Dish non responsive to its customer wants

[markcosenza]

I had a similar type of response with respect to my inquiry about Here! (Which by the way, USED to be on channel 537, but was replaced in December with nothing and then HDPPV.) And while many that hang out here probably aren't interested in LOGO or Here! (or would admit it), that doesn't reflect the national audience numbers that are interested. LOGO does have it's fan base nevertheless - and I would venture to say that it is as much or more than some of the other MTV offspring ( Dish carries all of the other obscure channels, but not LOGO.) Although I was a bit ticked off when they aired the Democratic Debates on it and I couldn't watch it, but I digress... Anyhow, it's not a dealbreaker for me as far as keeping the service goes because i invested way too much in their equipment (and now even have an external HD hooked up to it.)

The response I get about anything from DishNetwork is extremely generic so I don't bother to write to them. I think that's the real issue here (or should i say Here!).

 

[drdroo]

I don't care about the programming any but if they have adult packages, ethnic packages, why not a gay package?

I'd not want to subsidize (or take a rate hike) for those channels but if they can get someone to pay some money out for them, then why not?

 

[markcosenza]

Why?

I just realized that LOGO is teh g4y channel... i'm sure that's very low on E*'s list...

 

[drdroo]

Why?

Caters to a narrow group of individuals. I suspect that same size group buys adult movies on PPV with Dish though.

 

[abricko]

yeah, i'm in no way trying to bash... I just realized what that channel actually was and I'm sure the demand is very low... sports are probably the highest demand... which would be why they've been focusing on getting more sports channels.

 

[markcosenza]

I suppose, but is it any more narrow than the G4, Jewelry Television, ION, Lifetime Movie Network, Pentagon Channel, IFC, Soapnet, and The Fine Living Channel? Besides that, that "narrow group of individuals" on average, has more extra income to put towards things like this. And let's face it, 10% of the population isn't really that narrow.

Caters to a narrow group of individuals. I suspect that same size group buys adult movies on PPV with Dish though.

 

[drdroo]

I suppose, but is it any more narrow than the G4, Jewelry Television, ION, Lifetime Movie Network, Pentagon Channel, IFC, Soapnet, and The Fine Living Channel? Besides that, that "narrow group of individuals" on average, has more extra income to put towards things like this. And let's face it, 10% of the population isn't really that narrow.

I don't think we really want to travel down this road, because you're talking 10% of the population and then an even smaller portion that have Dish.

For instance, all of the gay people I know have cable... If the stats ring true, that means of that 10%, 0 have Dish. I'm sure someone could be gay, have Dish, and want those channels. But for whatever reason Dish has done the numbers and determined that there's not enough to justify it.

I do watch G4 sometimes as well as IFC (IFC shows Clerks, amongst other things). LMN was probably 'part of the deal' for carrying Lifetime, which my sister and mother watch.

Jewelry TV I think sells Jewelry right? Dish probably has an arrangement with them where they may get a little something for carrying it.

For those who DO want a particular channel, you should certainly made it known, band together, etc. Prove Dish's numbers wrong. If you can get a related group to help you out (for instance a GLB group), then maybe you can be loud enough for them to take notice.

I have nothing wrong with them adding any content, but at the same time it isn't my fight (I'm rather indifferent). On the other hand, I've fought for straight white guy channel for many years and people just call me names like 'intolerant'..

 

[mruk69]

It seems obvious to me that Gay programming is not popular on Dish. They tried adding Here on a PPV basis, no one ordered it and they got rid of it.
I do not think it is fair for people, who are not into that kind of a thing to have to pay for a channel like Logo by adding it to a America's package.

 

[drdroo]

I agree. It's all about demand.. There are many women out there that would go on a murderous rampage to Colorado if Charlie ditched Lifetime permanently (instead of just when they get into disputes ).

 

[broadcasttheworld]

How much revenue does LOGO make? How much does the big ten network make? Case closed. it matters not who wants what. It matters how much money and how many viewers a channel can make. Thats like saying I wish Walmart would carry pink riding shoes in every store just so one person or a few persons could buy them. rather they carry black and white.

