| reply to mahermusic
Re: They didn't keep prices down 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. |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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. |
|
| said by Dogfather: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. Like I said, I would like to see you market that unless you are going to force every provider to do it and to divide up their tiers in the exact same manner. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | I would go with your logic if ESPN regularly had a lot of events that got big ratings but they don't. Some weeks they have zero shows or events in the top 20. The Deuce, ESPN News and Classic are a complete joke. They should gather of all the sports channels, Fox, ESPN, YES, and put it all on it's own tier because they represent a significant amount of the cable bill (according to providers).
But I do agree, we need a la carte. Then let ESPN compete for business rather than relying on ABC-Disney channel extortion and channel welfare. |
|
| reply to jmallory
I don't watch ESPN and their ilk/spawn and I am on DSLreports and have Dish, so there! |
|
1 edit | reply to jmallory
... |
|
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:I would go with your logic if ESPN regularly had a lot of events that got big ratings but they don't. Some weeks they have zero shows or events in the top 20. The Deuce, ESPN News and Classic are a complete joke. They should gather of all the sports channels, Fox, ESPN, YES, and put it all on it's own tier because they represent a significant amount of the cable bill (according to providers). But I do agree, we need a la carte. Then let ESPN compete for business rather than relying on ABC-Disney channel extortion and channel welfare. Your not getting what I am saying at all.
Here are my points ...
1.) The "AVERAGE" consumer expects ESPN, ESPN2, and their local RSN(s) in the basic subscription package. Not offering it would put your system at a distinct disadvantage over your competitors. Back in Dish was getting started Charlie swore he would never offer porn (playboy, etc) on his system. Well, turns out, people who subscribe to Playboy also subscribe to premium channels, sports packages, and pay-per-view and if Charley wanted anything more than a lot of low-margin basic channel only subscribers he needed to add porn to his system. Charlie, also tried to apply pressure on the RSNs to keep increases small and booted them off the systems for awhile. All that accomplished was lighting up the Echostar switchboard with people looking to complain and/or cancel their service. In each case, Charlie had to step off his high horse and do what was right for his business. Lesson Learned.
2.) It is not the ratings per se, it is the demographics that make the sports channels lucrative. If I was an advertiser I would rather have 100,000 viewers that actually purchase things than 1 million who don't.
3.) We all pay for channels we don't want. That is how this business works for better or worse. Unfortunately, nothing short of regulation or mass consumer revolt is going to change this model so unless you are going to vote in a liberal government I don't think regulation will be coming nor does it look like consumers will revolt either. Most people may not be happy with this arrangement but accept it.
4.) If this arrangement is not agreeable to you then simply cancel the service and tell them and any provider that tries to set you up that you will not be subscribing until your conditions are met. Cable / Satellite isn't a necessity. In fact, you mentioned that you are a big Discovery Networks fan, so why not just cancel the cable / sat service and take that $600 bucks a year or so and purchase Discovery DVD / Blu-rays with it. Much better picture and sound quality than you will get from Cable or Satellite and hey all your money goes directly to them and none of it goes to ESPN, FSN, or any other network you don't like. A much more effective way of showing the people you like their programming and as a side benefit every business related article on DLSreports doesn't turn into an ala carte argument....hey everybody wins! |
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory: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. Enabling ala-carte would go a long way to disprove the notion that "a majority" want ESPN.
Instead, we are cleverly forced to buy 2nd or 3rd tiers to access ONE channel. Whether that's LifeTimeMovies or Travel or Golf or FNC is immaterial, it is a form of extortion. I refuse to pay $60 a month for one channel, so we do without.
Most of my peers do likewise - Netflix, Blockbuster, RedBox, the library, rabbit ears, radio and YouTube fill void. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | reply to jmallory
The ratings don't indicate that the "average" consumer gives two squirts of piss about ESPN or RSNs. Their ratings are horrible.
And the difference is these sports channels are very expensive compared to other channels that suck.
Again we see the take it or leave it attitude as if I'm not allowed to be critical of Dish Network's policies that are obviously resulting in lost subscribers and I would guess it's over price.
