Hearst Television Inc. blacks out DISH customers in 26 markets
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 452
- Views 58K
To some extent I would say it is Market dependent. But I believe it is DISH who is saying it doesn't hurt us that much since all the crying over the last weeks is from Hearst. Remember it's DISH who scrapped NY RSN's for being too expensive because Charlie determined not a high enough percentage of customers would drop DISH there. They dropped CSNNE with virtually no one really caring. I think they have a good handle on what the costs will be to them not having a channel to having it.
Lets take the Market I am most familiar with for ratings of News etc without having to go and look everything up, Hartford. If the dispute was in Hartford newscasts are high quality productions, very bigly there, very very competitive, costly more than some other markets. (I think better produced than Tampa in general and Tampa is pretty good one of the best in the State)
I think losing some customers for one local because of not being on DISH could make a difference under those circumstances. Second sticking with Hartford there are plenty of remote areas and areas not so remote that with the digital change can no longer get some of the locals OTA either.
If those two things don't exist in a particular Market it may not make as much a difference, as in my mention of Tampa where they are competitive but you can get them OTA for a huge section of their Market. In fact many homes still use an Antenna as compared to Ct.
We may know at some point but I am not predicting it. Hearst at some point can ask for must carry, should it come to that then their locals are hurting. Again maybe depending on Market but I don't think that will be the case.
One last thing, Directv. There is some indication and not made up, that At&t may not want Directv to around for a long time. What will be their posture when these locals come up for negotiation. Even if that isn't the case, would Directv take a very hard stance too knowing they are off of DISH already and those locals don't want to be off both services?
Last edited:
So do you all think that Dish should pay more per sub for Hearst than Direct does?
Well, with few exceptions, most here will answer that they shouldn't pay anything. As one of the few that thinks locals should be paid, I want to know when Direct last negotiated with Hurst. And MAYBE they should pay .05 more. But I wouldn't complain if they paid the same amount. Actually, I wouldn't complain if they paid less.
Hearst blacked out DTV back in January for a week, so I don't think there should be any difference in what Dish pays.
I also think it's a bit of a Red Herring. DISH couldn't possibly have thought Hearst was going to tell them and then show them exactly what Directv is paying. But it sounds good to say we shouldn't pay more than the other Satellite company. That just isn't how negotiations work.
Sam, their greed is not based on increased rates. You keep tap dancing around my point. the underlying issue is that they give away their services for free, via OTA. When cable originally launched, the free service was bundled with other pay services as an added perk. These creators of the free service then b****** and moaned how the the providers were making money off their free service, hence they were entitled to a cut of those profits. Again, in my opinion, that was greed. I debate the statement that providers were directly making money off the signals from locals, until retransmission began.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!
Thanks for the clarification; however, that is aside my point. I referenced USSB to indicate the length of time that I was going back. Whether or not USSB carried locals had no baring on my point.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!
If providers were/are making anything, it wasn't/isn't much, by the time they pay for all the equipment to get the signals to the uplink facilities
But they've had that equipment for YEARS now. I would agree with you if it just got put in a year or two ago. I feel confident the providers have their ROI covered (and yes, I know they've upgraded). If I pointed out locals had to upgrade equipment, you'd say "it's the cost of doing business" (rightfully so). So I say to you, the providers equipment is "the cost of doing business".
It's time to say no deal ? OK let's bring in a distance channel
Possible (probable) contract limitations with syndicated/network shows can prevent that.
I didn't think that was possible. Either you get it, or you don't. Unless ABC, etc (most of Hearst's stations are ABC affiliates) signs it's own deal to deliver only the network programming to the affected areas. I don't see that happening. It's the same as the RSNs. Dish dropped CSN New England, but I can't see the Celtics through the CSN Chicago fees when the play the Bulls.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using the SatelliteGuys app!
But what also can be said is......The monies they get paid are by the # of viewers correct?(from commercial advertising)
So if in any market its one million viewers, with 3 major providers(keep it simple).
You have cable,direct, then dish.....So you can say they get less monies for commercials because you lost 1/3 your audience.
IMO its double dipping......and no one in DC could care what we pay, as long as it helps there caimpain funds!
It does happen though. Let's say Station WWWW has Wheel of Fortune. Their contract with Wheel gives them exclusive rights in that market for the show (or so I've been told). So if Dish brought in distant WZZZ and they happen to carry Wheel of Fortune, that could be a contract issue. I'm assuming locals also have similar contracts with the networks. I've also been told commercial talent (voice overs, on camera, etc) may be contracted to only be seen in certain markets. Bringing in distant markets violates that too. I'll readily admit I might be wrong on these examples, but that's my understanding on how things work.
Cost for advertising is based on ratings. Ratings are determined by a representative sample of the viewers. So out of 1M viewers, maybe there's 50K households actually getting measured. Picture it like the political polls. They don't ask every voter, but just try to get a representative sample.
ESPN, Disney, History, MTV, Lifetime, etc also are "double dipping"... we have to pay for their placement with MVPDs AND they show commercials.
I remember when they didn't. The landscape is effed up.
All the content owners have followed each other in jumping off that bridge, hoping the customers will continue to be there to break their fall. Finally the herd is thinning, but the greed of double-digit inflation continues.
it's an endless argument, one of the reasons I left broadcast industry a few years after college. I saw where it was going and got tired of arguing with management about it. Much happier as my own boss.
espn , history etc as examples is an apple to oranges comparison. MVPD were conceived to distribute subscription commercial programming. The OTA network affiliate system was conceived to distribute network affiliates locally. If the affiliates want to be paid then turn over their broadcast frequencies and compete with the subscription channels on a fair playground and not be propped up by government intervention.
espn , history etc as examples is an apple to oranges comparison. MVPD were conceived to distribute subscription commercial programming. The OTA network affiliate system was conceived to distribute network affiliates locally. If the affiliates want to be paid then turn over their broadcast frequencies and compete with the subscription channels on a fair playground and not be propped up by government intervention.
I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it. Again, an item is only worth what someone is willing to pay.
If we could choose the items to pay for and not have the all-or-nothing bundle extortion. At least Flex Pack is a small step in the right direction.
