DirecTV and Viacom? Let's make a deal

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

I'm beginning to think the billion dollars they are talking about is over the course of the contract, not per year.

 

[Coconut36]

I'm beginning to think the billion dollars they are talking about is over the course of the contract, not per year.

Has either side indicated the length of the contract?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Has either side indicated the length of the contract?

Nobody has said anything with any actual details at all. "30%" "1 billion", "pennies per day"

 

[sam_gordon]

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?

So you dislike Viacom not defining their "stats", but it's OK for D* to not define THEIR stats. $1B increase... OK... over how many years? 30% increase? OK, 30% of what? Funny, DirecTV isn't giving any breakdown on how much they pay Viacom now vs. what Viacom is asking for, but you don't have a problem with that.

THAT'S my point. Both sides are "spinning". Let's hold them BOTH to the same standards. You don't believe "pennies a day" (Viacom's claim) = two cents. But you believe DirecTV's claim that Viacom wants $1B. Again, is that over the life of the contract (could be reasonable), or one year (I would agree that's extreme).

Again, I pointed out how a two cent a day increase COULD be a 30% increase AND come out to $1B. What you haven't answered yet... would you be willing to pay $7.20 more per YEAR to keep the Viacom channels?

 

[Colleen27]

I think the numbers are less relevant than the principle, and D* knows that if they allow Viacom to leverage a handful of popular networks into a requirement of offering all their less popular channels as well other media companies will follow suit. With the concentration of media in this country (think losing Viacom was bad? Disney/ESPN/ABC holds at least 35 channels on our programming package - imagine if they decided to take the same stand because it worked for a competitor) accepting deals like this one would cripple the ability of cable and satellite companies to offer basic/low rate packages.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think the numbers are less relevant than the principle, and D* knows that if they allow Viacom to leverage a handful of popular networks into a requirement of offering all their less popular channels as well other media companies will follow suit. With the concentration of media in this country (think losing Viacom was bad? Disney/ESPN/ABC holds at least 35 channels on our programming package - imagine if they decided to take the same stand because it worked for a competitor) accepting deals like this one would cripple the ability of cable and satellite companies to offer basic/low rate packages.

But it's ALREADY been done... that horse is out of the barn so to speak. How do you think Viacom got all those channels on in the first place? Using Coconut's argument, we haven't heard from D* saying they'd like to drop Viacom's "lessor" channels, so we don't know that's a point of contention.

Sat & cable providers have been doing EXACTLY what you describe to subscribers for DECADES. Speaking STRICTLY of DirecTV, you want the Cooking Network? OK, you MUST get Big Ten Network, Current, ESPN News, ESPNU, Fuse, etc, etc, etc.

Until we go to a true ala carte system, where the subscribers purchase the channels they want (and ONLY the channels they want), "packaging" is a part of the business.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

I'm with D* in their fight right now. We've had D* for about 10 years maybe longer.

Regardless of who's the closest to being correct with their "spin" 30% is still 30% and that's for just one programmer.

D* and other companies have to go thru continuous negotiations. Say D* has 10 programmers they have to negotiate with for services...this one wants 30%..the next one says "Hey they got 30% so we want 30% and we offer better programs" then the next meeting rolls around and the next one wants 20%--Three programmers later and we the customers are now looking at an 80% increase.

Where does it end?

A 30% increase for me would be approx $3 a month or $36 a year. Not a lot in the scheme of things but I'd be paying more for channels no one here even watches. Add to that I will go from what.. 10 useless channels now to those plus however many Viacom wants to add to their deal.

I already pay for over 200 channels I never watch why would I want to add more to it?

Whether it's .2c a day or .99c (which is still considered pennies) I want D* to stand their ground. It makes no difference to me if they're doing it for themselves or for us the customers because my wallet is the one that will be affected.

 

[Coconut36]

I'm with D* in their fight right now. We've had D* for about 10 years maybe longer.

Regardless of who's the closest to being correct with their "spin" 30% is still 30% and that's for just one programmer.

D* and other companies have to go thru continuous negotiations. Say D* has 10 programmers they have to negotiate with for services...this one wants 30%..the next one says "Hey they got 30% so we want 30% and we offer better programs" then the next meeting rolls around and the next one wants 20%--Three programmers later and we the customers are now looking at an 80% increase.

Where does it end?

A 30% increase for me would be approx $3 a month or $36 a year. Not a lot in the scheme of things but I'd be paying more for channels no one here even watches. Add to that I will go from what.. 10 useless channels now to those plus however many Viacom wants to add to their deal.

I already pay for over 200 channels I never watch why would I want to add more to it?

Whether it's .2c a day or .99c (which is still considered pennies) I want D* to stand their ground. It makes no difference to me if they're doing it for themselves or for us the customers because my wallet is the one that will be affected.

Yep..you nicely summed up the reasons I am with Directv in this right now.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm with D* in their fight right now. We've had D* for about 10 years maybe longer.

