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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Aug 20, 2013 #661 of 3044
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    And you don't pay exorbitant rates for a channel just because a competitor(s) did.
     
  2. Aug 20, 2013 #662 of 3044
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Some interesting numbers show that the P12 football & basketball is very insignificant nationally.

    Here are the average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:
    1. SEC – 4,447,000
    2. Big Ten – 3,267,000
    3. ACC – 2,650,000
    4. Big 12 – 2,347,000
    5. Pac-12 – 2,108,000
    6. Big East – 1,884,000
    Here are the average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:
    1. Big Ten – 1,496,000
    2. ACC – 1,247,000
    3. SEC – 1,222,000
    4. Big 12 – 1,069,000
    5. Big East – 1,049,000
    6. Pac-12 – 783,000

    http://www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/state-of-the-media-2011-year-in-sports-11339432
     
  3. Aug 20, 2013 #663 of 3044
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    It exactly HAS to do with what other carriers think its worth. It's called setting the market price, and it has been done and its $.80.
    My original question still hasn't been answered, why does DirecTV think it deserves a better deal than ALL the carriers who have already agreed to the price set by the marketplace.
     
  4. Aug 20, 2013 #664 of 3044
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Because no other provider is giving it to 20 million people nationally? Just guessing.
     
  5. Aug 20, 2013 #665 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Yep when 20 million customer are moved into the picture they should get a better deal.

    Dish has it sure , but since they dropped every sports team out of NY they can afford it.
     
  6. Aug 20, 2013 #666 of 3044
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    So based on viewership and accounting for the different length of seasons for football versus basketball, the PAC 12 network is worth about 56% of what the Big 10 network is and 59% of what the SEC network will be. Any provider that paid more for the PAC 12 than they are the BIG 10 got a bad deal.
     
  7. Aug 20, 2013 #667 of 3044
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    330
    27
    Apr 16, 2012
    And all this time I thought the Yankees were too important to be dropped. Apparently not.


    Sandra
     
  8. Aug 20, 2013 #668 of 3044
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    915
    22
    Aug 21, 2008
    Wow, this sure moves around...I understand some of you don't want Pac 12 for any price. That's fine....but like anything else a channel is worth what someone will pay for it. Pac 12 set a price (which we have seen reported but don't have the actual truth of what it is). Many of the largest providers did sign on for the channel and felt it was a "fair" price. DirecTV for whatever reason feels differently. It could be they don't like the price, it could be they are mad Dish has the in stadium deals, who knows. But trying to say it's worth less or more than a channel that signed an agreement 2-5 years ago with DirecTV really is hard to judge. I am sure when B1G/FOX comes back to DirecTV they will be asking for a lot more than they are now-they'll see the price of the newer RSNs, I am sure they will say "well our audience is bigger than the PAC12 audience" etc. I would venture a guess that the SEC channel will use more of a Lakers/Dodgers model when they ask for carriage agreements. You really think they will want $.80 a sub? Probably not they will ask for $1-2 a sub in the south would be my guess.

    So is the Pac12 asking for too much? I am not sure but Comcast, Dish, and TWC all seem to feel it was a fair price and signed on. I don't believe any of us are on the negation team so we don't know what the deal is/was/has been......
     
  9. Aug 20, 2013 #669 of 3044
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    I may appear to be against the channel, but for the record, I'm not. I welcome all channels. I'm originally from Arizona and love Wildcats sports.
     
  10. Aug 20, 2013 #670 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Its only considered dropped if you had it in the first place. :scratchin
     
  11. Aug 20, 2013 #671 of 3044
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    330
    27
    Apr 16, 2012
    Semantics. The fact is Dish does not carry the mighty Yankees network despite the 1901 thing. That can happen at DirecTV too when then carriage agreement is up for renewal.

    I know your opinion is they won't...but that's still just your opinion. Nothing more.


    Sandra
     
  12. Aug 20, 2013 #672 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    But again Pac 12 has nothing to do with YES .
    So we can stop talking about YES!
    One is Pro the other is not.
    Also CBS has nothing to do with Either.

    Pac 12 from the 2012 chart a number of us posted is low on fans compared to the rest of the college team divisons.
    In Directvs eyes that doesn't warrant a $16 million dollar bill.

