So you think every minute of every day is being reported to the stations? AND someone is going through and saying "That Chevy spot got a 2.6 rating"? I have a bridge to sell you.
Phoenix Meredith stations dispute?
- Thread starter DJ Lon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 318
- Views 27K
Nope, but I do think there is a log of when autohop skipped per viewing. Meaning that entire ad slot was wasted. Percentage game. If they can easily determine that more than 80% of the ads were hopped over, and reports that to Nielsen, then that is huge. Granted, I am making 80% up.
I don't even think that gets reported to the stations (I wouldn't be surprised that it's collected, I just don't know that it's disseminated). And still, even with that data, how does customers dropping locals give leverage to Dish in negotiations (which was my point all along)?
I know I'm slow, but please explain.
First, for autohop to have an impact on advertisers, the advertisers would have to know how many people are using autohop. So you think that not only is Dish collecting when someone uses autohop and sending it to Nielsen, but Nielsen is passing that information on to the stations (which I don't think happens) AND the stations are passing it on to the advertisers (NOT happening).
Second, since the early days of VCRs, people have been fast forwarding or skipping commercials when watching a show on delay. I think it's safe to say 95%+ of people watching a recorded show are skipping the commercials. Autohop just makes it easier.
So third, how exactly do you think Dish uses this leverage at the negotiation table?
Broadcaster: We want $1.50/subscriber. (made up number. I have no idea what it is).
Dish: Yea, well, we've had a lot of subscribers cancel locals.
Broadcaster: OK, we want $1.50 for those who do subscribe to locals.
Dish: But, autohop.
Broadcaster: ?????
But, what you are missing is that although it doesn't increase or decrease viewership, it does is take away the number of subscribers for Dish. Dish can then say to the locals that their subscribers don't want to pay to watch locals. Therefore, the increase they are demanding are unjustified. It gives a quantitative metric to end the greed on the locals behalf.
many touted Dish can take with that very important information. If autohop was not a big deal to the big four, they wouldn’t have tried to block it, then write it into their contracts. Their actions are contrary to your opinion.
You're looking at things through rose colored glasses my friend. That's how you think it would go. I give the broadcasters more credit. It doesn't take a lot to counter with... "they're able to watch us with an antenna. We don't lose viewers, YOU lose the $12/month. Look at our ratings. They haven't dropped."
So in other words, you don't know how autohop can be used as more leverage.
And you realize I don't speak for the networks, or even a broadcaster. My opinions are my own. Personally, I don't think blocking or delaying autohop gains the networks anything. Hitting "Skip Forward" or "Fast Forward" or whatever will still be done.
You can't show any evidence that advertisers get any statistics about who uses autohop, can you? Again, I don't deny Dish collects the information and probably passes it to Neilsen. Does it go any further than that?
So, the networks saying in court that the reason it should be ruled against was because it devalues their space to advertisers is not enough support for you. I know it is your opinion, which is why i specifically said that THEIR actions are in dispute with YOUR opinions. Seems the networks agree less with you, and believe that autohop effects them.
It’s funny that you make the argument about fast forward, as that was Dish’s position as well, which ultimately is why the networks were losing the lawsuit and decided to settle before having it ruled on.
It’s funny that you make the argument about fast forward, as that was Dish’s position as well, which ultimately is why the networks were losing the lawsuit and decided to settle before having it ruled on.
Dish doesn't lose $12/mo, they only lose the small portion of it, if any, that they're not paying the broadcasters. The broadcasters on the other hand, lose the entire retrans fee from those subscribers that drop the locals.
That what, $1 - $1.50? Yup, that will hit them in the pocket book.
ETA: Oh, wait... the station has to pay out per subscriber to the network, so they're "losing" even less.
The claims on here are that subs dropping locals gives Dish more leverage (but that hasn't been proven) and that no restrictions on autohop somehow upsets advertisers (and that hasn't been proven).
Last edited:
As I went back and edited (which you quoted), the stations aren't losing $1-$2 because they have to pay the network for each subscriber.
That still doesn't explain how those dropping locals give Dish more leverage in negotiations (which was the claim). If someone has already dropped locals, they must have found someway to watch the shows they want (ratings aren't decreasing), so they're not coming back. So how is it a negotiating ploy?
If suddenly we could not skip over ads, a lot of people would not be watching commercial channels. I know I wouldn't.
Your deflecting. You claimed some tie between autohop and advertisers gives Dish leverage in negotiations, but can't explain how. That's all I'm asking for. If you can't support your statements, that's fine. Saying "well the networks negotiated for a delay in authohop" doesn't explain anything.
So they lose the retrans fees and don't care according to you? And of course they're also losing the retrans fees completely during the blackout, money Dish is saving. The combination should carry some weight I would think. The longer the station holds out, the more they lose and the more Dish saves...
So you would only watch the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc)? You don't have to have autohop to skip ads. I do it all the time and I have a ViP receiver. "Skip forward" works as it always has.
I did not say they don't care. I'm saying losing OTA subscribers can't be used as a negotiating tool. Well, it can be tried, but I'm guessing it doesn't get very far. Please make the argument...
Broadcaster: "We want $1.50 per subscriber."
Dish: Well, we've had a lot of subscribers drop OTA so they must not want to watch your station.
Broadcaster: Funny, our ratings haven't dropped, so they're watching us somehow, whether through another MVPD or an antenna. So they're still watching us, just not paying you. We want $1.50 per local subscriber.
Dish: ????
Dish doesn't lose $12.00 a month. That $12.00 a month is because the broadcasters are gauging Dish. Get enough people to drop locals, then Dish can either pay less or justify dropping the channel and pay nothing.
Furthermore, if they are getting viewership from OTA, then why gauge the providers in the first place? They do it because they can't make business solely on OTA viewership. Perhaps if they lose the income from screwing over the providers, they will have to change their spending habits.
And what's "enough" people? The costs for Dish are fixed whether they're serving one person or one million. Get enough people to drop locals and Dish is losing money.
I don't think they're having a problem "making business". Yes, they make more because of retrans. But what you're forgetting is the broadcasters don't get all of the retrans fees. They have to pay a chunk to the network. So that $1 - $1.50 isn't pure profit either.
