 DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits | reply to jmallory
Re: They didn't keep prices down 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. |
|
 | 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! |
|
 DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits | 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 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. |
|