DirecTV and Viacom? Let's make a deal

[Mandy_in_NC]

I just want my channels back! I want to know if the Diamond Divers in Africa ever find any diamonds. I want to see what mess the Teen Moms are into and I want to see how the Rednecks vaction in England. I also want to see how the Redneck do on the inland. And my kids want to watch Teen Nick. I really really want to know if they find diamonds. Heck I want to know bout the knife fight that was in the description of the episode I didn't get to see.

 

[sam_gordon]

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).

But according to you, $1B is extreme. Doesn't the time period of that $1B factor in? THAT'S my point. You're taking D*'s stand "They're asking for $1B, that's outrageous", but not giving any clarification.

 

[sam_gordon]

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

For the record, I think cable/sat providers have been doing the bundling as long as, if not longer than networks.

 

[Colleen27]

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.

True, but the question comes in the form of who gets to do it - the satellite/cable companies, with regard to the desires and price-sensitivity of their customers, or the media companies with no regard to how many customers are turned off by price increases for content they aren't interested in having?

 

[Fire14]

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.

Ok WE have Choice pkg. I believe. Doesn't matter not like I watch that channel.

 

[Coconut36]

But according to you, $1B is extreme. Doesn't the time period of that $1B factor in? THAT'S my point. You're taking D*'s stand "They're asking for $1B, that's outrageous", but not giving any clarification.

That would be Viacoms fault. If they want to sway people they need to explain the terms associated with that 1B but instead they are busy having cartoon characters tell kids they are going away (and many parents have gotten upset because their kid flipped out thinking the character was dying!) and taking away online content. I don't see them stepping forward and giving any details regarding the "pennies per subscriber" or the terms of the contract associated with the 1B..that is their fault. I am going with the assumption that it is an unreasonable hike and a short term because they have yet to state anything else and have had ample opportunity to do so.

 

[sam_gordon]

That would be Viacoms fault. If they want to sway people they need to explain the terms associated with that 1B but instead they are busy having cartoon characters tell kids they are going away (and many parents have gotten upset because their kid flipped out thinking the character was dying!) and taking away online content. I don't see them stepping forward and giving any details regarding the "pennies per subscriber" or the terms of the contract associated with the 1B..that is their fault. I am going with the assumption that it is an unreasonable hike and a short term because they have yet to state anything else and have had ample opportunity to do so.

Just to update because there seems to be some confusion on what's been claimed.
On the webpage Viacom set up for this dispute (http://whendirectvdrops.com/), there's a statement. Please note the part I bolded...

We are frustrated, too. DirecTV is throwing around some big numbers and percentages that are inflated and misleading. We maintain that the rate increase we’ve requested from DirecTV is fair, reasonable, and in line with what we’re paid by every other cable, satellite, and telco provider in the industry. Our deal with DirecTV is seven years old. In that time alone, DirecTV raised their rates an astonishing 52%. We are asking DirecTV for an increase of only 2 cents a day per subscriber for our 26 channels — that’s 2 cents for all of the channels, not 2 cents per channel. It is a fair request.

So yes, Viacom's "pennies a day" IS "2 cents a day". So yes, those of you "standing firm" against the increase are fighting a $7 PER YEAR increase.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

I am missing my Roseanne on the weekends

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think the networks should be looking to their advertisers for price increases.

Hey networks, the better your programming, the more demand and ratings you provide, the more you can charge your advertisers.

Guaranteed money from the cable providers does NOTHING to entice you to better your programming.

So Viacom's advertisers then pass on their increased costs to ALL consumers, not just Viacom channel viewers/DirecTV customers? How is that reasonable, but Viacom refusing to let DirecTV air its shows until an agreement is reached not?

 

[Hollywoodhaha]

OF COURSE this happens right before Degrassi on teennick has new episodes 4 times a week for the summer

 

[kaytieeldr]

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.

If you read the text at that site, you'll see those are wholesale rates.

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.

I'm confused. Viacom isn't trying to leverage any new, less popular channels. They're trying to negotiate what they consider reasonable payment for the channels and programming that were already available to DirecTV customers.

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.

No. Again, those are wholesale rates from three years ago, and oh yeah, don't include the networks. You'd have to pay retail rates.

But we can't do that because companies like Viacom want to make money

The alternative being NOT making money, therefore going out of business and not having any networks to offer programming, and this entire issue (and thread) being moot.

 

[Planogirl]

This is all about $7 a year?

 

[kaytieeldr]

That would be Viacoms fault. If they want to sway people they need to explain the terms associated with that 1B but instead they are busy having cartoon characters tell kids they are going away (and many parents have gotten upset because their kid flipped out thinking the character was dying!) and taking away online content. I don't see them stepping forward and giving any details regarding the "pennies per subscriber" or the terms of the contract associated with the 1B..that is their fault. I am going with the assumption that it is an unreasonable hike and a short term because they have yet to state anything else and have had ample opportunity to do so.

