1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fox / Newscorp channels possibly suspended Nov. 1/Now resolved

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Pepe Sylvia, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. Oct 23, 2011 #401 of 1258
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    Not that this is apart of the channel discussion but some channels do have a very loyal base just like some shows do. I can indeed see a lot of people canceling if FNC is removed because remember, there's a a large contingent of their viewers who feel THEY are the only factual news reporting outlet and they wouldn't be able to watch and believe anything anyone else reported. When you have a contingency who believes this, yes they are very devoted, loyal, and I truly believe would leave ASAP if the channel went dark and there was no swift end to it.
     
  2. Oct 23, 2011 #402 of 1258
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    That Directv website is very misleading. It makes it appear like your bill is going to go up 40% or at least that's how it came off to me and that isn't going to happen because of these channels.
     
  3. Oct 23, 2011 #403 of 1258
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    551
    27
    Aug 11, 2008
    Let's be fair. It forced affiliates to pay 0.55 the first year, to 1.00 by the fifth year. It's an annual increase of 13%, against the 0.13% annual inflation expected over the next five years.

    As for Fox News Channel, News Corps execs have already gone on record that they believe that FNC is similar to ESPN. I believe that FNC will get 1.50 starting next year, with escalation throughout the life of the contract.
     
  4. Oct 23, 2011 #404 of 1258
    tds4182

    tds4182 Legend

    201
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    This is sort of a moot point because Fox News and Fox Business are not involved in these price negotiations.

    According to the latest Nielsen's Fox News tops all it's competition (MSNBC,CNN, etc, etc)
    combined during the evening prime time hours. O'Reilly consistently draws 6-7 million viewers during the 8-9 PM Eastern time slot. Hannity and Greta do almost as well the following 2 hours.
     
  5. Oct 23, 2011 #405 of 1258
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,180
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    .55 is more than a 100 percent increase from ZERO. these are not pay channels we are talking about. So if they will do that for channels that have all along existed based soley on advertising dollars, what do you think they will ask for of channels that have built in fees too? I firmly believe fox went after that because they know those channels have been holding out for money from providers( a whole other discussion and practice I think is ridiculous) And fox news, and all other news network does not at all have the same ratings and ad revenue generation abilities as espn.
     
  6. Oct 23, 2011 #406 of 1258
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    If they will go so far as to screw over their own affiliates, there is no doubt they would do the same to us.
     
  7. Oct 23, 2011 #407 of 1258
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I'm pretty certain that, while this particular group does not include FNC and the owned and operated affiliates, they really are a part of the equation. Everyone is looking at the big picture here.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  8. Oct 23, 2011 #408 of 1258
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,357
    219
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    You can bet on it!! They already have their roadmaps out for the whole shebang, and just like with Dish and other providers that went through this a bit ago with Fox, that map doesn't have more than a one-holer rest stop for the consumer on it... :(
     
  9. Oct 23, 2011 #409 of 1258
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,180
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    And who makes up those viewers? Who makes up the viewers who watch espn. Think ad dollars. And spread that out over all the providers. And I don't know where you got your numbers, they are way over twice what I kind find for all of primetime, unless you are talking per week vs per day. Frighteningly, I see that the jersey shore has much better ratings. Fox isn't even close to being in the top ten of cable shows. Yet multiple espn shows are, including sports center.

    The reason this is relevant to the discussion is two fold. One, it's the same things with the channels in dispute today. They don't have many people watching them on directv, or any other provider, right now either. I watch some of the shows on a couple networks that are in the dispute, but not much in comparison to the whole of the programing on all the channels. Im actually kind of hoping the nba lockout doesn't get resolved before this dispute is over. If so, I will miss nothing I care about as long as directv picks up the new lakers rsn. And all the other shows I'll catch on DVD.

    The other reason I think this is so relevant, is knowing how fox usually seems to work, again, I would expect fox to wait till feb 1 to yank the current channels in the dispute so they could pull them at the same time as the o and o and fox news, and try and gain a bigger bargaining chip, and get them all into one carriage agreement with a hughe overall increase, which is why I think diretcv wants to force negotiations now. Directv and all the other providers would love to be able to negotiate on a channel by channel basis For all channels. But fox and Comcast know the more channels they can get negotiated at the same time the more leverage they have, because the more channels they could yank at a time.
     