Regardless of who's the closest to being correct with their "spin" 30% is still 30% and that's for just one programmer.

D* and other companies have to go thru continuous negotiations. Say D* has 10 programmers they have to negotiate with for services...this one wants 30%..the next one says "Hey they got 30% so we want 30% and we offer better programs" then the next meeting rolls around and the next one wants 20%--Three programmers later and we the customers are now looking at an 80% increase.

Where does it end?

A 30% increase for me would be approx $3 a month or $36 a year. Not a lot in the scheme of things but I'd be paying more for channels no one here even watches. Add to that I will go from what.. 10 useless channels now to those plus however many Viacom wants to add to their deal.

I already pay for over 200 channels I never watch why would I want to add more to it?

Whether it's .2c a day or .99c (which is still considered pennies) I want D* to stand their ground. It makes no difference to me if they're doing it for themselves or for us the customers because my wallet is the one that will be affected.

All this tells me is you don't care about the Viacom channels. That's fine. Not everyone likes them. I'm not sure which channels are important to you, but I wonder if you'd be so adamant if it was a channel YOU liked. For example, Planogirl (I think it was her) wants AMC on Dish. Ask her if she's willing to pay a little extra to get the network she wants.

For me (knowing my kids viewing habits), I'd be fine paying an extra $7/year just to get Nick. I don't care if they add 20 channels to that, I'm willing to pay 2 cents a day more for Nick.

 

[Coconut36]

All this tells me is you don't care about the Viacom channels. That's fine. Not everyone likes them. I'm not sure which channels are important to you, but I wonder if you'd be so adamant if it was a channel YOU liked. For example, Planogirl (I think it was her) wants AMC on Dish. Ask her if she's willing to pay a little extra to get the network she wants.

For me (knowing my kids viewing habits), I'd be fine paying an extra $7/year just to get Nick. I don't care if they add 20 channels to that, I'm willing to pay 2 cents a day more for Nick.

My kids are ticked to not have Nick Jr but I don't believe it is worth a 30% increase and hold firm on that.

You keep throwing around $7/year but that isn't remotely valid as you don't know with any certainty at all what the increase actually is. As has been pointed out many times "pennies per subscriber" can mean anything from 2 cents to 99 cents and I just don't see Direct throwing a hissy if it was generally just a couple cents but it is likely somewhere between your assumed figure of a couple cents and Directs 1B figure.

 

[wdwiala]

Just going to jump in here and post that Directv has opened up some "free" specials until the end of July. Starting immediately:

294 – The Hub
295 – PBS Sprout
328 – TV One
339 – Fuse
535 – 542 – Encore

It's not Nick, but it's not a bad start....

 

[Coconut36]

Just going to jump in here and post that Directv has opened up some "free" specials until the end of July. Starting immediately:

294 – The Hub
295 – PBS Sprout
328 – TV One
339 – Fuse
535 – 542 – Encore

It's not Nick, but it's not a bad start....

Disney Jr as well (from what I understand it was in the works but they put it out early to help offset the loss of Nick Jr).

 

[sam_gordon]

My kids are ticked to not have Nick Jr but I don't believe it is worth a 30% increase and hold firm on that.

You keep throwing around $7/year but that isn't remotely valid as you don't know with any certainty at all what the increase actually is. As has been pointed out many times "pennies per subscriber" can mean anything from 2 cents to 99 cents and I just don't see Direct throwing a hissy if it was generally just a couple cents but it is likely somewhere between your assumed figure of a couple cents and Directs 1B figure.

And you don't know how much the 30% increase is. I have shown 2 cents a day = $1B. Would you like me to do it again?

.02 * 365 * 20M * 7.

You believe what D* claims (30% increase and $1B). That's fine. You think Viacom is "spinning" their "pennies a day". Possible. Personally, I think both are spinning.

Again, D* not backing up any of THEIR numbers, but they're also not contradicting Viacom's "pennies a day". Didn't you say since Viacom wasn't contradicting D*'s numbers, D* must be right?

I'm not asking about percentages. I just want to know, are YOU willing to pay $7 more per year for NickJr?

ETA: My $7 a year is as valid as you saying Viacom is asking "top dollar".

 

[Coconut36]

And you don't know how much the 30% increase is. I have shown 2 cents a day = $1B. Would you like me to do it again?

.02 * 365 * 20M * 7.

You believe what D* claims (30% increase and $1B). That's fine. You think Viacom is "spinning" their "pennies a day". Possible. Personally, I think both are spinning.

Again, D* not backing up any of THEIR numbers, but they're also not contradicting Viacom's "pennies a day". Didn't you say since Viacom wasn't contradicting D*'s numbers, D* must be right?

I'm not asking about percentages. I just want to know, are YOU willing to pay $7 more per year for NickJr?

ETA: My $7 a year is as valid as you saying Viacom is asking "top dollar".

Where is your 7 coming from in your calculation?