Based on everything sam_gordon has posted - information, calculations, and now specific information from Viacom's own site - it appears too, too many people are drinking the DirexTV kook-aid and falling for their rhetoric.

 

[kaytieeldr]

did I say that?

The "facts" as I've read them...is that for most of Viacom's channels the viewership is down -- yet they want DTV to pay more for channels losing viewers.

Reading on dbstalk.com, most DTV subs, care about only one or two of the channels (at most) that have been lost...mainly Nick & Com. Central.

Perhaps Viacom should have come in with a 5% increase in year one and then an additional 5% increase over the next 5 years...so that by year 5 they were at a 25% increase vs. the method they tried.

For Viacom to come in and upfront want a 30% increase for many channels that people just dont care about, was a bad move on their part.

But it's logistically impossible. It's seven years too late for them to try for a five % annual increase on the old contact over five or six years (which actually doesnt quite work on a seven year contract). And given that the new contract hasn't been negotiated yet, there's no way to know what the terms might be.

 

[ICF]

But it's logistically impossible. It's seven years too late for them to try for a five % annual increase on the old contact over five or six years (which actually doesnt quite work on a seven year contract). And given that the new contract hasn't been negotiated yet, there's no way to know what the terms might be.

I was saying what they SHOULD be trying to do on the new contract, instead of asking for a 30% increase (reportedly) on day one of whatever new deal they want D* to sign now.

Clearly the past is the past, and I made no mention of how the old contract was set up.

 

[Colleen27]

So yes, Viacom's "pennies a day" IS "2 cents a day". So yes, those of you "standing firm" against the increase are fighting a $7 PER YEAR increase.

I just don't see this as believable... It is Viacom's info, and bound to be just as biased as anything coming from D*. We're not paying anywhere near 52% more for DirecTV than we were 7 years ago, and if they're willing to 'fudge the numbers' on that (I suspect by comparing new customer promo rates to undiscounted rates) what reason do I have to believe the rest of their sales pitch?

 

[ICF]

Just to update because there seems to be some confusion on what's been claimed.
On the webpage Viacom set up for this dispute (http://whendirectvdrops.com/), there's a statement. Please note the part I bolded...

So yes, Viacom's "pennies a day" IS "2 cents a day". So yes, those of you "standing firm" against the increase are fighting a $7 PER YEAR increase.

Why do you take this as the truth, but discount the D* version of the truth?

 

[Bob NC]

So Viacom's advertisers then pass on their increased costs to ALL consumers, not just Viacom channel viewers/DirecTV customers? How is that reasonable, but Viacom refusing to let DirecTV air its shows until an agreement is reached not?

If you read the text at that site, you'll see those are wholesale rates.

I'm confused. Viacom isn't trying to leverage any new, less popular channels. They're trying to negotiate what they consider reasonable payment for the channels and programming that were already available to DirecTV customers.

No. Again, those are wholesale rates from three years ago, and oh yeah, don't include the networks. You'd have to pay retail rates. The alternative being NOT making money, therefore going out of business and not having any networks to offer programming, and this entire issue (and thread) being moot.

Based on everything sam_gordon has posted - information, calculations, and now specific information from Viacom's own site - it appears too, too many people are drinking the DirexTV kook-aid and falling for their rhetoric.

But it's logistically impossible. It's seven years too late for them to try for a five % annual increase on the old contact over five or six years (which actually doesnt quite work on a seven year contract). And given that the new contract hasn't been negotiated yet, there's no way to know what the terms might be.

Guess we can all back away slowly. The thread has been taken over by the only true voice of reason.

 

[billdob62]

A good book won't hold you hostage...unless you can't wait until the end.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm confused. Viacom isn't trying to leverage any new, less popular channels. They're trying to negotiate what they consider reasonable payment for the channels and programming that were already available to DirecTV customers.

And DirecTV's position is that if Viacom wants these higher fees, D* should be able to offer the channels ala carte rather than paying "pennies per day" per customer for each and every subscriber on each and every one of their packages. Viacom is calling foul on that, and that's one of the places they're losing the public opinion wars.

Viacom is posting consistently higher profit margins than D*, and with as price sensitive as consumers are now this issue stands to cost D* a lot no matter how it goes. They'll lose subscribers if this drags on, but they'll also lose subscribers if they raise rates. Meanwhile, Viacom is making money from selling the rights to their programming to the streaming services that are increasingly convincing people to drop cable/satellite. They win and D* loses no matter how it plays out.