Charlie and Joe Speak on NY Sports
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 115
- Views 10K
You're kidding? You "do" know how to do favorites?
i'm lazy...
with a favorite list, if there are new channels or channels move, you have issues.
Why should sports fans have to buy a programming package before the add-on pack to subsidize non-sports fans in such a scenario? Separating out sports without true ala-carte packaging overall, where sports fans could opt out of some non-sports stuff, would just be gouging sports fans.
I'd really like to order ala carte. But failing that maybe you could have a choice, sports or a 'chick' package of stuff like OWN and Lifetime. My problem is I'm paying for something called and 'Everthing' pack which is increasingly less and less so.
I'm lazy, too. I'm too lazy to scroll thru a list of channels I never watch, so I use Favorites Lists. I only recall once when a channel of mine moved.
I think this will come to a head when ESPN is up for renewal. Disney is going to want a large increase in fees just like Fox has been trying to get with its renewal of the RSN's, FX, and some other channels over the last year with Dish/Directv. Dish may take a stand and say ESPN isn't going in any of the basic packages anymore.
pabeader said:
That's a weak argument for a member of satelliteguys.us , since we have the weekly uplink report that tells you what is new and what has moved!
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
They could call it something catchy, like...I don't know... Voom or something. It'll be great!
Then use channel locks. That's what I do with all the religious, shopping, spanish-language, non-hd versions, etc channels.
This is how it should be handled. You want a regional sports venue, then let those who want it purchase it in a separate package. The problem I see is the sports venues want it all or nothing.
Personally I could care less if they ever show a NY sporting event. I would imagine the majority of Dish subscribers outside the NY area feel the same way. The ideal situation would be to allow the major sporting market areas provide individually purchased packages.
Why not cancel Dish and use the money you save to upgrade the cable package? Since you've already got lower tier cable, it sounds like you don't mind doing business with the cable company, and probably wouldn't even have to do anything beyond making a phone call, assuming they don't require a box or you already have one for your super basic package.
I think Dish wanted to do this with YES and the Yankees didn't want to only be offered ala-cart. They wanted in a basic package that everyone had to pay for, so they got more money.
Far be it from me to defend the Yankees (They're a rival of my favorite team, the Orioles), but I think it was probably an exposure issue also. When these sports networks are outside the regular packages, there are a lot fewer people who could potentially tune in on every given night. The casual fan who might watch a game here or there, but isn't real into sports, might not subscribe, depending on the cost. You also have a lot of people who might like to watch, but don't make the decision in their household on what channels to subscribe to- children, boarders, roommates, tenants in apartment complexes that subscribe to things at a group rate, spouses who don't handle the bills, etc..
Also, once these channels start getting tiered, they probably instantly start getting more expensive. Let's say the RSN wants $2-$3 a head when everyone subscribes. It goes into a tier, and all of the sudden the ad revenue goes down dramatically because of fewer potential and actual viewers, so they raise that to like $5-$6 a head. But wait, there's fewer heads, so make that $10 to bring in the same revenue as the old system. Throw in a profit margin and a little gouging by the cable/satellite company, and you might hit $15-$18. But, wait, that's just one RSN. Want the other one in your area? Toss another $15 into the hopper. Want the ESPN family of networks so you can see your team's nationally televised games? That'll be a third payment of $15. And, oh yeah, that's on top of having to buy a "qualifying package" of regular channels, which would probably cost what it costs today (or close to it), only without what sports fans actually want to watch. So then it becomes an affordability issue for most people, including a lot of die hard sports fans who live and die for their sports, but can't pay that kind of bill unless they want to literally die of, like, starvation or something. It'd be like premium movie channels and such.
One of the Dish Network executives talks about a bleak scenario where 90% of households are locked out of sports programming. Well, by advocating for putting sports in separate premium tiers, they're essentially pushing to create that world.
I'm not saying the ESPNs and YES Networks of the world are free of blame here. All of them are greedy and none of them truly have the best interests of fans at stake. But I don't exclude providers from that group either. The networks want people to believe it's all the cable/satellite providers' fault, and the providers want people to believe it's all the networks' fault.
I don't buy any of their propaganda. At a customer, I expect good television, including all my favorite teams' games, at an affordable price. If that's not in the cards, I'm not going to buy some stupid package of stuff I don't want that doesn't include my teams' games, I'm going to find a different provider that can meet my expectations, and, if none can, I'll save money by not subscribing to television at all. And then the providers lose, and the networks lose. I don't care who's fault it is, stop putting greed ahead of your viewers/customers/fans, or people will just walk away, and then even your greed will no longer be satisfied.
