What is your suggestion? Larry can't force dtv to carry the network and he can't give them a better deal than other carriers.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Direct TV wins
- Thread starter Yellow Shirt
- Start date
What is your suggestion? Larry can't force dtv to carry the network and he can't give them a better deal than other carriers.
You obviously are being obtuse on purpose right? How many times has this been explained to you?
Why can't they give DTV a better deal? They're one of the bigger carriers out there and you give your bigger customers the better deals, that's pretty common in any business. If they gave DTV a better deal is there something in the contract with the other carriers that says they have to suddenly renegotiate with them? If there is then it sounds like they cut a bad deal in the first place.
These contracts aren't for life. When it comes time for dish or Comcast to renegotiate, what do you think is going to happen.
SD Buff
Club Member
Its standard practice to include favored nation clauses in carriage contracts. So yes, if they gave DTV a "better" deal, it would drop the carriage fee to that price for the original MSOs. Betting the PAC has offered to come down a little bit, but not to where DTV is asking. Again, the PAC would be making less money with DTV than they are without. This isn't on the PAC -- its DirecTV giving a big **** you middle finger to the PAC and our fan bases who continue to bend over and take it up the ass for them. I have no sympathy for the remaining DTV customers who are letting them get away with this and am going to LMAO when ESPN shoves the SEC Network down everyone's throat at a much higher cost.
where it really kicks ass is basketball.
i was a 6 year subscriber.
The Pac-12 fan following isn't close to what the Big 10 following is. Just look at the 3:30 EST ABC games each week, 1 of them almost always involves a Big 10 game but you only get Pac-12 games in that timeslot when a Pac game involves a highly-ranked team or a pretty good USC team playing a name opponent.
Or, we could just look at you.
SD Buff
Club Member
ABC owns 100% of the B1G Tier 1 rights.
ABC/FOX split the PAC 12 (53%/47%)
Last couple weeks the PAC has had the second highest rated games to the SEC being first. Regardless, yes, the B1G does carry higher ratings as a whole. (will always be the case with their 12 EST games vs. 730 PST) Don't know what their ratings are for their Tier 3 B1G Network games vs. the PAC, but regardless - I am not going to argue with you that its worth 30% of the B1G.
ABC/FOX split the PAC 12 (53%/47%)
Last couple weeks the PAC has had the second highest rated games to the SEC being first. Regardless, yes, the B1G does carry higher ratings as a whole. (will always be the case with their 12 EST games vs. 730 PST) Don't know what their ratings are for their Tier 3 B1G Network games vs. the PAC, but regardless - I am not going to argue with you that its worth 30% of the B1G.
It's be interesting to read what happened the year DTV didn't sign up the big ten network for its first year. If we had done that PAC/big set of games with some of them on the pacn it'd get on DTV.
jahbrahakala
Member
jahbrahakala
Member
That is a great idea!
How is the Pac-12 screwing viewers any more than DirecTV? Jesus, cry about the Larry Scott love fest and slob DirecTV's dish at the same time.
Junction
Club Member
I'd say the one that wants a 70% discount off the deals its competitors made is probably screwing viewers more than the one not willing to give back that 70% to most/all of its carriers.
I was worried that the DTV box that was not on my account was going to "talk" to my DTV boxes as they were all on the same system but that didnt happen.
VABuff5
Member
I love this thread....and the staunch support of anything anti DTV. I like DTV's services, and I don't have Sunday Ticket, so that's not why I remain on board. Quite frankly, I don't like the fact that living in Md., I only have ONE choice of providers if I want to watch the Buffs, I don't have options, I cant get Fios or Comcast. My ONLY choice is DISH. I want options, I want to call 3 choices and get the best deal! I don't like to feel strong armed into switching to a brand. I also don't like the P-12 persistent advertising on "Drop DTV". It all just rubs me the wrong way. Being in the business world, it just comes across as tacky.
Do you dislike Dish, or is this just some vague "icky" feeling that is driving you?
That is pretty metal. But you have to keep DTV.
Yellow Shirt
Club Member
By "direct tv wins" I did not mean that they win my vote, hooray, because they're the best. I meant that it appears in the heads up negotiation with Larry Scott, it appears that direct tv has won.
After I called in to find out my buyout and contract time remainder, I got a call from one of direct tv's professionally empathetic pr staff. She made it very clear that my feelings are valid and clearly understood, but they don't give a ****.
Scott's strategy should not have involved a line that has put him where he is now: can't change his terms because it undermines the other deals. Scott's task was to get his network carried by all significant carriers. He put himself in this spot.
