New Cox Cable Bashing by ESPN

[ScottChez]

Goto ESPN.COM and you will get a Pop up that says Cox Cable wants to take ESPN away from you and they you should switch to SATV.

This must be why Cox is going up $20. Guess I will stay with Dish even though the HDTV is not all there yet. I am glad I waited for Dish. Sounds like HDTV is around the corner now with the 811 model.

Pasted Text from the ESPN press release and on there web site:

1. It's about Cox Cable margins, not protecting the consumer
Like all cable operators, Cox Cable provides its customers with a great product at a great price. But it is patently absurd to suggest that what Cox Cable offers would be better if ESPN were to be ripped out of basic and placed on an extra-fee tier by Cox Cable, or dropped, as Cox Cable has threatened, from its systems altogether.
Cox Cable's effort to blame ESPN for its retail pricing decisions is just plain wrong. For Cox Cable, this is contract negotiation rhetoric directed solely at improving its already healthy, growing 35% margin business (Cox Cable 2002 10-K).

 

[AppliedAggression]

Good for Cox! I agree 100%. Lots of customers don't want or care for ESPN and for ESPN to charge $2.50 per customer it's absurd. ESPN should be a la carte or part of a bigger package. It is not reasonable to include it in basic extended anymore. Sorry ESPN.

 

[Guest]

Cox cable has now countered on there web site with a Make them play fair ad

http://makethemplayfair.com/

 

[BarryO]

Good for Cox! I agree 100%. Lots of customers don't want or care for ESPN and for ESPN to charge $2.50 per customer it's absurd. ESPN should be a la carte or part of a bigger package. It is not reasonable to include it in basic extended anymore. Sorry ESPN.

Absolutely. I don't give a rat's arse about professional team sports. I'm surpirised so many people do. I mean, I don't know any of these athletic mercenaries personally; I've never been able to figure out why I should care what they do.

But if there are those that do, so be it. But if ESPN wants to get premium prices for their offering, then it should be split off as its own premium channel. I don't want its cost included in my bill.

 

[James]

You people are so myopic. Its not just espn that is the problem. What about USA, TNT and other channels that overpay for sports? If I wanted to just add every sports channel (which i would if I could) and drop those that did not have sports because I only watch TV for sports, how would you resolve the fact that I would still get USA, TNT and others. Cox can't have it both ways.

 

[silversurfer]

Is ESPN really that big of a channel anymore? In all honesty I do not know because I don't watch sports but I was curious last night and flipped to it. They were showing a scrabble match! Since when is scrabble a sport? I don't think it should necessarily be eliminated from basic cable but when do you draw the line and say enough is enough?

 

[James]

I personally would love a la carte, but you can't just do it with one channel. The only way it’s a benefit is to have everyone do it. What’s the point of 150 channels if we don't watch more than 10 of them with any regularity? Of course a la carte would kill smaller channels like DIY, Sundance and others that might not be able to market themselves as well as Discovery, A&E and other bigger players.

Why single out ESPN when TNT, USA and others are paying just as much for sports passing it on to the companies?

 

[bradleys]

Programming providers may be evil, but they're not stupid.

"Well, sure, cable/satellite company. We'd be happy to provide the 'All Academy Award (R) Winning Movie Channel'. Oh, by the way, you have to also buy the 'All Regis Philbin (R) Channel' and the 'All Tom Arnold (R) Channel'. Oh, by the way, all three channels are $3.00 per month per subscriber. Oh, by the way, you have to give them to all your subscribers as part of your most basic package. Oh, by the way, you also have to agree that you will NEVER talk smack about us in any fashion or you agree to pay (large amount) in damages."

This post is in no way denying that cable and satellite providers are evil in their own unique ways.

 

[ScottChez]

After all those new Dont Feed the Big Ads from Dish.

Cox now has put a PIG on there web site talking about the savings. The Pig Logo is spinning.


http://www.cox.com/

 

[rtt2]

Thats been there for a loooong time

 

[AppliedAggression]

This needs some bumping. Speak out for what you believe in:

http://makethemplayfair.com/

http://msn.espn.go.com/gen/espncablestanceindex.html

and James, ESPN charges almost $2.50 per subscriber for having their channel. I'm sure many people would love to save 2.50/month to not have ESPN. I'm a sportsfan and ESPN is a HUUUGE disappointment, they don't show any WRC rally, they don't show F1 racing anymore, and their hockey coverage is getting worse and worse. You know what? Suck it ESPN!

 

[Guest]

After all those new Dont Feed the Big Ads from Dish.

Cox now has put a PIG on there web site talking about the savings. The Pig Logo is spinning.


http://www.cox.com/

The pig was there long before the ad.

 

[Guest]

Written by AppliedAggression:
and James, ESPN charges almost $2.50 per subscriber for having their channel. I'm sure many people would love to save 2.50/month to not have ESPN.

However, now the disdain shown for ESPN can be placed across other channels, as well.

Currently, ESPN negotiates with every cabler and DBS provider for pricing, tier, and channel placement. So, the cost for ESPN is $2.50 for favorable channel placement and basic package tiering. If ESPN was removed from the basic tier, the price would no longer be $2.50 per month.

