DirecTV and Viacom? Let's make a deal

[Coconut36]

Really? You've seen the breakdown on how much they want for each channel?


OK, I'm going to say this again...
VIACOM MADE A MISTAKE BY BLOCKING ONLINE ACCESS.
Also...
30% IS HIGH.

I have NEVER indicated D* should automatically pay a 30% increase.

It's not per channel..they want top dollar even though only 7 of 17 channels have any decent viewership. DirectTV said "let people pick and choose what they want" and Viacom said no. So to me that means Viacom wants the same money for the channel nobody watches as the one that gets decent viewers and from DirectTVs standpoint I can see why they would say "no" to that. Why should they have to pay out more and increase customer prices for 10 channels nobody wants to watch but they are forced to carry and charge for?

 

[sam_gordon]

It's not per channel..they want top dollar even though only 7 of 17 channels have any decent viewership. DirectTV said "let people pick and choose what they want" and Viacom said no. So to me that means Viacom wants the same money for the channel nobody watches as the one that gets decent viewers and from DirectTVs standpoint I can see why they would say "no" to that. Why should they have to pay out more and increase customer prices for 10 channels nobody wants to watch but they are forced to carry and charge for?

"Top Dollar" would be what ESPN charges each month for each subscriber. I think that's around $5/month, and that's for ONE channel.

D* couldn't say "let people pick what they want" because there is no ala carte system. And I disagree with your assumption that Viacom wants the same amount of money for some poor channel as Nick.

I also just realized, the "30% increase" claim is from D*. While true, is that 30% over the life of the new contract? If so, that would be a 30% increase over 14 years... a 2% increase for each year.

All I'm trying to say is try to read through the spin (from BOTH sides). Don't take what either side says as gospel.

I'm still waiting for someone to say whether the $1B increase is per year or over the length of the contract (and how long the contract would be for).

 

[ICF]

"Top Dollar" would be what ESPN charges each month for each subscriber. I think that's around $5/month, and that's for ONE channel.

You sure about that...I thought it was about $5 for the whole suite of ESPN channels.

 

[marmalade]

"Top Dollar" would be what ESPN charges each month for each subscriber. I think that's around $5/month, and that's for ONE channel.

D* couldn't say "let people pick what they want" because there is no ala carte system. And I disagree with your assumption that Viacom wants the same amount of money for some poor channel as Nick.

I also just realized, the "30% increase" claim is from D*. While true, is that 30% over the life of the new contract? If so, that would be a 30% increase over 14 years... a 2% increase for each year.

All I'm trying to say is try to read through the spin (from BOTH sides). Don't take what either side says as gospel.

I'm still waiting for someone to say whether the $1B increase is per year or over the length of the contract (and how long the contract would be for).

Maybe both Directv and Viacom are in cahoots together. Viacom is getting free publicity with all this drama which may cause their shows ratings to go up, and Directv has an excuse as to why they need to raise their rates.

 

[sam_gordon]

You sure about that...I thought it was about $5 for the whole suite of ESPN channels.

I found this list from 2009. I'm assuming it's accurate.

You're right, it is $5 for the suite (actually over $5), but the "Mothership" (as ESPN is known) was getting $4/subscriber/month.

By comparison, the "main" Viacom channels (MTV, Nick, Spike, BET, VH1, TVLand) were getting <$1.50.

Again, assuming this chart is right (or close), it shows that Viacom is NOT asking "top dollar", and that Viacom doesn't want the same amount per subscriber for BET (for example) as it does for Nick (both of which Coconut claimed).

 

[sam_gordon]

By the way, using the chart above, I can show how "pennies a day" = "30% increase" = "$1B".

I added up the top 7 or so Viacom channels and came up to ~$1.50. Apparently there are 26 channels as part of this disagreement. Let's say their total comes up to $1.80/subscriber/month. A 30% would be an increase of 60 cents a month. That would be two cents a day (pennies a day) per subscriber.

So, .02 * 365 = $7.30/subscriber/year.
$7.30 * 20M subscribers = $146M
$146M * 7 year contract = $1,022,000,000.

Yup. If I was a D* subscriber, I'd be darn glad they're fighting to keep from raising my rate $7/year.