And no I am not willing to pay that for Nick Jr..it's not worth it especially since my bill just went up.

 

[sam_gordon]

Where is your 7 coming from in your calculation?

Repeating the term (in years) of the now expired contract.

And no I am not willing to pay that for Nick Jr..it's not worth it especially since my bill just went up.

OK.

 

[Coconut36]

Repeating the term (in years) of the now expired contract.

OK.

But has either side given 7 years as the term of this contract? I haven't seen that. As far as I have read nobody has disclosed that and the 1B figure has not been tied to a given time period (as in over the course of a year, 10 years, 5 years..etc).

 

[irishbosoxfan]

All this tells me is you don't care about the Viacom channels. That's fine. Not everyone likes them. I'm not sure which channels are important to you, but I wonder if you'd be so adamant if it was a channel YOU liked. For example, Planogirl (I think it was her) wants AMC on Dish. Ask her if she's willing to pay a little extra to get the network she wants.

For me (knowing my kids viewing habits), I'd be fine paying an extra $7/year just to get Nick. I don't care if they add 20 channels to that, I'm willing to pay 2 cents a day more for Nick.

I already pay for so many channels that I couldn't give a hoot about. Audience, Baby First, BBC America, Big Ten Network, Bloomberg, BYU TV, Christian Television Network, The Church Channel, Cooking Channel, Current TV, Daystar, Enlace Christian Television, EWTN, Free Speech TV, FSN, Fuse, Galavision, Gem Network, God Tv, Golden Eagle Broadcasting, Gospel Music Channel......This list could go on forever.

We don't watch a whole lot of shows outside of primetime (ABC, CBS etc) and DH loves his ESPN but I think it's insane that if I want to watch Cupcake Wars on the Food Network that I have to pay for Jewish Life Television in order to be able to do so.

I don't accept that if I need a new refrigerator and go to Lowes to buy it that I have to buy a microwave as well in order to get my frig.

My point is that I shouldn't have to pay extra for something. Especially if I don't want or need it.

If I could take that chart that you posted a few pages back and pick and choose exactly what I wanted then my bill would be just over $9 not including taxes. But we can't do that because companies like Viacom want to make money and they can't make money if they can't sell their product. It doesn't matter if 50% or 90% of their product bites the big one because in order to get one you have to get them all.

We currently have D* as well as Netflix and Hulu. DH and I have been having a serious discussion about getting rid of D*. Our only reason for keeping a satellite provider right now is because of shows like "How I met your mother" and of course his sports.

If I can find a cost effective way for him to watch his Monday and Thursday night football I'm saying adios!


ETA: If channel #1 has one million viewers and channel #2 has 60 viewers then does channel #2 really need to exist? Granted those are extreme numbers but it gets my point across. Heck they cancel tv shows constantly because of poor viewership why can't they do the same for tv channels. Instead of funneling their loss onto us they should just cut the loss.

 

[Fire14]

I already pay for so many channels that I couldn't give a hoot about. Audience, Baby First, BBC America, Big Ten Network, Bloomberg, BYU TV, Christian Television Network, The Church Channel, Cooking Channel, Current TV, Daystar, Enlace Christian Television, EWTN, Free Speech TV, FSN, Fuse, Galavision, Gem Network, God Tv, Golden Eagle Broadcasting, Gospel Music Channel......This list could go on forever.

I thought baby first was an extra cost or did that change in recent past? I think we have same channel pkg, based on what you posted.

 

[Planogirl]

All this tells me is you don't care about the Viacom channels. That's fine. Not everyone likes them. I'm not sure which channels are important to you, but I wonder if you'd be so adamant if it was a channel YOU liked. For example, Planogirl (I think it was her) wants AMC on Dish. Ask her if she's willing to pay a little extra to get the network she wants.

For me (knowing my kids viewing habits), I'd be fine paying an extra $7/year just to get Nick. I don't care if they add 20 channels to that, I'm willing to pay 2 cents a day more for Nick.

It was me and I would gladly pay more for AMC. The way I figure it, the extra would come out to 48 cents per month if AMC gets all they want and I would gladly pay that and much more. But I think that it's all about the lawsuit.

The trouble with an ala carte system is that some less popular channels would likely bite the dust. I bet that most of us like at least one channel that is less popular. With TV you have to take the bad with the good which for me would include just about everything on the networks when you talk about the bad. Could I leave out the networks?

ETA: I believe that channels should be allowed to get increases from time to time. I can't see any prices remaining the same forever. Perhaps 30% is too much? Negotiating will likely decrease that amount.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

I thought baby first was an extra cost or did that change in recent past? I think we have same channel pkg, based on what you posted.

For me it's included as part of my package. The package I have isn't part of D* current choices. It's the old Choice Plus (I believe that's what it was called) It had a few channels that have now been divided up between Choice and Choice Extra.

We were grandfathered in when they changed the packages. So our price is lower than the Choice Extra for almost all of the same channels.