    With only 7.5 million fans, how many are Directv subscribers?

    Not enough to make its customers fork over a minimum of $16 mill
     
  13. Aug 20, 2013 #673 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    I'm not against the channel either. I'm against something Directv feels will increase our prices. And I can see Directv point.
     
  14. Aug 20, 2013 #674 of 3044
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    330
    27
    Apr 16, 2012
    Gotcha A-Rod


    Sandra
     
  15. Aug 20, 2013 #675 of 3044
    Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    I'm impressed that several of you have kept up the pro Pac-12 arguments with the barrage of DTV defenders that have been nesting in this thread. As one of many who have grown tired of constant emails, and calls to both DTV and P12 requesting this deal get done, I long ago tired of defending my wants in this forum. The fact is all these new channels want too much money, and in each instance, more people don't want these overpriced channels than do. I'm sure most subscribers would vote for DTV to not carry the Lakers channels at almost $4/subscriber. I know that's only charged for people that get the channel, but even with the $2 regional sports fee we're paying in LA, I'm sure most of that cost is getting spread out to you subscribers outside of SoCal. Point is, DTV used to be the bastion of all sports, and I was happy to pay for that. Now it's not, and they're forcing us to look for other options. Just wanted you to know there aren't just haters and contradictors out there. Most of the P12 fans are just fed up after a long year of disappointment.
     
  16. Aug 20, 2013 #676 of 3044
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    330
    27
    Apr 16, 2012
    I find it interesting that nobody here who is saying they don't want the Pac-12 Network due to cost complained about the cost when DirecTV added FS1 on Saturday.


    Sandra
     
  17. Aug 20, 2013 #677 of 3044
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You don't buy things based on if the price makes sense for YOU? You just go ahead and buy because all your neighbors are buying?

    As for the general decision to have one channel versus another. Why one system thinks something is worth the price and another thinks it is not, that is not just true of the PAC 12 and DirecTV. Why does Dish have no RSNs in New York? Why does any system buy what it buys and doesn't but what it doesn't? Aren't the economics that same for all? No, they are not. Or everyone would have the same stuff.

    Let's take this bit by bit. Cable and satellite are different critters and have different needs. Cable is local. If it doesn't provide local channels, it is doomed. If Comcast did not have MASN in this area, the local Comcast outfit (which is run as a profit/loss center) would be hurting because Orioles and Nationals fans would be ticked off.

    Satellite is not local. It has a national view and applies national requirements. Dish has no New York sports but survives because of its overall product it offers around the country, for example. A New York cable company with no New York sports would wither on the vine.

    Now, let us look at Dish. There is one factor that is forgotten here over and over again. Dish was slow in signing with the PAC 12. When did they do it? When it did not look like they were going to have an agreement with BTN. They had a greater need during that period. When you are hungry, you will pay more than when you are not. I can easily argue that Dish would not have signed with the PAC 12 if they had an agreement in hand with BTN. Conjecture, for sure, but an example of how you look at your inventory differently for a national provider. Dish "replaced" BTN with the off brand (PAC 12) to keep its sports inventory somewhat correct.

    The bottom line. For the time and place that each signed their contract with the PAC 12 that did sign, they felt it worked well enough to do it (they may not have been happy or felt they were forced to do so, but it was the better decision FOR THEM). Anyone who has not signed up, they decided that the terms are not right FOR THEM. Pretty simple, really.

    Obviously, DirecTV thinks the asking price is too high. It may have been for others as well, but they may have felt they HAD to sign up for other reasons (which means the price isn't too high for them). As it has played out, DirecTV is doing just fine with its decision. I hope the others have as well.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Aug 20, 2013 #678 of 3044
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Uh, what cost? It is the SAME as the channel it replaced. Keep up, please. :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Aug 20, 2013 #679 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Again a national channel, Not an RSN! RSN are already costing us additional fees on top of our base packs.

    So if they want to charge PAC 12 customers the additional then go ahead.

    But I'm already paying $3 extra for my RSN's , I don't want to pay for yours too.
     
  20. Aug 20, 2013 #680 of 3044
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    100% agree.
     

Share This Page