56% of viewers would drop ESPN

Toggle sidebar
I dont mind bundles per se. I mind program providers running the same crap over and over on six different channels they own and charging us for each channel. Look at the guide today nearly every channel is running the same old, all day show marathons as usual and tomorrow or the next day, those same shows will run again on one of the sister networks.

The consumers perception of any value to the programming bundle is gone. Get rid of half of the channels and the all day marathons, that have 35-40% commercials each hour and go back to actually putting some thought into the program schedules. Make it something the viewer wants to tune to. As it is now, I look through the guide today and see nothing of interest for hours and hours except replay marathons on 300 channels, so I just turn it off until the dvr records primetime and I think about watching it tomorrow or the next day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papachops and TheKrell
Not worthy anymore.

I don't know of anyone else singling out one channel that costs .12/mo and comparing it to one that costs $8/month. The only reason to do that would be to make a political point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tampa8
osu1991 said:
I dont mind bundles per se. I mind program providers running the same crap over and over on six different channels they own and charging us for each channel. Look at the guide today nearly every channel is running the same old, all day show marathons as usual and tomorrow or the next day, those same shows will run again on one of the sister networks.

The consumers perception of any value to the programming bundle is gone. Get rid of half of the channels and the all day marathons, that have 35-40% commercials each hour and go back to actually putting some thought into the program schedules. Make it something the viewer wants to tune to. As it is now, I look through the guide today and see nothing of interest for hours and hours except replay marathons on 300 channels, so I just turn it off until the dvr records primetime and I think about watching it tomorrow or the next day.
Click to expand...

The customer is at fault for this. I remember in the earlier years people begging for more stations. The more the better! Another History Channel, Yes! A Military Channel, Awesome! A channel for farmers, Amazeballs! This is what people wanted and they gave it to us. We demanded more and we got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troch77, sam_gordon and ChadT41
osu1991 said:
Make it something the viewer wants to tune to.
Click to expand...
True choice and supply and demand would be the only way that happens.

And no, it isn't all just about the consumer demand for more channels. A company owns x amount of content, and shows it on a handful of stations. The company figured out that they could deliver that same content by doubling the number of channels (more subscription revenue), doublling the amount of ad space (more ad revenue), and not paying any more in content. So it works in tandem with the "demand" for more channels.
 
Scherrman said:
The customer is at fault for this. I remember in the earlier years people begging for more stations. The more the better! Another History Channel, Yes! A Military Channel, Awesome! A channel for farmers, Amazeballs! This is what people wanted and they gave it to us. We demanded more and we got it.
Click to expand...
Yup. We are truly responsible. I just sit back, pay my bill and enjoy the level of service I receive.
 
Scherrman said:
The customer is at fault for this. I remember in the earlier years people begging for more stations. The more the better! Another History Channel, Yes! A Military Channel, Awesome! A channel for farmers, Amazeballs! This is what people wanted and they gave it to us. We demanded more and we got it.
Click to expand...
Those channels had their own unique programming and unique schedules too. Now they are just one amalgamation of the same junk

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
 
If the court of public opinion is anything like this thread. The only true way to make nearly everyone happy is 100% ala carte.
 
stardust3 said:
If the court of public opinion is anything like this thread. The only true way to make nearly everyone happy is 100% ala carte.
Click to expand...
You call it public opinion.....I call it a bunch of whiners that only want things THERE WAY!.
Life never has worked like that, so why should it start now?....We are peons, not Multi National corporations!
 
AZ. said:
You call it public opinion.....I call it a bunch of whiners that only want things THERE WAY!.
Life never has worked like that, so why should it start now?....We are peons, not Multi National corporations!
Click to expand...
So you have the right to bend over and take it while others can vote with their wallets. When enough peons say "enough is enough", then the multinationals will follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
dare2be said:
So you have the right to bend over and take it while others can vote with their wallets. When enough peons say "enough is enough", then the multinationals will follow.
Click to expand...
live in your silly world.....i will enjoy TV and pay to play......
I have to admit it must be fun to live in a fantasy world.....so enjoy...
 
dare2be said:
You'll be surprised. The current business model is near its breaking point. The bubble will burst and providers/content owners will have to change their thinking.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but its not going to change anytime soon. The ONLY way you will break this model is for a provider to drop Disney channels altogether. Unlikely that happens. No ESPN, Disney, ABC family, and no local ABC channels in owned and operated markets? Not going to happen unless there is a legislative action that denies channels from tying their channels together. And that is unlikely to occur. ESPN and the sports they carry are big contributors to lawmakers. Not going to happen.

So a person has a choice - to cut the cord completely, or stay.
 
Tampa8 said:
If you are saying there should be separate packages for same themed channels, that to some degree could and may be done at some point, it was done early on in Satellite, and in Canada. But it's a crap shoot if you would save any appreciable money. Say you wouldn't get the news package, save the cost. The problem is that package will cost peanuts to a sports package, and because less people will be paying for the sports package channels, getting those channels will cost even more. That's why to me the answer is to generally get sports out of the regular packages, yes it may cost more for it but those costs are out of line with the other channels, even the premiums now, and I like sports.

