Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network off Dish due to contract dispute

[CPanther95]

fredfa just posted 2005 revenues for cable stations over at AVS.

Lifetime had $900 million in revenue last year. If E* paid $0.75 for Lifetime and LMC - that's a $108 million hit or 12% of their revenue.

Also goes to show the significance of carriage fees compared to advertising revenue.

 

[riffjim4069]

We dropped down from AEP to AT60 (getting Lifetime from cable) this morning and had the $5 transaction fee waived because of the Lifetime situation. A Dish Network supervisor told my wife they had to drop Lifetime because if would cost every Dish Network customer $26 more per year to renew the contract. Let's do the math: 13M customers x $26 per = 338M dollars per annum. I seriously doubt that Lifetime Networks is demanding $2.17 more per month, per subscriber, for their channels. I don't know about everyone else, but E* is losing more than $50 a month is programming fees from our household.

 

[CPanther95]

Let's see, $100 million minus $600 ($50 x 12) - I don't think they're second-guessing themselves yet.

 

[Jeff_R]

Lifetime wants Real Women to be added to the line up along with the usual yearly increase. The "unreal" increase is not no more than the usual on Lifetime and LMN but you add Real Women to it, that's another cost per sub. It's not an unreal amount, Dish just doesn't want to add it. I don't think Lifetime requesting Real Women to be put on is a big deal. It's not like it can't be added. Dish just wants to be an ass. Charge you more for less in the long run, more profit for them.

It's not a big deal now, but how about in a year or two, when the price increases for LRW start to happen, and it's just one more channel in the lineup that wants even more money. Then, in order to keep LRW, LT, and LMN in the lineup, Dish and the others have to add Lifetime Truly All About Women channel, and it goes on and on from there.

If they truly had the programming to fill these channels correctly, eliminate infomercials, and quit showing the same move 3+ times in the course of a weekend, and still have people interested in their programming, then sure, it's worth it. But when the consumer doesn't have the choice of whether they want the new channel or not, it's required in order to keep a highly regarded channel, it's not fair to the consumer, and affects all of our cable/satellite bills. That's a big deal.

IMHO, this doesn't just apply to Lifetime, but all the rest as well. TNT and TBS show the same 2-3 movies all weekend long, when they could mix up their programming significantly. Discovery has a dozen channels that could, logically, be covered in their main 3 channels. Do we really need a "Biography channel", or can most of it's programming receive adequate coverage on A&E? How many more examples should I provide?

 

[Purogamer]

3...

3 more please...

 

[Jeff_R]

3...

3 more please...

OK, you asked for it

1. Viacom channels - Do we need MTV, MTV2, MTVHits, MTVJams, etc? Even better, MTV Networks owns CMT and VH1 Country. Why are both channels necessary?

2. Scripps - FLN, DIY, HGTV, and Food? I think that, when programming time is used effectively, these can get reduced to about 2 channels tops.

3. NBC/Uni - USA, Bravo, Trio, a new network (can't remember the name), and they all show the same things. I left SciFi out because it does offer a very different type of programming. Not that it couldn't be included as well, again assuming that programming time is used effectively.

There ya go. In my perfect world of cable TV channels, we would have about 10-15 cable channels, plus locals. Hmmmmm...looks a lot like the list earlier in this thread with the top 10 cable channels.

 

[Tvfan24/7]

I agree with you on all the redundancy of channels. The channels I think are the most redundant are the Discovery networks, it seems like they show 6 shows and then replay them until the next day and then do it all over again. Oh and Trio is no longer around, it went off the air on January 1 and is now strictly on the internet. Sleuth replaced it.

 

[Stargazer]

How could it cost over $2 a channel? There are several other channels ahead of Lifetime in the ratings so are they getting more? I dont think so, otherwise it would cost $20+ just for 10 channels. That does not sound right to me.

 

[cablewithaview]

You started off making so much sense, then you blew it at the end.
Why add another channel that nobody is asking for? The minute you do, that becomes a "real" cost - with the same annual increases attached as the primary two channels.
Fight this channel proliferation at every opportunity - and they have to pick the fights that won't hurt them to badly - this is one of them. The expansion of channels is radically faster paced than the expansion of quality programming. That's why we now have about a dozen Discovery channels, yet barely enough, from all combined, to fill Discovery's HD channel - which draws from all their channels.

I guess I could have left out: "Dish just wants to be an ass. Charge you more for less in the long run, more profit for them." If Nickelodoen comes out with yet another Nick at Night or Nicktoons type channel, then what if Dish added it without request? It would still cost more. Granted I don't like 50 channels of Discovery or whatever, it has gotten to the point that we have less content per channel and more paid advertisement and infomercials. It's no wonder people demand more channels, they are trying to fill the gaps. In recent years one channel that came out with the right idea with no paid advertisements and infomercials is "The Sportsman Channel". When they came out with "All Hunting. All Fishing. All the Time. they meant it. It's nice to see something like this come along and set the pace for others. It goes to show it's not always about advertisements, etc. it's about content.

 

[cablewithaview]

How could it cost over $2 a channel? There are several other channels ahead of Lifetime in the ratings so are they getting more? I dont think so, otherwise it would cost $20+ just for 10 channels. That does not sound right to me.

If a la carte becomes a reality it will.

 

[cablewithaview]

We dropped down from AEP to AT60 (getting Lifetime from cable) this morning and had the $5 transaction fee waived because of the Lifetime situation. A Dish Network supervisor told my wife they had to drop Lifetime because if would cost every Dish Network customer $26 more per year to renew the contract. Let's do the math: 13M customers x $26 per = 338M dollars per annum. I seriously doubt that Lifetime Networks is demanding $2.17 more per month, per subscriber, for their channels. I don't know about everyone else, but E* is losing more than $50 a month is programming fees from our household.

Dish has been sipping on kool aid again? Lifetime would increase maybe 5 to 10 cent range but $2.16 per customer per month, I don't think so even if they added Real Women.

 

[CPanther95]

Average carriage fee for cable networks is about $0.30 per channel. Lifetime would likely be a little higher than that, LMC would probably be close to that figure.

The $26 number seems very unlikely (not a chance) or Lifetime would never be able to claim a "modest" increase. Just a WAG, but I'd wager (using very rough numbers) that it is something like Lifetime wanted a boost from $0.42/$0.25 under the current contract to $0.53/$0.32 with a small percentage increase each year of the contract.

After 3 years of 3% increases, they'd be at $0.93 for both primary channels.

The original fee for both channels was $0.67 per month and with a 76% increase would have to be $1.18 a month. If they required carriage of LRW at $0.25 per sub, that would make up the difference.

 

[twinrocks]

Stuck with Dish

Well, we are stuck with Dish until August! We pay a year in advance so we get a discount. I called Dish and I told them that I would switch to Direct TV today if it weren't for that, and since it's paid, they do not give refunds. I am still not happy that I now get WE and ELove twice. I wonder how Dish can still list Lifetime and LMN on their channel lineup, and when you look at Lifetime you would never know that it is not Lifetime, there is no statement on that one!! I am amazed that Lifetime is letting Dish get away with that. Kind of like false advertising??

 

[dishcomm]

Prepare yourself for shocking news: Dish is in a contract dispute with a channel! Lifetime Movie Network is off the air and in it's place WE is simulcasted. I don't get that since both are on at120.

getting lots of feedback from Dish csr's about complaints and cancellations due to the loss of the "kill your husband" channel...IMO this is a most childish reaction on the part of the complainers..self cenetered as well..I have talked to two women in our office that would gladly pay the extra dough for the channels..no matter what the increase....I have an idea...make LT and LTMN pay channels like HBO, etc........

 

[CPanther95]

All these issues will be solved under a la carte.

 

[dishcomm]

Something is VERY VERY wrong with this picture. I know that DirecTv has more subscribers than Dish Network but DirecTv still has to pay based upon the amount of subscribers that they have to those channels just like Dish Network does. If anything Dish Network is getting just as good of a deal if not a cheaper deal since they play hardball. How can DirecTv keep the rates the same and keep all of these channels but Dish Network cannot afford to keep the channels that they have and still demand a large increase (as much as 11%). I already know of a number of consumers that have switched from Dish Network to DirecTv the second half of 2005 before any of this happened.
It is going to be hard to compete when you charge money more for less content.

DTV is smoking all the Sunday Ticket buyers with a the price increases....i bet the Ticket will go up another 20 or 30 dollars next season...

 

[cablewithaview]

All these issues will be solved under a la carte.

You must be sipping the same kool aid as Dish, a la carte will do nothing but increase cost of programming causing the provider to be able to do nothing but either offer it or not. Paying $20 for 5 channels, yea right that's a great deal with a la carte. ESPN would go to $10+ and Lifetime $5+, I'm not working overtime to pay ESPN or Lifetime or anyone else for that matter.

 

[dishcomm]

geez 5 pages for lifetime?
what do we got a bunch of women on here? this is supossed to be satelliteGUYS.us
you shouldn't give 2 sh!ts about this channel

I sure as hell don't care..and neither does my wife..she thinks Lifetime is a women's victimology channel......
I think this carping about the loss of LT and LMN is so comical...It is as though these people just cannot go on another day without it........Look, I like sports ..a whole bunch.. But if I lost ESPN ....so what.....I'd make due....everybody should just calm down
Ans BTW Dish did not "drop" LT AND LMN..The contract expired making it illegal to carry the service......that goes out to all the complainers

 

[Stargazer]

If the rates of the channels would go up that much a lot of people would probably do away with it and go OTA and FTA.

If it really would have costed over $2.00 after the increase Lifetime says that they are getting less than the others then something seems way off here.

 

[CPanther95]

You must be sipping the same kool aid as Dish, a la carte will do nothing but increase cost of programming causing the provider to be able to do nothing but either offer it or not. Paying $20 for 5 channels, yea right that's a great deal with a la carte. ESPN would go to $10+ and Lifetime $5+, I'm not working overtime to pay ESPN or Lifetime or anyone else for that matter.

Lifetime would likely end up a free channel completely ad-supported in order to encourage maximum subscribership. If they charged $5, they'd never get enough subs. But either way, they can price it at whatever they want under a la carte, and if the demand is there - they'll survive. If the demand isn't there, they'll go to a free channel, or they'll die off - rightfully so.