this. There's no way around it if they don't get contracts.
     
  9. May 6, 2015 #729 of 921
    Yakuman

    Yakuman New Member

    86
    15
    Sep 12, 2009
    Polvos...
    LA Times in 2014: "With more than 1.2 million subscribers in Los Angeles, DirecTV has an almost 30% share of the market" or almost 360,000 people. Of course, there's a bunch of other places like Vegas that are "local" to the Dodgers per MLB.
     
  10. May 6, 2015 #730 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    I tried to figure it out once. I think it's close to 10 million in their territory.
     
  11. May 7, 2015 #731 of 921
    juniormaj

    juniormaj Legend

    721
    20
    Feb 9, 2009
    Newbury...
    Something that seems to never get mentioned in the theories of "merging" TWCSN and SNLA is that TWCSN isn't just a "Lakers Channel", so it wouldn't be as simple as "Lakers in the winter and Dodgers in the summer". They do also carry the Galaxy and the Sparks, D-League games, and some high school sports. While none of those likely get the viewing numbers of the Lakers, they do overlap and coincide with baseball season, which would cause scheduling collisions for a merged channel. I suppose an "alt" channel could fix some of that, but I also think the "alt" channel would have to be active more than not. I think the Galaxy deal with TWCSN is 10 years, but I'm not sure what the Sparks have for a deal.

    I know the major reason a merger wouldn't happen is the fact that the 2 channels aren't owned by the same entity, as others have mentioned. I just thought I'd throw in this tidbit.
     
  12. May 8, 2015 #732 of 921
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,335
    131
    Jul 21, 2008
    Other RSN's have Near full time alt feeds and other not to log ago made there alt feeds go full time (mainly just filler)
     
  13. May 8, 2015 #733 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    Oh they'd have to have an alt feed. No question. Heck when the Lakers play decent there's several months of overlap right there.

    Although heaven forbid they show either on over the air channels again....

    But it won't ever happen anyway so no reason to speculate on that. :(
     
  14. May 8, 2015 #734 of 921
    juniormaj

    juniormaj Legend

    721
    20
    Feb 9, 2009
    Newbury...
    So, that wasn't a problem this year, then.

    And as far as "over the air", yeah, Lakers and Dodgers are missed on good old KCAL9.
     
  15. May 8, 2015 #735 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    Even if neither team makes the playoffs there's about 6 to 8 weeks of overlap each year if you count spring training games too. About 3 to four if you don't I believe.
     
  16. milton

    milton Cool Member

    266
    14
    Mar 12, 2011
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-25/charter-said-to-near-deal-for-time-warner-cable-at-195-a-share

    If Charter buys TWC, how does this change the situation, if any?

    On one hand, they may just write it off as a cost of the acquisition like Comcast was going to do,.

    However, if Charter territories have the channel, that could be added pressure on Directv. As of now, Directv probably hasn't lost hardly any customers in those territories without TWC. However, the Charter territories could now start to flip.
     
  17. keenan

    keenan Godfather

    612
    7
    Feb 8, 2005
    Isn't Charter the No.2 cable TV provider in the market? If so and the channel does show up on Charter systems then I'd say it would definitely put pressure on DirecTV, although without a price drop I think DirecTV will still refuse to carry it. Depends on what sort of defection numbers they see and I'm guessing it won't be many.
     
  18. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,145
    1,593
    Nov 13, 2006
    Depends on what area you are talking about. I'm in a charter area. Charter has a decent footprint around here, but if you head further south into Orange County which is also a huge area I believe cox is the majority provider.

    And I think the idea of the write down was all speculation. I don't think anyone ever confirmed that would actually happen.

    Also, this situation isn't any different than with Comcast, because Comcast would have also gotten all of charters areas in Southern California if the Time Warner Cable deal had gone through.
     
  19. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    11,031
    1,655
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Given that 30% of the LA market is already TWC and already has had their chance to switch to get the Dodgers channel, Directv probably has a pretty good idea of how many they'd lose if another x% chunk that is Charter also got the channel. They don't seem to think they lost enough to be noticeable when it was basically a third of the LA market, so even if every LA household was able to get that channel through cable I doubt they'd bite at anything like the current asking price.

    The ratings for the channel have been terrible - there are sometimes more people in the stadium than watching on TV. TWC has about 1.5 million subscribers, which means they're only getting a few percent of their subscribers watching the game. I can't see how the math works in Directv's favor to add $5/month to everyone's bill for something only a few percent of customers want. They'd probably lose more LA area residents to Dish seeking cheaper prices than they'd gain by carrying the Dodgers games.
     
  20. jeret

    jeret Mentor

    78
    4
    Apr 22, 2007

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements