FNC large subscriber cost increase

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,251
8,027
Tampa/Eastern Ct
AS reported at http://www.dcrtv.com , Fox New Channel is raising its rates from 25 cents per subscriber to $1. That's a heafty increase. (For the record I do like the FNC) I posted in this forum because my question is related to Dishnetwork. Will Charlie go with that increase if it means raising subcriber costs? Not having FNC is not like losing OLN. My thought is that kind of increase can only be reduced if more than one carrier refuses to pay it. The article mentions that CNN currently gets 60 cents per. I'm sure Ruport is thinking with ratings so much higher than CNN he can now go for the large increase.
 
If you go by basic Nielsen ratings immediately following Katrina, the number would be more like $.41 for FNC to $.32 for CNN. However, one must look deeper into the ratings disparity. What follows is an excerpt from an explanation of the ratings system, and talks about one type of rating the public never hears about:

On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .

So what are the media reports talking about? With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households.

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day.

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox , they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox 's (Deseret Morning News , 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN 's cume was significantly higher than Fox 's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax , 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN 's 2.2 million.

Even among Fox 's core audience of conservatives, CNN has an edge in total viewership. A study by the ad agency Carat USA (Hollywood Reporter , 8/13/03) found that 37 percent of viewers calling themselves "very conservative" watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .
 
Does CNN receive $.60 for just CNN or for CNN and CNN HN? CNN HN alone has substantial viewership, and actually beats MSNBC in the ratings.

(From the AP wire 3/29/05)
CNN Headline News Passes MSNBC in Ratings

By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- CNN Headline News has supplanted MSNBC as the third-place cable news channel. CNN's sister network recently started a new prime-time lineup that has gotten off to a strong start, particularly a legal-oriented talk show with Nancy Grace.

The new format replaced the continuous half-hour newscasts that CNN Headline News still carries for most of the day. But in its first month, the changes enabled the network to eclipse MSNBC in the prime-time ratings, according to Nielsen Media Research.

For the full day, CNN Headline News also beat MSNBC for the first three months of the year.
 
Awesome, I hope Dish drops it, I don't need Republican propoganda on my tv. In fact, if they ditch Fox News, I'll reup with E* for another 2 years.
 
Chris Walker said:
Awesome, I hope Dish drops it, I don't need Republican propoganda on my tv. In fact, if they ditch Fox News, I'll reup with E* for another 2 years.
Fair and "balanced"...yeah...right...
 
Ehhh I'd like it for "Hannity and Colmes" but don't think it's worth it if it results in a rate increase. I have Sirius and get it on my receiver so the audio will be fine for me.
 
Keep FNC and CNN Headline News, dump the others!

According to the ratings that I see regularly for the nighttime programming, the ratings for FNC are generally 3 times the ratings for CNN and more 5 times the ratings for MSNBC. It's hard to believe that E* has been paying 2.4 times the amount for CNN that it is paying for FNC ($0.60 per subscriber for CNN versus $0.25 for FNC) according to a previous post. However, $0.60 for subscriber is way too high for CNN and $1.00 per subscriber is too high for FNC. Rates of $0.50 per subscriber for FNC and $0.20 per subscriber for CNN would seem more reasonable. However, Time Warner with all of their additonal cable/satellite channels besides CNN probably has a lot of leverage.

It appears that the large cable networks (Comcast and Time Warner) and D*-FOX are using their various sport networks and sister cable channels as a weapon to obtain inflated pricing. This is not good!

Still, if E* drops FNC, I will jump to D* and E* will lose more than $100 per month. E* dropping FNC should send a lot of other E* subscribers to D*. I hope that E* has FNC in a long term deal. I am a long time subscriber to E* and would rather stay with E*, but will switch to D* as a new subscriber and get the next generation of HD receivers for next to nothing as a new customer and keep FNC if E* drops it.
 
GaryPen said:
On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .

Exactly- because CNN is actual news. People don't flip to Fox 'News' to catch up on what's happening for a few minutes. They turn it on to watch specific shows, usually ones that last an hour. And that drives up ratings. There's nothing on CNN worth watching as far as programming goes, but it's the first place I go to see news.

Sadly, even if Fox had lower ratings, they still have more appealing demographics for advertisers...

1)They have more money on average.

2)They apparently believe anything you tell them. :)
 
I would imagine that number 2 is the most desirable demographic for advertisers.

I do find it hard to believe they have more money, as CNN viewers are most likely more educated, leading to higher incomes. But, perhaps those raised pickup trucks with the giant wheels and giant America and/or Confederate flags in the back window are more expensive than I thought?
 
If any of the news channels could actually report news without it being politicly slanted then they might be worth keeping, until then I will stick to my news papers.
 
Van said:
If any of the news channels could actually report news without it being politicly slanted then they might be worth keeping, until then I will stick to my news papers.
Newspapers histprically have stronger political biases in their coverage than broadcast journalism. (other than FNC, of course).
 
I know but nothing compared to what you see on fnc or msnbc for example. I remember watching msnbc and one of the anchors that usually does his one hour show around 8 or so was covering the news in nola and decided it was a good time to start sharing his political view of the president in that situation, from that point on all the others that hosted shows started in on the bandwaggon. As it is Im selective about the papers I read and read one michigan paper and 2 papers out of montana.
 
I say give 'em the boot. i could use a little less Spin Zone. Now if DISH could somehow get "Pills" Limbaugh off my local radio station, I'd be grateful.

PS
anyone see the documentary, "OutFoxed"? Pretty interesting...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)