DirecTV and Viacom? Let's make a deal

[pat fan]

I would really like to go back to the "old" days of a la carte. I would need so few channels that even if they charged more than they get from a provider like D* I would still save a bundle!

Or at least give us more choices for packages! Now there are only really 3 package choices from D* and not a whole lot of savings from the cheapest to the middle one.

Could we have baseball stuff as one, football another etc...

Nick channels as one, Disney as another etc...

Cooking channels as one, classic movie channels as one etc...

I think that sounds much fairer and easier to get what you want with less of what you DON'T want.

 

[Coconut36]

I'm sure the bills won't go down either. I just think it's funny there are people claiming Viacom is "greedy" by asking for all this money, but there's no criticizing of D* for NOT lowering the bills.

Like I said, let's hold BOTH entities to the same standard. I have no problem with D* telling Viacom "we don't think your programming is worth the extra money". I have no problem with subscribers saying "we don't think the programming is worth the extra money". I *DO* have a problem with people who are claiming Viacom is greedy or is "just trying to get more money" when that's EXACTLY what D* is doing.

But Viacom is being greedy...they want money for channels that are not worth it. They are trying to get new car prices for a 15 year old car type thing. There is newer, better and more interesting and they are not adjusting their prices to the demand for their programming. What is in demand is pretty minimal. Both companies are out for their bottom line of course. But when you are asking for more money you have to be sure you are worth that money..Direct and many Direct subscribers are pushing back to Viacom telling them they are not worth it. Viacoms profits exceed Directs as well.

I would be shocked if bills went down as well however Direct has opened up other channels for subscribers and brought us Disney Jr permanently..so considering the extra channels being offered I wouldn't expect a decrease. If they had done nothing and just said "oh well" then I would expect a decrease in my bill.

 

[ICF]

I'm sure the bills won't go down either. I just think it's funny there are people claiming Viacom is "greedy" by asking for all this money, but there's no criticizing of D* for NOT lowering the bills.

I called D* about this and got $5 off my bill for the next two months. Other's have gotten even more than that. I would call that lowering my bill. We also now have free Encore channels for at least the rest of the month. My family actually watched a movie on one of them over the weekend...probably more time spent watching that movie than we normally watch a Viacomm channel in a given week.

Of course, I might have been able to get more from D* as well if not for the fact that in the previous month I'd called and gotten --

A new HD DVR with free installation
$20 off for each of the next 12 months and
Free Showtime for 6 month

Prior to that it was the MLBEI package for only $75 (vs $200 or so regular price) back in March.

Like any company -- D* or Viacomm even, they all want to make money -- but I can tell you that I've had D* for almost 4 years and I have no idea what my base package charge is as I've had extra 'credits' on my account every month since I was first given my "new customer" 2 year guarantee pricing plan. Everytime I've called up and asked for something they've given it to me...sometimes even more than what I requested.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I call D* about this and got $5 off my bill for the next two months. Other's have gotten even more than that. We also now have free Encore channels for at least the rest of the month. My family actually watched a movie on one of them over the weeknd...probably more time than we normally watch a Viacomm channel in a given week.

We've recorded four or five on our DVR so far, but haven't watched them yet. Although I noticed a lot of the movies were things we weren't interested in, or are available on Netflix. So, we probably won't order the Encore channels after the free preview is done.

 

[Colleen27]

Q1 2012 results for Viacom and DTV:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577381680490480266.html
Partly because of a one-time tax benefit, [Viacom's] fiscal-second-quarter profit rose to $585 million, or $1.07 a share, compared with $376 million or 63 cents a share, a year earlier. The tax benefit accounted for $66 million, or 12 cents a share in the latest period.

Revenue increased 2% in the quarter to March 31.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1E8G81KO20120508?irpc=932
DirecTV's net income rose to $731 million, or $1.07 per share, compared with $674 million, or 85 cents per share, a year earlier. Its EPS beat Wall Street analyst estimates by a penny, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Revenue rose 12 percent to $7.05 billion, narrowly missing analysts' estimates of $7.06 billion.

