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

PAC-12 and DISH have deal

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by DC_SnDvl, Sep 8, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sep 9, 2012 #161 of 682
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,315
    234
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Doesn't really say that D* turned it down, just that it was offered to them as well. Now that Dish has it, hopefully D* will reconsider.
     
  2. Sep 9, 2012 #162 of 682
    garn9173

    garn9173 Icon

    530
    2
    Apr 4, 2005
    If DirecTV has the same offer that Dish Network has, IMO, they are foolish to turn it down and risk losing customers not only within the Pac 12 footprint, but nation wide as well.
     
  3. Sep 9, 2012 #163 of 682
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Well, considering how frugal Dish seemingly is in regards to carriage deals and their willingness to walk away, I just find it strange that DirecTV would find a deal so unappetizing that they're (just speculating) completely stonewalling whereas Dish found it appealing enough to actually sign.

    I would probably suspect we're not hearing the complete story from the PAC-12, DirecTV or Dish.

    It's unfortunate these things are all done behind closed doors and the only retribution we the consumers have is to change carriers, where even that ability is often severely limited or so unappealing that we can get taken for a ride (and they probably know it).
     
  4. Sep 9, 2012 #164 of 682
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    They don't have the same deal. It isn't possible given what we know about the DISH deal.

    Who has more to lose here really? PAC-12 Network missing out on all those DirecTV customers or DirecTV losing PAC-12 fans who actually change providers? Complaining about not having a channel is one thing, but it's pointless if you continue as a customer. Far more complain and stay with a provider than those who make the ultimate decision to leave. Major disputes with powerful networks cause some churn. Will not coming to an agreement with PAC-12 move the needle for DirecTV and how much? I have some serious doubts about the impact it will have.
     
  5. Sep 9, 2012 #165 of 682
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    DISH has a reputation for making rash decisions when initially adding channels and then playing hardball on the renewal, while DirecTV plays it smart from the beginning. It's entirely possible that DISH agreed to yet another bad deal because they are reeling from recent embarrassments and needed some positive PR.
     
  6. Sep 9, 2012 #166 of 682
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,113
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Technically, the exclusive parts of the contract could be offered to both carriers --- first come first serve. Once one carrier accepted the deal the offer would change for the other provider.

    Or the reference could be to the non-exclusive parts of the offer being the same. Personally (and after reading DirecTV's statement on the matter) I believe Pac-12 wanted the same placement as Big10. Pac-12 appears to have received the same placement as Big-10 on DISH (HD carriage pending setting up the equipment in the coming week). Perhaps they want the same placement as Big-10 on DirecTV?
     
  7. Sep 9, 2012 #167 of 682
    john262

    john262 AllStar

    147
    7
    Oct 26, 2011
    This is from http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3912 .

    That seems like enough games to me that we will already get on Directv. Yes, if you are a fan of a particular team that will only be on the Pac12 Network that's one thing, but overall I think that most customers will be satisfied with the number of games that they get on Directv now. I doubt if this will have much effect at all on Directv's subscriber numbers.

    And as only a casual sports fan, I support Directv's hesitance to add the network to a lower tier that would force all customers to pay for it whether they will watch it or not. Put it in the sports pack or make it a stand alone pay channel so that only those who really want it will pay for it. Don't force the rest of us to pay for it. But apparently the Pac10 Network won't go for that.
     
  8. Sep 9, 2012 #168 of 682
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    If the shoe were on the other foot, there would be a whole lot of finger pointing.

    DISH doesn't have to apologize for not carrying everything sports but DIRECTV, having built their reputation on sports, most certainly does.
     
  9. Sep 9, 2012 #169 of 682
    john262

    john262 AllStar

    147
    7
    Oct 26, 2011
    Having built your reputation on sports doesn't mean that you are obliged to accept a deal from the Pac12 Network that you judge is not in the best interests of your company. So Directv builds its reputation on sports. Fine, but that doesn't give every start up sports network that comes along the right to extort Directv to carry their programming just because Directv is known for sports.
     
  10. Sep 9, 2012 #170 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Disagree. If Dish didn't get it, no big deal. Not their cup of tea. They signal their intent on sports by not having any RSNs in New York and no MLB package and SD for RSNs except during games.

