Theory- Why only some channels in Turbo?

[jwgreen68]

I was thinking about why only some channels are being made available to Turbo packages and not others. I really don't think it's the usual Cheap Charlie problem...I believe it's the channels themselves. Here's why.

If you read these boards, you will see a lot of talk about how "As soon as I can get Comedy Central HD (or whatever), I'll switch to Turbo."

Look at what Viacom channels were made available...Comedy, Spike, and CMT. All essentially "standalone" channels...they don't have "sister" channels (except CMT, but DISH doesn't carry it's sister anyway.)

If some guy was just holding out for Spike, then he's still watching Spike when he switches to Turbo. However, if a family has kids who demanded Nick, and they switch to Turbo, that family is now no longer watching Noggin, NickToons, The N, ect.

Bottom line...Viacom (and just about every other provider) loses subscriber dollars with everyone that switches to Turbo. I expect they negotiate higher fees for the Turbo packages to offset this, but no matter what, they probably lose $$$.

But the loss of money AND potential viewers may be too much for them. They want MTV fans watching both MTV AND MTV2.

As far as Fox goes, they may have been simply looking at the overall picture...Even if FX and Speed had been added, Turbo subscribers don't pay for Fox Soccer, Fox Reality, Fox Movies, and probably other Fox channels I'm not remembering.

There's a lot of talk about how DISH doesn't want people to switch. If that were the case, they wouldn't offer it, or they would have kept it for new customers only. Turbo is so overpriced, they probably make a much higher profit.

DISH may screw up a lot of things, but I really believe that the channels themselves are the ones screwing up the Turbo packages. I think DISH started with the best intentions, but the other companies refuse to play ball. Of course, if enough people subscribe to Turbo anyway, then they will have to get with the program, because they'll be losing subscribers for ALL their channels.

Remember when the rumor went around that "They want to see how popular Turbo is before adding Fox News"? This may very well be true...but it may be FOX that was waiting to see how popular.

I said this months ago and everyone disregarded my opinion as pure BS, so good luck to you.

 

[DishSubLA]

I believe it is contractual. In other words the channels, or the big media companies that own them are to blame. Keep in mind, these companies own several channels. From their point of view, when a sub goes to an all "HD only" package, that sub no longer gets that company's channels that are not offered in HD. That means an immediate reduction in potential advertising revenue. These media companies do everything they can to get their channels in the lowest tier for the maximum advertising revenue. They hate it when Charles, et al. bump up channles to the higher tiers, but sometimes they have to accept it. It seems that this has become the problem of late. Media companies are probably now reticent to lose anymore audience numbers because people switch to a package that won't give them access to the SD only channels. IMHO.

 

[tkyoshi]

I believe it is contractual. In other words the channels, or the big media companies that own them are to blame. Keep in mind, these companies own several channels. From their point of view, when a sub goes to an all "HD only" package, that sub no longer gets that company's channels that are not offered in HD. That means an immediate reduction in potential advertising revenue. These media companies do everything they can to get their channels in the lowest tier for the maximum advertising revenue. They hate it when Charles, et al. bump up channles to the higher tiers, but sometimes they have to accept it. It seems that this has become the problem of late. Media companies are probably now reticent to lose anymore audience numbers because people switch to a package that won't give them access to the SD only channels. IMHO.

Interesting Points, I also recently saw a small documentary how media companies are freaking out over DVRs, because why would companies want to advertise on TV if people can skip over them. Right now it isn't the biggest problem because apparently DVR penetration is still relatively low but they are certainly worried about the future.

That's why you sometimes see ads for other shows within the program now, you can't skip over them cause you're in the middle of the show, you're just forced to watch this stupid ad taking up part of your screen.

 

[M Sparks]

Just a note. The N is not in the same tier as the other Viacoms. It's a Silver and above channel. Most of the others are Bronze and above.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'm a silver subscriber, so I'm paying for Noggin & The N, as well as MTV2. If I switch to any Turbo package, I'm no longer paying for those.

Likewise, if I was a Gold subscriber, I would also be paying for NickToons, VH1 Classic, and maybe Nick Gas (who knows what the deal is with that 'channel'). If I switch to Turbo, I'm not paying for those.

And, maybe more importantly, I'm not WATCHING them.

 

[M Sparks]

If true, there's hope for the future when all providers provide all (or almost all) of their channels in HD. Then, an HD-only package won't be so threatening.

There wouldn't be a need for one at that point.

Remember, getting both the HD and SD channel does not double the price. In some cases, the HD feed may be free to anyone subscribing to the SD channel, or the price may be negligible. However, they might be charging EXTRA for an HD only feed in Turbo, to make up for lost revenue. This is why HD add-on stays price stable, and Turbo is horribly overpriced.

Totally hypothetical example.

