Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network off Dish due to contract dispute

**CPanther95** · 01-08-2006 11:54 AM

fredfa just posted 2005 revenues for cable stations over at AVS.

Lifetime had $900 million in revenue last year. If E* paid $0.75 for Lifetime and LMC - that's a $108 million hit or 12% of their revenue.

Also goes to show the significance of carriage fees compared to advertising revenue.

**riffjim4069** · 01-08-2006 12:17 PM

We dropped down from AEP to AT60 (getting Lifetime from cable) this morning and had the $5 transaction fee waived because of the Lifetime situation. A Dish Network supervisor told my wife they had to drop Lifetime because if would cost every Dish Network customer $26 more per year to renew the contract. Let's do the math: 13M customers x $26 per = 338M dollars per annum. I seriously doubt that Lifetime Networks is demanding $2.17 more per month, per subscriber, for their channels. I don't know about everyone else, but E* is losing more than $50 a month is programming fees from our household.

**CPanther95** · 01-08-2006 12:24 PM

Let's see, $100 million minus $600 ($50 x 12) - I don't think they're second-guessing themselves yet.

**Jeff_R** · 01-08-2006 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by cablewithaview

Lifetime wants Real Women to be added to the line up along with the usual yearly increase. The "unreal" increase is not no more than the usual on Lifetime and LMN but you add Real Women to it, that's another cost per sub. It's not an unreal amount, Dish just doesn't want to add it. I don't think Lifetime requesting Real Women to be put on is a big deal. It's not like it can't be added. Dish just wants to be an ass. Charge you more for less in the long run, more profit for them.

It's not a big deal now, but how about in a year or two, when the price increases for LRW start to happen, and it's just one more channel in the lineup that wants even more money. Then, in order to keep LRW, LT, and LMN in the lineup, Dish and the others have to add Lifetime Truly All About Women channel, and it goes on and on from there.

If they truly had the programming to fill these channels correctly, eliminate infomercials, and quit showing the same move 3+ times in the course of a weekend, and still have people interested in their programming, then sure, it's worth it. But when the consumer doesn't have the choice of whether they want the new channel or not, it's required in order to keep a highly regarded channel, it's not fair to the consumer, and affects all of our cable/satellite bills. That's a big deal.

IMHO, this doesn't just apply to Lifetime, but all the rest as well. TNT and TBS show the same 2-3 movies all weekend long, when they could mix up their programming significantly. Discovery has a dozen channels that could, logically, be covered in their main 3 channels. Do we really need a "Biography channel", or can most of it's programming receive adequate coverage on A&E? How many more examples should I provide?

**Purogamer** · 01-08-2006 02:10 PM

3...

3 more please...

**Jeff_R** · 01-08-2006 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Purogamer

3...

3 more please...

OK, you asked for it

1. Viacom channels - Do we need MTV, MTV2, MTVHits, MTVJams, etc? Even better, MTV Networks owns CMT and VH1 Country. Why are both channels necessary?

2. Scripps - FLN, DIY, HGTV, and Food? I think that, when programming time is used effectively, these can get reduced to about 2 channels tops.

3. NBC/Uni - USA, Bravo, Trio, a new network (can't remember the name), and they all show the same things. I left SciFi out because it does offer a very different type of programming. Not that it couldn't be included as well, again assuming that programming time is used effectively.

There ya go. In my perfect world of cable TV channels, we would have about 10-15 cable channels, plus locals. Hmmmmm...looks a lot like the list earlier in this thread with the top 10 cable channels.

**Tvfan24/7** · 01-08-2006 06:09 PM

I agree with you on all the redundancy of channels. The channels I think are the most redundant are the Discovery networks, it seems like they show 6 shows and then replay them until the next day and then do it all over again. Oh and Trio is no longer around, it went off the air on January 1 and is now strictly on the internet. Sleuth replaced it.

**Stargazer** · 01-08-2006 10:00 PM

How could it cost over $2 a channel? There are several other channels ahead of Lifetime in the ratings so are they getting more? I dont think so, otherwise it would cost $20+ just for 10 channels. That does not sound right to me.

**cablewithaview** · 01-08-2006 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by CPanther95

You started off making so much sense, then you blew it at the end.

Why add another channel that nobody is asking for? The minute you do, that becomes a "real" cost - with the same annual increases attached as the primary two channels.
Fight this channel proliferation at every opportunity - and they have to pick the fights that won't hurt them to badly - this is one of them. The expansion of channels is radically faster paced than the expansion of quality programming. That's why we now have about a dozen Discovery channels, yet barely enough, from all combined, to fill Discovery's HD channel - which draws from all their channels.

I guess I could have left out: "Dish just wants to be an ass. Charge you more for less in the long run, more profit for them." If Nickelodoen comes out with yet another Nick at Night or Nicktoons type channel, then what if Dish added it without request? It would still cost more. Granted I don't like 50 channels of Discovery or whatever, it has gotten to the point that we have less content per channel and more paid advertisement and infomercials. It's no wonder people demand more channels, they are trying to fill the gaps. In recent years one channel that came out with the right idea with no paid advertisements and infomercials is "The Sportsman Channel". When they came out with "All Hunting. All Fishing. All the Time. they meant it. It's nice to see something like this come along and set the pace for others. It goes to show it's not always about advertisements, etc. it's about content.

**cablewithaview** · 01-08-2006 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Stargazer

How could it cost over $2 a channel? There are several other channels ahead of Lifetime in the ratings so are they getting more? I dont think so, otherwise it would cost $20+ just for 10 channels. That does not sound right to me.

If a la carte becomes a reality it will.