    For directv, being sports leader doesn't require every channel all the time. They still have by far the best sports package.

    Plus the channel is brand new. They make a deal later and no one will remember the start.
     
  11. Sep 9, 2012 #171 of 682
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    As a sports die-hard, I tend to agree. I wouldn't have any problem, personally, paying more for content that I want to watch, which includes, empathetically, the PAC-12 network (so I can dispense with my over-indulgent dual setup and kiss Comcast goodbye again).

    If the holdup is indeed the placement of the channel within DirecTV's hierarchy, then it is my opinion that the PAC-12 network is as much to blame than anyone else. If I didn't enjoy sports or this channel, I wouldn't want to pay for it either, even though the selfish side of me just wants it added, regardless of what, where or how it may impact others.
     
  12. Sep 9, 2012 #172 of 682
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,046
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    If I where to guess.. It used to be that each college had to procure its own tv rights,etc, and along with those a certain amount of advertising for those channels was always part of the deal. Now that the pac12 is in charge of all tv deals for all the schools collectively, I think it makes sense that the pac12 is responsible for replacing the advertising dollars that had been coming in with old providers with that of revenue from the new providers...

    And I could also see the pac12 asking a higher price for this, which DIRECTV would likely balk at... Dish on the other hand, could probably use a little more sports advertising, and has a little money to spend since they obviously have no intention of picking the amc networks up again.
     
  13. Sep 9, 2012 #173 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    We are talking in stadium advertising, not TV advertising. It is in the in stadium component that baffles me.
     
  14. Sep 9, 2012 #174 of 682
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,046
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    It's tricky. The new deal does have the pac12 on national tv a lot more, heck FOX added and entire new program for this.... SoonSo,e ways the new deals hurt them when negotiating, because they will have far more games nationally televised than before. However, by making it so they have first choice of games on 30% of the weekends,they ensure highly wanted math cups. DIRECTV web site is a joke, they don't realize how many games that people will not see interns of the teams playing because the entire schedule isn't set yet. Till USC lose, every game they play is huge, just like any sec team. So not having the cal game is a big deal no matter how you look at it. And after last night, that may also be true for Oregon, UCLA and the Arizona schools...
     
  15. Sep 9, 2012 #175 of 682
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,046
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    So am I. There are always billboards and other advertising for the teams channels in stadiums for college and pro sports here in Los Angeles, and I believe everywhere else too these days. I have no reason to think Oregon would be any different.
     
  16. Sep 9, 2012 #176 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Those are usually controlled by the team or the stadium, not the conference.
     
  17. Sep 9, 2012 #177 of 682
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,046
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    But that's my point. When they put the pac12 in charge of the tv deals, i think they also put them in charge of the advertising that was paid for by the tv stations. Not the whole stadium, just what's set aside for the tv partners, since they no longer negotiate with the tv stations themselves.
     
  18. Sep 9, 2012 #178 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Maybe. Personally I've never seen TV based advertising in college venues other than the banners they put up when they do a game. Of course, the LA teams don't play in their own stadia, so that may be different. I can't imagine espn being happy with an ad for Fox Sports showing up on screen.

    Or maybe they offered something they can't deliver. Yet.
     
  19. Sep 9, 2012 #179 of 682
    ChileDuck

    ChileDuck Cool Member

    28
    0
    Aug 26, 2008
    In his post game interview on FOX when Oregon won the Pac-12 championship, Chip Kelly said " ... now we're going to drink some Dr. Pepper and mail our Christmas presents with UPS," because of the overwhelming signage for Dr Pepper and UPS that the Pac-12 put all over Autzen Stadium. [Pretty sure he intended it as a sarcastic comment... not the shameless plug that some suggested.] Now he will be able to add... " ... and watch dish network".

    Pac-12 schools have given up a lot of control to the conference for the promise of millions of dollars in TV revenue.

    Kelly's shameless plug video
     
  20. Sep 9, 2012 #180 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Including in house advertising? Hmmm. Somehow the other big conferences manage to get a ton of TV money and let the schools sell their own in house ads. I don't understand the PAC 12 at all.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page