The only issue with Alacarte is that is going to make it a nightmare for customer service with customers calling in wanting to add or remove paticular channels
Price increase during a RECESSION?
- Thread starter TonyNC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 44
- Views 7K
- Status
To Claude's point about a-la carte....
It is a shame that folks who actually foot the bill have no say in the negotiations. ESPN has always been considered a lower tier channel. By that, I mean to say, most customers expect to see ESPN as part of the "basic" package. Take ESPN away from the package, and instantly you'll save a couple of dollars...next....take away your RSN and the dollars shrink dramatically. I remember the first iteration of RSNs. I lived in the Bay Area and a new "premium " channel became available for $19.99/month called "Giants-Vision". This was in the early 80's and there was minimal support. As a side note, another "premium" channel costing $9.99/month was "The Disney Channel". Think about those prices before deciding A-La Carte is the way to go.
Sports definitely are affecting our bills in a huge way. For baseball teams to have a payroll budget in excess of 100 million a year should say something. The problem now is that, like sports or not, you contributed to the ability for A-Rod to get juiced. You helped defend Kobe against rape charges. You enabled the McGwire/Sosa run for the record that led to Bonds' trip to Balco. And worst of all...you had no voice in the matter. As Scott loves to say...follow the money trail.. ESPN paid MLB for Sunday/Tuesday games and jacked your cable/satellite rates to do so. Those rate increases went back to ESPN which went back to the NBA and MLB.
I am a sports nut and wish it were different, but I have no say in the matter. If I want to watch even my local D-Backs play, I have to have FSN AZ. The D-Backs no longer air any of their games OTA.
It is a shame that folks who actually foot the bill have no say in the negotiations. ESPN has always been considered a lower tier channel. By that, I mean to say, most customers expect to see ESPN as part of the "basic" package. Take ESPN away from the package, and instantly you'll save a couple of dollars...next....take away your RSN and the dollars shrink dramatically. I remember the first iteration of RSNs. I lived in the Bay Area and a new "premium " channel became available for $19.99/month called "Giants-Vision". This was in the early 80's and there was minimal support. As a side note, another "premium" channel costing $9.99/month was "The Disney Channel". Think about those prices before deciding A-La Carte is the way to go.
Sports definitely are affecting our bills in a huge way. For baseball teams to have a payroll budget in excess of 100 million a year should say something. The problem now is that, like sports or not, you contributed to the ability for A-Rod to get juiced. You helped defend Kobe against rape charges. You enabled the McGwire/Sosa run for the record that led to Bonds' trip to Balco. And worst of all...you had no voice in the matter. As Scott loves to say...follow the money trail.. ESPN paid MLB for Sunday/Tuesday games and jacked your cable/satellite rates to do so. Those rate increases went back to ESPN which went back to the NBA and MLB.
I am a sports nut and wish it were different, but I have no say in the matter. If I want to watch even my local D-Backs play, I have to have FSN AZ. The D-Backs no longer air any of their games OTA.
I enjoy my D* service as much as anyone, but to think that D* has to raise rates to survive is not true. A look at the 2008 earnings report shows that the company had an operating profit of $2.4 Billion, and income of $1.4 Billion.
I realize that the American way is to make as much money as possible, but in a time when many consumers are having a tough time making ends meet, it would be a great marketing gimmick to say that they are not raising rates this year. From a financial standpoint they have the ability to do it.
I'm pretty sure that the amount of the increase includes some padding in the 'profit' portion of ledger sheet and isn't all consumed by increased broadcasting fees.
All-in-all, I'm not complaining about my D* service, I'm only pointing out that they do have the financial ability to avoid a rate increase without putting the company in jeopardy.
I realize that the American way is to make as much money as possible, but in a time when many consumers are having a tough time making ends meet, it would be a great marketing gimmick to say that they are not raising rates this year. From a financial standpoint they have the ability to do it.
I'm pretty sure that the amount of the increase includes some padding in the 'profit' portion of ledger sheet and isn't all consumed by increased broadcasting fees.
All-in-all, I'm not complaining about my D* service, I'm only pointing out that they do have the financial ability to avoid a rate increase without putting the company in jeopardy.
I agree with you that they are not going to survive if they don't increase the prices. But you could also say the same thing for 95% of the larger companies out there. This is the one part about being a publicly traded company that I do not like. It is not about getting by but what is best for all of the share holders. No companies share holders are happy if they start seeing income drop. It does not matter if we are in a recession or if the economy is booming.
Im downgrading to basic and cancelling hd service not just because of the price increase but I've had continual problems with pixeling and a/v lock up on the hd channels after the system has been gone through and Im not on my third hd box. Charter has a great deal here on digital cable for $9.99 a month for a year which if anyone remembers an old dish promo of " I like 9" was a successful program that brought in alot of customers. Alas though I will probably just downgrade to family as there is a multistate move in the works for me and mine.
An FYI, IIRC if you have any leased HD boxes on the account then you must have the HD access fee, so you might need to return any HD boxes you have if you drop it.
Still, an over estimation on your part. No one I know of spends $4 a day on coffee. Maybe if you go to Starbucks twice a day. That's not "most people." "Most people" have a coffee maching and buy at the grocery store.
I'm just saying that people spend a lot on satellite TV already, and raising rates during a recession is not appreciated, and I am considering cutting some services. If you want to understand and be ok about rates going up then that's fine. I disagree and think it's a bad move.
As of November 2008; "DirecTV profit up, but misses expectations"
: Update: DirecTV profit up, but misses expectations
Here's a more recent article (Feb, 2009) about Directv's profit up from a year ago:
Investor's Business Daily: DirecTV's Q4 Profit Falls Short Of Views, But Up Vs. Year Ago
I know Directv is a business and wants to make more money, but perhaps if they kept the fees the same or lower, they would get good PR and get more customers, while current customers would add more premiums, etc.
Twice a day Starbucks would be much more than the $3 to $4 you stated. You also have to remember that most peoples bills are not $100+ like yours. You could also use the same for buying a soda at work for $1.50 out of a machine. I see hundreds of people buying coffee every morning at work for around $2.00 a cup. Cut that back and most people would almost get their cable for satellite service for a much reduced cost.
You missed my point that has nothing to do with the price of coffee, etc. I did start this though about irrelevant prices, so sorry about that.
From post 29 above:
"I'm just saying that people spend a lot on satellite TV already, and raising rates during a recession is not appreciated, and I am considering cutting some services. If you want to understand and be ok about rates going up then that's fine. I disagree and think it's a bad move."
I agree that we spend lots of money on many things. There are always areas that we could cut. My point was that there are many things that could be cut that would save even more than our TV costs. Am I happy that they are going up, NO but I can see their point on the increases.
What if, D* told ESPN they couldn't raise their rates? ESPN would have no audience if the satellite co's. and cable refused their rate increase. What could they do then? I too am a sports nut, but so much of ESPN's programing is mostly sports gossip shows repeated over and over again.
I have no problem with the price increase as long as the service keeps improving. What I do have a problem with is the lack of national HD additions over the last year. If they are going to increase the price, we should be getting more than a handful of HD movie channels when there are probably about 30 available.
This would be great IF you could get all the companies to agree to not carry them. The problem I see is there will be one company that will not do it to try and gain market share from people switching.
I lived in Seattle for many years. Now in retirement I live in a remote, rural area. It's easy for people who live in big cities not to realize that many options aren't available everywhere. Cable doesn't come as far out as I am--neither Comcast nor the local cable company. Not that I'd want cable anyway, but it's one of the alternatives folks believe everybody has. Off-air channels aren't receivable with any kind of antenna. Even cell phone signals don't do well at my house. The only alternatives we have are DISH and DirectTV. Oh--yes, we can receive programming on our Qwest DSL, but most of my neighbors cannot because they live off the main timber road.
Having said that, I changed from DISH to DirectTV today. I've been a DISH customer for 11 years, as long as it's been in Seattle. Here's my reason: DISH and Fisher Interactive Networks are fighting over contracts, so ABC is unavailable on DISH until they sort it all out. I read the letters between both companies. I believe I understand the issues. But as a consumer, I feel disenfranchised. I grew up with three major networks for many, many years: ABC, CBS, NBC. Now I get something like 265 channels, many of which I like better than much of the network programming. But DISH could have cut any one of them and I probably would not have gone away. Any of them except those three pioneer networks. I've given it two months. I'm aware Fisher is suing DISH for (I believe) 1 million dollars' unpaid fees, in addition to not having a current contract. We can be pretty sure the suit will have to be concluded before any contract is agreed upon. That is not going to happen quickly.
I'm very pleased with what I've seen from DirectTV today since my installation this morning. The picture is even improved, and I was very happy with the picture quality already. I didn't expect an improvement in quality.
Downgraded Package Today
Today I downgraded my HD DVR Choice Plus Package to the Family Package. I am tired of the yearly price increases for the handful of channels that I actually watch. I was paying close to $85 (package +2 receivers) a month.
Lately I have been watching more and more TV shows via the internet, and in HD too. All for free... Hulu is awesome....
Direct Tv needs to adobt a A la carte package. I am tired of footing the bill for ESPN....
Today I downgraded my HD DVR Choice Plus Package to the Family Package. I am tired of the yearly price increases for the handful of channels that I actually watch. I was paying close to $85 (package +2 receivers) a month.
Lately I have been watching more and more TV shows via the internet, and in HD too. All for free... Hulu is awesome....
Direct Tv needs to adobt a A la carte package. I am tired of footing the bill for ESPN....
Unfortunately, ala carte will never happen. The providers get discounts from the programmers for carrying multiple stations. Viacom might own 6 channels, liberty 4, Turner 4 etc. The programmers get money from advertising as well as fees from the providers. Ala Carte ended for the most part with C-Band.
While I agree that it seems like a terrible idea to raise rates during an economic downturn, D* isn't the only company doing this. Fortunately for us we have freedom of choice. If D* isn't competitive any longer and you have a cheaper alternative that works then you should take it.
Currently for me D* is still cheaper than cable, if you ignore their intro teaser pricing. I also loathe Comcast and would rather put up an antenna than use their service so that's certainly a reason for me to stay with sat service. As long as my D* service continues to run relatively smooth and the prices don't jump out of line with the average in my area I am happy.
Currently for me D* is still cheaper than cable, if you ignore their intro teaser pricing. I also loathe Comcast and would rather put up an antenna than use their service so that's certainly a reason for me to stay with sat service. As long as my D* service continues to run relatively smooth and the prices don't jump out of line with the average in my area I am happy.
Claude hit it right on the head here. Here's what I posted in another related thread.
I still can't believe all the people who start crying about price and channel changes. This is nothing new and it has been going on since the beginning of pay TV. I don't care if it was cable or satellite, but this has been the norm from day one.
Don't believe me? Try and go back and see what you were paying for TV in the early and mid 90's and look at what you are paying now. You will see that you are paying an average of over $20 more now !!!!! Also compare your channel packages. Are they still the same or do they stay the same? NO. So why is it such a big surprise or issue every year?
Every Feb you see price increases because this is when all the new contracts are signed by the providers from the programmers who always increase their costs to the providers.
If you want to see this stop then you need to focus your frustrations on the channels themselves !!!! You need to contact any company that advertises on the channels that increase their rates and let them know that you will boycott their product if they continue to advertise on these channels. It is the programmers that are making your rates go up not the providers. Sometimes these costs are way out of line and the provider has to dump the channel because they know that the consumer will freak out if they raise their rates even higher than they all ready have to because of the other price increases.
So if you want to see another price increase next Feb, and you will see one, then just sit back, keep blaming the wrong source, and keep switching back and forth between providers to get a "better deal". This solves nothing !!!!
Just my $.02
- Status
