PDA

View Full Version : Football Direct TV -vs- Fox. No Superbowl


BIG_DADDY
01-30-2011, 07:27 PM
This is pretty much the end of the line with me and Direct TV. First they start dumping stations like VSs. Then this battle with Fox. Now they have the audacity to want to raise my rates. I have 2 areas I want to get information on addressing this. 1. Can anyone else save me the trouble of doing my own due diligence on this fued? 2. Those of you effected by it what are you doing to go around it?

The Bad Guy
01-30-2011, 07:29 PM
I have no idea what the issue is with Fox/DTV to be honest. I have DTV and didn't know the SB was in jeopardy.

BIG_DADDY
01-30-2011, 07:36 PM
I have no idea what the issue is with Fox/DTV to be honest. I have DTV and didn't know the SB was in jeopardy.

Apparently it only effects certain areas. For example, we get Fox in the bay area as a regular channel so we get it down here. Up in Southern Oregon though where we don't get Fox as a regular channel it has been cut. People are all running around getting antennas so they can see the game. Flipping ridiculous.

tk13
01-30-2011, 07:38 PM
It most likely has something to do with the company that owns that particular FOX station... not the Fox network itself.

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2011, 07:54 PM
It most likely has something to do with the company that owns that particular FOX station... not the Fox network itself.Pretty much. Some local Dayton affiliates were having contract issues with TimeWarner.

WV
01-30-2011, 08:20 PM
You'll take my DirecTV when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

Al Bundy
01-30-2011, 09:20 PM
I noticed that AT&T Uverse moved all Fox Sportsnet's that are not in my area (Fox Sports MW, Fox Sports MW2 and Fox Sports KC stay) to their HD Premium tier. No SD or HD for Fox Sports Bay Area/Fox Sports detroit and on and on. So I am not sure what is going on with Fox.

HonestChieffan
01-30-2011, 09:28 PM
dish

CrazyPhuD
01-30-2011, 09:42 PM
Actually in almost 100% of the cases blame the networks.

CrazyPhuD
01-30-2011, 09:45 PM
Today’s Cable TV “Revenue Split” and Why Over The Top Likely Can’t Be Ad-Supported Only

By Bill Niemeyer on May 10, 2009

http://billniemeyer.tv/2009/05/10/todays-cable-tv-revenue-split-and-why-over-the-top-likely-cant-be-ad-supported-only/

Unsurprisingly, the ABC/Hulu deal of two weeks ago got my attention (some interesting insights on that from Bob Iger in the transcript of last week’s Disney earnings call). But, one aspect of the deal in particular got my quantitative interest. It was the long-form TV content online deal ABC elected not do – with YouTube. Several press articles (including "Disney’s Hulu Deal Raises Questions About YouTube Model" via the WSJ) indicated ABC decided not do a long form deal with YouTube in part because they offered a revenue share only agreement – YouTube not being willing to pay fees or provide equity participation.

This prompted me to consider, towards a compare/contrast with online TV content deals – what’s the "revenue share" in television? I put that in quotes because most TV agreements are based on advertising inventory shares (known as an avail split), often combined with fees. Avail splits keep the parties involved from having to get into each other’s business – you sell your inventory and I’ll sell mine. Avail splits also support national and local sales forces doing what they do best.

Nonetheless, what is the "effective" TV revenue share – where do the dollars come from and who gets them? And what does that tell us about whether or not online TV content models –  especially with respect to "over the top" platforms (Internet delivered video to TVs) – can be viable with advertising revenues alone or must they go "dual revenue" as cable TV has, namely charge subscription fees as well?

A warning… the quantitative analysis can get messy quickly. But the qualitative takeaway becomes evident even more quickly – so I’ll present it first.

Because such a large share of cable TV revenues ultimately come from multichannel subscriber fees (and broadcast TV is increasingly moving to an analogous model via retransmission fees), TV content likely cannot be monetized online via advertising models alone as online video use grows. Especially as "over the top" platforms come to market and Internet delivered TV programming moves from being additive to being cannibalistic (as it inevitably must as share of viewing increases) – it’s probable the dual revenue model of advertising plus carriage fees must follow from TV platforms to online.

Here’s a stepwise back of the envelope look at the numbers for cable networks.

Version #1 – revenue split – cable network/operator – advertising only

It’s 81/19. Cable networks national ad sales in 2008 were $21 billion (estimate from Magna Global). Multichannel operator sales of cable network local avails in 2008 were $4.7 billion (based on an NCTA estimate for cable and my estimate for satellite and IPTV). A total of $26 billion – the networks get $21B or 81%.

