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

Time Warner Cable CEO Says It’s Time To Thin The Cable Channel Herd

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by JoeTheDragon, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    ESPN's bread and butter is advertising. This must not be ignored.
     
  2. Newshawk

    Newshawk Hall Of Fame

    2,444
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Broken...
    As my Intro to American Broadcasting professor once said, the sole reason American commercial broadcasting exists is to deliver the largest number of eyeballs possible to a point in time where an advertiser can present their message.
     
  3. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    The most interesting thing to me about his comments is that likely the same thing is being said at many places....he just said it publicly.
     
  4. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    5 to 6 times a day including locals.
     
  5. bidger

    bidger Hall Of Fame

    2,014
    18
    Nov 19, 2005
    And if it were Mike White making the comments there would be a bunch of people on this board jumping on the bandwagon. Because it's a competitor some seem to want to dispute it.
     
  6. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Perhaps....then again....maybe not.

    We are approaching a tipping point between having "x" number of HD channels (and I'm a big fan of HD channels if you couldn't tell :D) and pricing services out of the range of the mainstream customer base.

    At some point, there comes a time when having any content delivery provider like cable, DirecTV, or other one is asked to pay a disproportionate amount of fee to transmit a channel - becomes out of line with the viewing numbers. At that point, it becomes a losing proposition. Last time I checked, all of these providers were for-profit companies.

    I have no problem with what the cable exec stated - it happens to be a fact - this is on the verge of impacting all pay-TV service customers. Unless the greed of the original content providers ceases, we'll all start to see rising prices to the point that consumers can no longer afford what they may have today. The fact that ESPN alone charges somewhere in the $6.00 -7.50 range per month for their channels seems exorbitant.
     
  7. satcrazy

    satcrazy Icon

    1,029
    19
    Mar 15, 2011
    Great...


    You bet!

    better this than multiple espn channels that I never watch.

    I enjoy baseball myself, and I'd be ok with paying "per game" when I wanted to watch one, instead of subbing to sports channels that are of no interest to me.
     
  8. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    Regardless of who said it first or who said it publicly, some people on this board will agree and others will disagree. I agree that the number of channels cannot continue to grow, especially since many of what were once niche channels are regressing to some sort of homogenous common denominator to get more viewers than they had as a niche channel.
     

Share This Page