  10. Oct 23, 2011 #410 of 1258
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,345
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Wonder if anyone has read it. I'm generally fairly literate, but my reading comprehension breaks down reading the typical laws and rules of the Government. But I'm not getting a sense it's just broadcast. One article said it wouldn't affect a Tennis Channel dispute, but the reason given was that the rule was not retroactive.

    http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0801/FCC-11-119A1.doc
     
  11. Oct 23, 2011 #411 of 1258
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    FNC was the #5 rated cable network of 2010. I fully expect to use FNC as a huge bargaining chip. FX is the big channel for this negotiation & FNC will be.

     
  12. Oct 23, 2011 #412 of 1258
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I can usually read the FCC stuff but it takes a lot of concentration and patience. :)

    Since my first guess, before I read the document, I only tried to parse the section on standstill and I think you are more correct than I was.

    Again, having only read paragraph 25, I think one party (or both) needs to complain to the FCC before the standstill clause is invoked. If neither DIRECTV or Fox files the complaint, perhaps it doesn't apply?

    I confess I'm not terribly motivated to read that order. It takes too much energy. :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  13. Oct 23, 2011 #413 of 1258
    jeffmacguy

    jeffmacguy Cool Member

    21
    0
    Oct 21, 2006
    Just saw the TV Ad today during a local Fox football broadcast.

    These networks in aggregate represent thousands of viewers and millions in network and D* advertising revenues. In the economic model, there's lots of dollars in play not directly related to carriage and subscriber fees. I cannot imagine the network advertisers would be happy to pay the same advertising rates for the various networks if such as sizable segment of potential viewers were cut off. Fox stands to lose way more than just D*s carriage fees.

    Additionally, D* has the goodwill of it's subscribers at stake, not to mention their own advertising generated from the carrier avails interspersed throughout the broadcast day. Sports is a big reason many subscribers (myself included) consider D* a superior provider. Losing the RSN's would be a big deal for us.
     
  14. Oct 23, 2011 #414 of 1258
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,180
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Sure, again average for a full day. But. As with all numbers, you have to do more interpreting. Espn may have many hours where almost no one watches, but then some programs have over 10 Million viewers for a particular showing at one particular time. So while the overall average may be close, the amount of actual different views they pull can be much higher than what fox news can pull. News channels seem to have a more even amount of viewers, last time I checked, where as channels like fx, espn, USA, TNT etc, have much bigger highs and lows. Im not saying news channels don't have that too, but its not as big. The channels with the bigger highs and lows may have about the same number of average viewers, but they most likely reach more different actual viewers than a news channel. Add in the demographics of the actual viewers for the shows on these channels, and there is no news channel that can realistically say it can reproduce the same advertising dollars as espn. I'll bet there are a couple shows on fx that can demand as much money or more for ad dollars than most if not all shows on fox news. So which channel is really worth more?

    You can't just quote ratings and say that means your channel is worth as much as espn, you have to look at the details of the ratings and when it's watched and by how many different people, and how much actual revenue that channel can produce. Fox news, as all other news channels aren't even in the same realm as espn. Look at it this way, when was the last time Disney channel, or USA got more money than espn. I don't think they ever have, yet they have higher ratings than espn. Again, espn can bring more different. Viewers in the right demos to drive more revenue dollars than those channels.
     
  15. Oct 23, 2011 #415 of 1258
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Primetime viewers are the numbers I provided. FNC shines there. However, in the most important demographic for advertising (Primetime: Adults 18-49), FNC wasn't even in the top 15; in regards to the current channels being negotiated, FX is 7th.
     
  16. Oct 23, 2011 #416 of 1258
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,103
    329
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    After reading and rereading the posts here, I have to ask what am I missing in the big picture?

    The economic environment is very different from 1958 when TV channels made it on advertising revenue or failed, all the while providing content free to media consumers. Today the issue surrounding retransmission fees is about the cost to media consumers for access to content. In other words, it's all about paying for the content.

    If DirecTV does something its customers don't like such as charge too much on top of retransmission fees, its customers can access content by going to Dish or cable or use OTA or stream content, whatever is economically pleasing.

    Contrary to some comments here, from DirecTV's perspective in its relationship to media consumers it is in a competitive marketplace. DirecTV does not really have most of it's customers "over a barrel" for any extended period. Almost all Americans can change signal providers.