Comedy Central SD ("Classic Pack")- 25 cents.
CC SD + HD ("Classic Pack"+ $10 HD)- 28 cents.
CC HD ("Turbo Pack")- 35 cents.

From a selfish point of view, I'm actually glad that Turbo isn't getting everything. I've believed for a while that the HD only packages were holding back HD additions. Adding on HD feeds of existing channels should be a simple matter...bandwidth should be the biggest issue. I've felt that the need to negotiate a separate price for the HD only packs has been holding things up. The fact that some are getting left by the wayside tells me that DISH knows that getting them up for most customers is more important than getting them up for all.

I could be completely wrong, but I'm sure there's SOME truth there.

 

[Skyhi]

OP, I think this is exactly what happened. Viacom does not want to lose viewers to its suite channels....i think you nailed it 100%.

 

[jdmacor]

I don't think I agree entirely here. Let's use the Viacom example. You are right that when a person switches from a classic package to a Turbo package, certain Viacom channels will lose viewership. However, could this not be made up for by a higher rate?

If you look at the prices for the Turbo packages and the Classic packages, then count up the number of unique channels, it is instantly obvious that Turbo subs pay the highest per channel rate of any subscriber. For the number of channels we receive, we are getting ripped off in a sense. I did a calculation of it before the Viacom additions, and Turbo subs on average across the various metal types pay about twice as much per channel than classic packages. If I did the same calculation now, the balance would be even worse, because Turbo subs received less than half of the new HD channels classic subs received.

If anything, it looks like Turbo subs are subsidizing HD channel additions. You could ask yourself, "Well why does it matter how much any subscriber pays per channel? AEP pays like over $100 per month!" But we all know that the terms are negotiated on a rate-per-subscriber basis.

 

[STL]

I don't think I agree entirely here. Let's use the Viacom example. You are right that when a person switches from a classic package to a Turbo package, certain Viacom channels will lose viewership. However, could this not be made up for by a higher rate?

If you look at the prices for the Turbo packages and the Classic packages, then count up the number of unique channels, it is instantly obvious that Turbo subs pay the highest per channel rate of any subscriber. For the number of channels we receive, we are getting ripped off in a sense. I did a calculation of it before the Viacom additions, and Turbo subs on average across the various metal types pay about twice as much per channel than classic packages. If I did the same calculation now, the balance would be even worse, because Turbo subs received less than half of the new HD channels classic subs received.

If anything, it looks like Turbo subs are subsidizing HD channel additions. You could ask yourself, "Well why does it matter how much any subscriber pays per channel? AEP pays like over $100 per month!" But we all know that the terms are negotiated on a rate-per-subscriber basis.

I agree! Dish Network is cause of this debacle and they CAN fix it.

 

[STL]

I would like to know where people got a real guarantee that Dish would add all new nonpremium channels to the Turbo HD packages. I do not see that guarantee in any written communications and do not remember any Charlie Chat where it was said.

Charlie specifically said the somewhat large price increase to the TurboHD package were because a lot of new HD was coming and the price increase would be worth it. TurboHD customers had their rates increase $10/month and they are getting fewer new HD channels than Classic+HD customers who packages only went up $3-5/month. So at this point, Charlie's statement is looking extremely misleading at best.

On top of that, Dish Network didn't raise prices for AbsoluteHD customers, but they are getting all the new channels that TurboHD subs are (and maybe even more) -- talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

And lastly, I was told by a CSR that the new HD channels coming soon would get added to the appropriate parallel TurboHD packages.

 

[theoak]

I basically the same theory a few months back with the Fox fiasco.

With that being said, as others have eluded to, it is probably a combination. They need to give the TurboHD folks new HD period due to the fact that it is a supported package and hence needs to be maintained. TurboHD Bronze would be a "screaming" package if it matched BronzeHD and I would jump ship in a heart beat; but, in such a move DDA TurboHD Bronze versus DDA Classic Bronze HD is a $15 ($39.99 vs $54.99) difference. Dish wants that $15 just as much as I do.

 

[bebop]

I did a calculation of it before the Viacom additions, and Turbo subs on average across the various metal types pay about twice as much per channel than classic packages. If I did the same calculation now, the balance would be even worse, because Turbo subs received less than half of the new HD channels classic subs received.

I thought that with Viacom, Turbo got 3 new HD's and classic got 6 HD.

If so - then the balance is the same as before (assuming they were already paying 2x). Am I missing something?

Still stinks, but that's the math. Maybe they will actually iron it out as many of the comments have alluded to and we'll see the other HD added to Turbo. Methinks that's why we had the holdup in the first place - disagreement on how to add the HD to turbo according to contract negotiations.

 

[jdmacor]

I thought that with Viacom, Turbo got 3 new HD's and classic got 6 HD.

If so - then the balance is the same as before (assuming they were already paying 2x). Am I missing something?