The company's shares closed 12 cents, or 0.26 percent, higher at $48.03 per share.

So with these numbers, from Wall Street Journal and Reuters respectively (versus the disputing companies), it's hard for me to understand how Viacom is outlearning DirecTV.

It is all in how you look at the numbers - profitability, measured per dollar of revenue, is growing for Viacom and stagnant for D*. IIRC it was Forbes or USA Today that compared them on that metric but for some reason I can't find it in my search history right now.

Viacom isn't the one seeing costs increasing and profit margins shrinking, but D* will if they agree to Viacom's demands because they'll either see profit-per-subscriber shrink or risk losing subscribers by raising rates at a time when their competitors are offering very attractive deals.

Viacom is also in the better long term position - DirecTV is trying to hold their own against competitors in a narrow, cost-sensitive market that hasn't shown any measurable growth since before the recession, while Viacom is producing programming that has immense marketing potential not just in cable/sat agreements but also in the growing streaming and direct content markets.

 

[sam_gordon]

But Viacom is being greedy...they want money for channels that are not worth it.

That's YOUR opinion. Some people (including on this thread, go back and look) think the increase IS worth it.

They are trying to get new car prices for a 15 year old car type thing.

Here we go again with a "factual" statement with nothing to back it up. What exactly are "new car prices" when it comes to networks & providers? This is like you claiming Viacom wants "top dollar" for their programming.

There is newer, better and more interesting and they are not adjusting their prices to the demand for their programming. What is in demand is pretty minimal.

According to Viacom, they're only asking D* to pay what other providers are paying them. Wait, I'm guessing they're lying, right? But is D* contradicting them? That means they're telling the truth. That was your argument earlier.

Both companies are out for their bottom line of course. But when you are asking for more money you have to be sure you are worth that money..Direct and many Direct subscribers are pushing back to Viacom telling them they are not worth it. Viacoms profits exceed Directs as well.

And many subscribers think Viacom's request is worth it.

I would be shocked if bills went down as well however Direct has opened up other channels for subscribers and brought us Disney Jr permanently..so considering the extra channels being offered I wouldn't expect a decrease. If they had done nothing and just said "oh well" then I would expect a decrease in my bill.

Since you seem to be all about "public opinion" on this debate, I would say D* would have a massive "FAIL" if they DIDN'T do something. I predict within a year, D* prices will go up. If you're in a current contract, you might not get hit with the increase, but I predict it will happen.

 

[sam_gordon]

I called D* about this and got $5 off my bill for the next two months. Other's have gotten even more than that. I would call that lowering my bill. We also now have free Encore channels for at least the rest of the month. My family actually watched a movie on one of them over the weekend...probably more time spent watching that movie than we normally watch a Viacomm channel in a given week.

I'd just like to point out Dish has given out free Encore channels for the month of July also. I don't know if that was in response to the AMC issue or maybe Encore simply wants their stuff given out free to try and entice people to pay for them when the preview was over.

 

[Coconut36]

That's YOUR opinion. Some people (including on this thread, go back and look) think the increase IS worth it.

Here we go again with a "factual" statement with nothing to back it up. What exactly are "new car prices" when it comes to networks & providers? This is like you claiming Viacom wants "top dollar" for their programming.

According to Viacom, they're only asking D* to pay what other providers are paying them. Wait, I'm guessing they're lying, right? But is D* contradicting them? That means they're telling the truth. That was your argument earlier.

And many subscribers think Viacom's request is worth it.


Since you seem to be all about "public opinion" on this debate, I would say D* would have a massive "FAIL" if they DIDN'T do something. I predict within a year, D* prices will go up. If you're in a current contract, you might not get hit with the increase, but I predict it will happen.

