DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Charlie Ergin is the most hated man in Hollywood

3K views 30 replies 24 participants last post by  sat01 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Yep, it is quite a hit piece. They did get some things right, but not all.

But frankly I"m glad Charlie does what he does and how he does it most of the time.
 
#7 ·
Nick said:
"This story first appeared in the April 12 (2012?)
issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine."
I'm sure since a whole year has passed his popularity has probably soared in Hollywood since then! ;)
 
#11 ·
kenglish said:
Wish I could afford to watch TV.
We need to pay more in retrans fees so stations can pay their engineers?
 
#12 ·
actually pretty amusing.

"Services [like Hopper] that undermine the economic fabric of our business aren't just illegal, they potentially destroy our ability to give the public what it wants," CBS chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves tells THR. Adds NBC Broadcasting chairman Ted Harbert, "I think this is an attack on our ecosystem."

What the public wants is less commercials. A no brainer.

I really don't get the "attack on our ecosystem" correlation.

Am I missing something here?:rolleyes:
 
#14 ·
Ok, not sure why people don't see that retrans fees are related to people skipping commercials. Advertisers don't want to pay huge amounts if people are going to skip them. So networks can't charge as much for a spot, so to make up they run more spots. That doesn't make up the difference so they go for the retrans fees.

So if we want fewer commercials, we actually have to watch them (restrict skipping commercials), or move to a HBO model where we pay $12 a channel.
 
#16 ·
jacksonm30354 said:
So if we want fewer commercials, we actually have to watch them (restrict skipping commercials), or move to a HBO model where we pay $12 a channel.
More like $18 (or less) for 8 channels (with HBO being the most expensive premium package).

So is any distributor saving money on retrans fees by forcing their customers to view the commercials on their channels? Or are channel providers the type of businesses that want to force people to view commercials AND pay a monthly fee to view the channel?

If broadcasters want to worry they should worry about Aereo. I do not expect Aereo to win the final court battle, but if they do it redefines retransmission. I would love to see proof of Aereo's claim that each of their user has their own personal antenna and DVR entirely separate from every other user's antenna and DVR. Aereo has limited their legal exposure by only offering in-market retransmission ... but if the court sees them for what they are - a service that provides retransmission of broadcast signals - they will need to follow the rules that apply to cable/satellite/IPTV providers. (And if the court allows their form of retransmission the court will need to rule in such a way that does not destroy the cable/satellite retransmission laws.)
 
#17 ·
Actually, retransmission fees need to be banned for broadcast stations. Once it leaves the tower, it should no longer be under their control.

Also sounds like Madison Avenue chimed in above.
 
#19 ·
Poor Hollywood. Poor TV networks. People are going to skip commercials. That's never happened before. Oh ya, maybe it's happened since the invention of the home VCR. Or the skip button on the DVR remote. Or maybe as far back as the invention of the TV remote control to allow changing the channel without getting off the couch.
 
#20 ·
TimCoh said:
The Elite Liberals in Hollywood want the pheasants to watch the commercials.
Well, I actually agree. Commercials are for the birds.
 
#22 ·
BillJ said:
Poor Hollywood. Poor TV networks. People are going to skip commercials. That's never happened before. Oh ya, maybe it's happened since the invention of the home VCR. Or the skip button on the DVR remote. Or maybe as far back as the invention of the TV remote control to allow changing the channel without getting off the couch.
Before VCR's and DVR's you could still skip commercials. That when you would go to the bathroom! :lol:
 
#23 ·
I always feel sorry for the media corporations. While it's hard to pin down the growth in profits from year-to-year, a typical annual report like Disney's is always informative:
January 2013
Dear Shareholders,
Fiscal 2012 was an exciting year of record performance, as well as innovation and creativity, at The Walt Disney Company. For the second year in a row Disney achieved record net income, revenue, and earnings per share. In fiscal 2012, net income for our shareholders was a record $5.7 billion, an increase of 18% over last year, and revenue was a record $42.3 billion, up 3% from last year. Diluted earnings per share increased 24% to a record $3.13....
In Disney's case, the Media Networks segment profits increased 30% in two years.

The Hollywood Reporter is owned by Guggenheim Partners, LLC. From Wikipedia:
In February 2011, Fortune Magazine which is owned by Time Warner did an investigation into the Guggenheim Partners. They noted that when Magic Johnson bought the Los Angeles Dodgers he was joined by a team which turned out to be the Guggenheim Partners and it was "the main force in the deal, and the eye-popping Dodgers acquisition has been only one of a handful drawing ever more attention to the firm." The magazine continued that "the New York- and Chicago-based operation has been turning up everywhere in Los Angeles. In September, a Guggenheim group spent a reported $370 million for Dick Clark Productions, the company that produces the Golden Globes telecast and So You Think You Can Dance.
It's hard to burrow down into these folks financial interests. But they have significant financial interests associated with corporate media business.

Go get 'um, Charlie!
 
#25 ·
Quote:
January 2013
Dear Shareholders,
Fiscal 2012 was an exciting year of record performance, as well as innovation and creativity, at The Walt Disney Company. For the second year in a row Disney achieved record net income, revenue, and earnings per share. In fiscal 2012, net income for our shareholders was a record $5.7 billion, an increase of 18% over last year, and revenue was a record $42.3 billion, up 3% from last year. Diluted earnings per share increased 24% to a record $3.13....

I wonder what the letter to the employees said?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top