    On the other hand, try to watch your sports programming content contracted to a Fox owned cable channel on an NBCU owned cable channel. Or "American Idol" on your The CW affiliate.

    Simply put, the cable channel/broadcast network owners have no direct transactional relationship with you. Advertisers used to be your stand-in. But the owners like News Corp figured out that they have another way to get money indirectly from you. And that gives them a peculiar market.

    If somehow consumers find out that the News Corp Fox subsidiaries are charging exorbitant retransmission fees, consumers can refuse to watch I guess. But that isn't the same as accessing the content elsewhere for less, your option if DirecTV charges too much on top of retransmission fees.

    And in the case of the Fox broadcast channel, if you don't get your TV OTA you will pay the retransmission fee to News Corp in order to watch CBS on any cable or satellite system.

    News Corp, knowing it is insulated from direct business transactions with media consumers, has shown it is testing to see if there is any limit to their ability to increase revenue. They have already started with some cable companies and with their affiliates. Those are facts well publicized in the business journals.

    News Corp isn't the only channel owner contemplating this approach.

    Disney is the owner of Disney channels, ABC Family, and the ESPN group on cable and ABC broadcast network plus O&O broadcast channels in most of the major markets. I fully expect the next Disney v Dish negotiations to be acrimonious because Disney will be trying to leverage its ownership of ESPN.

    I don't think I need list NBCU's interests, but their demands will have to be restrained since they are 51% owned by Comcast (49% by GE). Nonetheless, Comcast will watch the News Corp victories with an eye to saying to regulators "it's the standard in the business."

    CBS is the one variable so far.

    Yes, CBS owns the premium cable Showtime channels which include TMC and Flix plus a joint venture interest in the Smithsonian Channel. It does own a half interest in The CW broadcast network. And it owns CBS Sports Network.

    But CBS still appears focused on its broadcast network and its relationship to media consumers. So far it caters to continued media consumer interest and chooses to attract the most viewers and revenue through its prime time programming Sunday through Friday.

    When talking to satellite/cable companies, CBS won't be looking at a typically weak schedule not generating enough advertising revenue because people aren't watching and/or it paid way too much for some of its content. CBS won't be withholding access to some major sporting or one reality show from a part of its audience in order to extort a retransmission fee, then moving on to another part of its audience.

    If as a media consumer I had to pay $1/mo to CBS, there is a pretty good chance that I would be paying for well over a third of my broadcast TV viewing. This is the perspective I understand. Still I don't like the idea.

    This is the big picture I see, one that represents a significant change in home entertainment costs, one that will affect me and my grandchildren for years to come. It comes on top of changes such as internet streaming to tablets.

    I don't think it's a good idea to let News Corp determine the future course of the home entertainment I refer to as TV. I truly resent the five dollar bill I pay to Disney for ESPN each month. I can't imagine having to send out 100 of them each month to the channel owners. It's between me and the channel owners, but the signal providers are my stand in and I will support their resistance. I don't understand anyone who wouldn't.
     
  17. Oct 23, 2011 #417 of 1258
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,346
    242
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I agree, these sports channels need to realize that its time for them to be in their own package, and that people who want sports will pay for them.

    They need to stop having and paying for 20+ RSN's that essentially show the same thing when games aren't on, they need to go to a game only or PPV type system, where you can order the game(s) or packages you want. We pretty much have that now with professional sports.

    We have PPV movies and a movie channel package, why can't they do the same for sports?

    Something needs to change in the future though, these high priced sports channels are getting out of control.

    Yes they are. I read another article online that basically said that they would like to group everything together in a package deal.
     
  18. Oct 23, 2011 #418 of 1258
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Excellent post, many good points. And I don't think you are missing anything of the big picture or the details for that matter.

    Good job,
    Tom
     
  19. Oct 23, 2011 #419 of 1258
    scorpion43

    scorpion43 Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    120
    0
    Mar 16, 2011
    in the end Directv will reach an agreement and everything will be ok
    to much at steak
     
  20. Oct 23, 2011 #420 of 1258
    dirtyblueshirt

    dirtyblueshirt Under Suspicion

    1,093
    1
    Dec 6, 2008
    Anaheim, CA
    Personally, I find this funny to watch some people go completely bat**** crazy over this every single time one of these contracts comes up for renegotiation. You'd think that by now people would realize this is all part of the song and dance game by both contract parties and is going to happen every single time there's a contract up for renewal!
     

Share This Page