Oh this is getting ridiculous..if you are a Direct subscriber then by all means call them up and complain. If you aren't then you aren't part of the fight. I am sick of you jumping all over my feelings on the matter as if I must meet your criteria or it's not "OK". I have a dog in this fight. I am a subscriber and like many other Direct customers I do not find any great value in Viacom and am not willing to pay more for them. I don't care for how they have handled themselves in this (using kids programing to freak out children, removing their online content and so on). I don't need to make you happy or justify my opinion on this to you. If you are a customer and feel the increase is worth it then step up and call Direct. I don't and I stand behind their decision to refuse the increase.

 

[sam_gordon]

Oh this is getting ridiculous..if you are a Direct subscriber then by all means call them up and complain. If you aren't then you aren't part of the fight. I am sick of you jumping all over my feelings on the matter as if I must meet your criteria or it's not "OK". I have a dog in this fight. I am a subscriber and like many other Direct customers I do not find any great value in Viacom and am not willing to pay more for them. I don't care for how they have handled themselves in this (using kids programing to freak out children, removing their online content and so on). I don't need to make you happy or justify my opinion on this to you. If you are a customer and feel the increase is worth it then step up and call Direct. I don't and I stand behind their decision to refuse the increase.

I'm sorry, I missed the part in the rules where you need to be "part of the fight" to comment on something.

 

[holycow]

I'm with Direct TV on this. I'm a subscriber.

I think Viacom let the ball drop. They waited to long to negotiate the 'ancient' contract. Whose fault is that? Theirs. They assumed that they had DT in a hard place and raised the rates.

I think Viacom is in the wrong here.

I do hope it is settled soon although the only channel that is really effecting our family is the Nick ones, but we'll live.

We've had
Dish
Direct
Comcast
Time Warner

And by far Direct has been the best so far.

 

[momof1princess]

I'm with Direct TV on this. I'm a subscriber.

I think Viacom let the ball drop. They waited to long to negotiate the 'ancient' contract. Whose fault is that? Theirs. They assumed that they had DT in a hard place and raised the rates.

I think Viacom is in the wrong here.

I do hope it is settled soon although the only channel that is really effecting our family is the Nick ones, but we'll live.

We've had
Dish
Direct
Comcast
Time Warner

And by far Direct has been the best so far.

same here. i agree. the only channel we miss is TV land. DH and i used to watch M*A*S*H every day at 6:30pm. i'm sure we can find something else to watch, or perhaps watch M*A*S*H online. i don't miss the other viacom channels AT ALL.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It is all in how you look at the numbers - profitability, measured per dollar of revenue, is growing for Viacom and stagnant for D*. IIRC it was Forbes or USA Today that compared them on that metric but for some reason I can't find it in my search history right now.

Viacom isn't the one seeing costs increasing and profit margins shrinking,

I don't know about profit margins shrinking, in comparison to DirecTV or not, but why do you think Viacom's costs aren't increasing? Do you think Stewart and Colbert and the Jersey Shore "stars" and the Hot in Cleveland actors and all the other performers on the current shows, and all the crews on those shows, and all the Viacom staff don't cost more than they did last year, or the year before, or at the start of their employment? Do you think Viacom is somehow exempt from increased costs over the last seven years? Or is it that you think the other companies - Dish, cable, etc. - should pick up D*'s share?

but D* will if they agree to Viacom's demands because they'll either see profit-per-subscriber shrink or risk losing subscribers by raising rates at a time when their competitors are offering very attractive deals.

Viacom is also in the better long term position - DirecTV is trying to hold their own against competitors in a narrow, cost-sensitive market that hasn't shown any measurable growth since before the recession, while Viacom is producing programming that has immense marketing potential not just in cable/sat agreements but also in the growing streaming and direct content markets.

If you read the report I linked about D* - the whole report, not just the revenue comparison I posted - you'll see that while DircTV didn't quite meet their US projection for new subscribers in Q1, their turnover is lower than expected and they're doing really well in Latin/South America.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think Viacom let the ball drop. They waited to long to negotiate the 'ancient' contract. Whose fault is that? Theirs. They assumed that they had DT in a hard place and raised the rates.

why do you say that? What makes you think Viacom "waited too long"? Do you really think a multiple-million dollar corporation would wait until the last minute to renegotiate a contract? Any contact? But especially in this case, where they deal (and have contracts) with multiple broadcasters?