But… that doesn’t include cable network carriage fees.

Version #2 – revenue split – cable network/operator – advertising and carriage fees

It’s 90/10. My estimate is cable networks got $24 billion in carriage fees from multichannel operators in 2008. Added to a total 2008 cable network ad market of $26 billion (see above), that’s a revenue base of $50 billion and the cable networks got 90% of that ($45B total – $24B in fees and $21B in national ad sales).

But… that doesn’t include the revenues multichannel operators get from subscriber fees.

Version #3 – revenue split – cable network/operator – advertising, carriage fees and operator subscriber fees

It’s 63/37 – maybe. Multichannel operators generated $83 billion in video subscriber revenues in 2008 (NCTA says cable was $52B, DIRECTV reported $17B, DISH reported $12B, I estimate AT&T plus Verizon was $2B). I say we should subtract fees paid for premium channel subscriptions and pay-per-view – I estimate that’s about $15 billion. That leaves $68 billion. Now things get fuzzy. You need to figure out what share of the remaining $68 billion is being paid for access to cable network content, add that to the advertising revenue base, and split it out. Here’s a simple (and probably wrong) way to do that. I estimate cable networks are about 2/3 of total TV ratings points in multichannel households (using Nielsen data via the CAB web site). 2/3 of $68 billion in subscriber fees is $45 billion – add that to the overall cable ad revenue of $26 billion (see version #1) for a total revenue base of $71 billion. Cable networks get $45 billion in national ads and carriage fees (see version #2) for a share of 63%.

You could do this calculation much more rigorously (estimating consumer perceived value of cable networks, fees for set-tops and DVRs and so on) but here’s the good news – towards the topline question of whether or not "over the top" business models will likely need to include subscriber fees – I don’t think you have to.

That question seems to have been answered by the version #2 calculations. Cable networks are getting over 50% of their revenues from carriage fees paid by operators. If an online TV platform wanted to go "ad only," it could double the advertising revenue production per viewing hour of cable TV and it would still have to give it all to cable networks to provide them close to the same revenue they get from TV platforms.

Online platforms that provide additive viewing for cable and broadcast networks have a lower bar – they don’t need to match TV in revenue. But as Internet-delivered viewing of TV programming gains market share via platforms like "over the top" – it will necessarily draw viewers away from traditional TV platforms to get that share.

Certainly, advanced digital video advertising techniques need to be employed to drive better revenue generation than linear 30 second commercials can provide (see this past Niemeyer Review newsletter for more). But in order to provide the "dual" revenues that currently support cable (and increasingly broadcast) TV programming, it seems likely that "over the top" platforms will also have to charge subscription fees. How those platforms can provide value to customers to gain subscription fees, while delivering added value for marketers to drive advertising revenues, are two key topics to be addressed for "over the top" business models.

Fruit Ninja
01-30-2011, 10:00 PM
no way will i get rid of it as long as they have sunday ticket. I wouldnt have to worry about fox the superbowl and the Chiefs. We wont make it there anyways. lol

CrazyPhuD
01-30-2011, 10:04 PM
So WTF does my last post actually mean in layman's terms.

More and more money for content is being gained not through advertising but actually through subscription fees. Since they can't charge more for advertising, how do they raise revenues, they raise retransmission fees that they charge the cable companies/satellite providers. OR they will add new channels. Well most people wouldn't give a shit if they got ESPN 8 blacked out because the carrier didn't want to add the channel to the package or raise their subscription fees. SO they bundle groups of channels together when popular channels come time to be renewed. They say you must add these channels or increase the fees on these channels or we'll remove the popular channels from your network.

So often it has nothing to do with the channel being removed it's all the crap they want the company to add with that channel that causes the issue. If you think about it we have a really fucked up TV system. In effect you subsidize a shit ton of channels that you never watch which results in your cable bill being likely higher than it should be. Many channels might not survive if you actually got to pick which channels you wanted to pay for and were charged appropriately. This actually isn't a bad place to be. You'd kill bad channels but you wouldn't kill good content, good content will find a network.

BIG_DADDY
01-30-2011, 10:12 PM
no way will i get rid of it as long as they have sunday ticket. I wouldnt have to worry about fox the superbowl and the Chiefs. We wont make it there anyways. lol

I picked up the Chiefs games online just fine this year. I got copies and watched those too. When I am at home I do that. When I am at work on a weekend I go to sportsbar which I can hit with a rock from my work which a seriously killer setup and some Chiefs fans. Saved some $$$$ this year.