 

[Coconut36]

Where is that list even from and how do you know the validity of it?

 

[sam_gordon]

Where is that list even from and how do you know the validity of it?

Here's the web page... http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/. You're right. It might not be true. But it has similar numbers to another list I saw a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything to say these numbers are wrong?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

So... can someone explain the "D*" to me? WHy is that DirecTV's abbreviation? This is the only place I've seen that used.

 

[Planogirl]

Is Viacom actually getting $5 for the channels so a 30% increase would be $1.50? Am I understanding this correctly?

AMC shows 23 cents. If close to accurate that puts a whole new spin on Dish claiming they want a 200% increase. I'll pay another 46 cents! Grrrr....

 

[ThisIsJason]

So... can someone explain the "D*" to me? WHy is that DirecTV's abbreviation? This is the only place I've seen that used.

D* is what people on satellite/electronics forums used to shorten the spelling for DirecTV. E* is for Dish Network, because when Dish first started started up its parent company was EchoStar. They have just become standard net lingo.

Is Viacom actually getting $5 for the channels so a 30% increase would be $1.50? Am I understanding this correctly?

AMC shows 23 cents. If close to accurate that puts a whole new spin on Dish claiming they want a 200% increase. I'll pay another 46 cents! Grrrr....

No. Even if you add up all the VIACOM channels together they don't even come close to $5. The highest one they have is Nick, and they get anywhere from $0.40 to 0.50 per sub depending on the contract with said cable/satellite company. The only channel that is about $5 per sub is ESPN. VIACOM wants top dollar for failing networks. They also want DirecTV to add VIACOM channels that they didn't have, and DirecTV told them no.

The AMC thing with Dish Network is a whole other can of worms, Dish is currently involved in a lawsuit that could end up costing them billions. They are being sued by AMCs parent company (AMC Networks) for breach of contract over the old VOOM HD channels from 4 or 5 years ago. Google: dish vs voom, for that mess and it will explain why AMC was dropped.

 

[Coconut36]

Here's the web page... http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/. You're right. It might not be true. But it has similar numbers to another list I saw a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything to say these numbers are wrong?

Not necessarily..but nowhere did I see this was DirectTv specific though..they are not listed or mentioned in the article or in the tags at the bottom. Different providers I would think would have different fee structures (or wouldn't they all be in a stand off with Viacom right now) so what provider is this for? Is this satellite (often cheaper than local cable) or for local cable? The fact that it says cable leads me to believe it is not related to satellite...DirectTv being satellite and possibly having an entirely different fee structure.

I have a hard time taking it at face value or using it to validate if Viacom is indeed asking for "pennies per subscriber" or how it might impact a DirectTv subscriber bill when it is not only a few years old but also not clear what provider it is actually for or if it is event relevant to satellite providers like Direct Tv or Dish.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not necessarily..but nowhere did I see this was DirectTv specific though..they are not listed or mentioned in the article or in the tags at the bottom. Different providers I would think would have different fee structures (or wouldn't they all be in a stand off with Viacom right now) so what provider is this for? Is this satellite (often cheaper than local cable) or for local cable? The fact that it says cable leads me to believe it is not related to satellite...DirectTv being satellite and possibly having an entirely different fee structure.

I have a hard time taking it at face value or using it to validate if Viacom is indeed asking for "pennies per subscriber" or how it might impact a DirectTv subscriber bill when it is not only a few years old but also not clear what provider it is actually for or if it is event relevant to satellite providers like Direct Tv or Dish.

I was using it to give a general idea of what sat/cable providers are paying networks. I am not claiming this is what D* pays. We don't know what D*'s contracts are with networks.

While the list may not be totally accurate, I'm willing to wager it's pretty close.

Viacom is NOT asking "top dollar" for it's channels. All we know is:
* Viacom claims they're asking for "pennies per day".
* D* claims it's a 30% increase.
* D* claims it's a $1B increase.

I showed upthread how all three statements can be factually true (and therefore claimed on a press release). Now, do I think Viacom channels are worth the increase they're asking for? Probably not. But to make them out like the increase would GREATLY affect subscribers bills, IMO, is totally wrong.

