DBSTalk Forum banner

DirecTV/Viacom Dispute?

433K views 3K replies 511 participants last post by  NewForceFiveFan 
#1 ·
So, I was just flipping through channels and when I stopped on Nick, I happened to see a crawl at the bottom of the screen.

It states:

Attention DirecTV Customers - Call 1-800-531-5000 Now!
Tomorrow Night, DirecTV will drop this and 25 other channels.
You will lose Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, BET, VH1, Spike, TV Land and many more. You can stop them! Call now and demand that DirecTV keep these channels on the air. You must be at least 18 years old to call.

This is the first I've heard about any DirecTV/Viacom dispute and haven't seen the crawl on any other Viacom channels. Also, I would assume that the crawl would have started running prior to the night before.

Any one have any information on this?

Dan
 
#2,277 ·
Guesst925XTU said:
We are a 4 person household with 2 HD DVRs and 2 HD receivers. I can honestly say that in the past year nobody has watched Palladia, Centric, Tr3s, CMT, Logo, VH1 Classic, TeenNick, Nick Jr., Spike, BET, VH1, TV Land or Comedy Central.

If we lose the Viacom channels so be it, just don't raise our bill!!! Personally I would think it would be great if we could only pay for the channels we actually watch.
find statements like this amusing - I don't watch it so I don't care - remember the next channels that may have the same issue are ones that you DO watch, then what would your comments be.

It should not matter if you watch it or not, it is the principle of the thing. I can say the exact same thing about the dedicated sports channesl, have not watched anything on a sports channel since I got satillite around 1996 and never watched it on cable OTA prior to that date, so basicly can say the same exact thing about sports channels.

Ala-carte channels are the same as the new shared data plans for cell service - be careful what you ask for, you might get it and then realize it is not exactly what you thought you would get - carriers and signal providers are out to make a profit, and will price to get that profit, so instead of saving you money they make more money.
 
#2,278 ·
fleckrj said:
Sure you can. Viacom claims that 20% of DirecTV viewers watch their channels. That is a minority of the DirecTV customers, but it represents a large part of the Viacom viewership. so it does work both ways. DirecTV does not need Viacom, but Viacom needs DirecTV. The dispute will be resolved eventually, but there no reason for DirecTV to rush.
Total baloney. See: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3054570#post3054570

And even if the bogus "only 20%" B.S. was accurate how well would DirecTV do without 20% of its customers? Or 20% of its profits? Is that minority important then?
 
#2,282 ·
yosoyellobo said:
It looks like Jon Stewart is taking a lemon and turning it into lemonade. Way to go Jon.
Favorite part is that it opens with the Viacom anti-DirecTV commercial.
 
#2,283 ·
#2,284 ·
Ira Lacher said:
. How greedy can they (or their shareholders) get?

:nono2:
Agree!
 
#2,287 ·
Ira Lacher said:
The article mentions that satcos and cablecos are crabbing about "only" 16 percent to 19 percent profit on multimillion-dollar revenue. How greedy can they (or their shareholders) get?

:nono2:
The article seems to be wrong on that point. Here's a link showing Direct's net profit margin :
http://ycharts.com/companies/DTV/profit_margin

And here's Dish's :
http://ycharts.com/companies/DISH/profit_margin

Note in both cases net profit is around 10%. That is pretty good margin for a commodity product, but not a grotesque one.
 
#2,290 ·
susanandmark said:
Total baloney. See: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3054570#post3054570

And even if the bogus "only 20%" B.S. was accurate how well would DirecTV do without 20% of its customers? Or 20% of its profits? Is that minority important then?
DirecTV will lose some customers if Viacom never comes back, but there is always customer churn. It is not going to be anywhere near 20%, though, that care enough about Viacom to leave. I watch Comedy Central and Nick at night occaisonally, and my grandchildren watch Nick occaisionally, so we are part of the 20% who watch Viacom, but we definitely do not miss it enough to change providers. If I cared about basics, I would have gone with Dish or stayed with TWC (although it is not like they never have carriage disputes).

In the end, it is a business decision for both companies. I am sure that DirecTV has already figured out how much they can pay and charge for Viacom so that the customers that leave because the price are offset by the customers that stay because Viacom is back (or conversely, how many leave because Viacom is not carried versus how many do not leave because of the price DirecTV will have to charge).

The good thing is that there are choices. Dish has Viacom (for the moment), but not Rainbow, Disney, or out-of-market sports channels. DirecTV has Rainbow, Disney, and out-of-market sports packages, but not Viacom. No one provider has everything, and all providers have carriage disputes (and it is only going to get worse).

I still stand by my position that Viacom needs DirecTV more than DirecTV needs Viacom. The dispute will be settled. DirecTV will pay more than they did under the old contract, but they will not pay as much as Viacom is asking at the moment. The longer the negotiations go, the more likely the price DirecTV pays will go down from where Viacom started.
 
#2,291 ·
"ciurca" said:
If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.
Agreed. I tried to explain this early in the dispute but of course some people think the so-called wealthy are the only ones making money here. Pretty much they show disregard of anyone's investments in these companies or mutual funds through their retirement program at work who have these companies in it, most of whom are middle class. Do I think this dispute one way or the other is going to sink the company? Of course not. But every little bit helps.
 
