said by LonghornXP:
That is the hardest aspect of any CEO's job with a cable company. I believe it depends on the content itself. The higher valued content should never be taken away even if the cost is greater.
Who's to say what is higher value content vss lower value content? Sports fanatics would die if ESPN was nixed but personally I don't give a rats if ESPN is on cable or not (not a commerical sports fanatic). This is the problem, one persons premium content is anothers overpriced crap. How are you as the CEO going to come to a happy medium?
(get this answer right and you know what BHN's CEO deals with every day)
Again to be the leader you will have to pay more for content etc but I still hold firm that you can charge a higher price "if" you provide nearly everything that a customer wants. People don't want to pay a high price "and" not be able to get the content they want.
This is where the customer to company disconnect begins. What most people don't understand is that these content providers have raised their prices (sometimes exponentially) each and every contract renewal. At the same time they have increased the number of ad insertions to the point that frankly some channels are unwatchable for me because I am constantly barraged by ads. In essence they are double and triple dipping. Attempts at breaking the content off into special tiers have been largely unsuccessful (by doing so then only those who want to subscribe pay vss everyone pay). Many content providers make it an all or nothing deal. When do you as the CEO draw the line and how are you going to handle the customer response to your decision? (Think long and hard about this one because there is no right answer...either way you are going to leave your office with one giant headache)
For example BHN for many years just never would add the content people wanted. It was CBS HD, NBC HD, UPN HD, ESPN HD, Starz On Demand, Starz HD and on and on and on. It seemed that everybody else had it but BHN. The customer doesn't really care the reason why they just care that they don't have it. This was mainly focusing on the time that DirecTV started adding HD channels like crazy.
By what I can see BHN has added new HD channels as fast as they can negotiate contracts and make space available. These are not something you can do overnight...negotiations take months, sometimes years. It isn't that they didn't want them (by what I know and can see) it just takes a very long time to get things ironed out. You have the healm for the day...as CEO how would you attack the problem?
BHN clearly wasn't being a leader and allowed DirecTV to make fools of them. After this they stepped up to the place and now have quite an amazing lineup of HD channels.
Based on what facts and figures? Niether of the dish providers is a significant player in the Florida market. There are many reasons for this but suffice it to say it isn't a sweet spot for the dish guys.
DirecTV does have an impressive HD lineup if you are from another country. They have a ton of niche channels that in this market would not be financially feasible. Because the dish market is nationwide they can negotiate contracts at an entirely different level. DirecTV has some seriously deep pockets and has also bet the farm on their flagship product NFL Sunday Ticket. If they lose that DirecTV is DONE and even they will admit it so when it comes to contract time they don't argue with the NFL they just open the checkbook and say "how much should we write this for". That isn't going to happen with any cable provider. The NFL had better hope that DirecTV never fails because if they do it's going to be a whole new world for the NFL and they aren't going to like how it turns out.
FIOS came into the game and was competing with DirecTV and putting BHN to shame. The problem is that Verizon didn't think ahead (this is even worse on a brand new product build) and now hasn't added the HD channels people want like BHN and DirecTV have clearly done.
How do you figure? Do you have the data to support your claim (it's out there if you look)
All of these things haven't really changed the pricing structure at all between companies. People are used to paying a fairly decent sized cable bill. The question people are asking now is what do I get and don't get for my money.
Longhorn have you forgotten? You are CEO today? How are you going to address the perception issues and the specifics as outlined in your question? You can't answer a question with a question
So the point I'm getting at is that sometimes you just need to pay the piper and always be the leader at all costs. I still firmly believe that must have content providers will always have the power over the cable companies. You don't want to pay extra money for it but you also cannot afford to lose this content as customers "might" cancel.
But when you have a rep for being a leader customers might be more forgiving when you must stand your ground and let a channel go from your lineup. When you have a rep for never adding new channels until months and years after they have launched people aren't as forgiving when they lose a channel.
Again nearly everything a customer does is based in large part on perception and some companies seem to have content fights and battles way more often than the others.
Quite honestly looking back 2-3 years ago I do think most companies CEO's are doing a pretty good job in the TV industry. We do have a crap loud of HD channels, wicked fast internet, whole home DVR, tons of HD On Demand so they are kinda doing what I would focus on doing if I was a CEO.
You are making a statement here which was not called for in the initial thread question. While a good point was communicated you didn't live up to the spirit of the thread. You are the CEO for the day. How are YOU going to address these issues?--
"I cant give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope