All this chit-chat about Tribune stations and nothing new has happened in the last 8 weeks. Let's give it a rest until there is some news.
Tribune Broadcasting Company Blacks Out DISH Customers in 33 Markets;
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 139K
You can't use the values as the basis, you have to use the change in value. What one person considers significant may not be to someone else. Otherwise, going from $0.01 to $0.05 is nothing, right ? In fact, it's a 5x increase !
By the way, going from $0.10 to $0.25 or $0.50 to $1.25 is the same % increase.
Umm, you're making my point. I don't see a problem with a.15/month increase, but a .75/month increase starts to make me wonder. PP says a 2.4x increase is "significant", and since I disagree with that (which I really don't, just think we need some more information), I must have "skin in the game".
Your point is unmaking itself. A .75 increase may look significant for a .50 starting point, but if the original cost was 4.00, then a .75 increase is reasonable. It IS all about the percentages.
As you mentioned just hours ago... what's significant to one person might not be significant to another. Personally, I don't find a .15 cent increase significant when it comes to television (price per gallon of gas is different). I don't care if it's 2.5x or 15x. I agree if you're starting at $4 however, a 2.5x increase IS significant. Which is why I said you need to know the starting point in order to judge "significance". Again, just my opinion.
I wonder if that deal required Dish to stop offering superstations to new subscribers. It was later that year when Dish stopped offering them. If so, I wonder if Tribune still has the same position about that, and whether Dish is even trying to fight them on it.
Actually going from .50 to $1.25
Thats like a 150% increase.
Or 2.5 times the increase.
Which both numbers are baseless without a bottom line.
All of which are used just to make it sound more dramatic.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Well $4.00 going to $4.75 is about 20% increase .
75 cent increase over a 50 cents ?? well thats like 150% increase .
Certainly sounds more dramatic with the 150% increase.
But in reality its far cheaper compared to the 20%.
Again these percents and multiplied increases mean nothing if we don't know the base price.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
So, according to sam, an increase from .10 to .25 is not significant (same percentage increase). So would you still consider it insignificant if it were a piece of candy jumping from .10 to .25?
And what kind of precedent does that set allowing a rate to increase to 2.5 times the original rate? Then the jump from .50 to 1.25 would be argued to be in line with previous rate increases, which now you consider significant.
Finally, do you consider an increase from $100,000 per month to $250,000 per month significant? If .50 to 1.25 is, then those numbers must be. If there are a million subscribers that have a Tribune station around the country, then those would be the real numbers being dealt with, not .10 and .25.
Hopefully this finally puts this silly argument to bed.
And what kind of precedent does that set allowing a rate to increase to 2.5 times the original rate? Then the jump from .50 to 1.25 would be argued to be in line with previous rate increases, which now you consider significant.
Finally, do you consider an increase from $100,000 per month to $250,000 per month significant? If .50 to 1.25 is, then those numbers must be. If there are a million subscribers that have a Tribune station around the country, then those would be the real numbers being dealt with, not .10 and .25.
Hopefully this finally puts this silly argument to bed.
Last edited:
I don't consider 15 cents significant.
Period.
15 per channel?
Yes
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
What some failed to mention, Charlie will charge 13 million people $1 come next February for this 15 cent increase, that may or may not affect less than 50% of his customers.
I'm more worried about the amount Charlie will tack on to this price increase than what Tribune actually wants.
Charlie loves disputes, It gives himself leverage and an excuse to raise your rates to benefit himself as well.
And Im not Just calling out Charlie, I garentee they ALL do this...
There is flaws in the system on both sides of the table that need adressed...
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
I'm more worried about the amount Charlie will tack on to this price increase than what Tribune actually wants.
Charlie loves disputes, It gives himself leverage and an excuse to raise your rates to benefit himself as well.
And Im not Just calling out Charlie, I garentee they ALL do this...
There is flaws in the system on both sides of the table that need adressed...
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Last edited:
Both DISH and Tribune are fighting a losing battle. The traditional satellite and cable TV business will soon go away as streaming and on demand viewing takes hold.
They need a new business model to monetize the changed customer behavior. The magazine/newspaper industry failed to see it coming, which is leading to their decline.
The cable industry is seeing a similar but probably see a more drastic one as cable providers may not be needed in the traditional sense.
They need a new business model to monetize the changed customer behavior. The magazine/newspaper industry failed to see it coming, which is leading to their decline.
The cable industry is seeing a similar but probably see a more drastic one as cable providers may not be needed in the traditional sense.
Scott,
This is part of a reply I received from Gary Weitman, at Tribune Media:
If the first sentence is indeed true, can you verify it with your sources and possibly provide an answer as to why Dish rejected the offer? Thank you!
This is part of a reply I received from Gary Weitman, at Tribune Media:
If the first sentence is indeed true, can you verify it with your sources and possibly provide an answer as to why Dish rejected the offer? Thank you!
I have seen that said by Tribune in articles about the dispute. I don't think he would just completely lie about it. Question is was there something he is not saying tied to it? In the articles it was also said DISH offered to keep the channels on and pay whatever the negotiated price was for them during that time. So being fair who knows what else DISH wanted...
For what is worth I don't think the DISH explanation on the loop they have on the pulled channels is comparable with what tribune has been doing, telling people how bad DISH is overall ("Dishgusting") and to just switch. Makes it look to me as Tribune feels entitled to what they are asking rather than they need to negotiate.
Good or bad that alone may be enough for DISH to just wait it out till they get closer to what they want.
For what is worth I don't think the DISH explanation on the loop they have on the pulled channels is comparable with what tribune has been doing, telling people how bad DISH is overall ("Dishgusting") and to just switch. Makes it look to me as Tribune feels entitled to what they are asking rather than they need to negotiate.
Good or bad that alone may be enough for DISH to just wait it out till they get closer to what they want.
This is sheer speculation but perhaps WGN America is the thorny knot they cannot untie.
Of course there was. long_time_DNC's request of Scott was sort of pointless. Even if Dish responded, it would just be a spin on top spin and as meaningless as the response from Tribune.
Just from a negotiations standpoint, they are well past the point where making short term accommodations is of any value. Better to stand their ground until a deal is struck (applies to both sides).
I don't know what's going out there in the weeds - whether Tribune wants WGNA lumped-into the contract or what - but if Tribune offered to let them put the stations back up 3 weeks ago and Dish said no, I'd like to know why? I'm not looking for dirt, or someone to call names...I just want to know why they turned the offer down?
I think JM offered the best answer to your question before you asked it.
