CNN and HLN gone/ Dish-Turner Dispute - Now Back 11/21
- Thread starter A_Noland
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 110K
- Status
With those particular channels I do think so - unless they are refusing to be on Dishanywhere. I suppose there could be something else we just don't know about....
We already know when channels are in decline in viewership DISH balks at increases in cost. That is why CSNNE is no longer on.
We already know when channels are in decline in viewership DISH balks at increases in cost. That is why CSNNE is no longer on.
Lol, yes, but the question is a good one. It appears the Disney negotiations were not all about money per se, but also about streaming rights.
Its been leaked this is about Dish wanting digital access to CNN for their upcoming online service. While Fox has more viewers than CNN on TV, CNN.com sees 3x the number of unique visitors a day than foxnews.com and while there can watch CNN. Turner probably thinks this is going to put a dent in their 20 million/day page views leading to less webpage ad revenue if people aren't going to their website to watch CNN streaming. That's what its about, Dish wants CNN online, but the price hasn't been agreed on.
With that said, get ready in Chicago, San Francisco, and anywhere else where Dish has a carriage agreement with CSN, because the Boston affiliate is just the beginning.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
1. True about the online viewership CNN has
2. I don't if it is true or not about DISH and CNN online but it could be, that's why I said streaming rights could be involved. But more likely if that is true it is about how much DISH has to pay. I don't know how important that is to DISH - if Turner just does not want to give streaming rights I don't know that this surprise move of them removing the channels would be the result, seems like something else, but we just don't know.
Dish wants CNN on its upcoming streaming only service NuTV. Obviously that means accessing CNN on some type of centralized Dish app or website. Dish doesn't want to set it up where you have to visit individual content provider websites, sort of like you have to do now. Some content, on Demand, is at My Dish online but live content, if offered, is at individual content providers unless you are using Sling. Dish is probably also using this as an example when negotiating with other providers in the future, they will drop anyone to get what they want.. This makes me wonder, did ESPN sign on to this? Was this what held up the recent negotiations for months? I think I read that ESPN was onboard awhile back.
This is a brave new online world and I think a lot is going on behind the scenes we don't know about as well as considerations by content providers like CNN with millions visiting their website daily and how this affects the bottom line in a way not considered before.
This is a brave new online world and I think a lot is going on behind the scenes we don't know about as well as considerations by content providers like CNN with millions visiting their website daily and how this affects the bottom line in a way not considered before.
There is little doubt this is involves more than cost/sub, but it is still ultimately about the money. It is not, as some seem to have alluded to, about politics, morals, religion or any other nonmonetary reason.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Well, other media companies gladly allow streaming rights along with the customers cable or sat subscription and even access via the MVPD's website. That isn't the issue. The issue is HOW MUCH Turner wants for those rights or HOW MUCH Dish is willing to pay for them. The money may be moving to a different place or require a different model, but it is still about money. Turner nor any other media company, in the end, really don't care how it affects the number of eyes via streaming or anywhere else if the MVPD is paying more to them in exchange. Whether the money comes in big pile via adverting or carriage rights, they really don't care. This is why Les Moonvies is pushing for not only his O&O', but all CBS affiliates focus on carriage rights for increasing revenue because advertising revenue has its limits, espeically as far as a network is concerned, but carriage rights are infinate--according to Les--and so he doesn't care from which pipe his mountains of come in to CBS, just so long as one of those pipes providing it. In other words, Les really views CBS TV Network equivalent to pay channels like USA, etc. and that is where the really big money is at with total disregard to the CBS legacy as an advertising having been providing the prime revenue.
If the customer were always right, there would be no need for bouncers.
Doubtful over time.
If ESPN (or any channel) had to manage both ends of the spectrum (i.e. the number of subs and paying for the content) then contract pricing would adjust. There is no way ESPN or any network can pay high inflated costs if customers can opt out of paying it. These deals only work if the costs can be successfully spread across 100M customers AND each of those customers is forced to buy in.
Studies show a certain number of ESPN customers would opt out if they had a choice. Let's just say 33% would opt out? Under many of the shortsighted thinking, costs would go up across the remaining subscribers. That's unlikely. What is more likely is that ESPN pares back it contract and covers less games and pays less for the games. No way ESPN is going to gamble and overpay NBA on subs it does not have and cannot guarantee. Overall it means less games on television because no one is able to pay for them at the rates that they want. So back to local TV and broadcast TV.
But should this happen it would have a ripple effect....NBA revenue would decrease....thus player contracts would have to decrease.
You guys have to look at the economic model and how any change would shake out. It is quite complex, but for each customer than can opt out, that means less overall ability to spread the cost, less overall ability to spread the cost means raising rates. For every rate increase that will lose an additional x number of subs.....so those costs have to be repread.
In reality, the cost model needs to be updated......ordinary consumers can no longer afford all of this.
- Status
