| reply to MadMANN
Re: Idiots! What I am saying, and have been saying for a while now, is why don't the cable TV companies tell the truth as to why rates go up. They blame network upgrades but many times it is content and the must carry rules.
If this were explained to the customers, I can almost guarantee you that the public will side with the cable companies BUT will turn if rates go up anyway. Customers may have short memories but they are not stupid. |
|
 MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | Anytime I see a rate increase letter from any MSO (and I have worked for a few) it usually has two major points: Price of content and cost of network upgrades and maintenance. Both of which, BTW, are valid. I mean, show me the last rate increase letter you received and show me where they omitted content price as a reason for the hike.
They could explain in detail till they are blue in the face, but the average customer only knows that their bill is going up. The logo on the bill is the MSO and what is right in front of them, so that's who is going to be the first on the list to blame. They are not going to call Viacom and tell them to shove it.
Again, with the Big 10 thing as an example, I don't know the exact numbers, but it seemed to me that the public was divided 50/50 as to who is to blame. But in the end, the company who actually collects their money is the easiest and most obvious target. |
|
| I have NEVER seen a letter explaining a price increase due to content. I have had Comcast for 5 years. |
|
 MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| said by moonpuppy:I have NEVER seen a letter explaining a price increase due to content. I have had Comcast for 5 years. You must be young. Only five years of cable company hell? If I only had 5 yrs worth I'd probably would have more hair on my head due to less stress! |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | reply to moonpuppy
If you post the last rate increase letter you got (which should be pretty recent) I will post the one distributed in my area. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to moonpuppy
Cable companies are limited by their contracts with content providers. They can say that the price of content went up, but they cannot disclose how much, who increased their rates, are what percent of the increase is due to rate increases. |
|
| said by marigolds:Cable companies are limited by their contracts with content providers. They can say that the price of content went up, but they cannot disclose how much, who increased their rates, are what percent of the increase is due to rate increases. I think they can say a lot more if they wanted to.
There was a story years ago that was going around a syndication convention for TV shows. Stations were upset because in order to buy the popular shows, they were being forced to take non-popular ones AND broadcast them at certain times. Of course the production companies saw nothing wrong with it but the TV stations were complaining.
I still say the cable companies can flex a little muscle when dealing with content providers. |
|
|
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2
2 edits | said by moonpuppy:I still say the cable companies can flex a little muscle when dealing with content providers. And they do. I know I keep bringing up the BTN, but it fits well in this discussion.
Comcast flexed their muscle and said, "We'll carry it, but it's gonna be in a sports tier."
BTN said, "That's bulls**t! Put it on your standard lineup!" Yet, they wanted an nice $1.10 per sub.
If you haven't noticed, Comcast got LOADS of grief from Big 10 fans over that and lost a few because of it.
In that situation, we are talking about one single specialty channel. However, imagine dealing with a must-carry like TBS or ESPN. Viacom says, "If you don't carry CMT2, we'll pull ESPN, the Nick's, the MTV's, and the VH1s." What is a MSO to do in that situation? Dish network lost many customers in just a few short weeks over that very battle just a couple of years ago when all of those channels were pulled because they didn't like the terms of the deal. You know what happened after the dust settled? The channels came back and everyone's Dish bill went up a couple of bucks. Who flexed their muscle and won then?
Everyone pictures big cable as all-powerful and they are very powerful to a point. But the content companies carry just as much weight and more in some situations. But, again, people don't see beyond the logo on their bill.
The content providers' power came from competition: the very thing that was supposed to benefit the consumer. And benefit, it did. There's certainly more choices, but those choices come at a price. |
|
| And that shows the sheer stupidity of Dish and the cable companies.
I'll bet if you, the cable and dish companies, actually went on a public relations blitz explaining why their bills went up because of content, the public would respond favorably. If the content companies pulled the programming anyway, explain to the customers how "bad" the content companies are treating them and the consumers.
You have a captive audience with your methods of delivery. Use them to your advantage. |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by moonpuppy:I'll bet if you, the cable and dish companies, actually went on a public relations blitz explaining why their bills went up because of content, the public would respond favorably. If the content companies pulled the programming anyway, explain to the customers how "bad" the content companies are treating them and the consumers. You have a captive audience with your methods of delivery. Use them to your advantage. Dish network did exactly that. They went on a campaign frenzy trying to gather support BEFORE those channels were pulled. And guess what? Viacom went on a anti-Dish frenzy. They had their medium as well to use to their advantage. Comcast continues to do the same with BTN. It didn't make much difference with Dish, and Comcast isn't getting a lot of sympathy from BTN fans who want the channel.
You keep saying that MSOs should get the public on their side by giving this info to the public. Every time there is a rate increase or a channel not added to a lineup they try to explain this. The consumer base in this business is very apathetic, however, and only wants what they want when they want it. And if a cable co can't provide it, they are the evil company. |
|
| said by MadMANN:You keep saying that MSOs should get the public on their side by giving this info to the public. Every time there is a rate increase or a channel not added to a lineup they try to explain this. The consumer base in this business is very apathetic, however, and only wants what they want when they want it. And if a cable co can't provide it, they are the evil company. I have seen this done twice EVER in my area. Both times ABC was the subject and this happened once in the 80's and once in the 90's BEFORE I had cable. It was well publicized on the local TV stations. Otherwise, the cable company rolled over and took it.
And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by moonpuppy:And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. You are entitled to believe what you want. The truth is, is that content providers must sell their content on a per-channel basis, rather than selling a group of channels to MSOs for ala-carte to become a reality.
The NFL Network and the BTN are networks that want ridiculous amounts of money AND want EVERYONE to pay for them. Both of these channels are only good for about 4 months out of the year. And these are just single networks. Now picture Viacom who wants to make the same or more amount of money, selling each individual network. You think rates for those channels are high now?
Again, these things come at a price. You want ala-carte? Well, that's great, but you will pay for that too. |
|
| said by MadMANN:said by moonpuppy:And, I suspect, one reason the cable companies don't fight too hard is because it would help those who want ala carte rules in place. You are entitled to believe what you want. The truth is, is that content providers must sell their content on a per-channel basis, rather than selling a group of channels to MSOs for ala-carte to become a reality. The NFL Network and the BTN are networks that want ridiculous amounts of money AND want EVERYONE to pay for them. Both of these channels are only good for about 4 months out of the year. And these are just single networks. Now picture Viacom who wants to make the same or more amount of money, selling each individual network. You think rates for those channels are high now? Again, these things come at a price. You want ala-carte? Well, that's great, but you will pay for that too. It's funny how Comcast will fight against NFL but not ABC/Disney/ESPN. 
Ala carte is the ultimate form of capitalism. If people want the channels, they will thrive. If not, they go bye bye. |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by moonpuppy:It's funny how Comcast will fight against NFL but not ABC/Disney/ESPN. Ala carte is the ultimate form of capitalism. If people want the channels, they will thrive. If not, they go bye bye. It's not so funny. It's actually quite simple. It's much easier to fight a specialty network that offers one single type of programming that caters to a fraction of a subscriber base for a quarter year than it is for a much larger content provider who offers incredibly diverse and popular programming that caters to 100% of the subscriber base on different networks all year 'round.
As far as ala-carte is concerned, I, personally am not against the idea, but a LOT of changes in the industry as a whole would have to be made before it can even be considered. What I do NOT approve of, is any law that chases after the MSOs to offer it without chasing after the content providers to change their ways as well. If they only go after one without the other, the consumer can not benefit at all where pricing is concerned. |
|