No, what will happen is that the networks like ESPN will not pay as much for the sports. Sport team owners and players will get smaller pay checks. The cost of ESPN and RSNs will stay reasonable since they have to entice people to subscribe.
Things are out of control now because essentially because the networks are in the position now to pretty much raise prices every year because they have a captive market. Every household pays that takes pay TV is the current model. Dish is the only one that actively is bucking the trend.
Do you really think there would be fewer NBA players (or NFL, or any other) if salaries were essentially cut in half across the board because that was all that they could charge and get people to pay? How many players are going to just get another job when they can only make 2 million a year instead of 4? A large number of these star players essentially do not have any other job skills and would find it impossible to beat even 1/10 their pay with another profession.
All the great games would still happen, you will just be paying less to see them.
I'd like to believe that's true, and, I have to admit, it's not impossible. Certainly, if worst comes to worse and this tiering thing takes place, I'd be rooting for things to unfold the way you project that they will after that point.
I don't know that it's the most probable scenario, though. I feel like if sports switched to it's own packages, it'd wind up moving from a broad based model like, say, CNN or USA Network, to one where they accept having fewer people but try to get those people to pay more, like, say, HBO or Showtime.
And even if they decided to go to a model where it was $2-$3 a sports station ala carte, they might decide to respond by putting fewer total games on the air to make up for only having the revenue of people who hand picked the stations. If over all revenue from tv, tickets, etc. plummets, they might also respond by getting rid of teams in minor markets, which would become unprofitable, which obviously would be a negative for fans of those teams.
I'd sure love cheaper tickets and cheaper ways to watch games on television, though. Cheaper merchandise would be great, too!
The truth is, and I'll have to grant you this- if we go into an ala carte type situation with sports channels, almost anything could happen. There are lots of scenarios, both good and bad and neutral, and no one really knows what the reality would be.
I'd be more comfortable with it if they moved to ala carte with everything and I could at least stop subsidizing people who watch Lifetime in exchange for them not subsidizing people who watch what I like to watch. If they only do it with sports, sports fans wind up paying for the regular stuff plus sports stuff and wind up paying more overall than they do now regardless of how much these stations decide to charge fans. But if sports fans can just get the sports channels and nothing else, or hand pick what other non-sports channels they want and which ones they don't, there's a chance they could wind up saving money just like the non-sports fans.
Great games existed long before salaries (mega stadiums and even TV) existed. See it live or perhaps listen for "free" on the radio was about all there was. Even 30 years ago all the the games were on broadcast TV and salaries were "big" to the average person (but small compared to todays mega million contracts). Broadcast TV paid very little for the games because they had to sell ads at a reasonable rate to pay for them.
It was when players like RSNs and ESPN came out and started to pay mega millions/billions for the broadcast rights because they could turn around and charge everyone that things got out of control. If the business model was forced to change I am confident things could revert back to "reasonably big salaries". Perhaps the stadiums would not be quite as fancy, but you could afford to have season tickets again.
It was when players like RSNs and ESPN came out and started to pay mega millions/billions for the broadcast rights because they could turn around and charge everyone that things got out of control. If the business model was forced to change I am confident things could revert back to "reasonably big salaries". Perhaps the stadiums would not be quite as fancy, but you could afford to have season tickets again.
Agree on the desire for a la carte everywhere. But are you serious on this example? Your subsidy of Lifetime is pennies, whereas my subsidy of ESPN is $'s. (That's my wag not knowing actual costs.)
It will crash someday, just like the house market or the tulip bulb market and all the other bubbles.
One day one of the big four carriers (cable,wire, or the two sats) will say enough just like Charlie says. he has considered.
They will abandon the sports, cut their customer prices by 30-40 percent and pick up a bunch of people trying to save money (the 70-80 percent that are willing to live without sports).
Then the sports providers will say what the hell is going on, I'm in long term arena and player contracts and need to get my income back up to cover my costs. So they will stick it to the remaining customers. A bunch of those remaining customers will then drop because of the increased costs and worsen the problem.
Then there will be nashing of teeth, screams and shouts, and bankruptcy will hit the sports market
Costs will drop, customers will come back, and everyone will be licking their wounds, except perhaps the first carrier that makes the jump.
Similar threads