 

[broadcasttheworld]

OH LOGO is a "GAY" channel. wow do they have a female version? I'd pay for that! J/K LOL

 

[drdroo]

Unfortunately I think it's all mixed together. If you want to see chicks then Cinemax after 8pm used to be nice back when I had it. It's just that Cinemax is really a useless premium... I traded it out for Starz Super Pak instead...

 

[minnow]

Come on now are you saying that there was a great demand for fine living, resort and residence, & ion? All three of these have been added since 2005. Yes I am comparing LOGO to Big TEn. LOGO is more important to me then all that useless, nasty, sports crap...

However many others would share the opinion that LOGO is a useless, nasty, crap channel.

 

[Slamminc11]

...I do not think it is fair for people, who are not into that kind of a thing to have to pay for a channel like Logo by adding it to a America's package.

The same thing could be said for pretty much every channels like BET(I'm not black, why should I pay for it), FoxNews (don't even get me started), HGTV (I live in an apartment, this means nothing to me), NFL Network (unless it's the Bronco's I couldn't give a crap), ESPN (the only good thing on there is their commercials about Sportscenter), G4 (umm, huh?), Soap Channel (Oh please), Hallmark Channel (yawn), MTV (how many real worlds can one person watch), Disney (I'm an adult and don't plan on having kids, worthless)...Do I need to keep going or have you figured it out yet. There are plenty of channels on Dish's lineup (and Directs, and Comcast, and Time Warner...) that people don't want to pay for but they are on there because someone likes it.

 

[Slamminc11]

However many others would share the opinion that LOGO is a useless, nasty, crap channel.

So is Fox News, what's the point?

 

[drdroo]

So is Fox News, what's the point?

Point is the millions of people who watch Foxnews each day. Apples and oranges.

I'd argue at least 1 million Dish Network customers flip on Foxnews in the course of any given day, at least briefly. I can't say the same for a channel like Logo.

Of course, one can't say that about a LOT of channels on Dish. But we don't know what MTV Networks thinks Logo is worth on a 'per customer' cost either.

 

[Matthew s]

It seems obvious to me that Gay programming is not popular on Dish. They tried adding Here on a PPV basis, no one ordered it and they got rid of it.
I do not think it is fair for people, who are not into that kind of a thing to have to pay for a channel like Logo by adding it to a America's package.

Yet you are quite happy that I should have to pay for sports programing that I have no intrest in and think sports and sports programing is just a waste. I don't think it is fair that I should have to pay for 30+sports channels.

 

[drdroo]

Yet you are quite happy that I should have to pay for sports programing that I have no intrest in and think sports and sports programing is just a waste. I don't think it is fair that I should have to pay for 30+sports channels.

30+? Where are you getting 30+? Maybe if you have Multisport for 5.99... but 30? REALLY?

 

[Matthew s]

I had a similar type of response with respect to my inquiry about Here! (Which by the way, USED to be on channel 537, but was replaced in December with nothing and then HDPPV.) And while many that hang out here probably aren't interested in LOGO or Here! (or would admit it), that doesn't reflect the national audience numbers that are interested. LOGO does have it's fan base nevertheless - and I would venture to say that it is as much or more than some of the other MTV offspring ( Dish carries all of the other obscure channels, but not LOGO.) Although I was a bit ticked off when they aired the Democratic Debates on it and I couldn't watch it, but I digress... Anyhow, it's not a dealbreaker for me as far as keeping the service goes because i invested way too much in their equipment (and now even have an external HD hooked up to it.)

The response I get about anything from DishNetwork is extremely generic so I don't bother to write to them. I think that's the real issue here (or should i say Here!).

I agree that is why I am branching out. Do you all remember years ago when a disgruntled customer of dunkin doughnuts launched a negative web site about dunkin doughnuts?

 

[drdroo]

It's Dunkin DONUTS, it's a corporate name..

And they suck.. I'm glad Tim Hortons is here..