ESPN sets ad rates being available to 77 million households, since every basic package subscriber receives the channel. Removing the channel from basic to "premium" will reduce the channel's availability, thus increasing both ad rates and subscription rates.

And then the providers won't stop at going after ESPN. It will be one of your favorite channels, next.

Even though both the DBS companies and the cablers have battles with programming providers, the cablers and DBS companies are spending more in infrastructure upgrades than they are in programming. Therefore, when it comes to expenses, who is crying foul?

 

[James Long]

Currently, ESPN negotiates with every cabler and DBS provider for pricing, tier, and channel placement. So, the cost for ESPN is $2.50 for favorable channel placement and basic package tiering. If ESPN was removed from the basic tier, the price would no longer be $2.50 per month.

For me it would be free. I wouldn't pay for ESPN ala carte. Also, depending on how many people wouldn't pop for the next tier, ESPN would end up losing money by being in a second tier or (worse) ala carte position.

ESPN sets ad rates being available to 77 million households, since every basic package subscriber receives the channel. Removing the channel from basic to "premium" will reduce the channel's availability, thus increasing both ad rates and subscription rates.

Ad rates are set based on the number of viewers provided by the programmer. If ESPN dropped to 55 million households or less they would not be able to charge as much for their services. They would have to rely more on "targeted" rates using demographics than a simple household count.

FOX Sports has the leg up in that realm. Not only can they reach regional audiences through their many sports networks, but they can also sell regionally targeted ads. Buy on ESPN and you are advertising coast to coast ... buy on FOX and you are advertising to your market (or markets) of choice.

Reaching less households leaves the salesman in the position of being more creative in the packaging in order to keep the price up. There is no way a national company is going to pay ESPN more for 55 million households than 77 million households unless the 55 million are 'better' households more likely to buy. Losing households does not raise their rates, it weakens their product ... and their product is those 30-60 second things they put in the gaps between the sports, along with video banners and drop in announcements in the sports.

ESPN's product is not sports. Sports is merily the vehicle they use to deliver their product, advertising, to the couch potato athletes watching.

Even though both the DBS companies and the cablers have battles with programming providers, the cablers and DBS companies are spending more in infrastructure upgrades than they are in programming. Therefore, when it comes to expenses, who is crying foul?

The infrastructure delivers all channels, not just specific ones. The program battles are over specific content on those channels. It cost the same infrastructure to broadcast ESPN or one of the shopping networks. The shopping networks are paying for their space. But ESPN expects the DBS company and cable companies to pay for the infrastructure as well as the premium for programming.

Having programming like ESPN's available does help the DBS/cable company pull in certain subscribers ... which is the only reason why it is worth it to pay ESPN for the priviledge of getting thier product (commercials) to viewers. Some folks at home like ESPN, and have a reasonable expectation to have ESPN available for viewing. Which puts both DBS and cable in a box --- do they drop ESPN and tick off certain customers or pay the ransom ESPN is requesting and take a hit on the balance sheet where that money could have gone to better infrastructure?

"Sorry but cable internet will not be provided this year because the money we would have invested in infrastructure was paid in extortion to ESPN. Hope you like sports!"

JL

 

[Nick]

Greg Bimson wrote "ESPN sets ad rates being available to 77 million households, since every basic package subscriber receives the channel. Removing the channel from basic to "premium" will reduce the channel's availability, thus increasing both ad rates and subscription rates."

Don't you mean ... 'thus reducing ad rates'? The fewer eyeballs a programmer can claim, the lower the cost, based on cost-per-thousand.

[Good to "see" you again, Greg. It 's been a while. ]


What if all non-premium channels were a la carte? I would only sub to about 20, maybe 25 and save a ton of $$$. I have AEP and, with the exception of premiums, never watch the vast majority of the others. As an exmple, early on, I upped to AT150 just to get the "Discovery Wings" channel. so essentially, I was paying the entire AT100 to At150 package price differential just for Wings.

Multi-channel tv is the only busness I know of that forces us to buy stuff we don't want in order to get what we do want. What if other products were bundled like cable and sat providers do? To get your Wheaties at the grocery, you have to buy frozen asparagus, a furnace filter and the large Kotex. "Sorry, but they're shrink-wrapped together and you are not permitted to break the pak."

Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea! Retailers, contact me for many more great multi-pak bundling ideas.

 

[Guest]

justalurker, Nick,

You are correct. I meant just "reducing" rates.

The real point here is if Cox did kick ESPN to the curb, ESPN would not become available in a separate tier, and I guarantee there would be no real refund to customers. You won't receive your $2.50 that ESPN charges.

Either way, many people will leave Cox, in just another example of cable companies acting as gatekeepers for channels.

 

[vurbano]

Cox cable is hemmoraging customers to satellite all over this area. Maybe this will put another dagger in their bloated body.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

This is an old thread.

COX and ESPN came to an agreement and are best buddies again.

 

[Peter Parker]

Thisa has not hing to do with ESPN but I suspect that vurbano may be a dissatified Cox customer in Northen Virginia. Cox here recently completed an upgrade of their software that rendered the modems they supplied to sustomers useless. Their telephone support message was inaccurate and only those custoemrs who bothered to complain were given a cvredit on their bills (I suspect that this will change).

In some parts of the country Cox seems to be doing a great job but here they are the prototypical cable pig.