 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to jmallory
Re: They didn't keep prices down Sports should be on its own tier. |
|
| said by Dogfather:Sports should be on its own tier. Yes and we can have that argument for the next week as well, but the current market reality is that that the overwhelming majority of your prospective customers expect ESPN, ESPN2, and their local RSNs in the basic package. Until something changes in the market such as regulatory requirements..you have to offer it or your service isn't competitive. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Given ESPNs low ratings I would disagree. |
|
2 edits | said by Dogfather:Given ESPNs low ratings I would disagree. Tell you what, you go setup your own service with all the sports on another Tier, and you report back with how successful you are.
Ratings are irrelevant in this particular discussion, people may not watch ESPN all the time, but they want access to it. During the peak of football season I may watch 12 hours of ESPN weekly...1/2 to 1/3 that any other time...but I would still want it. |
|
|
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Sports should be on its own tier. Yes and we can have that argument for the next week as well, but the current market reality is that that the overwhelming majority of your prospective customers expect ESPN, ESPN2, and their local RSNs in the basic package. Says you. I hate any and all sports channels. I can't wait for the day of REASONABLE a la carte pricing. Once that happens, so long espn, mtv and many other worthless channels. Go on and cry that this will also kill off History channel, Discovery and other good channels. To that I say hardly. Because I believe that the majority of people here in the US actually watch/like those channels. Every time my friends and I discuss the dream of a la carte pricing, we're ALL in agreement that sports and music channels need to go buh-bye. Let you sports type pay the premiums to keep those types of shows on the air. I'm confident that most people will be happy to pay for/watch Discovery, History, TLC type stuff. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to jmallory
Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare.
Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. |
|
| said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. |
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to john1290
Top 20 Cable shows
Rank Shows NET DAY(S) Live+SD HH Rating Viewers Live+SD (000)
1 CLOSER, THE TNT MONDAY 4.7 7,058
2 NASCAR SPRINT CUP L (BRICKYARD 400) ESPN SUNDAY 4.3 6,668
3 HANNAH & MILEY:BEST OF DSNY SATURDAY 3.0 5,864
4 MONK USA FRIDAY 3.1 5,062
5 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 3.0 4,961
6 BURN NOTICE USA THURSDAY 3.0 4,760
7 SAVING GRACE TNT MONDAY 3.1 4,571
8 FOOD NETWORK STAR FOOD SUNDAY 2.8 4,508
9 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 2.7 4,494
10 PSYCH USA FRIDAY 2.8 4,484
11 ICARLY NICK FRIDAY 2.7 4,446
12 LAW & ORDER: CI (ORIG) USA SUNDAY 2.9 4,321
13 MLB SUNDAY NIGHT L (YANKEES/RED SOX) ESPN SUNDAY 2.8 4,230
14 IN PLAIN SIGHT USA SUNDAY 2.8 4,174
15 INCREDIBLES, THE DSNY SUNDAY 2.4 3,922
16 CAMP ROCK DSNY THURSDAY 2.4 3,913
17 ICARLY NICK FRIDAY 2.3 3,815
18 TBS PRIME MOVIE (LAST HOLIDAY) TBSC SUNDAY 2.4 3,813
19 S HANNAH MONTANA(S)-07/26/2008 DSNY SATURDAY 2.3 3,768
20 SPONGEBOB NICK SUNDAY 2.4 3,716
Not seeing many of your channels on there
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
1 edit | reply to john1290
said by john1290:said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Sports should be on its own tier. Yes and we can have that argument for the next week as well, but the current market reality is that that the overwhelming majority of your prospective customers expect ESPN, ESPN2, and their local RSNs in the basic package. Says you. I hate any and all sports channels. I can't wait for the day of REASONABLE a la carte pricing. Once that happens, so long espn, mtv and many other worthless channels. Go on and cry that this will also kill off History channel, Discovery and other good channels. To that I say hardly. Because I believe that the majority of people here in the US actually watch/like those channels. Every time my friends and I discuss the dream of a la carte pricing, we're ALL in agreement that sports and music channels need to go buh-bye. Let you sports type pay the premiums to keep those types of shows on the air. I'm confident that most people will be happy to pay for/watch Discovery, History, TLC type stuff. Just show me the numbers that state even a "simple" majority (51%) are in agreement with you, we will talk. "Me and my friends" isn't going to cut it.
In addition, you know, if you really like the Discovery / TLC programming (and you should because a lot of it is top notch), you can always just buy the DVD/Blu-Rays when they are released. I have the complete Planet Earth Blu-Ray set (actually I have the BBC release) and I have been buying the Discovery Atlas series on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray when they are on sale. I also plan on getting "When We Left The Earth" as well to. You can see all the programming you like without even subscribing to Cable or Satellite.
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to Dogfather
I can't remember the last time I watched ESPN.
I watch more Weather Channel and News channels than anything else.
Maybe History, Discovery, and AMC.
But I agree, at this point ESPN and other sports channels should be on a separate tier, given their cost.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Vonage
 ·Comcast
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:Just show me the numbers that state even a "simple" majority (51%) are in agreement with you, we will talk. "Me and my friends" isn't going to cut it. I've even turned off those channels via my TiVo, since noone even watches them.
--
1/20/09 = The final day of our Retarded Cowboy President! |
|
| said by mahermusic:said by jmallory:Just show me the numbers that state even a "simple" majority (51%) are in agreement with you, we will talk. "Me and my friends" isn't going to cut it. I've even turned off those channels via my TiVo, since noone even watches them. You don't even make a simple majority of DSLreports subscribers let alone Cable and Satellite subscribers. I have no doubt that there are people who don't watch sports at all on Cable and Satellite, but I believe that they are in the minority. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | I don't watch them either. And if 51% do, let the other 49% of us cut that $5 - $6 from our bills.
Turning your logic against you, you don't make up a simple majority of anything either, so who are you to talk so poorly of the rest of us?
cw |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to jmallory
Without solid numbers, you're both just blowing smoke.
Incidentally, the question isn't whether a majority watch sports on television, but whether they watch ESPN...a completely different question altogether.
Just browsing through what's on ESPN for the next days, I see:
- Lots of Sports Center
- World Series of Poker (this is what qualifies as sports these days?)
- "X-Games" (ditto)
- A handful of talk shows about baseball, football or a few other things
- Two out-of-market baseball games.
- One out-of-market pre-season NFL game (Saints and Cardinals).
Granted, that's taken in the doldrums of summer, but still...I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who's not a pretty hardcore sports fan would get all that worked up about what they have on. Certainly nothing that a combination of local news and sports coverage plus talk radio doesn't cover at least as well and for free.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." |
|
| reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:I don't watch them either. And if 51% do, let the other 49% of us cut that $5 - $6 from our bills. Turning your logic against you, you don't make up a simple majority of anything either, so who are you to talk so poorly of the rest of us? cw Wasn't putting anyone down...all I am saying is that if the majority of people expect things to be a certain way (like having ESPN, ESPN2, and FSN as part of basic service) then that is the way it is going to be. |
|
1 edit | reply to Corydon
said by Corydon:Without solid numbers, you're both just blowing smoke. Incidentally, the question isn't whether a majority watch sports on television, but whether they watch ESPN...a completely different question altogether. Just browsing through what's on ESPN for the next days, I see: - Lots of Sports Center - World Series of Poker (this is what qualifies as sports these days?) - "X-Games" (ditto) - A handful of talk shows about baseball, football or a few other things - Two out-of-market baseball games. - One out-of-market pre-season NFL game (Saints and Cardinals). Granted, that's taken in the doldrums of summer, but still...I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who's not a pretty hardcore sports fan would get all that worked up about what they have on. Certainly nothing that a combination of local news and sports coverage plus talk radio doesn't cover at least as well and for free. I have never argued that people watch a lot of ESPN, that isn't the point. The point is that if you started a Satellite TV package today and you did market research and you asked people what channels that people wanted to be part of your "basic" package (let's say 40 channels), I would think most knowledgeable people would say that the majority of them would have ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN in that list somewhere.
I'm not saying a lot of people regularly watch it, I am not saying it is worth what ESPN is charging for it, I am just saying that most people expect it to be part of the basic programming package. |
|
 fancydancerPerception is realityPremium
join:2002-08-28
Springfield, IL
2 edits | reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather  Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. 
--
Thank you for keeping this a work-free environment! |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Absolutely...bring on a la carte. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. Look at their ratings, they suck horribly. Even huge games like Yankees Red Sox can't even muster a 3. They only had 2 events in the top twenty with only Nascar pulling better than a 4. 1 decently rated event a week certainly isn't worth the dough they're charging. The week before, only Home Run Derby and pregame cracked the top 20 for ESPN. The week before that, the ONLY ESPN show to make the top 20 was another Yankees Red Sox game and it didn't even pull a 3. More people watched WWE than that game. The July 1st Nielsens; not a SINGLE event or show of ANY ESPN network broke into the top 20.
ESPN aside from an occasional NASCAR event or big baseball game (which would get decent ratings no matter what channel it's on) can't muster any decent ratings. NONE.
Hell, look at the ratings for the so-called popular SportsCenter. They can't even pull a single point. They get a 0.7-0.9. That's the kind of numbers infomercials pull. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to jmallory
Horsecrap...if ESPN was backed out and the price of the package dropped as a result, of course people would like it. People pay $14/mo for HBO, and sports fans who want to watch Australian Dick Wrestling, World's Strongest Man and endless Poker reruns can fork over $10 for ESPN. |
|
