What would happen if DISH drops Viacom?

[wallyhts]

But the new customer costs are spread out among all the customers, so the ROI is a lot shorter. Without looking up the numbers, let's say there are 500,000 new subs every year (probably a high estimate). Out of 14 million subs, that equates to new sub acquisition costs to $35 per sub/year, or $3/month (500,000 * $1,000 / 14,000,000 subs / 12 months). All else being equal, the profit would go from $5.87/sub/month to $8.87/sub/month if there were no new acquisitions or cancellations.

And no, I'm not defending Dish, I'm defending facts, logic and reality.

Even at $8.87 dish is doomed where's the profit lol!!!

$1000 / $8.87 = 112 months ROI

What am I missing???

Dish added millions of subs when we stupid Americans paid for everything stbs install or self install etc....

Does this mean dish is living off long term subs how where cheap to add when cable had only 30 channels and digital satellite came out and folks where like Wow?

 

[dare2be]

$1000/$8.87 is the wrong formula there, so I'll just let that thought go.

I don't have an answer for the ROI early on in the satellite game...maybe the acquisition costs were much lower then, and the programming costs as well.

 

[wallyhts]

I don't have an answer for the ROI early on in the satellite game...maybe the acquisition costs were much lower then, and the programming costs as well.

Don't let anything go I'm just having fun buddy

I think they were almost $0 people paid for everything and did self installs.

 

[wallyhts]

Dish should either drop the channels or go Netflix style and offer Viacom a flat fee for VOD content.

With 12 billion in debt and a mature market and the only video play only company left they better do something .

Hughes was a wise buy. (But I think last Qtr they only added 4,000 subs?)

 

[Claude Greiner]

Dish won't drop Viacom.

They tried this 10 years ago with a programming dispute, it lasted 3 days before they couldn't take the mass of calls from customers canceling or threatening to cancel

 

[dare2be]

That was 10 years ago. The landscape has changed.

 

[ChadT41]

Dish won't drop Viacom.

They tried this 10 years ago with a programming dispute, it lasted 3 days before they couldn't take the mass of calls from customers canceling or threatening to cancel

That was back before they stopped coming up with semi decent programming though.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I think Charlie will drop the Viacom channels. He will do it to show that he is no longer going to pay out the ass for crap channels. They all show little to no original content anyway , or reality tv that is all crap as well. He already does this with RSNs that ask for too much, now he will do the same with video companies like VIACOM that no longer are worth the money. This is probably just the start of a new strategy to break these companies from their extortion like price hikes. He might start to reconsider a lot of these channels when their contracts come up for renewal. HE might force them to be offered ala cart basis or drop them ,in order to cut the costs of the programming packs and to make his company still look competitive. If anyone can do it , I would think Charlie would be the one to pioneer this move -that everyone else would soon follow.

 

[Hall]

Dish, Directv, the cablecos should band together on these issues but then it's collusion. Or is it ? The way I read the definitions is that it would seem to apply to the one offering the "product" or service, which in this case is the networks (not the TV provider).

 

[ChadT41]

Dish, Directv, the cablecos should band together on these issues but then it's collusion. Or is it ? The way I read the definitions is that it would seem to apply to the one offering the "product" or service, which in this case is the networks (not the TV provider).

I have said the same for years but isn't that collusion?

 

[bobvick]

It all hinges on SlingTV, if they can agree to get the rights to Viacom networks on SlingTV, they will stay. The Epix renewal in Feburary bodes well for a deal. Viacom doesn't want to loose billions in fees, nor do they want their stock price to be hit.

 

[Claude Greiner]

I think Charlie will drop the Viacom channels. He will do it to show that he is no longer going to pay out the ass for crap channels. They all show little to no original content anyway , or reality tv that is all crap as well. He already does this with RSNs that ask for too much, now he will do the same with video companies like VIACOM that no longer are worth the money. This is probably just the start of a new strategy to break these companies from their extortion like price hikes. He might start to reconsider a lot of these channels when their contracts come up for renewal. HE might force them to be offered ala cart basis or drop them ,in order to cut the costs of the programming packs and to make his company still look competitive. If anyone can do it , I would think Charlie would be the one to pioneer this move -that everyone else would soon follow.

I agree 100% with what your saying

However I don't see it happening.

The problem is that when you start dropping enough crap channels, customers will start to take notice, and will either demand lower prices or switch service providers.

There are only a few dollars difference in pricing between Dish and Directv. Unless the customer is saving a significant amount of money they will do without the channels.

I run a call center, and everytime one of the providers that we represent drops a channel I get calls all day long from customers complaining, and threatening to leave.

The only disputes where customers didn't seem to care

Weather channel - directv
Lifetime movie channel - dish
Outdoor channel - dish

 

[wallyhts]

I don't think people care about MTV any more. The link SG posted points out sudden link dropped Viacom and only lost 2%. Bye bye Viacom

Just my view I think the model will turn into sports sports sports everything else VOD.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I don't think people care about MTV any more. The link SG posted points out sudden link dropped Viacom and only lost 2%. Bye bye Viacom

Just my view I think the model will turn into sports sports sports everything else VOD.

The only shows we watch on MTV is Teen Wolf and Scream the series for my 15 year old. The music part of MTV died a horrible death years ago.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Looks like the pay tv losses were bigger than we thought. Like 625,000 combined in this last quarter for all pay tv. Charlie comments that he doesn't need to worry on losses quarter to quarter .

www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/08/13/evidence-grows-cord-cutting-acceleration/31616345/

 

[wallyhts]

I don't understand why dish does not use the Hughes platform to offer satellite based VOD? They need to be unique. They need to start paying flat fees for content and not per sub.

I wonder what would happen if Netflix with their 40 million + customers offered ESPN sports pack for $14.95?

 

[MikeD-C05]

I agree 100% with what your saying

However I don't see it happening.

The problem is that when you start dropping enough crap channels, customers will start to take notice, and will either demand lower prices or switch service providers.

There are only a few dollars difference in pricing between Dish and Directv. Unless the customer is saving a significant amount of money they will do without the channels.

I run a call center, and everytime one of the providers that we represent drops a channel I get calls all day long from customers complaining, and threatening to leave.

The only disputes where customers didn't seem to care

Weather channel - directv
Lifetime movie channel - dish
Outdoor channel - dish

Claude, read the post #95 I made above and read the story with the link and see why I think changes are coming and they are inevitable.

 

[sam_gordon]

If the bundling model is breached, we as pay TV subscribers all win.

So some people say (and hope). There is no data that shows this is a guarantee though. What if, under an ala carte model, prices for each channel rise dramatically? Then someone who watches a lot of channels (instead of focusing on a handful) could end up paying the same (or more) for actually fewer channels. You count that as a "win" for that subscriber?

As far as "a lot of channels", if you have a varied household, it's not that hard... my younger kids watch one set of channels, my teenager another, my wife and I watch another set.

 

[Hall]

I've said this before that I think most people believe a la carte would work like taking AT120's price, dividing it by the number of channels, and (most) channels will end up the same price. Let's say $59.99 and it's 140 channels - that's $0.42/channel. Good luck with that...

 

[harshness]

They tried this 10 years ago with a programming dispute, it lasted 3 days before they couldn't take the mass of calls from customers canceling or threatening to cancel

It didn't seem to bury Suddenlink when they tried it.

The breakdown of bundles has to start somewhere and I'm willing to be part of the solution in this case.