Frosty
01-31-2011, 06:59 AM
The Spokane FOX station is in a pissing match with DirecTV. I called DirecTV and bitched about it and they ended up turning on the LA feed for me (Channel 399). Later on, I got an e-mail that said they were turning on both the eastern and western feeds, so I think they ended up doing it for all of the affected area. You might check those channels (398 and 399) and see if they did the same for you.

Stewie
01-31-2011, 07:04 AM
These disputes aren't unique to DTV. TW, Comcast, etc. have occasionally gone through these gyrations. Didn't NYC miss some World Series games last fall due to a dispute with Fox and a cable company?

Chiefnj2
01-31-2011, 07:29 AM
These disputes aren't unique to DTV. TW, Comcast, etc. have occasionally gone through these gyrations. Didn't NYC miss some World Series games last fall due to a dispute with Fox and a cable company?

Yep, it was Fox v. Time Warner cable.

DTLB58
01-31-2011, 07:36 AM
I have no idea what the issue is with Fox/DTV to be honest. I have DTV and didn't know the SB was in jeopardy.

Same here, wtf? I see all my other FOX programming they sure the hell better broadcast the SB.

Seriously, this is gonna be a great freaking game!

DTLB58
01-31-2011, 07:37 AM
This is pretty much the end of the line with me and Direct TV. First they start dumping stations like VSs. Then this battle with Fox. Now they have the audacity to want to raise my rates. I have 2 areas I want to get information on addressing this. 1. Can anyone else save me the trouble of doing my own due diligence on this fued? 2. Those of you effected by it what are you doing to go around it?

I feel like I walked into the middle of a conversation....what am I missing?

BIG_DADDY
01-31-2011, 10:09 AM
I feel like I walked into the middle of a conversation....what am I missing?

Your local fox affilliate is obviously broadcasting, Southern Oregon is not.

suzzer99
01-31-2011, 11:34 AM
I know some people who work in the TV business out here in LA, and they all say Fox Sports are absolute c*cksuckers to deal with on anything.

Bwana
01-31-2011, 05:30 PM
Ouch, that blows.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-31-2011, 05:32 PM
The added irony is that Newscorp used to own DTV.

Brock
01-31-2011, 05:32 PM
Rabbit ears take care of it? Or gonna have to climb on the roof?

Bwana
01-31-2011, 05:35 PM
Rabbit ears take care of it? Or gonna have to climb on the roof?

Sports bar.......

munkey
01-31-2011, 05:44 PM
I picked up the Chiefs games online just fine this year. I got copies and watched those too. When I am at home I do that. When I am at work on a weekend I go to sportsbar which I can hit with a rock from my work which a seriously killer setup and some Chiefs fans. Saved some $$$$ this year.

Yes...The Planet rocked this year..which reminds me...I've gotta buy something soon :-)

I got rid of Direct TV about 3 years ago and to be honest...I don't miss it one bit. Too much money for a lot of TV I don't even watch...

DaFace
01-31-2011, 05:48 PM
The added irony is that Newscorp used to own DTV.

Eh, it's not Newscorp that's the issue. It's the local broadcaster, Northwest Broadcasting Co.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110131/NEWS07/101310331/-1/NEWSMAP

jd1020
01-31-2011, 05:50 PM
Every provider has these hiccups. I dont have any problem with DTV, switched from Dish because I couldnt get HD with Dish (thanks neighbors and your huge trees). I'll probably dump DTV whenever U-verse is available in my neighborhood, though.

Extra Point
01-31-2011, 05:53 PM
Fox-blocked thread.

Bwana
01-31-2011, 05:56 PM
Every provider has these hiccups. I dont have any problem with DTV, switched from Dish because I couldnt get HD with Dish (thanks neighbors and your huge trees). I'll probably dump DTV whenever U-verse is available in my neighborhood, though.

It sounds like you could use a few big ass jugs of this!

http://www.roundup-garden.com/images/product_tree_stump.jpg

listopencil
01-31-2011, 06:05 PM
Many channels might not survive if you actually got to pick which channels you wanted to pay for and were charged appropriately.


This is exactly the "problem" and I have seen it mentioned before. The service providers for cable/dish are creating a market by coercing you to pay for programming that you don't want. And the content providers churn out worthless crap with a huge profit margin. AS long as people are willing to pay for it, it's not going to stop.

The worst example I've seen are the home shopping channels. You are literally paying to watch commercials. When I was a kid, TV without commercials was one of the biggest draws of cable TV. It's all good from my perspective. I have been watching nothing but broadcast TV for quite some time. I'll never go back.