ESPN sucks ass and that sucking is clearly reflected by their horrible ratings. These crap sports channels, being as expensive as they are should be treated like other overpriced programing (eg HBO). Basic cable subs shouldn't be subsidizing your sports habit to the tune of a big chunk of their cable bill. |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to jmallory
No sports channels here either...I don't really care for them TBH |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:I would go with your logic if ESPN regularly had a lot of events that got big ratings but they don't. Some weeks they have zero shows or events in the top 20. The Deuce, ESPN News and Classic are a complete joke. They should gather of all the sports channels, Fox, ESPN, YES, and put it all on it's own tier because they represent a significant amount of the cable bill (according to providers). But I do agree, we need a la carte. Then let ESPN compete for business rather than relying on ABC-Disney channel extortion and channel welfare. Your not getting what I am saying at all. Here are my points ... 1.) The "AVERAGE" consumer expects ESPN, ESPN2, and their local RSN(s) in the basic subscription package. Not offering it would put your system at a distinct disadvantage over your competitors. Back in Dish was getting started Charlie swore he would never offer porn (playboy, etc) on his system. Well, turns out, people who subscribe to Playboy also subscribe to premium channels, sports packages, and pay-per-view and if Charley wanted anything more than a lot of low-margin basic channel only subscribers he needed to add porn to his system. Charlie, also tried to apply pressure on the RSNs to keep increases small and booted them off the systems for awhile. All that accomplished was lighting up the Echostar switchboard with people looking to complain and/or cancel their service. In each case, Charlie had to step off his high horse and do what was right for his business. Lesson Learned. 2.) It is not the ratings per se, it is the demographics that make the sports channels lucrative. If I was an advertiser I would rather have 100,000 viewers that actually purchase things than 1 million who don't. 3.) We all pay for channels we don't want. That is how this business works for better or worse. Unfortunately, nothing short of regulation or mass consumer revolt is going to change this model so unless you are going to vote in a liberal government I don't think regulation will be coming nor does it look like consumers will revolt either. Most people may not be happy with this arrangement but accept it. 4.) If this arrangement is not agreeable to you then simply cancel the service and tell them and any provider that tries to set you up that you will not be subscribing until your conditions are met. Cable / Satellite isn't a necessity. In fact, you mentioned that you are a big Discovery Networks fan, so why not just cancel the cable / sat service and take that $600 bucks a year or so and purchase Discovery DVD / Blu-rays with it. Much better picture and sound quality than you will get from Cable or Satellite and hey all your money goes directly to them and none of it goes to ESPN, FSN, or any other network you don't like. A much more effective way of showing the people you like their programming and as a side benefit every business related article on DLSreports doesn't turn into an ala carte argument....hey everybody wins! You are under the assumption that a majority of people want ESPN, you have no idea what people want... |
|
| reply to Dogfather
Well I'm sorry but some things in life are "take it or leave it." I'm sorry your parents didn't explain that to you while you were growing up (assuming your an adult and not some 15-year old kid).
On your second point, P. J. O'Rourke said that nothing is worth more than someone else is willing to pay for it. Hunter S. Thompson said "You pay for your ticket, and you take your ride."
On your third point, you can be critical all you want, but the reality is 1.) This is an industry wide pricing scheme not just Dish's and 2.) I think there is more going on here than people don't want to pay for ESPN. If you want to make an impact on this...vote for people who will represent you, vote with your wallet.
If Basic cable subscribers don't want to subsidize "my" (sic) sports habit, they are always free not to subscribe. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Well than Dish Network and look forward to more subscriber losses due to their high prices thanks in no small part to the channel welfare program that keeps a minority of subs happy.
I just think it would be nice if the few ESPN fans weren't leeching off other subs and would support their own habits for a change. But like all welfare recipients they'll attack anyone who dare question their freebees. |
|
| I'm not leeching off anybody...I am paying for my ESPN subscription (right there in my programming package). |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Of course you are. Everyone is paying for your ESPN subscription whether they watch the zero rating channel or not. In order to get any service, we have to pay for your ESPN subscription. You actually think the 3 viewers of ESPN actually cover the cost of those crap channels? Hardly. |
|
| reply to jmallory
It seems to me that one point everyone agrees on is that in a free market, the demand of the consumers should dictate the supply of the producers. It is obvious to me, an everything pack subscriber with Dish, that there is enough of a demand for ESPN and every channel package to justify the corporate decision to keep the structure the way it is.
If Dish was to take the risk on it's own to offer a-la-carte programming, who can guarantee that Direct TV will do the same? Who's to say that an a-la-carte programming scheme will not adversely affect the current channel pricing structure? I would love to create my own package and cut my bill in half, but as long as the market demands stay relatively the same, the programming options will not change.
The price per channel with any pay tv service is seriously discounted when it's in a bundle. It's more cost effective and profitable for the networks and service providers that way, and believe it or not, cheaper for the consumer. Breaking these packages up would simply create an increase in the cost per channel to the point where you could easily pay more for less channels and still not be able to reasonably afford the channels you want.
Yes, supply and demand ideally control the market, but the market can break down, and then what do we do? Dish's loss of 25,000 customers is hardly a drop in the bucket, considering the 13+ million that still pay for extra channels they don't watch, be they ESPN or TNT.
Do the math on that. 39.99 a month x 13,000,000 is $519,870,000 a month, x 12 months = $6,238,440,000 per year if every subscriber is only paying for the DVR Advantage top 100 with locals. Do you have any idea how much money 6 billion dollars is? Warren Buffet was at one point the richest man in the world with a net worth of 8 billion dollars, a net worth, not annual gross proceeds! The last quarter's loss of 25,000 customers equates to $999,750 which is nothing considering the slowed growth was still over 150,000 new customers.
When i stop and look at these figures, the Nielsen ratings and my personal preferences don't really make a difference since Dish Network is not a consumer based democracy, but rather a corporation that, like any entity, has to find ways to survive amongst its competition for vital resources, namely you and I. The one we feed is the one that survives, and choose to feed Dish, for the time being, to get what i want out of it. When Dish becomes unreasonable, I can leave it behind for something else. For now, it's the most reasonable option I have for what I want. |
|