Still stinks, but that's the math. Maybe they will actually iron it out as many of the comments have alluded to and we'll see the other HD added to Turbo. Methinks that's why we had the holdup in the first place - disagreement on how to add the HD to turbo according to contract negotiations.

Turbo got 3 Viacoms, classic got 7 Viacoms and 2 Fox. But again, even without the additions, the $10 price increase in particular for Turbo Gold subs has been a horrible jolt to me; especially considering that the Turbo Bronze saw a smaller increase, but has gotten just as many channels as me! Does that make any sense? I feel like our prices should have gone up the same amount, if anything.

 

[Laddyboy]

Turbo got 3 Viacoms, classic got 7 Viacoms and 2 Fox. But again, even without the additions, the $10 price increase in particular for Turbo Gold subs has been a horrible jolt to me; especially considering that the Turbo Bronze saw a smaller increase, but has gotten just as many channels as me! Does that make any sense? I feel like our prices should have gone up the same amount, if anything.

Turbo Gold was hosed the most without a doubt followed by Turbo Silver. I went to Turbo Bronze because I couldn't find $10 of stuff in Turbo Silver or $20 in Turbo Gold to make it worth my while to take the higher cost package.

 

[bebop]

Turbo got 3 Viacoms, classic got 7 Viacoms and 2 Fox. But again, even without the additions, the $10 price increase in particular for Turbo Gold subs has been a horrible jolt to me; especially considering that the Turbo Bronze saw a smaller increase, but has gotten just as many channels as me! Does that make any sense? I feel like our prices should have gone up the same amount, if anything.

That makes sense. I'm still amazed at the words of Charlie Chat along the lines of 'the rate increase will be worth it'. Worth it to who - Charlie and Jim?

I feel bad for you. It makes me wonder if the Absolute HD package price is going to go way up when the contract period is over. I don't understand how the pricing works while in the committment period - but I haven't seen a price increase at all and I signed up 1 year ago.

Anyone know if they raise the package price for customers during the 2 year committment period?

 

[Laddyboy]

That makes sense. I'm still amazed at the words of Charlie Chat along the lines of 'the rate increase will be worth it'. Worth it to who - Charlie and Jim?

I feel bad for you. It makes me wonder if the Absolute HD package price is going to go way up when the contract period is over. I don't understand how the pricing works while in the committment period - but I haven't seen a price increase at all and I signed up 1 year ago.

Anyone know if they raise the package price for customers during the 2 year committment period?

The commitment period is not an issue. A sub could sign up on January 31st, E* gives notice of a rate increase on February 1st, and charge the customer the sub the new rate on March 1. It happens. I don't know why Absolute subs didn't get a rate increase. Maybe it was stated to be a lifetime rate. I don't remember the wording way back a year or so ago.

 

[JFaber99]

Anyone know if they raise the package price for customers during the 2 year committment period?

Can't speak for everyone but mine went up $10 and I'm a new customer just joining the last week of this January. The same week endgaget put out a article showing something like 14 new channels coming to Dish in February.

If I only knew about SatelliteGuys then!

 

[KAB]

Can't speak for everyone but mine went up $10 and I'm a new customer just joining the last week of this January. The same week endgaget put out a article showing something like 14 new channels coming to Dish in February.

If I only knew about SatelliteGuys then!

Only the Absolute Package subs did not get an increase. All others did, effective Feb. 1, which we had know about for nearly three months.

 

[Rob O]

If this is the case, the resolution is simple. Dish needs to negotiate what SD channels that the networks wanted added, and add them to the turbo subs as free 'bonus' channels.

I agree. If Dish wants to make their Turbo customers happy, just add the SD and HD versions. I don't see any difference as this is how they added Comedy, Spike and CMT. SD versions were added, and then lo and behold, they added the HD versions.

 

[8bitbytes]

For all you newbies that haven't read the history of HD on Dish and are not aware of it, and for those who have not read all the threads dedicated to repeating back everything the CEO of Echostar / Dish has said in meetings with eyewitnesses and has said in public, here is the short story:

Charlie Ergen himself said the Turbo HD packages would receive every new HD channel that belonged in the particular level of each package.

The real problem is not whether Dish said it would happen because they did. The problem is that Charlie says a lot of things he thinks he understands or thinks his company is going to do that doesn't happen. 15,000 channels in about 100 different combinations has gotten too unwieldy for the current Dish infrastruture to keep up with or truly understand.

Oh, BTW:

LOOSE is NOT LOSE

 

[8bitbytes]

I agree. If Dish wants to make their Turbo customers happy, just add the SD and HD versions. I don't see any difference as this is how they added Comedy, Spike and CMT. SD versions were added, and then lo and behold, they added the HD versions.

They already sell an SD package that you then add an HD add-on package to.

Turbo HD customers don't want all the crap SD channels. They do want all the HD Dish said they would get when it was added.