 

[Coconut36]

I'm sorry, I missed the part in the rules where you need to be "part of the fight" to comment on something.

Well you seem to have taken it upon yourself to determine what Direct subscribers should pay or that they are being unreasonable for not wanting increases yet you are neither impacted by the loss of channels nor would you be impacted by the increased bill.

I am one of the impacted parties and I don't feel the need to justify not wanting a rate increase or the lack of value I find in Viacom programming.

 

[Coconut36]

why do you say that? What makes you think Viacom "waited too long"? Do you really think a multiple-million dollar corporation would wait until the last minute to renegotiate a contract? Any contact? But especially in this case, where they deal (and have contracts) with multiple broadcasters?

So you think Direct knew and did nothing until Viacom ordered them to yank the channels?

I am guessing there was advance notice on both sides yet they were both playing a game of chicken..they took it down to the deadline to see if the other side would fold..but neither side did so we are at this point.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Again, people seem entirely willing to believe and trust every word DirecTV is putting out as gospel, no questions asked. Me? I'm a cynic. I was reading Viacom's side too http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/directv-to-drop-26-viacom-channels-at-midnight-on-tuesday-july-10/

Part of it states "Viacom’s distribution agreement with DirecTV is set to expire at midnight on Tuesday, July 10.* We’ve been negotiating for months and even offered DirecTV an extension past the agreement’s original June 30th*expiration date.* As recently as today, we made significant economic movement in direct conversations with DirecTV".

So that's why I was surprised that holycow thinks Viacom waited until the last minute. Another thing I noticed on the site were some statistics about viewed ip, along with citations to the sources of those statistics. I didn't notice comparable information on the DirecTV page about the dispute. That doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means I didn't recognize it.

eta: it appears Viacom took "it" beyond the deadline, if the information about the last contract expiring June 30 is accurate; that makes it appear they were trying to work things out.

 

[Albort]

Again, people seem entirely willing to believe and trust every word DirecTV is putting out as gospel, no questions asked. Me? I'm a cynic. I was reading Viacom's side too http://blog.viacom.com/2012/07/directv-to-drop-26-viacom-channels-at-midnight-on-tuesday-july-10/

Part of it states "Viacom’s distribution agreement with DirecTV is set to expire at midnight on Tuesday, July 10.* We’ve been negotiating for months and even offered DirecTV an extension past the agreement’s original June 30th*expiration date.* As recently as today, we made significant economic movement in direct conversations with DirecTV".

So that's why I was surprised that holycow thinks Viacom waited until the last minute. Another thing I noticed on the site were some statistics about viewed ip, along with citations to the sources of those statistics. I didn't notice comparable information on the DirecTV page about the dispute. That doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means I didn't recognize it.

eta: it appears Viacom took "it" beyond the deadline, if the information about the last contract expiring June 30 is accurate; that makes it appear they were trying to work things out.

but Viacom was the one that sent the cease and desist letter to DirectTV to stop broadcasting their channel yeah?

 

[Coconut36]

but Viacom was the one that sent the cease and desist letter to DirectTV to stop broadcasting their channel yeah?

Also the one that then pulled all their online content

 

[Albort]

Also the one that then pulled all their online content

True Story...

http://imgur.com/zzNXS

 

[Planogirl]

I'm not a DirectTV subscriber but planned to be after Dish pulled their nonsense. I'm waiting now though because I want the Viacom thing to be worked out first. I wish that they would hurry and get it all resolved but there are other options if they just can't seem to get it together. Anyway, as a potential customer I feel that my thoughts are valid too.

Some of you may individually feel that the stations aren't worth it but others seem to. It's not possible to pick and choose individual stations (yet!) so whatever deal will be worked out will have to be accepted by all. Or people will have to move elsewhere like we plan to do.