I'm not dismissing a form of choice, but it works more in favor of those not tied to many particular channels, or only want a few channels. Keep in mind, DISH already has a form of that, the Welcome pack and Smart (Family) pack, and has the Top 120 which saves some. Maybe moving much of sports to the sports pack and pricing it accordingly is a start. It's possible those people would be cord cutting anyway at some point. It's someone like me who wants the channels, wants to sit down, scroll through the guide or just watch my recorded programs without going from service to service to watch them.
Click to expand...

It's not going to save any money in the end for most people. Some people might save money.

I have no issue with putting sports on a sports tier. But I will never be in favor of allowing all the other bogus channels a free pass UNLESS I can subscribe to a sports tier and local channels.

Don't forget you have a mix of channels. TNT and TBS, for example, cover sports and offer a lot of other original programming. How do you handle a situation like this?
 
PortlandChris said:
....

Don't forget you have a mix of channels. TNT and TBS, for example, cover sports and offer a lot of other original programming. How do you handle a situation like this?
Click to expand...
That's exactly the point I was making earlier. Those - and other popular (ratings) channels should be in a core package. The fact they have some sports especially playoff games is a plus to be in a core package. It's what helps make them popular a good blend of programming. Again not all channels should be A La Carte.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadT41
Tampa8 said:
That's exactly the point I was making earlier. Those - and other popular (ratings) channels should be in a core package. The fact they have some sports especially playoff games is a plus to be in a core package. It's what helps make them popular a good blend of programming. Again not all channels should be A La Carte.
Click to expand...

You can have your own opinion, but with ESPN being the highest rated cable channel I can argue it should be in the basic packages. http://www.medialifemagazine.com/this-weeks-cable-ratings/

It does not matter what I, or you think. Any provider can decide to not carry ESPN on ESPN's terms. Why is there not a single provider with substantial coverage doing this? Because people want ESPN.
 
How many channels are there that if they were dropped from a provider, a massive amount of subscriber would drop that provider?

I guarantee if a provider dropped ESPN they would lose more customers than ever.

I watch TBS more than most channels but if it was dropped I wouldn't switch providers. Why? Because I can find most of its content elsewhere.
 
sam_gordon said:
You both can't be right.
Click to expand...

I do not think the final 2015 numbers are out yet but here are the two previous years. ESPN took the top spot in 2014 which has previously been held by USA and followed by Disney.

FNC is a consistent top 7 with numbers competitive with the top slot. It is easily the top rated cable news channel by a large margin.


For 2014
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rat...-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/

Total Viewers

ESPN 2.28 million (up 6%)
USA 2.18 million (down 20%)
TNT 2.04 million (down 4%)
Disney 1.94 million (down 22%)
TBS 1.87 million (down 10%)
History 1.86 million (down 14%)
Fox News 1.73 million (even)
FX 1.45 million (down 4%)
Discovery 1.41 million (up 1%)
AMC 1.36 million (down 5%)
HGTV 1.34 million (up 5%)
Adult Swim 1.34 million (down 11%)
Nick at Nite 1.31 million (down 2%)
A&E 1.27 million (down 30%)
ABC Family 1.26 million (down 2%)
Lifetime 1.13 million (down 12%)
Syfy 1.13 million (down 7%)
Food 1.09 million (down 5%)
TLC 1.08 million (even)
Bravo 0.99 million (down 3%)


For 2013
http://deadline.com/2013/12/2013-final-cable-ratings-usa-tbs-657915/

Network: Total Viewers (in millions), % change from 2012

1. USA: 2.680, -8%
2. Disney: 2.438, -2%
3. ESPN: 2.210, -6%
4. History: 2.114, -2%
5. TNT: 2.070, -5%
6. TBS: 2.014, -3%
7. Fox News: 1.785, -13%
8. A&E: 1.781, +9%
9. FX: 1.466, +4%
10. AMC: 1.382, +18%
11. Discovery: 1.361, +5%
12. Home&Garden: 1.274, +7%
13. Lifetime: 1.270, +7%
14. Adult Swim: 1.230, +3%
15. ABC Family: 1.222, -11%
16. Syfy: 1.192, -8%
17. Food Network: 1.122, -7%
18. Nick at Nite: 1.091, +25%
19. TLC: 1.059, -2%
20. Bravo: 0.999, +6%


2012
http://deadline.com/2012/12/2012-ba...tbs-lifetime-up-mtv-nick-at-nite-fall-390138/

Top 20 Cable Networks In Primetime: Total Viewers (in millions)/% change from 2011

1. USA 2.973 -10%

2. Disney 2.473 -9%

3. ESPN 2.213 -2%

4. History 2.192 +9%

5. TNT 2.176 -5%

6. FNC 2.034 +10

7. TBS 1.963 +23

8. A&E 1.633 +4

9. Adult Swim 1.448 -2%

10. FX 1.436 -8%

11. Family 1.352 -9%

12. SyFy 1.337 -3%

13. Discovery 1.288 -1%

14. Food Network 1.235 +4%

15. Lifetime 1.204 +7%

16. AMC 1.199 +1%

17. HGTV 1.185 -2%

18. TLC 1.089 -1%

19. TruTV 1.076 -2%

20. Nick At Nite 1.059 -36%
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top