After I called in to find out my buyout and contract time remainder, I got a call from one of direct tv's professionally empathetic pr staff. She made it very clear that my feelings are valid and clearly understood, but they don't give a ****.
Scott's strategy should not have involved a line that has put him where he is now: can't change his terms because it undermines the other deals. Scott's task was to get his network carried by all significant carriers. He put himself in this spot.
No, Scott's task is to make the P12 Network as profitable as possible, both short-term and long-term. That doesn't necessarily mean having the network carried by everyone in the first year.
Yellow Shirt
Club Member
I agree. (4yrs x less profitable offer) + (0 x his declined offer) < 5yrs x less profitable offer.
This is very very silly.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Isn't this year 2 of the Pac-12 network?
As a businessperson, I place a certain value on the products I sell.
One thing I would never do is offer a significant discount to a national supplier that undercut the deal on all my other suppliers -- unless that national supplier was large enough to "be my business".
DirecTV isn't large enough to be the PACN's business. I can't see that there's any good business rationale to doing the deal on the terms they want.
That said, I don't blame DirecTV. They've got their own numbers they're looking at. They've got the NFL negotiations coming up. They'll need a war chest for that if they want to have a prayer of re-upping as the exclusive supplier of Sunday Ticket. And they have to be positioned to base their business model on something other than sports programming if they can't get the Sunday Ticket deal done. As part of this, they're also looking at ESPN charging exorbitant fees, forcing networks like LHN on carriers, competition coming at ESPN from Fox, CBS and NBC, and serious questions of whether the law of diminishing returns has reduced the value for all sports network carriage. DirecTV's main competitor, Dish, is currently battling ESPN for this reason.
And, of course, google and others are coming hard with digital stream programming that may completely change the landscape and could cause these carriers to be caught with their pants down if they're locked into rich long-term deals when the world shifts.
I don't fault Larry Scott. His valuation of PACN has been justified and confirmed by other carriers.
I don't fault DirecTV. They're in a state of flux with their business model and future.
But I do question fans who have the option of either:
A) Switching to Dish for their home to get the PACN and then going to a bar on those occasions they want to watch an out-of-market NFL game; or,
B) Sticking with DirecTV for their home to get all the out-of-market NFL games and missing their Pac-12 games completely.
If you're in a situation where a long-term contract with DirecTV isn't an issue for you, I don't understand why you'd choose Option B.
One thing I would never do is offer a significant discount to a national supplier that undercut the deal on all my other suppliers -- unless that national supplier was large enough to "be my business".
DirecTV isn't large enough to be the PACN's business. I can't see that there's any good business rationale to doing the deal on the terms they want.
That said, I don't blame DirecTV. They've got their own numbers they're looking at. They've got the NFL negotiations coming up. They'll need a war chest for that if they want to have a prayer of re-upping as the exclusive supplier of Sunday Ticket. And they have to be positioned to base their business model on something other than sports programming if they can't get the Sunday Ticket deal done. As part of this, they're also looking at ESPN charging exorbitant fees, forcing networks like LHN on carriers, competition coming at ESPN from Fox, CBS and NBC, and serious questions of whether the law of diminishing returns has reduced the value for all sports network carriage. DirecTV's main competitor, Dish, is currently battling ESPN for this reason.
And, of course, google and others are coming hard with digital stream programming that may completely change the landscape and could cause these carriers to be caught with their pants down if they're locked into rich long-term deals when the world shifts.
I don't fault Larry Scott. His valuation of PACN has been justified and confirmed by other carriers.
I don't fault DirecTV. They're in a state of flux with their business model and future.
But I do question fans who have the option of either:
A) Switching to Dish for their home to get the PACN and then going to a bar on those occasions they want to watch an out-of-market NFL game; or,
B) Sticking with DirecTV for their home to get all the out-of-market NFL games and missing their Pac-12 games completely.
If you're in a situation where a long-term contract with DirecTV isn't an issue for you, I don't understand why you'd choose Option B.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
It would seem to me that the "value" of the Pac-12 network is - whatever people will pay for it. Unless you are of the opinion that every carrier which has the network paid the exact same amount to carry it.
That is my opinion. Is there conflicting information? Below is what Wilner reported:
“Despite being offered the same deal that all of the other providers have agreed to, DirecTV remains unwilling to reach an agreement …
”The Pac-12 is charging distributors about 80 cents for in-market subscribers, and most major carriers (Comcast, Time Warner, DISH) clearly believe that’s a reasonable price point.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...c-12-networks-turning-up-the-heat-on-directv/
This is also in the article, which is basically what it comes down to and I don't see this changing unless DTV loses exclusivity on Sunday Ticket or the Pac-12 decides it wants to market the conference better: