Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by Stuart Sweet, Sep 17, 2012.
So who is going to hold out on the Pac 12 nets longer? DirecTV or AT&T?
It's a tie
Since PAC-12 commissioner Larry Scott signed Comcast Media Center to do all their production work, tell me how objective the man can be when dealing with DirecTV?
A conflict of interest if there ever was one.
I understand your fear but DirecTV also uses Comcast to sell on air advertising here in Nor Cal. So as much as two sides can battle they can also be "best friends" when it's good for business.
The Pac 12 also shares some facilities in SF with Comcast Sportsnet, both offices are located in the same location. Using the Comcast location in CO probably makes sense.
Uh, not best friends nor even friends. Just doing business what it comes to ads.
The production tie in is way stronger than any ad sales or placement.
I have no respect for Larry Scott. (Nor the Cal AD for that matter.)
I must admit, that I was all over D* for not picking up the PAC-12 Net. However, it has become very apparent that Scott has a huge ego and is probably standing in the way of making a deal with D*. Scott's handling of the Ed Rush/Sean Miller fiasco proves he's nothing but a self-promoting shill.
Update from Jon Wilner that a deal with one or two of the major holdouts Charter, Verizon, AT&T and/or DirecTV may be on the horizon:
With D* being the largest sattelite provider in the usa, it doesn't make sense to me why larry scott and the whole pac12 crew arent willing to fairly negotiate with d*. I wonder how much money they may be losing out on by not coming to a deal with them. D* too as some customers have cancelled over it but probably not much for a significant negative financial effect.
I would be curious if DirecTV adds more charges to people's account if they sign a D* deal
Maybe this will help D* get the Pac 12 Network?
Just read where DirecTV added 21,000 new subs in the US along with 583,000 in Latin America. Definitely doesn't look like DirecTV will be picking up this network anytime soon. No reason for them to add the channel when they aren't losing subs and actually added more than they estimated. Estimated around 10,000 new subs so they went way over that guess.
I wouldn't try to tie sub's gains or losses to long term strategies or short term (exorbitant) costs.........
When you consider that last year DIRECTV added nearly four times that many customers over the same period, your argument is a little hollow. In 2011 DIRECTV added 662,000 customers but last year the number was only 199,000. This isn't about how DIRECTV compared with anyone but DIRECTV and while their financial numbers remain stellar, the years and years of trying to reduce additions has finally borne fruit.
Their estimates have often been pretty far from the actuals when it comes to net subs. It does seem to have moved up the schedule on when they started offering NFLST for free to new subscribers.
Yes, additional subs are to be avoided..... Though perhaps you meant they reduced the rate of attrition.
Not at all. DIRECTV was long looking to slow the pace of new additions because it added greatly to the bottom line SAC number and overhead costs associated with serving a larger customer base that had a significant negative impacted operating profit. They were all about shedding cheapskates/freebies seekers and going after "higher quality customers" (ones that invested more money).
The mistake is yours.
You completely jumped the shark with your first statement. No company wants to stop adding customers, and many well run companies want to add only high grade customers. Your clarifying statement is correct in that DIRECTV has stated this as a corporate goal, which doubtless they are meeting. One cannot conclude merely from the smaller number of net adds, however, that it's solely or largely due to that phenomenon.
I never said that DIRECTV wanted to stop net or gross adds. I cited accurately that they wanted to slow the numbers. You say I made an outlandish statement (followed by an incorrect statement on your part) and then you say that I'm right. Which is it?
Noting that they've finally met their goal in reducing the number of adds is not an observation of a "phenomenon" but rather a recognition that after five years or so, DIRECTV has met their goal. Five years is a number that seems to recur often in DIRECTV delivering on their announcements.
It is otherwise unfathomable that in the conference call, Pat Doyle characterized the 74% year-to-year decrease as "modest".
A nice feather in the cap for the Pac-12 Networks . . .
Ugh... There's a good chance I will end up doing that this fall, but I'll sure as heck resent the P12 nets (and DTV) for making me. At some point you just have to realize if your house ain't selling, it's not worth as much as you think it is.
"The early-season schedule doesn’t provide the Pac12Nets with any must-have games, in my opinion."
"The first Pac-12-owned, must-have game involving the L.A. schools is Sept. 28, when the Trojans visit ASU.
Then again, if there’s no deal with DTV by that point, the chances of the parties reaching an agreement at any time in 2013 are mighty slim."
Its frustrating because P12N has a lot of programming that I'd be interested in - like baseball and softball which has much less ESPN coverage than football or basketball. I could switch to Time Warner, but they don't have Big Ten Network so I'd be losing some sports there. Hopefully Uverse adds P12N. Uverse is apparently already on board for SEC Network despite that being a year and a half away.