#2,292 ·
ciurca said:
If any of you who are crying corporate greed owned stock in either company, you would be happy they are protecting your investment return.
But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.
 
#2,293 ·
"fleckrj" said:
But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.
Viacom has already lost. Maybe more than they recoup on higher fees.

Directv only loses anything substantial if it drags on and on and on.
 
#2,294 ·
Xsabresx said:
I might challenge that but I dont think we'll ever know for sure. MTV didnt "report" to The Neilsens until 1994. Even still, TV was different back then. It wasnt uncommon at all for a show to get 30+ million viewers. Hell even Alf was hitting 20+ million. I could see a music video eclipsing Jersey Shore's 7-8mil viewers.

Again, I am not sure we'd ever know for sure.
Broadcast networks ratings used to be higher, but my understanding is that cable networks' ratings are much higher now than they used to be.

android.cphone said:
I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs
That's the excuse you're going with, huh?! ;)

~Alan
 
#2,295 ·
mshaw2715 said:
Newest update is not making sound like they are still getting closer to an agreement anymore. Which leads me to believe it could be a long while before we see these stations return and that is providing they do return.
The definition of closer is a loose term. Is it 30 percent?, 40 percent? or 70 percent? Either way until I see specifics, I still think we are in for a dispute that will be similar to VS in the nature that it didnt get urgent till right around Stanley Cup Playoff time in the case of VS, which would be equal to September 1st for MTV.
 
#2,296 ·
susanandmark said:
So which is it? Are Viacom channels are so worthless, crappy and over-priced that DirecTV doesn't need them to ever return and shouldn't pay 2 cents to get them back? Or are so many DirecTV customers regularly and habitually watching these channels that loss of this single provider's customer base can cause a channel's ratings to plummet?

Can't have it both ways.
Sure you can.

One is an opinion about the quality of the programming of the channel, the other is a measured fact with those nifty little Nielsen devices people can install in their homes.

I too believe the channels are full of crap television not worth a dime. But I do not have any kids or teens, nor do I fall in the 18 to 25 age group, and those three cover just about 90% of the channels that ViaCom offers. The other 10% are Spike, TVLand and Palladia, all which i watch every so often, but not so much they are a "must have".

That said, ratings are ratings. I may think the television provided by Viacom is mostly brainless crap, but I can't speak for other viewers.

Nickolodeon went from 1.8 million to 1.2 million in a week, indicating that 600k kids from DirecTV subscribers tuned in to Nickelodeon. Interesting in this measurement would be to see the increase in Disney and PBS kids channels ratings.
 
#2,297 ·
My wife and I watch The Daily Show on Comedy Central, and my daughter watches some shows on Nick, so we are definitely some of the DirecTV customers that are missing programming. However, I hope that DirecTV continues to hold out. The Daily Show is available online, and there are lots of other choices in kids programming. The longer this goes on, the more it will hurt Viacom as opposed to DirecTV. Those Viacom viewers that haven't switched to another provider (and I don't think the number of those switching will be very big to begin with) will realize that they can either do without quite well or they can catch their program/s on an alternate source.

One question: we have The Daily Show set up to record all new episodes on two of our four HD DVRs. Last night, these recordings took place on channel 8327, where for 30 minutes the DirecTV logo was recorded. Why?
 
#2,298 ·
android.cphone said:
I am actually supprised that this has not yet been resolved. I am getting tired of peeping thru my neighbors windows to watch my favorite programs
Fully with humor intended, the fact you prefer peeping thru your neighbors windows instead of switching your provider to e.g. Dish, tells me something about the "creepiness level" of your character. :D :D
 
#2,299 ·
dcandmc said:
One question: we have The Daily Show set up to record all new episodes on two of our four HD DVRs. Last night, these recordings took place on channel 8327, where for 30 minutes the DirecTV logo was recorded. Why?
The channels aren't "gone", they are just hidden until the dispute has been resolved. To make sure that your recordings resume again without you having to do anything, they hide them in such a way all set recordings remain intact. Obviously, since the dispute is ongoing, you will not see anything but the DirecTV logo.... but if they resolve the dispute, the recordings should resume normally without you having to set them up.

So just delete the recordings. :)
 
#2,300 ·
"fleckrj" said:
But are they? The longer the dispute lasts the more likely it is that both sides will have a lower return on investment - Directv because of lost customers, and Viacom because of lower viewership, advertising rates, and fees recieved from DirecTV. At this point, I think DirecTV has the upper hand, but both sides are going to lose something from this - DirecTV will just lose less than Viacom does.
And they'll get some back when the next carrier has a dispute with Viacom or whoever else and those go dark.
 
#2,301 ·
zimm7778 said:
Agreed. I tried to explain this early in the dispute but of course some people think the so-called wealthy are the only ones making money here. Pretty much they show disregard of anyone's investments in these companies or mutual funds through their retirement program at work who have these companies in it, most of whom are middle class. Do I think this dispute one way or the other is going to sink the company? Of course not. But every little bit helps.
Meh, up to a point. If you have a only have a minimal stake as part of a 401k, factoring in the increases, you're just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top