 

[sam_gordon]

Also from SNL Kagan:

The top twenty cable networks ranked by subscriber fees, according to recent estimates from SNL Kagan/Barclays Capital and published in SportsBusiness Daily:

1. ESPN ($5.06)
2. ESPN 3D ($2.71)
3. 3net ($1.29)
4. TNT ($1.21)
5. Disney Channel ($0.97)
6. NFL Network ($0.84)
7. Fox News ($0.82)
8. ESPN2 ($0.67)
9. USA Network ($0.62)
10. TBS ($0.59)
11(t). MGM HD ($0.58)
11(t). CNN en Espanol ($0.58)
13. CNN/HLN ($0.57)
14. Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite ($0.52)
15. HDNet ($0.47)
16. FX ($0.46)
17(t). Fox College Sports ($0.39)
17(t). MTV ($0.39)
19. HDNet Movies ($0.38)
20(t). Big Ten Network ($0.37)
20(t). Discovery Channel ($0.37)

Source: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/141097593.html#!page=1&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst

 

[sam_gordon]

D* is what people on satellite/electronics forums used to shorten the spelling for DirecTV. E* is for Dish Network, because when Dish first started started up its parent company was EchoStar. They have just become standard net lingo.

Sorry, I just hate type DirecTV.

No. Even if you add up all the VIACOM channels together they don't even come close to $5. The highest one they have is Nick, and they get anywhere from $0.40 to 0.50 per sub depending on the contract with said cable/satellite company. The only channel that is about $5 per sub is ESPN. VIACOM wants top dollar for failing networks. They also want DirecTV to add VIACOM channels that they didn't have, and DirecTV told them no.

The AMC thing with Dish Network is a whole other can of worms, Dish is currently involved in a lawsuit that could end up costing them billions. They are being sued by AMCs parent company (AMC Networks) for breach of contract over the old VOOM HD channels from 4 or 5 years ago. Google: dish vs voom, for that mess and it will explain why AMC was dropped.

I agree with everything you wrote except what I bolded. To me "top dollar" would be equivalent to what ESPN gets for the "mothership".

 

[Coconut36]

Sorry, I just hate type DirecTV.


I agree with everything you wrote except what I bolded. To me "top dollar" would be equivalent to what ESPN gets for the "mothership".

I think that is where we differ as for you "top dollar" means one thing..to me it means another. It appears they are asking for a large raise and that they are making it a blanket increase regardless of how well the majority of their channels are doing (since 10 of them are not doing well, are failing..etc). I have seen nothing from Viacom indicating that they are asking for X amount for the "good" channels and only Y amount for the failing ones.

DirectTv seems to indicate they are asking for a large increase on all their channels and that the increase for the failing ones is not in proportion to their viewership/popularity..hence them asking for Viacom to offer them a la cart so consumers could decide if they wanted to pay X amount for the unpopular channels.

I would think if the chart above is relevant to all providers there would be an issue with providers other than Directv regarding the price increase as all of them would be going up not just Direct. Also if they were locked in 7 years with Direct but not with others their prices could be vastly different with another provider because they were not in a contract during that time (and how do we know at the time they signed the 7 years that they didn't ask for/get a huge increase then?)

 

[ICF]

I would think if the chart above is relevant to all providers there would be an issue with providers other than Directv regarding the price increase as all of them would be going up not just Direct. Also if they were locked in 7 years with Direct but not with others their prices could be vastly different with another provider because they were not in a contract during that time (and how do we know at the time they signed the 7 years that they didn't ask for/get a huge increase then?)

It may well be an ongoing issue with other providers as their contracts come up. It's interesting to see that D* is getting support from Cox Communication Cable company in this dispute. That is something you almost never see.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-cox-20120711,0,6434127.story

 

[sam_gordon]

I think that is where we differ as for you "top dollar" means one thing..to me it means another. It appears they are asking for a large raise and that they are making it a blanket increase regardless of how well the majority of their channels are doing (since 10 of them are not doing well, are failing..etc). I have seen nothing from Viacom indicating that they are asking for X amount for the "good" channels and only Y amount for the failing ones.

