Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Draconis, Jun 5, 2012.
Here we go again.
At this rate, stations will price themselves out of the market and go dark. If nobody is watching them, they can't sell advertising and will go under.
Not a smart strategy it would seem....content provider greed yet again (300%?).
This also happens at Dish, it happens at Comcast...greed greed greed.
You're right Draconis..."here we go again..."
Personally, I'd give them a raise just for their name alone:
I LOVE that! Just not 300% worth of course...
from what data I can gather(as good as it is) there is about 250,000 people in the Bangor DMA of that 37% get CBS & CW from Directv. So about 92,500 people are not seeing any advertising...thats got to hurt. It was over 2 years before an agreement could be made to broadcast CBS in HD thru TWC here. Sounds like they are up to more games...:nono:
I hear this a lot, but DIRECTV and TWC would seem to be the reigning champs of LIL disputes.
Of course when DIRECTV does it, it is for the good of humankind. The other MVPD's are accused of being cheap and/or greedy for even talking about negotiations.
Any idea how much they are paying now?
Remember the days when Broadcast TV lived off commercial ad revenue? Why does it feel like these networks get 95% of their revenue from companies like Directv and Comcast and 5% from ads? It feels like these networks are having their cake and eating it too.
Of course the consumer doesn't help either because if the channel goes dark they threaten Directv/Dish/etc.. thus giving most of the bargaining power to the Networks.
Spring/Summer is usually the season of disputes unfortunately.
Awesome. Hopefully many more to come. They can all go dark from now to the end of time. Good riddance.
That site is a very incomplete list if it's based on "the industry".
I don't think anyone would say that these are good for anyone really. However it's just becoming "the norm" because content providers know customer's won't care who's fault it is they just blame who they pay.
I would just rather have the companies become to make fair deals that everyone can agree with.
It's kind of ironic that the lower their ratings go the more valuable they think their programming is.
Any entity that results in brining down the insanely greedy prices by content sources to consumer users is indeed "good for humankind". DirecTV just happens to do with more success.
I don't understand how these stations have much leverage at all when most people should be able to get them OTA. So if the station is removed, it's really just a percentage of D* subscribers who would really lose the channel, probably just the people in the grade B contour.
Remembering that DIRECTV doesn't include OTA capability in their current offerings, most of those in the other OTA contours lose coverage as well.
Name one network or channel that DIRECTV has stood up to for more than a day or two (leaving out Versus as a given). Success is represented by decisive victory, not simply caving to avoid a takedown.
Swimming in the purple drink?
Have you already forgotten the four day outage of Tribune stations in April?
Standing up to these people is for the good of the customer. People continually forget the basic law of business that has been around since the first business began; overhead + profit margin = what the consumer pays. Channel rates go up > overhead goes up > customer pays more.
Exactly, if DirecTV didn't stand up to these demands our rates would be going up $20-30 dollars a month every year instead of $5.
Have you never negotiated for anything in your life? You always start high so you have room to come down. If you start to low and your first offer gets accepted then you probably just lost money.
For example if you want to sell a TV on Craigslist do you list it for what you actually want, or do you list it higher? I would list it higher, cause you know people are going to offer you less than what you list it for. Then you can just accept the highest offer. Say I want $700 for the TV, I'm going to list it for $800. That way if someone offers $800 or $750 I actually make more then I really want, but if my highest offer is $700 then I still get what I wanted. If my highest offer is $650 I don't sell it. If I list it for $700 and someone calls up right away and offers $700, where they would have been willing to pay $800 or $750 I just lost money that I could have made.
The problem comes when you have unreal expectations like I have seen sometimes. You might find a used TV that is on Craigslist for $500, but you can buy the exact same TV on Amazon new for $400. You contact the person and tell them that and they won't budge off their price of $500 cause they paid $600. That person has unreal expectations.
The same thing happens here. Diversified finds out that Fox in NY just got a 300% increase in their price to DirecTV so they figure they can get 300% too. What they fail to realize is that Fox is more popular than the CW, and LA is a lot bigger market than Bangor, ME. Expecting to get the same kind of increase is unreasonable.
Which is it? They can't reach agreement or that they are always in agreement?