But you're assuming (it appears) what D* is putting out in their press releases is totally true. You've used the $1B and the 30% to indicate Viacom's request is unreasonable. But again, is that $1B over the life of the contract? "30%" of what number? Answer me this... if Viacom's claim of "pennies" a day is correct, do you think .02/day (60 cents a month/$7.20 a year) is unreasonable?

DirectTv seems to indicate they are asking for a large increase on all their channels and that the increase for the failing ones is not in proportion to their viewership/popularity..hence them asking for Viacom to offer them a la cart so consumers could decide if they wanted to pay X amount for the unpopular channels.

First, of COURSE D* is going to say Viacom is asking for too much. That's THEIR "spin". Viacom claims they're asking for the going rate. That's THEIR spin. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Consumers CAN'T decide if they want to pay per channel. Even if Viacom offered that to D*, D* isn't offering that to subscribers. You're stuck with whatever channels are in the package D* offers. Why is it ok for D* (and other providers) to say "Here are the packaged channels, ones you want and ones you don't", but it's not ok for networks to say the same?

I would think if the chart above is relevant to all providers there would be an issue with providers other than Directv regarding the price increase as all of them would be going up not just Direct. Also if they were locked in 7 years with Direct but not with others their prices could be vastly different with another provider because they were not in a contract during that time (and how do we know at the time they signed the 7 years that they didn't ask for/get a huge increase then?)

We don't know what D* has been paying Viacom. I've supplied some (possible) facts to back up my theory that Viacom is NOT charging the same for all of its channels. Do you have anything to back up YOUR claim that they are?

 

[Coconut36]

But you're assuming (it appears) what D* is putting out in their press releases is totally true. You've used the $1B and the 30% to indicate Viacom's request is unreasonable. But again, is that $1B over the life of the contract? "30%" of what number? Answer me this... if Viacom's claim of "pennies" a day is correct, do you think .02/day (60 cents a month/$7.20 a year) is unreasonable?

First, of COURSE D* is going to say Viacom is asking for too much. That's THEIR "spin". Viacom claims they're asking for the going rate. That's THEIR spin. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Consumers CAN'T decide if they want to pay per channel. Even if Viacom offered that to D*, D* isn't offering that to subscribers. You're stuck with whatever channels are in the package D* offers. Why is it ok for D* (and other providers) to say "Here are the packaged channels, ones you want and ones you don't", but it's not ok for networks to say the same?

We don't know what D* has been paying Viacom. I've supplied some (possible) facts to back up my theory that Viacom is NOT charging the same for all of its channels. Do you have anything to back up YOUR claim that they are?

Who else am I to believe? I have seen very little from Viacom other than the "pennies per subscriber", nothing to indicate price per channel, nothing to indicate they are not asking the same for the good and the bad channels..they are also the ones who requested the channels be dropped and the ones that have removed their online content. If they want "their" story out there then need to get it out there as I am seeing very little press from them.

There is no Directv break down of per price per channel that exists and it is why I question the link you provided as it does not appear to be related to Direct at all. Like I said..I don't see anything really from Viacom..they could easily provide a break down of what they are asking for per channel but are silent on that.

Again..I do think both sides have issues and are part of the problem. If I had to pick sides (and I am ) then I side with Direct right now as I am one of their consumers and I am not interested in paying a rate increase for things like Palladia, Centric, and Tr3s for example (didn't even know they existed) and I don't think Nick, Nick Jr, MTV..etc are worth a 30% increase that will trickle down to me. I also don't like Viacoms behavior in shutting down online access..seems very nasty and like a temper tantrum.

ETA-Let's also keep in mind that Viacoms "pennies a day" is NOT defined by them. Pennies a day could be 2 cents or 20 cents and still be pennies a day..but there is going to be a vast cost difference to Direct and customers if it is 20 cents and not 2 cents, kwim? If Viacom wants some support or wants to change consumers mind/have their backing they might want to be a little more upfront as to what that means. By not defining it then we really don't know what they are asking for or if we as consumers find value and would put pressure on Direct to accept. I personally don't trust that it is really 2 cents a day..I suspect it is much higher than that but they can still use the term "pennies" as that does not define a set amount does it?

 

[Planogirl]

I would only suggest not believing everything DirectTV says either. These networks tend to at the very least exaggerate the truth even though DirectTV doesn't seem to do it all that badly.